But are there Linux users who actually use a monolithic kernel - is there a reason why one should use one (these days)? zentara wrote: > Yatsen Ng wrote: > > > > I know basically what modules are and why they are used (to keep the > > kernel as compact as possible, etc). I recently came across the term > > "modularized kernel". Now I know that all linux users make use of > > modules, right? Why use a term like that; I doubt there are linux users > > who don't use modules at all, so I can't imagine it's term to > > distinguish it from a "non module" kernel. Is it just a term to describe > > the animal or is there more to it? Just curious - I'm a newbie. > > The opposite of a "modularized kernel" is a "monolithic kernel", with > everything built in to the kernel. These can be huge and wasteful. > The modularized kernel refers to a kernel design which is capable > of using modules. The kernel can plugin chunks of code as needed, > then remove them later. This is very efficient and configurable. > > -- > To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e > Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the > archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html -- To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
