For any GNU/Linux machine, it is supremely important to build a
customized kernel.

Distro kernels are crippled with security and generic disposition, i.e.
they must fit everything in a "lowest common denominator" fashion.
Yech!

There are hundreds of kernel configuration options but it pays to
spend 15-20 minutes to go through each one via "make menuconfig."
Once a config file is honed it can used again and again on that same
hardware via "make oldconfig."

If your technical background is sound then most options should be
comprehensible. But if some option puzzles you, then post the issue
here and someone will help.

I am a GNU/Linux *master* and I will answer all of your kernel config
questions.

The MASTER will set you straight.

Don't accept that distro junk when you can have the best possible
GNU/Linux experience.

--
DG

Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Le 04-08-2024, Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.rocks> a écrit :
> For any GNU/Linux machine, it is supremely important to build a
> customized kernel.

Why? Because you are using a bloated one complied with musl?

> Distro kernels are crippled with security and generic disposition, i.e.
> they must fit everything in a "lowest common denominator" fashion.
> Yech!

You are the one relying on fashion using glibc. If you want efficiency
for real you have to switch to msul. Averything else is wind.

> There are hundreds of kernel configuration options but it pays to
> spend 15-20 minutes to go through each one via "make menuconfig."
> Once a config file is honed it can used again and again on that same
> hardware via "make oldconfig."

That's a god one. So, once you have a new kernel, you are using the
configuration of an old kernel, not taking care of the improvements
brought by the new one. So, once again you prove you improved nothing.
Once again, you proved it's useless for you to use a new kernel. Once
again you proved you don't understand what your claims imply.

> If your technical background is sound

Anyone here has a technical background sounder than yours.

> But if some option puzzles you, then post the issue
> here and someone will help.

Of course, the someone won't be you.

> I am a GNU/Linux *master*

I don't believe that.

> and I will answer all of your kernel config questions.

What are the options provided by the kernel 6.10 which weren't available
in the kernel 6.9?

That's a funny question, because, whatever your answer, it will make a
fool of you. If you don't know, it proves you don't know what's wrong in
your old config file for the new kernel. If you do, it's prove your new
kernel is not optimized because you used the default options (read
again: default options). And when you are using the default option, it
means no optimization. It just means a distro lackey.

You are really an artist in showing everyone here how incompetent you
are.

> The MASTER will set you straight.

I don't know who is the master. But I know it's not you.

> Don't accept that distro junk when you can have the best possible
> GNU/Linux experience.

Like you with the new features of the new kernel? You tell others to
optimize when you don't optimize anymore and let your distro chose the
new options for you? It looks like a distro lackey thing that. It looks
like as you believe you improved things when you proved you let your
distro chose the new options for you, you don't see the differences.

So in one message, you proved, once again, you don't do what you tell
others. And at the same time you show you don't see the difference
between an optimized kernel and a default one. So, one again, you proved
that what you said others to do is a waste of time.

Another great one. Thanks for the fun.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 04 Aug 2024 20:18:47 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>> Once a config file is honed it can used again and again on that same
>> hardware via "make oldconfig."
>
> That's a god one. So, once you have a new kernel, you are using the
> configuration of an old kernel, not taking care of the improvements
> brought by the new one.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What an ignorant idiot!

"Make oldconfig" uses an established kernel config file and presents
only new options to the user for selection. In this way the user does
not have to repeat the config process over and over but only has to
select the new options.

Your stupid comment only shows that you know nothing about the kernel
build process.

You are a distro lackey forever.

So, once again you prove you improved nothing.
> Once again, you proved it's useless for you to use a new kernel. Once
> again you proved you don't understand what your claims imply.
>
>> If your technical background is sound
>
> Anyone here has a technical background sounder than yours.
>
>> But if some option puzzles you, then post the issue
>> here and someone will help.
>
> Of course, the someone won't be you.
>
>> I am a GNU/Linux *master*
>
> I don't believe that.
>
>> and I will answer all of your kernel config questions.
>
> What are the options provided by the kernel 6.10 which weren't available
> in the kernel 6.9?
>
> That's a funny question, because, whatever your answer, it will make a
> fool of you. If you don't know, it proves you don't know what's wrong in
> your old config file for the new kernel. If you do, it's prove your new
> kernel is not optimized because you used the default options (read
> again: default options). And when you are using the default option, it
> means no optimization. It just means a distro lackey.
>
> You are really an artist in showing everyone here how incompetent you
> are.
>
>> The MASTER will set you straight.
>
> I don't know who is the master. But I know it's not you.
>
>> Don't accept that distro junk when you can have the best possible
>> GNU/Linux experience.
>
> Like you with the new features of the new kernel? You tell others to
> optimize when you don't optimize anymore and let your distro chose the
> new options for you? It looks like a distro lackey thing that. It looks
> like as you believe you improved things when you proved you let your
> distro chose the new options for you, you don't see the differences.
>
> So in one message, you proved, once again, you don't do what you tell
> others. And at the same time you show you don't see the difference
> between an optimized kernel and a default one. So, one again, you proved
> that what you said others to do is a waste of time.
>
> Another great one. Thanks for the fun.

