FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

Sigh.

Lew Bloch wrote:
> Don't feed the troll.
> 
> Recap:
> - The subject for this thread includes the word "FLAME" (with 
> superfluous underscores).
> 
> - The original post cited "no need to respond", with an implicit promise 
> to ignore (useful) replies.
> 
Implicit. That means I can respond to anyone who says I'm wrong, espe 
when they appear to be :-)
> - The substantive issue, lack of kernel source, has been definitively 
> shown to be false.  The complaint was based on facts not in evidence.
> 

Wrong. Source is *no longer* being included in the install discs, 
relegating one to searching redhat's site or prior downloading of 
4*650MB=2.6 Gigs or source RPMs

> - References to the "correct" location for source (/usr/src/linux) are 
> also contrary to facts in evidence (new standard from kernel.org).
> 
A divergence from the point that the source is *not available* -- and 
even somehow refuting that legacy programs, training manuals, online 
FAQs, and user knowledge still do use that path.

> - The OP's posts engaged in ad hominem remarks, such as accusing Red Hat 
> (personnel) of "politics".
And so has Linus Torvalds. :-)

> 
> - Many replies have offered solutions to the putative problem.  No word 
> from the OP on whether these have helped him.
The replies (while appreciated and useful) are not the subject of this 
post - read it please - dont change the subject
> 
> - Apparently the issue is relevant to FC3 (on a different discussion 
> list).  There are (controversial) workarounds available there as well.
true - but FC3 is in release candidate status now (two weeks until 
release), and largely frozen. But theres still a change however small of 
resurrecting the source.
> 
> My conclusions:
> - Having kernel source is a potential issue for the upcoming (FC3) release.
> 
> - Workarounds exist for the issue, but the default setup has a rationale.
> 
> - Don't feed the troll.
Yes, fine advise :-)
>