Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:28:11 -0500 From: Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov@comcast.net> To: rank1seeker@gmail.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change? Message-ID: <E1RyWHj-000J9n-7r@hans3> In-Reply-To: <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> (rank1seeker@gmail.com) References: <CAOjFWZ6WM1bLEwaBiUE50Gj4MrwxefDWFb85ecRtYkSDuZ0erg@mail.gmail.com> <mailpost.1329495670.7246668.67851.mailing.freebsd.hackers@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> <4F3E8225.9030501@FreeBSD.org> <E1RyRKJ-000Ioa-Ec@hans3> <4F3E8C26.3080900@FreeBSD.org> <E1RyRq0-000Iqy-3l@hans3> <4F3EA5F2.9070804@gmail.com> <E1RyTZo-000J0R-0Y@hans3> <4F3EAE5F.6070903@gmail.com> <E1RyUv6-000J5e-0E@hans3> <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
,--- 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 --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1RyWHj-000J9n-7r>