On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:58:40PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote:
> > > > ... using the GENERIC kernel ...
> >
> > > 2) One thing that may not be visible enough is that config(8) can be
> > > used to modify kernel parameters without needing to recompile. That
> > > gives you a fair amount of customization without deviating from the
> > > GENERIC configuration.
> > >
> > > It is possible to make modifications to the currently running kernel as
> > > well as to save these changes in the form of a new kernel binary so that
> > > the changes stay even after system restarts.
> >
> > One thing I'm not clear on: if the only issue is kernel size based on
> > having an old box with low memory, where every MB counts, does
> > deactivating unnecessary drivers with config actually result in a
> > smaller kernel or just a kernel with deactivated drivers? Shrinking the
> > kernel would be the only reason I would have of touching the kernel as
> > I'm not into trying out experimental features. It would be too bad if
> > config doesn't do this.
>
> if your machine is low enough on ram that you would even consider
> recompiling a kernel, just to save ram, it's time to retire
> the machine.
I'd disagree VERY strongly there,... there are LOTS of low spec (yet
industrial tolerance) hardware appliances out there (and I spend
almost my entire live working on this kind of hardware.
The malleability and source availability of the free UNIX-like
systems is what allows one to use these platforms in the first place.
Imagine trying to get Microsoft or Sun to produce an OS for you that
runs on a 486dx100?
