Re: The Kernel (fwd)

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Erik Walthinsen wrote:

> RedHat has shown that a fully modular kernel is just as useful.  I have had 
> no problems with my systems at work, with anywhere from 2 to 4 SCSI cards
> per machine.  I don't think performance is the only reason we should be 
> considering.  And it certainly is not a good reason to stick with the 
> status quo, either way, if the status quo is broken.

I am not arguing against a modular kernel, I am arguing against having the
disk driver that the system needs to boot and run be a module.

> I haven't looked at how the Debian boot disks are built, nor their kernels. 
> I suppose I'll have to do that sometime soon to determine what exactly the 
> advantages and disadvantages are either way.

Debian DOES use a modular kernel ... they DO use initrd, they have simply
decided NOT to make the SCSI disk drivers modular, they compile them into
the kernel.  They do leave a couple of the SCSI modules and many other
devices.

> As far as I am concerned, this issue should be put off until such time as 
> we actually do have to worry about it.  We have much more immediate issues 
> at hand, like the Core, and getting a basic distribution kicked off.  
> Please, hold off this discussion for a while until we are in a better 
> position to make these decisions.

The kernel is out of my juristiction, I am stating that I would not
run such a kernel and would probably recompile it. I do not think anyone
with an IDE system would want the IDE drivers as modules either. I do not
think even Red Hat even leaves IDE as drivers. 

My *>personal<* opinion is that it is a bad idea.  


George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.