Slashdot Mirror
Should Aunt Tillie Build Her Own Kernels?
DeadBugs writes: "Linux Weekly News is reporting on a new linux controversy. The inclusion of a Kernel Autoconfiguration program that would make it easy for almost anybody to build a custom Kernel on their computer. Eric Raymond supports this idea saying that this will bring Linux to a wider market. Those that oppose this idea mainly think that only those educated few should custom build their own Kernels. I for one hope this gets included if only to make standard installations and upgrades faster."
I really can't emphasize strongly enough that I believe that if Aunt Tille has to build her own kernel, we have much bigger problems that Eric's autoconfigurator will solve.
Most of the kernel configuration is simply a matter of which drivers to include in the kernel instead of as modules. Distributions put most of the stuff out as modules, so all that a kernel autoconfigurer would do is notice which modules are loaded and build them as part of the native kernel. The advantages of this are minor--slightly better memory utilization, no need for initrd.
On the other hand, there are some areas where an autoconfigurator would be handy. That's when determining which chipset features/bugs to compile for. Hopefully this project will focus on the areas of configuring that are more complicated than (y/M/n).
I suppose I'd have no trouble believing this. I'd still like to know what the requests are and why they are ridiculous.
Aunt Tillie shouldn't have to
But.. she does. We don't have runtime autoconfiguration that works in every case. If an autoconfigurator is easy to build, and won't impact the people working on runtime configuration, then why stop them from doing it? My computer should read my mind (or at the least, the pointer should move to the thing my eyes are looking at) but I'm not going to tell people to stop working on improving mouse support.
The autoconfigurator is bound to be an imperfect job
True enough, but this is true for runtime autoconfig as well.
The kernel people are already drowning in bogus bug reports
Kernel bugs are reported via email on the mailing list. This is described in marginal detail in /usr/src/linux/REPORTING-BUGS. Furthermore, it begins with the following dubious paragraph:
What this document highlights more than anything is that kernel developers are drowning in bug reports because linux kernel bugs are reported in an informal format on the mailing list. Get a proper bug tracking system and it will be much easier to keep track of real bugs. This should be done regardless of whether or not we make "kernels for the masses". I hadn't heard about the bug report problem until you brought it up, and it's frankly amazing that it hasn't been addressed in this manner already.It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Rediculous. People obviously should not mess with things they dont understand. How many motor-morons have you heard of that have screwed up their car engines, just because there is access to the hood via an extremely easy to use, easy to recognize lever?! I mean, not EVERYONE pulls the lever and starts hammering on the crankshaft once their car breaks down. People know what not to touch, because they've been allowed access to it ... the responsibility in understanding the tools they are using is placed in their hands, as it should be!
.. you won't get enough people having to face the idea of respecting the OS and computer in large enough numbers to make the fragility of the kernel and hardware a widely known thing. Sure, there might be some sacrificial lambs when you open up things like that, but hey, I'm all about the greater good rather than the few who still need to learn the lesson of accountability and respect!
When people suggest that technological means of prevention is superior to ingraining a respect for a particular technology, I get so upset! It's not my fault that MS has brainwashed you into thinking that the consumer should be unable to fuck something up! A sufficient warning and a learned respect for your belongings (in this case, the kernel) should be the top priorities. When people are told to not worry about what their doing, that they can't screw stuff up, thats when you end up with people who do screw stuff up once they find a chink in the armour of the technological solution!
Here's a sobering stat: more people fall off cliffs with fences than cliffs without fences. Why? Because when you leave people to their own devices, they have to think and respect the power of the tools they are using or the situations they are in. When you put the blinders on them, you're only making sure that shit will get fucked once you slip up and accidentally allow them access to the tools and technologies that you were so adament to lock everybody out of.
I understand that people still have access to custom kernels regardless of this auto config tool, but this is akin to providing an easily labeled handle to your hood, or an emergency exit, or whatever. Because it's so easy to get access to, people are forced to learn and know implicitly what the consequences of pulling it are! Compare this to the newb who finds the man pages on building the custom kernels, or the HOW-TO
"Old man yells at systemd"
If i remember right, this "flamewar" started when ESR wanted to change the output of each of the drivers to contain their CONFIG_ symbols. This got a lot of people irritated, and then the reasoning he used was "Aunt Tillie."
- Eric Raymond's view is that Aunt Tillie, who starts with a standard distribution should be able to click an icon and have a new kernel downloaded, configured, compiled, and installed. He's talking about standard (Linus) kernels here, not the distribution's kernel package.
- The other camp (which includes e.g. Alan Cox) doesn't see the need. Aunt Tillie would be better off sticking to the distro's kernel updates. If she wants to go beyond that then the resources are available for her to learn how to configure and compile a kernel using the existing tools.
So no-one is talking about limiting behaviour, that was just poor reporting. Personally I think that there probably aren't many Aunt Tillies who would find a need for the sort of tool Eric is advocating (although others my find it useful).It is not like distributions are going to put a big old icon on the desktop "Click me to build a new kernel!"
People who decide they are going at rolling their own kernel are going to attempt it whatever the tools are.
Why not make it easier for them ?
Hopefully people won't be so intimidated and we'll end up with a bigger smarter community. And if they make a mistake...hey they'll soon learn. I sure made plenty!
--
Nic