Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:11:56 -0800 From: matt <sendtomatt@gmail.com> To: rank1seeker@gmail.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change? Message-ID: <4F3EDEBC.7040703@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> 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
On 02/17/12 14:08, rank1seeker@gmail.com wrote: >> 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. > >> 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. > > > You can't base a "wish" on a solution for YOURS problems! > > GENERIC must be as giantic as possible, to make as many machines as pos= sible 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! > > That is, unless individual is passive/bored (lazy?) and prefer everythi= ng on a silver plate ... > There are many paths in that case ... > Windows are the easiest solution. THEY THINK FOR YOU! > ;) > > > Domagoj Smol=E8i=E6 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" I'm tired of Linux and "everything should be in the kernel, implemented 4 ways" approach. I think you misunderstood. GENERIC should be able to boot anything bootable within the architecture, right? We agree on that. Is sound required for booting? We have a modular kernel. It makes best-practices-sense to keep the kernel true to what's required to boot and initialize the hardware required to come up multiuser. I am actually against having sound in there at all. However, as a compromise, if it must be in there, then put it in loader.conf and not the kernel. Do we still disagree? Matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3EDEBC.7040703>