From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 1 11:14:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA07418 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07411 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id MAA27444; Thu, 1 May 1997 12:14:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 12:14:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Black To: Terry Lambert cc: ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net, dfr@nlsystems.com, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unloading LKMs (was Re: A Desparate Plea for Help...) In-Reply-To: <199705011716.KAA04240@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk i think my statement was taken the wrong way. i think it is a Good Thing to break up the kernel into dynamically loadable modules. solaris is just the operating system i use most that is structured in that way. on the subject of solaris, is anyone thinking about a crash-like program to provide a unified interface for viewing and setting kernels parameters and status? b3n On Thu, 1 May 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > welcome to solaris. > > > > > How about a statically loaded version of the kernel? I mean, will it now > > > be nothing more than an aggregate of some modules? It would be nice if > > > all there were were modules, and to make yourself a kernel, you just > > > had to stick them together.. > > Which makes it no less nice for it being invented there first. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. >