Originally posted by: drag
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: drag
Whatever. Kernel compiling is a not a big deal either way.
Most of the time it's a waste of time, but it usually takes so little effort it's usually in the "why not?" catagory.
Also when your a newbie, it gives you a chance to screw around and learn how your system works. For many people it's the first real way they've been able to fundamentally modify some low-level behavior of the OS and make some sort of impact on it's functioning.
It's like putting headers on a old chevy with a rebuilt motor when your a teenager.
I can't say I'd enjoy doing that much either.
I've become extremely bored with computers all of a sudden. It's a shame really, but I can't find anything interesting enough for me to spend more than 5 minutes on it.
Anyhow, kernel compilling (when not testing or using alterate patch sets) is mostly a waste of time. It doesn't add anything, and makes support that much tougher. Just my opinion though.
Of course.
Computers and operating systems, generally suck.
For example: My laptop is fairly slow computer. It's cpu is fast at 2.0ghz, but it's wasted on the 4500rpm harddrive and crappy chipset. I can set the cpu at 1.2ghz with NO noticable impact on performance, unless I am compiling something and that's pretty rare.
But even then my laptop can spank the most powerfull mainframe computers sold just 5-6 years ago.
But were is the realy cool stuff that's suppose to be going on?
In free software the most talented programmers and developers are stuggling to gain enough market share to get enough critical mass to ensure that the concepts of freedom of the internet and software doesn't become extinct.
In the other camp the closed source software people are involved in a mostly big circle jerk to try to steal that extra critical 5-10% of market share from each other by doing the same tired crap that they've been doing for the past 15 freaking years. Were is the innovation?
The only cool stuff going on is the commodiziation of old big iron computer stuff, but the big names are busy trying to figure out profit from it while keeping it insanely expensive and remote enough from most people that they have to depend on paying in large sums of money to said companies just to ensure that their big database will still be around next week and not in flames.
Desktop innovation has hit a brick wall. OS X was a good attempt and has kept Apple alive so far, but MS is busy trying to convince people to buy a 6 year old OS based on a 10 year old operating system core by slapping some extra software to watch TV on it. Then their next suck fest of a OS is just going to end up being WinXP remixed, full of broken promises, but enough new features to keep fanboys alive and kicking into the next decade. Oh, and I predict that WinXP-AMD64 will never exist and the only 64bit OS that you can get for the desktop from Microsoft will be "longhorn".
Linux desktop is making good progress, performance and stability outstrips WinXP most time, but not quite it's user freindly-ness. Of course the majority of WinXP's userfreindly-ness comes from the fact that people have been using it for nearly 3 years, and Windows OSes 10 years before that.
Of course Linux desktop will never happen because O
rg is only 95% like MS Office and not a 130% like Office like it should be. And their is no C: drive. And their is no point and click software install.
Plus I just figured out some reg hacks to speed up my WinXP boot time by 1.7 seconds!
Boring boring boring boring.
Facebook
Twitter