Can recompiling your kernel lead to speed improvements

[Ric Moore]

On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 08:15 -0500, David Bandel wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Ric Moore <wayward4now at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 08:14 -0500, David Bandel wrote:
> >
> > > No distro will give you everything exactly how you want it unless it
> > > is the one you learned on and so is the only way you expect things to
> > > be.  Personally, of the hundreds of distros out there, none behaves as
> > > I expect it to (my first UNIX OSs were SUNOS 1 and Ultrix).  RH
> > > "protects" admins by aliasing rm and mv to run with the -i (which
> > > annoys the devil out of me), etc., etc., distro by distro, including
> > > all the ones I run daily.  Use what you like, modify what you don't
> > > like.  And don't expect any distro to be exactly what you want out of
> > > the box unless you build one yourself.
> > >
> > > > </rant>
> > Jeeez... RH has been doing that since forever. rm and mv are kinda
> > dangerous in that Linux will do just what you tell it to do. It thinks
> > you know what you are doing. <shudders> Ric
> >
> 
> And that's as it should be for root -- the system does what you tell it to do.
> 
> Have you ever seen the surprised look on an admin's face when he's
> suddenly on a box without the rm and mv aliased?  Personally, I detest
> surprises.  And training admins to _rely_ on the fact that the distro
> has aliased rm and mv is setting them up for a very nasty surprise on
> a non-RH system.  RH fosters bad admin habits and I don't like it.
> root should never have any commands aliased as something else, but
> that's just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.  But in
> my book, it's a very bad idea to train admins to rely on a safety net
> that's artificial and won't exist on other systems.
Caldera did the same thing, right? <grins> Ric