An interesting idea for you techies

[Jason]

Rob Wehrli wrote:
> Jason wrote:
> > Why not? After all, what better way to sell hard disks with faster
> > seek times and higher rotation speeds than to add a whole bunch of
> What about systems without hard disks?
> > unnessary disk access by splitting what was once one file into a
> There you go assuming disk access again.  I'm guessing that your only
> experience with Linux is in a more "traditional" platform
> environment...especially if you're having trouble figuring out why
> modules are a *good* idea...and for more reasons than it came in the
> jewel case.

To be fair and rational, it should be noted that the importance of
smallness is EVEN GREATER with embeded systems. While I have not
specifically verified that a single bzImage is smaller than a stripped
bzImage and associated (and uncompressed, by the way) kernel modules,
I do feel that is a fairly safe bet.

> > shitload of smaller files, and then passing this deed off with the
> > claim that it makes it "easier".
> 
> So, why, Mr. Know-it-all, do you think kernel modules are the "standard"
> rather than the "rarity?"  Why do installation CDs and accompanying boot
> disks use them so prevalently? 

For the same unfortunate reasons that Winblows is the "standard"
desktop OS. Its what people who dont have the smarts to recompile a
kernel will find easy to use! A program that could automatically
configure and recompile a kernel, however (this was the origin of this
thread) could effectively eliminate part of this advantage by making
kernel reconfiguration something that doesnt, for example, requiring
peering into the case to read a chip number (my experience with an NCR
SCSI card purchased at a computer fair :)

> Doesn't it make it easier for at least
> installation of a new system; regardless of your feelings about what
> constitutes a new system?

Thats definitly its current advantage...

> it, is complimentary to stupidity.  Since every single possible user in
> the world is different, please quit foolishly imposing your views of

These differences, IMHO, only underscore the importance of
individually tailoring the kernel itself.

> > The only way its easier is if your one of those people who runs the
> > kernel you got in whatever box you bought (or CD you installed from).
> What if you're debugging a new device driver, huh, hotshot?  A complete
> kernel recompilation sounds a bit foolish now, huh?  Not just a whole

Uhhh... Did you read to the bottom of my message before pressing
reply? I have used modules for exactly that, and I believe I mentioned
that possible use of them in the message you replied to.



> lot more headache, but really, really *not* easier, huh?  What happens
> if you're building a custom platform, but you do not yet know which
> devices are going to be installed into the platform?  Say something less
> abstract, like a notebook computer, since I can tell that you're likely
> to have way too much interference between your skull and gray matter to
> comprehend a significantly more complex thought.  Let's say that you've
> just written a brand new device drirver (after 1152 kernel compilations
> to debug it!) and now you want to send your driver and the new PCMCIA
> device your company produces out into the field.  You include a CD or a
> floppy disk, your PCMCIA neatly packaged in a piece of cool plastic that
> has your company logo on it and your instruction booklet (written in
> "your" poor grammar choices) firstly tells the user to recompile his/her
> kernel now.  Oops, let's be sure that we do that everytime you reboot
> but leave the PCMCIA card at home or decide that the two slots on your
> laptop are not big enough for the four different cards you regularly
> use.

If you had read the entirety of my message, you would have noticed
that physically removing and reinstalling hardware devices was also
one use of modules that I acknoledged as a Good Thing, in fact, I even
went so far as to include examples of how it could be used with
desktop systems as well... but you didnt get that far before you
replied.

> Can you offer a better than "physics" response to the module load time
> versus static kernel access time when all accesses occur from a flash
> file system?

Storage space, see above.

> know.  If anyone read this far down, well, that is quite an
> accomplishment, too! :)

:-)

-- 
jkenner @ mindspring . com__
I Support Linux:           _> _  _ |_  _  _     _|
Working Together To       <__(_||_)| )| `(_|(_)(_|
To Build A Better Future.       |                   <s>