Messages in this thread |  | | From | Paul Gortmaker <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_RANDOM option for 1.99.2 | Date | Thu, 16 May 1996 00:20:12 +1000 (EST) |
| |
"Johan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Myr=E9en?=" at May 14, 96 08:20:56 pm
[re: CONFIG_PROC_FS, CONFIG_SYSVIPC, CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT, etc.]
> Yes! Away with these config options. Or at least hide them so they are hard > to disable, and document them "strongly recommended". What Joe Random Hacker
I am not against having them documented as "strongly recommended" but I am against removing existing flexibility in the hope of making some commercial vendors "more comfortable" with creating apps for linux. In fact, the on line Configure help has been a great addition, making "newbie" kernel building choices a lot easier than it ever has been in the past. Most options that are in common use are already listed as "strongly recommended".
> compiles into his kernel is his own business, and he is responsible for it.
Exactly. So if he/she deviates from the recommendations in Configure.help without a clue as to what they are doing, then they deserve what they get. The converse is that if the average newbie takes the time to read and follow the recommendations in Configure.help, they should get a kernel that (a) matches their system, (b) runs all the applications that they will use, and (c) is not bloated out with lots of unused functionality.
> But what happens when a major distribution ships a kernel without /proc or > SYSV IPC support?
That is a lame argument. Nobody like Red Hat or Slackware is going to do something that stupid. That would be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot. Distributions that do stupid things and that don't respond to public complaints simply die. See SLS as an example.
> Do we want Linux to remain a hackers kernel forever?
No, and fortunately it is already far from a "hackers kernel" already. But do we want linux to throw away useful flexibility just to simply try and be more appealing to at most a handful of commercial software suppliers? Hrmmm.... not for me thanks. I can buy a commercial unix if I want limited flexibility, and dictated policy on what I must support.
Paul.
|  |