--
/root/News/000sig.txt

Le 04-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 04 Aug 2024 20:18:47 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>> Once a config file is honed it can used again and again on that same
>>> hardware via "make oldconfig."
>>
>> That's a god one. So, once you have a new kernel, you are using the
>> configuration of an old kernel, not taking care of the improvements
>> brought by the new one.
>>
>
> [.../SNIP the moronic laugh/...] What an ignorant idiot!

Yes, I know that already. Can't you improve?

> "Make oldconfig" uses an established kernel config file and presents
> only new options to the user for selection. In this way the user does
> not have to repeat the config process over and over but only has to
> select the new options.

Yes, and how do you select your options? Either you do real tests about
them and it takes you a lot of time every week (unlike your claims). Or
you choose with your feelings (which is what I believe you do) and you
just dream you did some improvements without any possibility to confirm
them. And it's good for you to be unable to confirm your improvements
because I'm pretty sure it would be obvious that they are bad. You can
fool yourself about your imaginary skills, but everyone here knows your
skills are on only in your mind.

Once again, you don't understand your claims. Thirty years ago, you had
to chose carefully how to configure and compile your kernel. It was
almost mandatory for two reasons.

First, the hardware was more limited than today. So, you had to chose
carefully only what you needed to avoid a kernel too big to run and to
allow the kernel to run on your machine. It wasn't very difficult but it
required understanding.

Second the kernel was a real monolith. Now things improved and the
kernel is completely modular. So if you don't need something, it's not a
big deal: the module is not loaded and nothing bad happens. And if you
need something, the module is loaded and it's OK. As the hardware has
considerably improved something always used can be loaded only when
needed: nobody sees the difference.

I don't care if you are unaware of those improvements. They don't need
your lack of knowledge to be real. I know, you are stuck in the past,
you still apply two decade obsolete knowledge to your answers. So your
answers are as you: deprecated.

So, right now, any distro makes good default choices for everyone. And
except if you have a very particular need and you know what you do,
changing the distro choices is either a bad idea or a degradation of
performances. And I know you don't have particular needs, because if you
had, you would have bragged about them a long time ago. And I know that
if you have any insight about what you do it would have ben obvious by
now.

So, it's obvious I can't believe you when you say you improve your
kernel's performances when you compile it.

> You are a distro lackey forever.

Not as much as you. And not as much as you should be. Unlike you, I know
when can I rely on my distro and when I have to chose by myself. My
distro let me do as I want. Your distro let you do the same choices, but
you are unable to use them wisely. If you where a real distro lackey, your
distro would handle your computer in a better way.

I'm not saying it's stupid to compile the kernel, mind you. I'm saying
you have to know why you do it. You can want to learn for example. Or
maybe you have another good reason. But you are to pretentious to be
able want to learn. And your videos proved you have no particular need.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 09 Aug 2024 21:08:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> Yes, and how do you select your options?
>

One selects kernel configuration options by understanding
the Linux kernel and by understanding hardware principles.

YOU have neither.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[snip laborious bullshit]

Let me make it clear and simple:

_I_ am GNU/Linux master. _You_ are GNU/Linux lackey.

Don't ever forget that.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On 09 Aug 2024 21:08:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Yes, and how do you select your options?
>
>One selects kernel configuration options by understanding
>the Linux kernel and by understanding hardware principles.
>
>YOU have neither.
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
>[snip laborious bullshit]
>
>
>Let me make it clear and simple:
>
>_I_ am GNU/Linux master. _You_ are GNU/Linux lackey.
>
>Don't ever forget that.

You're a master of jerking off publicly.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 09-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 09 Aug 2024 21:08:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, and how do you select your options?
>>
>
> One selects kernel configuration options by understanding
> the Linux kernel and by understanding hardware principles.

OK, so you don't know what you do. You just pretend. Thanks for the
confirmation.

> YOU have neither.

It's irrelevant because you are the one pretending to optimize. So my
mastering of Linux and/or hardware doesn't change the way your kernel
will crash.

> _I_ am GNU/Linux master.

Nope. You just proved it a few lines before. You are clueless, it's
obvious.

> _You_ are GNU/Linux lackey.

Once again, it's irrelevant here. The fact you are unable to optimize
your kernel doesn't depend on my trust in my distro. And, by the way, I
would trust any distro, even the worst one, a thousand times more than
you. Event Microsoft is better than you to optimize the Linux kernel.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io