> please consider lukem's proposal from a large number of years ago > where the kernel + modules are considered a unit and are stored > together (in a tarball? in a subdir? details..)
To put on my iconoclast hat for a moment, how does this differ from a non-modular kernel, inherently bound to all its "modules"? (Yes, I can think of a bunch of ways too. My point is to provoke thought and discussion, not to just get an answer to the question asked.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
