Hi, there! Am 28.05.2010 06:15, schrieb Benedikt Müller:
And who should decide what the best kernel for a desktop is? Additionally, it'll build over an our, cause it must have so many drivers and file systems included.
Including a Kernel is IMO a nice thing to get a working installation - quickly. Well... I would not vote for a "desktop" kernel (including DRI for X and all these bells and whistles). A simple, fail-safe kernel good for booting the common filesystems and networking capabilities should be sufficient to get the first things started after an installation. Maybe a kernel config similar to the one included with the iso would be sufficient, maybe some -probe everything- approach is also fine. But all this is still a question about CRUX philosophy. IMO CRUX isn't KISS - compiling a kernel for your hardware just isn't KISS even for the advanced user. I still make some mistakes to suit a (non-modular) kernel to my hardware if I have to do a config from scratch - even after reading thousands of code lines during my kernel driver development work in the past. Or: maybe it's a wise decision to _not_ provide a kernel binary to keep all the non-professional users away from penetrating the CRUX user base, list and forum with birdbrained questions (What is Kernel Panic?) and stupid suggestions (Reinstall... or take some other distro). Some of you propably avoid the forums of these widespread distros which just install everywhere with a single click (Windows like) for exactly this reason. Make your own choice which way you want to travel. I'm fine with CRUX for simple servers and development, fine with Arch for Desktop usage. Greets, Clemens