>
> [ answers Steve's mail too ]
> Richard Adams wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > When in dos how does one mount an ext2 partition.??
> >
> There exist tools for DOS and Win, albeit in alpha state when I last
> heard about them.
Well it would not suprise me at all, however most possably read-only, but
thats NOT the issue here.
>
> <admittedly snipped too much, but due to laziness not re-inserting :->
> > > machine is using far less resources than yours. And only has to chew up
> > > those extra resources if and when I need them.
> >
> > As indeed i explained this in a earlier post to Marc, however he just did
> > not see my point.
> >
> Give me benchmarks, please. Please prove to me that I will actually feel
> a difference or measure it with setiathome or how long KDE needs to log
> me in. Or that booting will be faster. I don't think that on my machine
> I will see _any_ difference, so I avoid the filling with
> yet-another-config-file and the thing I explain below.
If i may be so bold as to say, do that your self, do as so many have advised
you to do and compile a kernel with modules, and do the benchmarking
yourself, otherwise i forsee more endless discussions.
BTW: this is my final message on this thread.
>
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I explained to Marc about how much memory is used by the kernel at bootime,
> > also about the "speed" thing which started this thread, the smaler the
> > kernel the faster it is and the less memory it uses, he just could not see
> > what i meant, i can understand why i included an example.
> >
> What I don't understand and believe is that the kernel operates faster
> if it has more free RAM. The apps do if they hit the swap later, but
> then I have almost always 80M of filebuffers that are used by the kernel
> prior to crying for swap.
>
> <snip>
> > > Could you please explain how on earth this could be a problem. I,
> > > too, run more than one kernel version (2.2.10 & 2.3.12). The modules are
> > > kept in separate directories so there is no problem.
> > > /lib/modules/2.2.10/
> > > /lib/modules/2.3.12/
> > > Or am I not understanding what you are trying to say?
> >
> > I have had upto 15 different kernels here, not one module has ever gotten in
> > my way, i agree with Steve, you will need to explain what you mean here.
> >
> I meant that I use not only different kernel versions in the sense of
> differing version numbers, but also different kernels with the same
> version number. When I added md support intomy 2.2.9 kernel I had 2.2.9
> (plain) 2.2.9-fb (with framebuffer), 2.2.9-md (with fb+md). I guess
> there are ways to cope with this situation and still use modules, but
> maybe I'm too accustomed to setting up university workstations, which
> use all of their functionality all the time, so that I don't think
> 'module' when someone says 'ISDN'.
The best way it to define the EXTRAVERSION = xx in the topdir makefile,
which results in modules being deposited into the matching extraversion
directory under /lib/modules.
> Adding new hardware and making the kernel take notice of that, like I
> did the last months with my machine, is not something where modules
> would be of much use, I reckon. That's because I _think_ that the basic
> support for e.g. networking has to be compiled in or at least as a
> module. So I had the option of either tailor the kernel to my needs or
> compile everything I might want to use in future as modules. I chose the
> first.
Come come, its the otherway round, modprobe allows the defination of
different irq's address and lots lots more, something which you cant do if
the driver is in the kernel, unless the code allows for autoprobing, and/or
you edit lilo.conf with a ton of append lines and rerun lilo before you
boot.
A lot of drivers all probe the same addresses, thus more conflicts are to be
expected without modules being used.
>
> Maybe I'm a little unexperienced with using modules as for some years
> now I have done scientific workstations (i.e. kernel with SCSI and
> (ether-)networking support - done) where you cannot use modules and only
> now begin to enhance _my_ system in the 'multimedia' direction. And as
> one stays with what he knows, I'm very reluctant to using modules. I
> simply don't see the advantages _for my box_ and unless I'm forced to
> use mod's I'll aviod them...
One saying is, you cant teach an old dog new tricks, you are young but still
find it hard to listen about the tricks of the trade.
>
{SNIP}
> > > You've missed the point. Look at the analogy again. But this
> > > time try not to complicate it with useless numbers and percentages. The
> > > moral to the story is: "Why should I make my computer work harder and use
> > > up valuable resources just in case I might want to use something today?"
> >
> > I wonder what uptime would say for system load averages when he is working
> > with his machine.
> >
> You would notice no difference, trust me...
> But for the curious:
> # uptime
> 11:45pm up 4 days, 4:50, 3 users, load average: 1.24, 1.05, 1.02
> This is with an instance of rc5des running together with essentially
> KDE, netscape and isdnmon.
> Notice the uptime stems from the fact that I have ISDN for 5 days now
> :-)
I note the humor which ends the uptime lines, however, my uptime;
4:34pm up 2 days, 3:06, 6 users, load average: 0.05, 0.04, 0.04
;-) ;-)
I have my tv card running wachting TV, things like netscape running, i have
4 radio interfaces all transfering data via an scc card, i have 2 ethernet
cards, one for the net and one for a local lan with 3 machines on it, one
sparc terminal bashing my H/D all the time, i have a full ax25 network
runing here using the ax25 and netrom protocols, a bpq interface via
ethernet, + a music cd playing as well, i just _cant_ do that with a windows
machine, i can however do it on my system the way it is configured.
Just imagen all those interrupts and such a low load.
>
> > >
> > > MM> Bottomline: You have your philosophy, that many others share with you
> > > MM> (mostly "end users" for want of a better term), I have mine that also
> > > MM> many people share (mostly "kernel hackers" FWOABT).
> > >
> <snip>
> > would think that a self proclamed "kernel hacker" (after all said and done
> > thats the way Marc describes himself) would know about things like that.
> >
> No, I'm not a kernel hacker (although I have posted one patch). I just
> remembered reading that 'the big ones' are not using modules. Now I
> can't remember where and frankly I don't know anymore why I wrote the
> texts in parantheses. Maybe too late in the night...
You must be reading some or other exceptional mail list then.
>
>
> As I said before in my previous mail, no-one of us will change the other
> one's mind, so let's stop wasting bandwidth. If you want to reply, feel
> free but please do so only after removing the list's Cc. We're heavily
> OT now.
I said above as far as i am concerned, this is the end of discusstion.
>
> Cheers,
> Marc
>
> --
> Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marc.mutz.com/
> University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics
>
> PGP-keyID's: 0xd46ce9ab (RSA), 0x7ae55b9e (DSS/DH)
>
>
--
Regards Richard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
