On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Your way out in the weeds. What started this thread was a customer who
> > ended up loading the wrong arch on a system and hanging. I have to
> > post a kernel RPM for our release, and it's onerous to make customers
> > recompile kernels all the time and be guinea pigs for arch ports.
>
> I'd prefer to be a guinea pig for one of 3 or 4 generic kernels distributed
> in binary than of one of the hundreds of possibilities of patching a kernel
> together at boot, plus the (presumamby rather complex and fragile)
> machinery to do so *before* the kernel is booted, thank you very much.
Hmm... some mechanism for selecting the appropriate *module* might be nice,
after boot...
> Plus I'm getting pissed off by how long a boot takes as it stands today...
Yep: slowing down boottimes is not an attractive idea.
> > They just want it to boot, and run with the same level of ease of use
> > and stability they get with NT and NetWare and other stuff they are used
> > to. This is an easy choice from where I'm sitting.
>
> Easy: i386. Or i486 (I very much doubt your customers run on less, and this
> should be geneic enough).
I think there are better options. Jeff could, for example, *optimise* for
Pentium II/III, without using PII specific instructions, in the main kernel,
then have multiple target binaries for modules.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
