From owner-freebsd-questions  Tue May 13 16:39:07 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA24757
          for questions-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 16:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hps.sso.wdl.lmco.com (hps.sso.wdl.lmco.com [158.186.22.100])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA24748
          for <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 13 May 1997 16:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hps (hps.sso.wdl.lmco.com) by hps.sso.wdl.lmco.com (4.1/SSO-4.01-LMCO)
	id AA17660; Tue, 13 May 97 19:30:19 EDT
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Toren <rpt@sso.wdl.lmco.com>
X-Sender: rpt@hps
To: dmaddox@scsn.net
Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43
In-Reply-To: <19970513180141.36385@cola68.scsn.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970513192757.17572B-100000@hps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 May 1997, Donald J. Maddox wrote:

> On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 09:07:13AM +1200, jonc@pinnacle.co.nz wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 May 1997, Nadav Eiron wrote:
> > 
> > > jonc@pinnacle.co.nz wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > 
> > > > Just tried recompiling a kernel for 2.1.7, and removed the COMPAT_43
> > > > option from the list. Upon rebooting, login behaves slightly strangely:
> > > 
> > > Why did you remove COMPAT_43? It's one of the things that's not meant to
> > > be removed from the kernel config file (as the comment states). Most
> > > noteably it breaks xterm.
> > 
> > The kernel config files do *NOT* say that its a required option (in either
> > GENERIC or LINT); they need updating if that's the case.
> > 
> > And as to why, just fooling around with how small a kernel I can get
> > that still boots and works..
> 
> This raises a question that I have often wondered about:
> 
> Why are *required* parts of the system listed in the config file
> as _options_?
> 
> I mean, if it's _required_, then it's *not* an _option_; and if it's an
> option, it's not required, right?
> 
> It seems to me that this just serves to confuse new users.  Why not remove
> these "required options" and include required functionality unconditionally?
> 
> 
>                                             Donald J. Maddox
>                                             (dmaddox@scsn.net)
  Have you never bought a new car? They invented the concept of the
  "required option". I once worked for Ford Aerospace, and it was
  always a joke that we needed a dedicated computer system to keep the
  required options straight, and the customer confused....

                         ====================================================
Rip Toren               | The bad news is that C++ is not an object-oriented |
rpt@sso.wdl.lmco.com    | programming language. .... The good news is that   |
                        | C++ supports object-oriented programming.          |
                        |    C++ Programming & Fundamental Concepts          |
                        |     by Anderson & Heinze                           |
                         ====================================================