Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:08:02 +0100 From: rank1seeker@gmail.com To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change? Message-ID: <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> In-Reply-To: <E1RyUv6-000J5e-0E@hans3> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 possible 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 everything on a silver plate ... There are many paths in that case ... Windows are the easiest solution. THEY THINK FOR YOU! ;) Domagoj Smolčić
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120217.220802.988.2>