Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 11:42:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Pritchard <mpp@legarto.minn.net> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GENERIC kernel & some basic UNIX pointers Message-ID: <199506121642.LAA00253@mpp.com> In-Reply-To: <199506121341.XAA22419@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jun 12, 95 11:11:13 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mike Pritchard stands accused of saying: > > Since a lot of potential new FreeBSD users probably are using PPP/SLIP > > through some type of ISP, the GENERIC configuration file should contain > > PPP by default. If we need a smaller kernel for the boot floppy, then > > there should be a "BOOTFLP" configuration instead. The installation > > should start with the BOOTFLP kernel, but one of the loaded distributions > > (bindist? or whatever) should provide a more fully configured kernel. > > E.g. the GENERIC kernel. This should be done for 2.1. > > The PPP faq should actually mention the user-mode PPP and the tun0 device > which is obviously still in the bootfloppy kernel. > > IMHO this is _much_ easier to use from my (limited) exposure than pppd > for the 'average user'. True, but we have people coming from 2.0, which didn't have the user-mode PPP. So if they already setup PPP, it was the kernel-mode PPP. Someone who actually runs the user-mode stuff should write up something to be added to the PPP FAQ. When I got my kernel-mode PPP link working a couple of weeks back, I didn't run across any real gotchas or anything that I could see causing headaches for the "average user". I think that all of the problems I had involved installing a new modem at the same time. Has anyone compared the two? Is one faster/less overhead/whatever? -- Mike Pritchard mpp@legarto.minn.net "Go that way. Really fast. If something gets in your way, turn"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506121642.LAA00253>