Nick Holland wrote:
The biggest reasons to do this are because you have too much
time on your hands, and you want to impress people by having
things break, then you swoop in to rescue everyone from your
fabricated disaster.
Actually I think most people do it because you are tought to do so
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:50:37 -0700
Scott Learmonth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone else who writes code for this fine os would say: removing
drivers is pure masturbation.
Hah, perfect.
As a first foray into BSD I stumbled upon FreeBSD. To make it do what
I wanted, step one was to
* Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-06 03:04]:
Why would someone want to do this?
because it is plain boring to just use GENERIC.
fiddling with your kernel, you can waste a lot of time to get it to
compile, then brag about that over beer with your friends, and while
they keep drinking your pager
* Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-06 12:55]:
For systems which must boot very quickly, removing unused drivers
whose probe routines cause significant timeouts can make a big
difference.
bullshit.
config -ef /bsd
and
disable device
does it nicely.
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL
* Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-06 16:05]:
On 6/6/08, Jordi Beltran Creix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then what is the meaning of this comment in the kernel's memcpy?
A few kbs don't matter, yet a dozen bytes do?
/*
* This is designed to be small, not fast.
*/
That
Sometimes it matters to be small and sometimes fast. That is a decision
made by the kernel hacker. Joe user does not make these decisions
because he/she does not understand the overall impact.
As someone else who writes code for this fine os would say: removing
drivers is pure masturbation.
On
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:05:06PM +0900, Jordi Beltran Creix wrote:
Then what is the meaning of this comment in the kernel's memcpy?
A few kbs don't matter, yet a dozen bytes do?
GENERIC has different constraints than install kernels or boot code.
We use the same memcpy in all three.
Then what is the meaning of this comment in the kernel's memcpy?
A few kbs don't matter, yet a dozen bytes do?
/*
* This is designed to be small, not fast.
*/
2008/6/6, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jon wrote:
I usually name the kernel to the machine hostname, but you can give it
any
On 2008-06-06, Jordi Beltran Creix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then what is the meaning of this comment in the kernel's memcpy?
A few kbs don't matter, yet a dozen bytes do?
It depends where the bytes are. If they're not optional and are
somewhere that needs to fit on *all* install media for *all*
Sometimes it matters to be small and sometimes fast. That is a decision
made by the kernel hacker. Joe user does not make these decisions
because he/she does not understand the overall impact.
As someone else who writes code for this fine os would say: removing
drivers is pure masturbation.
Oh
On 6/6/08 6:52 AM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes it matters to be small and sometimes fast. That is a decision
made by the kernel hacker. Joe user does not make these decisions
because he/she does not understand the overall impact.
As someone else who writes code for
On 6/6/08, Jordi Beltran Creix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then what is the meaning of this comment in the kernel's memcpy?
A few kbs don't matter, yet a dozen bytes do?
/*
* This is designed to be small, not fast.
*/
That comment comes from a time when memory cost ten bucks a byte.
On 6/6/08, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Threats of unspecified system instability are hard to believe.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=109088660014351w=2
For systems which must boot very quickly, removing unused drivers
whose probe routines cause significant timeouts can make a
That comment comes from a time when memory cost ten bucks a byte. We
don't necessarily keep all the comments up to date with the current
market prices, though, figuring anybody reading kernel comments is
moderately rational. Apparently not.
Well, according to previous answers, the 25 years
Jordi Beltran Creix wrote:
Well, according to previous answers, the 25 years old comment was
actually justified, but if it weren't, style(9) would come to mind.
Been eating your own dog food lately?
If we understand that custom kernels are unsupported, that some
kernel options can be modified
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:14:55 -0400
Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 6/6/08, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For systems which must boot very quickly, removing unused drivers
whose probe routines cause significant timeouts can make a big
difference. Sometimes timeouts are the
The people reading the faq are not the people who need custom kernels.
Those people *know* what they need and are not deterred. But as
always, when we try to help the userbase by offering the advice they
need, someone needs to chime in and muddy the waters. So now some dude
is going to
As someone else who writes code for this fine os would say: removing
drivers is pure masturbation.
Hah, perfect.
As a first foray into BSD I stumbled upon FreeBSD. To make it do what
I wanted, step one was to compile a custom kernel. BOOYAH, I got a
geek-on.
A few months later I had
2008/6/5 Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I usually name the kernel to the machine hostname, but you can give it
any name. Edit the kernel config file:
Remove any hardware related options that are not relevant to your
machine.
http://www.muine.org/~hoang/openpf.html#customize
Why would someone want
On 6/5/08, Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I usually name the kernel to the machine hostname, but you can give it
any name. Edit the kernel config file:
Remove any hardware related options that are not relevant to your
machine.
http://www.muine.org/~hoang/openpf.html#customize
Jon wrote:
I usually name the kernel to the machine hostname, but you can give it
any name. Edit the kernel config file:
Remove any hardware related options that are not relevant to your
machine.
http://www.muine.org/~hoang/openpf.html#customize
Why would someone want to do this? Is
21 matches
Mail list logo
