victorvittorivonwiktow at interfree.it
Wed Jun 11 19:17:51 PDT 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "sektie" <sektie at codersluts.net>
To: ".VWV." <victorvittorivonwiktow at interfree.it>;
<freebsd-advocacy at freebsd.org>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:56
Subject: Re: kernels' weight
> > We know Linux is the son of the microkernel Minix. Linux kernel is
> > simple and light, but its compilation is complicate, owing to the
> > need of a lot of modules, and to the difference between several
> > distributions. It is much easier to compile a FreeBSD kernel, even
> > if it needs some megabyte more. If we can compress the kernel
> > following the instruction on the Dossier books, who cares of its
> > original weight?
> Linux kernel simple and light? Are you a fan of the crackpipe? :P
> The linux kernel is still decompressed when it gets loaded into memory.
> There isn't really that much of a difference in size. What are you trying
> do? Save disk space? Dude, it's only a few MB.
> sektie at codersluts.net
I just didn't want to be too much nasty, it is well known I hate penguins
and Linus' plaids... Either the boot loader, or the partitioning system, or
the kernel compilation and eventual compression for a cd-rom, are a paradise
if compared to Linux. Moreover, the drivers' support for the most part of
SCSI, ATA, RAID, LAN, is much more complete.
More information about the freebsd-advocacy