Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 04:17:44 +0100 From: ".VWV." <victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it> To: <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Re: kernels' weight Message-ID: <009c01c33091$316e4fd0$a56f6850@workstation> References: <200305260316.08916.victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it> <20030609115437.M18234@codersluts.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "sektie" <sektie@codersluts.net> To: ".VWV." <victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it>; <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:56 Subject: Re: kernels' weight > > 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/ > > I just didn't want to be too much nasty, it is well known I hate penguins and Linus' plaids... Either the boot loader, or the partitioning system, or the kernel compilation and eventual compression for a cd-rom, are a paradise if compared to Linux. Moreover, the drivers' support for the most part of SCSI, ATA, RAID, LAN, is much more complete. As always VITTORI
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?009c01c33091$316e4fd0$a56f6850>