8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change?

[rank1seeker at gmail.com]

> For me as a user, that would be a much preferable approach, instilled
> long ago by Linux. I don't like unused stuff around, and I like to
> understand what I am using.
> 
> Some build kernel confutation parameters "minimum modules", "medium
> modules", "maximum modules" might be utilized.  I would be using
> "medium" or most likely "maximum", leaving me with a minimal kernel.
> 
> -- Alex -- alex-goncharov at comcast.net --

NO.

> Thinking bigger picture (beyond sound), would it make sense to keep
> GENERIC very minimal, but provide an extensive loader.conf with a
> default install...so most things worked, but were loaded as modules?
> 
> Matt

NO.


You can't base a "wish" on a solution for YOURS problems!

GENERIC must be as giantic as possible, to make as many machines as possible to BOOT and enable all what can be enabled in/on them.
THEN ... individual "strips" unhooked parts -> custom kernel, via wich you "specialize it", for your hardware!

That is, unless individual is passive/bored (lazy?) and prefer everything on a silver plate ...
There are many paths in that case ...
Windows are the easiest solution. THEY THINK FOR YOU!
;)


Domagoj Smolčić