[CS-FSLUG] Optimizing system libs

[Ed Hurst]

Timothy R. Butler wrote:

>>After a week or so with the generic kernel working well, I decided to
>>optimize the kernel and rebuild the base at the same time. The first
>>update took a total of two hours, with 1.5 of that for just building
>>the base system. This time, that part took only one hour. I now have
>>the kernel trimmed down some, and the base system is optimized for my
>>Duron processor.
>
> Pretty good. Have you ever done that on GNU/Linux? It'd be
> interesting to know of the processor optimizations are better/worse
> on either system...

Yes, it would be interesting. Having the same person do the comparison
on the same machine, etc. would yield somewhat meaningful results,
though not a scientifically viable sample. I won't do it unless I get a
separate harddrive with the same specs as the first, and that one cost
nearly $100 (a gift given for that purpose).

Consider the picture as a whole: I never did such things on Linux
because it seemed too hard. I've built packages from source on RH, SUSE,
Knoppix and Mandrake. Simple projects are one thing (like IceWM); major
core overhauls are quite another. Some distros actively discourage it,
and make kernel config esoteric at best. It doesn't help me that the
Linux kernel is really complex and does more stuff than the BSD kernel.
On my last run with building the FreeBSD kernel, it took about 7 minutes
to compile. Anecdotal evidence suggests the Linux kernel would take much
longer on the same hardware.

I considered building a custom kernel for Linux several times, but the
documentation was way over my head. The sort of documentation I need for
such things cannot limit itself to "this option does this" because I
often don't know if I *need* that option. My experience with Linux
documentation has been that I seldom find anything at the kernel-compile
level that puts it that simply. With FreeBSD, such documentation is
easily found.

Part of the reason for that difference is that FreeBSD is one thing
entirely, of itself. Linux is a kernel with GNU tools added, and every
distro does it their own way. A major complaint with SUSE is that their
kernels are so highly customized that it requires strong experience to
make your own and have it work. With FreeBSD, everything is tightly
scripted and within reach of just about anyone. I found the recovery
process quite simple, and well-documented -- at my level of
understanding. I've dug out of serious mistakes with FreeBSD twice, and
it was easy. With Linux, I never once recovered without a reinstallation.

This says as much about me as it does about the situation. I'm not
advocating FreeBSD as superior, but simply within my reach. Perhaps it's
nothing more than the vagueries of timing -- I tried FreeBSD when I was
ready for exploring major system-level building. Still, even now I find
the process on BSD very simple, and scripted to near perfection every
step of the way. Glitches have always been solveable. I always bumbled
it with Linux.

Isn't that the nature of the Church? We all prosper in different areas
and it keeps the Kingdom a rich and wonderful place.

-- 
Ed Hurst
-----------
Software Freedom Day, 28 August 2004
Got Freedom?
http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]