> > ...snip... > was told 1000 hours) it might be better if I could just do the
> source code
> and then spend the time compiling it off line.
>
> That reminds me; I was told that that they were soon to release
> kernel 2.6 and
> that it is supposed to be like super fast (that is one area I think M$ is
> better at). It might just be the fact that I am only on dial up- but M$
> seemed to operste a little faster (minor inconvenience that does
> not matter)
> when I was running it. Could someone tell me what about my
> hardware I will
> need to know when I compile it. My linux metor told me that what
> he does is
> just gets a new distribution with the new kernel included in it
> but I want to
> learn to compile it!
If the main reason you want to compile your own kernel is because the
package download time will be shorter then you would be wasting your time.
The file size for kernel-source (v2.4.20-18) is 36.8MB and the precompiled
kernel (same version) is 13.1MB. Both of these packages are rpm files but
deb packages will also have a similar size difference.
I think it's also worth mentioning that every pre-built kernel config I've
seen uses modules everywhere possible. This means the pre-built kernel
should already be streamlined and any further performance improvements would
be minimal (I'd love to hear if someone has actually tested this theory).
If you still want to learn kernel-compiling, I recommend printing the README
in the top level of the kernel source directory. It makes for a good
starting point and I've found myself referring to it often. Also, keep good
notes on what configuration options you've set. Keeping a small database of
what hardware you own also helps (mine is on my PDA).
Finally, you will need lots of patients. This is not something a person can
learn in a weekend.
(text/plain)