Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 06:56:41 -0500 From: "sektie" <sektie@codersluts.net> To: ".VWV." <victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernels' weight Message-ID: <20030609115437.M18234@codersluts.net> In-Reply-To: <200305260316.08916.victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it> References: <200305260316.08916.victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We know Linux is the son of the microkernel Minix. Linux kernel is > simple and light, but its compilation is complicate, owing to the > need of a lot of modules, and to the difference between several > distributions. It is much easier to compile a FreeBSD kernel, even > if it needs some megabyte more. If we can compress the kernel > following the instruction on the Dossier books, who cares of its > original weight? Linux kernel simple and light? Are you a fan of the crackpipe? :P The linux kernel is still decompressed when it gets loaded into memory. There isn't really that much of a difference in size. What are you trying to do? Save disk space? Dude, it's only a few MB. Randi sektie@codersluts.net http://perlpimp.codersluts.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030609115437.M18234>