Colin Percival wrote:
Tom Grove wrote:

Richard Bejtlich wrote:

After speaking with Colin, he mentioned that IPSec, NAT, and disk
quotas (enabled via options QUOTA) are the three most popular kernel
changes that prevent people from running GENERIC and hence using
freebsd-update for binary kernel updates.

Can anyone shed light on why those three features are not available in
GENERIC?

My guess is that just because those are the three most popular kernel
changes that prevent people from running GENERIC doesn't mean that the
majority of users implement these changes.


I find this argument hard to accept.  The vast majority of FreeBSD users
will never need the NFS_ROOT option, and many systems do not even have
the hardware for serial or parallel ports, yet those are supported in the
GENERIC kernel.

And they should stay supported in GENERIC, since these are features you want to use if you have quite a big serverfarm and want to do PXE (speaking of NFS_ROOT). :)


In deciding what options should go into the GENERIC kernel, I think the
question we should be asking is not "how many people use this?", but
instead "would adding this option inconvenience more people than it would
help?".

I agree.
Today I upgraded my private rootserver to 6.0-RELEASE (good job folks!) and it's running the GENERIC. Since I want to use quota's and need 'em, I have to compile my own kernel.
But... well, what the hack, I'll do it anyway to strip down the GENERIC :)

Just my 0,02 cents.

6.0-RELEASE looks really good (as it already looked good in RC1). Keep up the good work.

Best Regards,
Marian

PS.: For whom it may concern and for those who are from Germany: it's a root-server at Strato (german company). Whoever runs FreeBSD on those webservers: and upgrade from 5.4-RELEASE to 6.0-RELEASE went easy and works like a charm (except of some struggles with dhclient)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to