[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: dropping kerneld...
> From: "Lauri Tischler" <>
> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:27:08 GMT +2
> Anno Domini 30 Apr 96 at 8:01, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > In, article <>,
> > "Lauri Tischler" <> 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?


PS: Do you know the Oberon system, with the language Oberon written by
Niklaus Wirth (the father of the language Pascal)?

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.037 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site