On Wed, 15 May 1996, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:>    Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:16:55 -0400>    From: Robert L Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net>> >    What if someone's running in very tight memory (2-4 MB) and for one>    reason or another doesn't care about crackers (isn't on the net, or>    just doesn't care about security)?  The only feasible thing that the>    kernel needs good random numbers for is security, and people should>    have the option to turn that off if the memory and CPU cycles are too>    critical.> > I agree with you in general, but the problem is that there are too many> tuning knobs already.  Asking the user to go through a complicated list\begin{joeking}OK. go for Win95. There are no tuning knobs there. Alternatively You coul'd use the good old DOS. Or even better CPM.\end{joeking}The kernel configuration isn't the reason why Linux can't be used without climbing some learning curve first. And please compare the size of the quite compleate tuning information on linux in Configure.help, with the size of the corresponding chapters in any book about for example DOS.Marcin