From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 17 22:41:27 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA4D1065742 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:41:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alex-goncharov@comcast.net) Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.48]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7732E8FC17 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id b9bQ1i0011wpRvQ55AUCFa; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:28:12 +0000 Received: from hans3 ([66.30.197.229]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id bAUC1i01v4xSlmi3eAUCdl; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:28:12 +0000 Received: from algo by hans3 with local (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RyWHj-000J9n-7r; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:28:11 -0500 From: Alex Goncharov To: rank1seeker@gmail.com In-reply-to: <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> (rank1seeker@gmail.com) References: <4F3E8225.9030501@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E8C26.3080900@FreeBSD.org> <4F3EA5F2.9070804@gmail.com> <4F3EAE5F.6070903@gmail.com> <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> Message-Id: Sender: Alex Goncharov Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:28:11 -0500 Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Goncharov List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:41:27 -0000 ,--- You/rank1seeker@gmail.com (Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:08:02 +0100) ----* | > For me as a user, that would be a much preferable approach, instilled | > long ago by Linux. I don't like unused stuff around, and I like to | > understand what I am using. | > | > Some build kernel confutation parameters "minimum modules", "medium | > modules", "maximum modules" might be utilized. I would be using | > "medium" or most likely "maximum", leaving me with a minimal kernel. | > | > -- Alex -- alex-goncharov@comcast.net -- | | NO. What does your "NO" stand for? That it would not be a preferable approach "For me as a user"? I wasn't speaking for others :) | > Thinking bigger picture (beyond sound), would it make sense to keep | > GENERIC very minimal, but provide an extensive loader.conf with a | > default install...so most things worked, but were loaded as modules? | > | > Matt | | NO. "NO" here: would not make sense? It will be unlikely done but how do you know what makes sense for others? I for one, don't have any interest in the PCCARD code built into the kernel. Etc. | You can't base a "wish" on a solution for YOURS problems! I was not asking for the new code, but I could express my idea of what made sense for me. | GENERIC must be as giantic as possible, to make as many machines as possible to BOOT and enable all what can be enabled in/on them. | THEN ... individual "strips" unhooked parts -> custom kernel, via | wich you "specialize it", for your hardware! Then provide MINIMAL in sys/ARCH/conf, and one could use it (I am not asking for it -- I've been doing it on my own -- I am talking in principle.) | That is, unless individual is passive/bored (lazy?) and prefer everything on a silver plate ... I don't see any logic in how you passed to this passage. | There are many paths in that case ... | Windows are the easiest solution. THEY THINK FOR YOU! | ;) Ditto. What's bad in "the easiest solution" per se? And one would be not prudent to keep laughing over Windows, thinking Windows NT, when 8 is almost here. But this is off topic, sorry, you all. -- Alex -- alex-goncharov@comcast.net --