From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 14 13:23:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA02103 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rosie.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA02094 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cola77.scsn.net ([206.25.247.77]) by rosie.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.0 release 0121 ID# 0-32322U5000L100S10000) with ESMTP id AAA125 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 16:16:38 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by cola77.scsn.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) id QAA11063; Wed, 14 May 1997 16:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970514162302.54539@cola77.scsn.net> Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 16:23:02 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.7 and COMPAT_43 -Reply References: <199705141338.IAA00697@beowulf.utmb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.69 In-Reply-To: <199705141338.IAA00697@beowulf.utmb.edu>; from M. L. Dodson on Wed, May 14, 1997 at 08:38:49AM -0500 Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 08:38:49AM -0500, M. L. Dodson wrote: > > I'm afraid there's another point overlooked here. Options like INET and > > even device npx0 are part of a great(?) BSD heritage. I guess INET was > > in BSD kernel configs long before FreeBSD was born. > > > > This is the real reason, I would think. Remember that BSD was originally > written by the CSRG: Computer Science RESEARCH Group at Berkeley. Options, > which for most people are not really optional, ;-), may be optional in a > research environment. Besides, all the books I have ever read on BSD > system administration make a point of the "nonoptional" options. We > already get enough complaints that there are no books about BSD (even > though there are). Why invalidate the discussion of kernel configuration > in these books by leaving these "options" out? > > > On the other hand, it *is* confusing for a newbie to configure a FreeBSD > > kernel. I think it would be better to just be able to mark to config > > that some configurations are dangerous, so when config-ing a kernel > > missing something important it will give a warning such as: > > > > ***WARNING*** > > You are missing the 'INET' option. > > The configured kernel may not be bootable > > > > Even WinNT gives this sort of warning when you disable, say, a SCSI > > device driver (of fear that it is the controller for the boot disk). > > > > I think this will leave us with the freedom to hack, the standard BSD > > options in the kernel, and will scare off curious newbies from removing > > important options. > > I wouldn't mind this, although I don't see this as a big issue. > > > Now all that's left is to hack config ;-) > > If you feel the need. I can see that this is about to turn into one of those 'BSD-tradition vs. common sense' debates, and I have no desire to participate in that; common sense cannot win because the traditionalists never relent, and without consensus, the status quo remains just that. Meanwhile, WindowsNT's market share continues to climb, supplanting what *might* have been FreeBSD market share... Too bad for us that they aren't saddled with a 'traditional' steep learning curve... -- Donald J. Maddox (dmaddox@scsn.net)