Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

• Previous message: Gary Parker: "Re: problems with upgrade from RH9 to FC2"
• In reply to: Alexander Dalloz: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"
• Next in thread: ne...: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"
• Reply: ne...: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:51:48 -0600
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>

Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am Fr, den 15.10.2004 schrieb Ken Johanson um 18:45:
>
>
>>>Alexander said "Mount FC2 CD3"
>
>
>>Yes he did, and ended his comment in an inflammatory tone - without
>>investigating or being aware-of the FC3 release candidate, and the
>>reported plans to exclude the source from the install discs. He set
>>himself up for that response by using the word 'investigating' and being
>>rude.
>
>
> Last of my comments about this ...
>
> Ken, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. It was _you_
> making the fire! On the wrong list. Yes, I followed the discussion on
> the other list.
>

I enjoy the heat, thanks. Its a good way to keep things in check,
especially when the distro is coming down to the wire (2 weeks). Not
having the kernel source fully available* is not benign, in my eyes. So
here I am, in the kitchen with a gas can. :-)

* this means not having to go to the website and match versions, or
download 4 SRC discs that the build came from and get the exact rpm from
there.

> Please reread your own initial posting:
>
> First sentence by you: "Answer not needed, I'm keenly aware of the
> politics behind this."
>

Well, if I am to believe others' (including Linus) claims about Redhat
(and I am), then the reasons for not including the source with the
installers are *at least* highly suspect - or a just a forgone
conclusion - that there's a purposeful dumbing-down (weakening) or
discouraging of the kernel open-ness and availability to power users, or
perhaps discrepancies between the (open vs obfuscated) source, binaries,
and dependencies). And interoperability is also suspect with Redhat.

Not including the source to the *kernel itself* is a really, really
slippery slope.

> -> You seriously wanted "pointing out an arguable deficiency"? Come on!
> If you want a discussion you don't start with "I don't need an answer
> but am going to use a different distribution".

And it made the point!! Flames, when well warranted, are the best way to
get the topic noticed and effect change!! I dont necessarily agree that
I started it on the right tone, but at the time I was (and still am)
frustrated by the very concept of a highly separated source vs binary.

>
> Last sentence in the original posting: "Be giving Suse, Mandrake, etc
> another look. No time for Redhat games."
>
> No further comment - point.

And I am *not* the only one who will be annoyed by the kernel source not
being installed, and then look into other distros. Thats probably the
most important point that a supporter of this project can get; that the
mind share will be hurt.

Take it or leave it, criticize em or defend em. It all depends on how
each person uses the kernel.

Take care.
Ken

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

• Previous message: Gary Parker: "Re: problems with upgrade from RH9 to FC2"
• In reply to: Alexander Dalloz: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"
• Next in thread: ne...: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"
• Reply: ne...: "Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]