From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jan  6 19:12:32 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA24195
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id TAA24190
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id UAA13658; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:02:29 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199701070302.UAA13658@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: kernel w/o source? [MOD_DECL in lkm.h]
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:02:29 -0700 (MST)
Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <26021.852374224@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jan 4, 97 02:37:04 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > place. If the next WC CD came out with a minimal generic kernel
> > (that was enough to get console & disk working) and everything
> > else as lkms, then I would most likely _never_ build a kernel
> > because my development work is done in user-space (except for
> 
> Yes, we like it!  We'll take it!  Go John go!  Rah rah rah! :-)

John would continue to have to build kernels so long as the proc
structure size and layout kept changing, and so long as ps and the
rest kept their historical "run against a file" capabilities instead
of using /proc like they should...


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.