On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Ryan Sims wrote: > On 8/31/07, Steen Eugen Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Volker Armin Hemmann skrev: > > > because I have seen more than one non-booting totally f* up kernel > > > created by genkernel. I won't touch it ever again. If something sucked > > > in the past, the change is great that it sucks again in the future. > > > Plus it doesn't really make things easier, does it? > > > > Enough of this religous FUD spreading about Genkernel. > > > > Your outright lying. > > > > If you don't have anything to say than lies and FUD, maybe it's time to > > stop saying anything. > > Ok, let's all just take a deep breath, chill out and get back on-topic. > > Clearly there are differing opinions/experiences about genkernel. We > needn't get into a "religious" war on either side; I have a certain > way I apporach kernel building that makes me avoid genkernel, that's > my choice. There are those who like what genkernel does, that's their > choice. > > I've made the argument that a non-genkernel config is less complicated > than a genkernel config, and I think that's a supportable position. > I've also argued that the OP should think about hand-configuring from > scratch, as it reduces the number of variables to troubleshoot. > > I think Volker's point about genkernel not making things easier is > just that it seems to be a source of confusion and complexity in this > particular case (Volker please correct me if I'm wrong), which is a > valid point.
well, in all cases ... > And it isn't "FUD" or "lies" to warn about having bad > experiences with a tool in the past. exactly. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
