Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:15:37 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD GENERIC kernel&modules Message-ID: <20051123021537.GA2405@flame.pc> In-Reply-To: <20051123013343.C66337@chylonia.3miasto.net> References: <20051123001005.E37502@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051122234732.GA64700@flame.pc> <20051123013343.C66337@chylonia.3miasto.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-11-23 01:35, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> wrote:
> >># Note that 'bpf' is required for DHCP.
> >>device bpf # Berkeley packet filter
> >
> >Pretty lean kernel configuration. It's impossible for the GENERIC
> >kernel though to satisfy everyone, for various reasons.
>
> what i mean is to change generic kernel in FreeBSD releases.
>
> my generic kernel will satisfy more users, and in most cases there is only
> need to rebuild one or a few modules with some added options.
Sorry in advance if this sounds a bit blunt, but what proof do you have
that your version of GENERIC is better?
> i think kernel modules was invented exactly for this. and loader.conf is
> an excellent thing!
Sure. Others happen to think that being able to load *any* sort of
modules at all is a security risk ;-)
> if kernels have to keep most things in it, so why having modules at all?
Just because something *is* possible, it's not always a good idea.
I hope you do realize the logical fallacy hidden in this sort of
reasoning.
Stretching your example a bit:
``Since we now have bionic arms, why do you people worry about
cutting a few fingers off to start with? We can always reattach
them later on, if necessary!''
Now, don't get me wrong. I just don't see why GENERIC has to be changed
so extensively. Any *GOOD* reason why this should be done?
- Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051123021537.GA2405>