Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:8665 comp.os.linux:18048 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!nosegoblin.css.itd.umich.edu!pauls From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Interim release of 386bsd 0.1? Date: 7 Dec 1992 15:34:06 GMT Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services Lines: 30 Message-ID: <1fvqteINN3c6@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> References: <c2QF02VQ2dZG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <PETRI.WESSMAN.92Dec5143555@lk-hp-21.hut.fi> <STARK.92Dec6110854@sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu Originator: news@stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu In article <STARK.92Dec6110854@sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu> stark@cs.sunysb.edu (Gene Stark) writes: >I would say, take the base 0.1 distribution, merge in those patches in the >patchkit that are CRUCIAL for correct booting and operation of stuff like >XFree86, make a kernel from this and supply this as the stock boot kernel. >Do not merge in any of the more dubious patches and drivers, but include them >on the disk with installation instructions for the hacker who wants to try >them. Except, of course, that many people don't care a whit about X. It seems to me that after all this yammering about whether kernels should be patched or not, that it would make just as much sense to include maybe three kernels in the kit. Each kernel takes up around ~400k -- what exactly would be the problem with including: 1. stock kernel 2. fully patched kernel 3. X kernel Is space really that tight on this disk? IMO, making room for kernels makes more sense than making room for a copy of rogue or chess... Paul Southworth | ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu (Not speaking for) | Political Archives in /poli Information Technology Division | Writable incoming directory on: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | redspread.css.itd.umich.edu <Representing myself. Everything I say is for educational use only.>