Re: dropping kerneld...
Dr. Werner Fink (werner@suse.de)
Wed, 1 May 1996 15:21:14 +0200
> 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