Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:40:27 -0500 (EST) From: Adam <bsdx@looksharp.net> To: John Indra <m4v3r1ck@bigfoot.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newbie has a lot of questions... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001081336540.42899-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> In-Reply-To: <20000108221028.A16294@bigfoot.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>| kernel is not compressed by default. There is (or was) support >| for compressing it, but it has disadvantages (e.g. kernel >| symbols don't work anymore, so you can't debug it, and certain >| tools don't work anymore), and there aren't really any >| advantages. > >Hmmm... OK... >But just a newbie thought... Why don't FreeBSD compress /kernel anyway, >and have the bootstrap "uncompress" it when it try to load /kernel... >Then it will be the same as not compressing /kernel right? From the impression I got from some other people that use Linux, the linux kernel *must* be compressed to fit within the "real mode" memory limit of 640k, presumably because their boot loader sucks.. :) I mentioned I have booted 10 meg kernels and they didnt really have anything to say.. On the other hand, with this limit it might force them to write tighter code.. But I doubt it because I have heard of people not being able to compile in everything they would have liked. I guess this is why they are so crazy about modules. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0001081336540.42899-100000>