Re: any reasons to recompile kernel?

On Jul 21, 2005, at 2:53 AM, Kevin Van Vechten wrote:

> If you do not know why you need to recompile the kernel, then you do 
> not need to recompile the kernel.
>
> - Kevin
>
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Maurice Ling wrote:
>
>> I've been reading the OD FAQ. There seems to be compelling reasons 
>> not to re-compile a kernel as almost all modules are loaded 
>> dynamically. So, is there a reason to call for a 
>> compilation?_______________________________________________

	Must there be a reason?  For a geek, recompiling a kernel can be a lot 
like mountain-climbing.  You do it because it's there and you get a 
thrill out of doing it.

--begin stupid anecdote--
	In May '04 I could have settled for the OO.org 1.1.2 tarball that was 
posted for OS X users instead of getting the 1.1.3 release which was 
packaged up for everyone else.  Rather than be a second-class citizen, 
I followed their howto on getting and compiling the source and let my 
powerbook compile it overnight.
	Why did I do this?  There weren't any features in OO.org 1.1.3 that I 
needed (other than bugfixes).  I hardly even use the damn thing anyway. 
  It really was just for the heck of it.  Now I know I'm a real geek 
because it was so damn satisfying.  Of course, I couldn't have done it 
without the great howto they have posted over.  While they still only 
offer 1.1.2 to OS X/X11 users and 1.1.4 now to everyone else (perhaps 
because they expect gui-licking os x freaks to use NeoOffice/J anyway), 
I've got to hand it to them for posting that awesome howto.
--end stupid anecdote--

In short, my reply is because you have the source and the tools, why 
not?  It's there, climb it.  You'll probably learn something along the 
way.

JL