Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 01:04:24 +0200 From: Olaf Hoyer <ohoyer@fbwi.fh-wilhelmshaven.de> To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <4.1.20000525004708.027035d0@mail.rz.fh-wilhelmshaven.de> In-Reply-To: <200005241846.MAA07977@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:46 24.05.00 -0600, you wrote: >} >}Why not just make it conditional on the "cpu I386_CPU" line in the >}kernel Makefile? The comment already reads: >} >}# deleting the specification for CPUs you don't need to use may make >}# parts of the system run faster. This is especially true removing >}# I386_CPU. > >Technically this works just fine. > >I personally don't understand the implications of saying that a >kernel build is necessary. I'm not saying it is bad, I just saying >I don't understand. If people say this is acceptable then this > Hi! Well, it is (as far I understood it in the past being a youngster in the UNIX world) the standard way/clasisc way of installin an UNIX system. It has the benefits of simply grabbing some installation media, dumping all the code onto the target system, and expect it to run. Very essential in all those situations when you need to "just need to check/try out something on the fly". A generic kernel supports at least enough devices to get the system into usable shape. In a more recent box, where you have some special/additional hardware, you always will compile your own kernel afterwards, especially if you have some SMP machine. (Yes, have my dual iP233MMX (socket7) running happily) This procedure has following advantages: a)It will run on all systems, so that you save time and hassle. b) It is the standard way of doing it, the people are used to it. So why fix it when it ain't broke... Point is, the more errors may occur during the install process, and be it the need to make something fit for older machines, some errors will occur, because you have to think a bit more or pay attention to other things than those you do daily/at least on every install. Its a possibility less to make faulty decisions. Also, for support of 386/486 : Small Unix -based computer systems like BSD, Linux and some derived works (like PicoBSD similar Linux projects) may be used as a router, little firewall, mail server etc. So it also goes about recycling/extending the lifespan of hardware that otherwise would be thrown into the junkyard. This also is some cost factor, especially in commercial environment. So an enterprise is able to lower its overall cost for new hardware by simply using it appropriately with some powerful OS behind it. The embedded market is also a very big factor. I heard some figures about numbers of CPUs going into the embedded market;those outsell the CPUs found in PCs easily. *BSD is one of the favoured OS used therein, also due to the BSD License. And, as previously stated, when you do some critical design, where whether money is a factor, or even size or power consumption, then a 386 or 486 is a favourite about a pentium class CPU. Also, when the computing power of a 386 will be enough for a given system with a given, not rising workload, why spend extra money for a 486 class CPU? (I'm also thinking of those PC104 systems...) Regards Olaf Hoyer -------- Olaf Hoyer www.nightfire.de mailto:Olaf.Hoyer@nightfire.de FreeBSD- Turning PC's into workstations ICQ:22838075 Liebe und Hass sind nicht blind, aber geblendet vom Feuer, dass sie selber mit sich tragen. (Nietzsche) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.20000525004708.027035d0>