I have idea have make CRUX better for novice users. my idea is make a "setup-kernel" text dialog when user can choose 1) COMPILE CUSTOM KERNEL 2) INSTALL KERNEL 3) INSTALL SERVER KERNEL i dont know that is posible to add 2 binary packages of precompiled kernels.. why do that..? fastest install process and when i install crux on more computers than i only choose a 2) desktop or 3) server kernel there can be a 1) compile custom from sources allways too..
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. 2010/5/27 Lukas Vesel <lukves@gmail.com>:
I have idea have make CRUX better for novice users. my idea is make a "setup-kernel" text dialog when user can choose 1) COMPILE CUSTOM KERNEL 2) INSTALL KERNEL 3) INSTALL SERVER KERNEL
i dont know that is posible to add 2 binary packages of precompiled kernels..
why do that..? fastest install process and when i install crux on more computers than i only choose a 2) desktop or 3) server kernel there can be a 1) compile custom from sources allways too..
_______________________________________________ CRUX mailing list CRUX@lists.crux.nu http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux
-- Gruß, Benedikt
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
Clemens Koller wrote, in part:
Hi, there!
<
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).
I would vote against including a kernel binary. Crux is intended for those who would, sooner or later, encounter a requirement for rebuilding the kernel for some reason. Thus, the installation-time kernel build is a reasonable first occurrence. I came across Crux from a set of requirements *before* I could qualify as an "advanced user". The current Crux philosophy just worked fine for easing the learning curve for customized kernel/packages installation: not too steep, but not too many pitfalls hidden in automated scripts. Still, going through the learning has been, and will certainly be at occasions, a painful experience, but I don't see how the Crux maintainers can really make a difference. What I hope is that maintainers have a light workload in the medium and long term so that Crux remains *available* in its current form (i.e. no project collapse after trying to achieve unrealistic goals). Thanks, and best regards ... -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, QC, Canada H2M 2A1 Tel. +1-514-385-5691
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:22:03PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
What I hope is that maintainers have a light workload in the medium and long term so that Crux remains *available* in its current form (i.e. no project collapse after trying to achieve unrealistic goals).
amen to that brother -- /Fredrik Rinnestam
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 07:24:55PM +0200, Clemens Koller wrote:
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.
Im fine with crux just as it is. On my servers and desktops/notebooks. There are loads of distros out there that already does what whats suggested in this thread. I dont see the point in turning crux into one of the masses. -- /Fredrik Rinnestam
participants (5)
-
Benedikt Müller -
Clemens Koller -
Fredrik Rinnestam -
Lukas Vesel -
Thierry Moreau