From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Apr 29 15:11:32 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA18929
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 15:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA18924
          for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 15:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA05268; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 15:04:45 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199604292204.PAA05268@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Smallest kernel ?
To: zgabor@CoDe.hu (Gabor Zahemszky)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 15:04:45 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199604291208.MAA02545@CoDe.CoDe.hu> from "Gabor Zahemszky" at Apr 29, 96 12:08:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Strip the symbols.
> 
> Once, I read that striping the kernel is not a good solution,
> because some programs (who, ps, etc) cannot work after it.
> Isn't it true for FreeBSD?

They should use procfs instead of the kernel symbols and reading
/dev/kmem.


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