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."

Comments

Modularisation is the answer.

[Astral Traveller]

The need to compile custom kernels is a wart inflicted by Linux's monolithic nature. Instead of encouraging the painstaking and error-prone task of compiling custom kernels, we should be working on moving more and more kernel functionality into modules, which are loadable and configurable at run-time. It will always be easier and faster to setup a tool to install the proper modules with the correct parameters than it will to tweak a monolithic kernel config, then spend hours compiling the whole 20MB tarball worth of kernel source just to add support for a new feature.

While 2.4's module support is excellent, and modularisation is become more and more prolific throughout the Linux architecture, there are still several important features which need to be excised from the kernel core and made available as runtime modules. Trivial features such as APM support, SMP and Unix sockets shouldn't require a full recompile to activate. Why do we insist on prolonging the life of "make config" and its brethren when we could very well do without it altogether?

This is a no brainer!!!

[3seas]

Programming is the act of creating automations of complexities that are made up of simpler things.

Does the programmer re-write open() every time they need to open a file?

There is not only nothing wrong with making it easier to build a custom kernel, but in fact there should be a growing interest in doing this sort of simplifying, given the GNU Hurd is about not only modularity but about servers/transltors and creating such, even custom as is needed.

This can be taken even further in that autocoding tools can be and should be built for the GNU users.

In a hundred years from now, how do you suppose programming will be done (given programming today is only about 50 years young)?

As things are being done today, it is not possible to do such a program of complexity as can be imagined of what would be a holodeck program (And we do have such virtual reality cudes today in university labs).

It won't be untill the general programming field realized the need to genuinely and honestly address and do the automation of the field of programming. Certainly everything else can be automated, including human balance and movement (segway).

It's fooling to continue the illusion that programming is not itself automatable. And to begin making it happen, where better than on higher level like autoconfiguration system that allow custom kernels to be done? (Or at least one place for it to begin)

A recent research paper on autocoding presents the current/recent mindset on autocoding. It's worth reading to see how young and admitedly immature the field is. Open system and Open Source Software such as the GNU efforts (Linux, the Hurd, etc..) with their open community has far better ability to do what needs to be done than any private effort which will be biased away from doing the things that need to be done.

Soooo, anything that automates computers and their use is inherently a good thing, for iot will allow us all to reach and achieve much more advanced systems and the benefits of.