Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:15:11 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Wolfgang Helbig <helbig@Informatik.BA-Stuttgart.DE> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why so many steps to build new kernel? Message-ID: <20763.881748911@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:02:12 %2B0100." <199712101002.LAA14559@rvc1.informatik.ba-stuttgart.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmm, I'm glad we are *not* imitating Linux in this respect. > I feel much more comfortable with the FreeBSD way, i. e. editing > the kernel configuration. It makes you think you know what you're > doing, you can easily change it and you know what you have to save > if you want to build a different kernel. > > I feel no need at all for a new kernel configuration UI, which > would make things more complicated and less transparent for > the user. Well, like so many things in the Unix world, I think that the closest we can come to any sort of "ideal" is a situation where the underlying configuration mechanisms are robust and allow for very fine-grained tuning of whatever behavior they're supposed to control. On top of that sits a system which allows the less interested or skillful user to make relatively coarse adjustments without having to worry about the actual details of the mechanism. To put it another way, if M$ represents one extreme (all flash and no substance) then Unix can probably be said to represent the other one - lots of substance but no flash. :) I'm also not a fan of occupying extreme positions since something is always needlessly lost in the process. f we could strive to occupy a more balanced position, I don't think we'd lose anything by it and could stand to gain significant ease-of-use. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20763.881748911>