Messages in this thread |  | | From | "James A. Sutherland" <> | Subject | Re: Installing kernel 2.4 | Date | Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:51:24 +0000 |
| |
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, Horst von Brand wrote: > "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@vger.timpanogas.org> said: > > [...] > > > Your way out in the weeds. What started this thread was a customer who > > ended up loading the wrong arch on a system and hanging. I have to > > post a kernel RPM for our release, and it's onerous to make customers > > recompile kernels all the time and be guinea pigs for arch ports. > > I'd prefer to be a guinea pig for one of 3 or 4 generic kernels distributed > in binary than of one of the hundreds of possibilities of patching a kernel > together at boot, plus the (presumamby rather complex and fragile) > machinery to do so *before* the kernel is booted, thank you very much.
Hmm... some mechanism for selecting the appropriate *module* might be nice, after boot...
> Plus I'm getting pissed off by how long a boot takes as it stands today...
Yep: slowing down boottimes is not an attractive idea.
> > They just want it to boot, and run with the same level of ease of use > > and stability they get with NT and NetWare and other stuff they are used > > to. This is an easy choice from where I'm sitting. > > Easy: i386. Or i486 (I very much doubt your customers run on less, and this > should be geneic enough).
I think there are better options. Jeff could, for example, *optimise* for Pentium II/III, without using PII specific instructions, in the main kernel, then have multiple target binaries for modules.
James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |