> For me as a user, that would be a much preferable approach, instilled > long ago by Linux. I don't like unused stuff around, and I like to > understand what I am using. > > Some build kernel confutation parameters "minimum modules", "medium > modules", "maximum modules" might be utilized. I would be using > "medium" or most likely "maximum", leaving me with a minimal kernel. > > -- Alex -- [email protected] --
NO. > Thinking bigger picture (beyond sound), would it make sense to keep > GENERIC very minimal, but provide an extensive loader.conf with a > default install...so most things worked, but were loaded as modules? > > Matt NO. You can't base a "wish" on a solution for YOURS problems! GENERIC must be as giantic as possible, to make as many machines as possible to BOOT and enable all what can be enabled in/on them. THEN ... individual "strips" unhooked parts -> custom kernel, via wich you "specialize it", for your hardware! That is, unless individual is passive/bored (lazy?) and prefer everything on a silver plate ... There are many paths in that case ... Windows are the easiest solution. THEY THINK FOR YOU! ;) Domagoj Smolčić _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
