Am 30.08.11 18:44, schrieb Jukka Ruohonen: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:33:18PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote: >> Am 30.08.11 18:22, schrieb Jukka Ruohonen: >> And why should GENERIC *not* support hardware that is available, works, >> and is of use to someone? If GENERIC is to support only the idea of >> what an OS should look for some developers, why do we ship GENERIC at >> all and not tell folks to create their own kernels? > > I don't disagree on principle.[1] But sooner or later you end up with > tremendous amount legacy stuff and things that 0.001 % of people use. > And then people go and compile their own kernels because of that.
To address this issue, I think we are slowly moving towards modularized kernels. So what I said is about drivers and kernel subsystem, that are not yet available as modules. But modules are still WIP, and I think there are still a few problems left to be solved before we can say we are an OS with a modular kernel. > Do you think Linux distributions ship kernels with all their drivers > compiled into one monolithic unit? And why not? I don't care what Linux does. This is BSD. Memory does not matter. There is no reason to not include stuff in a kernel. > > - Jukka. > > [1] For years, it was more than annoying that even the installation kernel > lacked e.g. cgd(4). Even today, many *important* things are commented > out, while many inane things from the early 1990s are compiled in. And when uncomment sth you need, you get yelled at, "USE YOUR OWN KERNEL CONFIG"....
