On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:58:38PM -0400, scott wrote:
> I believe it was mentioned aways back in the message stream, but perhaps
> it's worth reconsidering at this juncture...
>
> Keep the low emi/rfi 386 machine user-proximity but convert it to an X
> server with the more capable X client (app s
"Ross Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you say, "config makes me boot faster." so then people go and config
> > their kernel, and then we get problem reports about broken kernels.
> >
> > that's fine if you want
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Ross Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > you say, "config makes me boot faster." so then people go and config
> > their kernel, and then we get problem reports about broken kernels.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:39:33AM +0200, Ross Cameron wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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:
> > > > > ... usin
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:47:09AM +0200, Ross Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you say, "config makes me boot faster." so then people go and config
> > their kernel, and then we get problem reports about broken kernels.
> >
> > that'
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you say, "config makes me boot faster." so then people go and config
> their kernel, and then we get problem reports about broken kernels.
>
> that's fine if you want to go break your machines. don't try telling
> othe
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 visibl
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:04:34PM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
>
> HOWEVER, the 80386sx was a non-starter for a long time: these machines
> only had 24 bit address buses, so it had a max of 16M, and being they
> were "cheap" machines, the actual potential of most of the hardware
> they were used in
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
...
> So perhaps to add to this entry for the FAQ, something that address this
> desire to shrink the kernel to save memory:
>
> "... For standard i386 old computers with little ram,
> recompiling the kernel does not provide enough free memory to
> affect
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 01:04:09PM +0300, Lars Nood?n wrote:
> Using config to modify the GENERIC kernel's settings can apparently
> improve boot speed. So maybe config should be mentioned in section 5.6
> of the FAQ, "Why do I need a custom kernel?" to steer those wondering
> about improving boo
From: Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: misc
Subject: Re: configuring the GENERIC kernel (was Re: Issue compiling a
program on OpenBSD)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:12:57 -0400
Mailer: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 01:04:09PM +0300, L
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 01:04:09PM +0300, Lars Nood??n wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > ... 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...
>
> Nic
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> ... 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...
Nick Holland wrote:
> config strictly deactivates the drivers, it doesn't reduc
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
...
> 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? Shrin
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 08:54:05PM +, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> well no fucking shit, Lars.
Now that's something I'd rather not do...
:)
>
> it was a suggestion.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 09:52:48PM +0200, Lars Nood?n wrote:
> Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's for him to decide, not you.
well no fucking shit, La
Jacob Meuser wrote:
> 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.
That's for him to decide, not you. It's his machine, and it might be a
fairly good one at that, despite being small or old. If you
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
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 devia
> ... using the GENERIC kernel ...
I'll answer because I floated a poorly framed question like this one
earlier. The second part of my answer is probably more useful.
1) A lot of thought and planning goes into the GENERIC kernel and the
final arrangement is a source of pride. So if it's matter
20 matches
Mail list logo
