[arch-dev-public] Kernel - vanilla vs patched?

[Aaron Griffin]

On Nov 9, 2007 8:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> I was about to start this thread just this morning, but didn't have the
> time. Here is what I think: The Arch way is to keep things as untouched
> as possible and frankly, our kernel has become full of stuff that I
> don't see a reason for.

Yes yes yes.
I don't understand when this happened. When I first started using
Arch, the kernel was barebones and vanilla. If a user wanted something
exotic, they used ABS, and it's done.

Now there seems to be this attitude of "why rebuild it, we'll do it
for you" - which is shit.

We've switch gears for the worse. The original view for Arch was
selfish. The original view was "this is the distro *I* want, and screw
you if you don't like it". Now we're switching over to "We'll make the
distro you guys want'.

We're losing touch. Thomas is right here - there no reason for us to
support half the shit in the kernel that we do. There are some
exceptions, yes (unionfs and squashfs were added to support _our_
tools, which again follows the "this is my distro" creed). When did
this happen? When did all you guys stop making a distro for
yourselves, and start making it for other people?