On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:39:33AM +0200, Ross Cameron wrote: > 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.
great. you know what you're doing (presumably). this discussion is not about such hardware, nor about such situations. the thing is, if you do such things, you _BETTER_ know what you're doing, because you are "on your own". do not expect help from here. and definitely _DO NOT_ try to hide that you have made such modifications when you post bug reports. > 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? there are "distros" based on OpenBSD specifically for such purposes. discussions about tweaking your kernel for such situations are probably much more acceptable there. I think people don't comprehend how small the OpenBSD developer community is compared to, oh, let's say linux. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
