Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 May 1996 15:21:14 +0200 | From | "Dr. Werner Fink" <> | Subject | Re: dropping kerneld... |
| |
> From: "Lauri Tischler" <ltischler@fipower.fi.suse.de> > Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:27:08 GMT +2 > > Anno Domini 30 Apr 96 at 8:01, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > In linux.dev.kernel, article <6F5724445CA@espoo.fipower.fi>, > > "Lauri Tischler" <ltischler@fipower.fi> writes: > > > Yup, I'm missing a lot of pain and useless complications by not > > > using kerneld and modules. Quite useless contraptions both. > > > > > Before modules and initrd, I've had to build a kernel for each of these > > beasts. Ugh. Now, I build the kerneld 100% modularized (OK, OK, binfmt_elf > > and ext2 aren't, but they're used on every system anyway). Initrd then just > > loads one SCSO adapter after the other until one is found... > Yech.. sounds nutty and dangerous. > Why dont you just load appropiate modules directly without kerneld ? > > I have said before that kerneld _might_ have a place somewhere where > underpowered hardware is the _only_ choise. (compare travelling 3000 > km's with bicycle instead by airplane). > > Saving 100-300 kilobytes of memory is truly not worth the hassle in > any 'normal' systems. > >
What is a `normal' system?? It's your choice to use or not to use the kerneld-Feature. But other people it seems to be a great enhancement to have full dynamic module support on the personal linux box --- and in principle it is an enhancement on big linux work station too, isn't it?
Werner
PS: Do you know the Oberon system, with the language Oberon written by Niklaus Wirth (the father of the language Pascal)? http://www-cs.inf.ethz.ch/Oberon.html
| |