On Saturday 10 August 2002 05:52 pm, you wrote:
> There is a way to make it not display kernel stuff on boot, It was like
> that on my old SuSE install, i dont think it makes it boot any faster, i
> think knoppix boots faster because it starts alot less services than a
> normal OS because it obviously has limited capabilities being on a RO File
> system and media :) Just what i would imagine though, im not 100% sure
>
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:23:28 -0700
>
> "Nathan England" <plug@the-arcanum.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > Is it possible to disable the verbosity of the kernel when a machine
> > boots? And would it make it boot any faster?
> >
> > I was looking at Knoppix boot, and it shows no messages on my machine and
> > seems to boot _much_ faster than my normal setup does, and I was curious
> > if that had to do with the kernel not spitting out all the info?
> >
> > nathan
> > Nathan England
> > plug@the-arcanum.org
> >

Are you sure Knoppix isn't displaying messages? It has on every machine I've 
booted it on.

Knoppix definitely DOES NOT have limited capabilities and DOES install on a 
RW RAM disk. It mounts the hard drives of the machines it's running on as RO.

To give an example of Knoppix's capabilities. Paul and I were sitting in 
front of a Dell running Win98 at the SCC PHP seminar by Robert Hendley. Why 
not load Knoppix, I thought?

We put in the CD and it booted right up with a network connection, KDE3 
desktop and all. Paul noted that English, French and German keyboards were 
configured, so he added Greek and opened KMail and started a message to his 
brother in Greek! Then Paul installed Apache, configured PHP and created a 
MySQL database (residing on the RAM disk). Amazing! 

The reason Knoppix is fast, I think, is that it uses compression to store 
nearly 2GB of data on the CD. Since the compressed size is smaller, the 
programs load off the drive faster. The same as using Stacker and Win3.1, 
where decompression didn't cause much of a performance hit (even though CPU & 
I/O speeds were a lot slower back then) since smaller (compressed) data was 
being loaded into memory then uncompressed. This happened nearly as fast as 
loading the bigger (uncompressed) data from an uncompressed hard drive.

Dennis Kibbe