From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 9 20:17:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA11744 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:17:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA11737 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:17:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA19215; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:17:19 -0800 (PST) To: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" cc: David Kelly , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why so many steps to build new kernel? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:48:04 PST." Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 20:17:18 -0800 Message-ID: <19212.881727438@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On this topic. I don't care for Linux (Too Unreliable), but theyv'e had a > curses based configuration tool as part of the sources since v 2.0. > It is kind of nice since it lets you choose what hardware support you want > to compile in and even some port variables etc. We know, and have for a long time, about Linux's curses and X based kernel configurators. Who's going to do the work of implementing something similar? *That's* been the big mystery up until now. :) Jordan