From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 23 02:16:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B636A16A421 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:16:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from aiolos.otenet.gr (aiolos.otenet.gr [195.170.0.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3037243D49 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:16:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from flame.pc (patr530-a080.otenet.gr [212.205.215.80]) by aiolos.otenet.gr (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-1) with ESMTP id jAN2G3jF001336; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:16:04 +0200 Received: from flame.pc (flame [127.0.0.1]) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jAN2FbW0002485; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:15:37 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jAN2FbQT002484; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:15:37 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:15:37 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Wojciech Puchar Message-ID: <20051123021537.GA2405@flame.pc> References: <20051123001005.E37502@chylonia.3miasto.net> <20051122234732.GA64700@flame.pc> <20051123013343.C66337@chylonia.3miasto.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051123013343.C66337@chylonia.3miasto.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD GENERIC kernel&modules X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:16:10 -0000 On 2005-11-23 01:35, Wojciech Puchar 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