From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat May 31 22:24:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA06943 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 22:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendero.i-connect.net (sendero-ppp.i-Connect.Net [206.190.143.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA06924 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 22:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from shimon@localhost) by sendero.i-connect.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA05307; Sat, 31 May 1997 22:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.2-alpha [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9876.865110612@time.cdrom.com> Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Atlas Telecom From: Simon Shapiro To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Subject: RE: LINT and GENERIC - between a rock and a generic place. Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi "Jordan K. Hubbard"; On 31-May-97 you wrote: > More and more people are trying to use GENERIC as a template for their > own kernels and they're losing, of course, because generic sets many > limits (like max children or open files) too low. ... > How shall we conduct the debate this time? Same old same old, or > something genuinely productive? :-) I say ``same old''. Heck with ``something genuinely productive'' :-) A bit more seriously, I think there is merit in both approaches. A set of canned something genuinely productive are positive, relatively easy to come up with (too easy?) and will be very helpful to many. A spiffy front end will satisfy those who like this kind of things. Myself? It took me only few minutes to figure out the syntax of the config files. WHAT goes in one is not trivial, though. A gui tool that can either pick an existing purpose configuration (or another) and dump it into a simple screen is probably a nice idea. I actually used the Linux xconfig and admit to liking it. The Linux config file is very different from ours, so there is more incentive there. I am using our ``broken'' (?) config files daily and have not much problem with them. I say that those who like purpose configuration files should build and test some and let's put them in the source tree (how about a make release enhancement to build them all as boot floppies?). Those who like a gui, please build one and lets bad mouth it once it is done ;-). just try to remember that, at times (albeit rare) X11 may not be available, but kernel configuration may still be desired. All the above is worth $0.02 or less. simon