Nadav Har'El wrote:
When was the last time you compiled gcc on your own? When was the last time
you compiled the X Window System? For me, the answers to both questions is
1995. If you answered similarly (or even, "never"), why should the kernel be
any different - i.e., why do you need to compile a kernel unless you're a
kernel developer (and 99.9% of Linux users aren't)?
In my case, I've had two reasons lately: One was because I wanted new
hardware to be supported on an outdated distribution, and the second was
because I wanted the kernel to support root on NFS without an initrd.
I agree, that both issues have workarounds. In particular, most people
upgrade the whole system when hardware isn't supported. As for the root
on NFS, I could alter the initrd to do the job necessary, and go on with
that. I had my reasons not to take that path.
Anyhow, the issue here is that compiling from sources is getting less
and less common, which in turn makes the sources more and more difficult
to compile. In the past, I maintained my system with compiling tarballs,
and it was quick and easy. Today, I pray when going ./configure, even on
an up-to-date system.
And to take this issue to a broader scope: If the source becomes
difficult to compile, we slowly drift towards losing the edge of free
software. When only large corporates will have the knowledge and
patience to compile from source, it won't matter so much whether you can
obtain it or not. If nobody except corporates dig into the gory details,
we will all end up depending on them. And they will, at best, allow us
use of the software they distribute free, as in beer.
Eli
--
Web: http://www.billauer.co.il
_______________________________________________
Haifux mailing list
Haifux@haifux.org
http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haifux
