On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 22:01, Andrew Robinson wrote:At the risk of sounding stupid (not a stretch), what's a "working console"?
That proceedure did indeed allow me to build my own kernel successfully. I even added read capability for NTFS filesystems. Thanks for the tip!Here's the procedure you should be following instead: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/custom-guide/ch-custom-kernel.html
After checking that doc I would say it is entirely unadequate. It is unadequate because there are plenty of caveats who are not mentionned. For instance in 2.4 kernels there are several parms who must be set correctly or you won't have a working console (and in 2.6 it will be much harder).
I realize compiling my own kernel is not going to get much better perofrmance, simply because the shipped kernels are fairly well optimized. I'm guessing modules make a difference as well. However, I also know building a kernel is a skill a "real man" should have. I had never done it before, so I was pleased with myself when my machine actually booted with the kernel I built. :)
I also hope you don't believe the BS about optimizing through recompilation. One of my boxes is a 64 megs and today it is far too short on memory. Just for the sake of it I recompiled the kernel and, as expected, got no appreciable difference in speed. On a 64 megs, recompiling bringed a little over 1% more memory. And on a 512 megs...
The feature I wanted was NTFS support. With my dual-boot box, it is convenient to be able to read all the partitions. I think the problems with NTFS support are fairly well documented, so I'm not surprised it was not turned on with the delivered kernel. Didn't think that would be worth a bug report.Finally if a feature you need is missing, and unless it is something you know is experimental/not solid, you should also fill a bug report.
Please keep the comments coming. I want education!
Andrew Robinson
-- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
