Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:30:54 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@Mole.ORG> To: mrm@mole.Mole.ORG, terry@lambert.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, sextonr.crestvie@squared.com Subject: Re: Kernel Config (Was: GENERIC Kernel Debate) Message-ID: <199607121530.IAA07385@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> > > I think we all ultimately want the all-singing, all-dancing loadable
> > > kernel modules with PnP detection and auto config of devices while
> > > simultaneously selecting proper drivers for compatible hardware while
> > > working around all known incompatibilites.
> >
> > Not all of us do. At least one of us wants a really fast, really reliable
> > system that makes extremely efficient use of its hardware environment. I
> > suspect that that's not quite compatible with all-singing, all-dancing.
> > Maybe, but I'm sceptical.
^ my spelling for one thing :-)
>
> What in particular are you skeptical about? Maybe I can allay some
> of your fears...
>
I've never yet seen an operating system de-bloat. I've never yet seen more
complicated more maintainable than less complicated. I've never yet seen
"I'll have this examine the hardware and determine _exactly_ what it is
and what the user _intends_ to be done with it" work correctly all the
time. I keep waiting for DWIM, but I'm not holding my breath.
I tend to like an approach that involves:
1) a 1-page install document, the first sentence of which
directs the installer to a reference to be read and understood
if he doesn't understand the 1-page install document, I don't
mean just a Xerox(tm) copy of a directory listing with the
octal code for the bootstrap hand written on the side, but a
reasonable "Do this in this order" document,
2) one diskette/tape/cd/papertape to get the system
in absolute minimum form to disk, doing what the
installer asks the installation to do, using command lines
if necessary, and restartable without having to go through
the whole thing from the beginning if a mistake is made, and,
3) once the barebones system is on disk, configure and
load away, but don't do it from that annoyingly slow diskette.
That diskette, that, if I screw up because I'm a doofus, I may
have to recreate more than once.
If used properly, vi is a reasonable configuration tool.
Yeah, I'm thinking about putting together an installation that does
this. Not too hard, but thinking about it. What stops me is that
I think that a plethora (check my spelling again) of intallations
a la Slackware, Red Hat, Debian, ..., probably do more harm than good.
I think the Free/Net/Open split was lamentable.
This also means I'm not fond of "Now would be a great time to
register your product." in flashing boxes on the screen with images
of Lake Washington drifting ever-so-gently in the background, or
"Here's a hint since you didn't read the documentation." popping up
every few moments. I'd sometimes just like it to be KISS.
I watch DG and JD make a really slick VM, but I wonder if it's too
complicated to really rid of bugs, and I wonder if only 3 people
understanding it (and maybe not all of it at once) is good, and I
watch -stable sup have the install procedure updated every night,
and I wonder about less being better than more. I appreciate
(emphasize greatly appreciate) the work that those referenced
directly and indirectly above have done. I just wonder. I hope the
folks working on it are having fun, heaven knows they aren't paid
enough or given enough credit for their work.
I had a 386bsd0.1.2 system up for 450 days running X. I'd'a kept it
but the new features so outweigh the old that I switched. I'm glad I
did, but I still wish for simplicity.
It wasn't too specific in explaining fears, sorry.
I'm going to go and take my medication now.
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874
Better is the enemy of Good
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607121530.IAA07385>