Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 11:20:25 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 961006-SNAP comments Message-ID: <22715.844885225@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:30:44 EDT." <199610091330.JAA05706@crh.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> in the general case, the default settings are quite appropriate. How many
> problems will be generated by people disabling the wrong things, or stumbling
> around inside the editor just mucking things up because they dont know what
> they are doing?
I don't know, why don't we let users test it and find out! That's the
whole purpose of these snapshots, after all! :-)
> If we force a config it has to be brain damaged, i.e:
>
> Do you have an Adaptec 2940 SCSI Controller (Yes/No)
> Do you have an NE2000 Compatable Ethernet Card (Yes/No)
> Yes: What IRQ is this card located at?
> What IOMEM Address does this card use?
Yes, that has, in fact, always been my intention - using the visual
userconfig by default is just a temporary measure and a "driven"
userconfig is on my TODO list, where a hierarchy of questions is
organized into a tree (ever play that earliest of computer guessing
games called "animals?"). It wouldn't be so tedious as to query you
for every card at the top level, but would ask you instead for broad
catagories ("Do you have a network adaptor? Is it PCI, EISA or PCI?
ISA? OK, then out of the above list, which one is it?").
That's why we added two options for USERCONFIG and VISUAL_USERCONFIG
recently - I want to be able to compile in alternate userconfigs
(though I think I'll just make this driven userconfig feature a
command off the existing one, so I can also compile BOTH into the
boot.flp kernel).
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22715.844885225>