Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:37:38 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot disk.... Message-ID: <199510301437.PAA06264@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199510300921.TAA01368@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Oct 30, 95 07:51:11 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Michael Smith wrote: > > > fan of any more boot stages. The 7.5 K limitation has one interesting > > feature: it makes us fast, since you could not put a GUI into it. :-) > > It's _too_small_, or hadn't you noticed? There simply isn't room for all > the features it _needs_. Yes. Creeping featurism. That's all i'm afraid of. Give people more room in it, and they will happily abuse it until the next limit is reached. (How large will this be? 640 KB? It will take painfully long to load even the bootstrapper then on a slower machine. Much like it does already now e.g. for SCO.) > Or the 'userconfig bloats the kernel' one, or the 'why can't I boot?' What is the difference between `userconfig bloats the kernel', and `userconfig bloats the bootstrap'? This aside, i think we will have pageable kernel code/data some day (and thus, userconfig inside the kernel won't be a big problem), this is much more useful than yet another bootstrap stage. > different root filesystem', 'what do the flags at the boot: prompt mean' man boot. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510301437.PAA06264>