> Mike Nowlin wrote:
> >
>
> > Not to mention "how much memory do you really gain by unloading modules"?
> > Considering the price of RAM these days (although not as low as
> > it was, but I won't be spending $650 US for 16M any time soon
> > again), the few K that unloading a bunch of modules saves won't
> > EVER really be noticed by the 83Tb chunk that Nutscrape allocates.
...
> The issue is with really small ram embedded systems.
> Making things CAPABLE of being small is different from making
> them dynamicly loadable.
Nobody in their right mind is going to produce a "really small ram"
embedded system that features the sort of nondeterminism that
"automatically" (read 'randomly') unloading modules would involve.
It's simple; a kernel-module-handling-daemon does not have anything to
offer us at this time. We don't need one; the problems it might be
applied to solve have already been solved differently, and we are
(generally) happy with the results.
--
\\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith
\\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
