On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Jacob Meuser  wrote:

quoted text
>

> 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.

    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?