Not dead yet...

[Steve Lamb]

Thursday, August 26, 1999, 9:31:44 AM, Steve wrote:
>     This is, for the most part, a complete fallacy.  I know that Red Hat loves
> to have damn near everything as a module so chance are it might have found it.
> As for others, no need to "find the driver" as they all are part of the kernel
> and are configured from there.  The end result is a custom kernel for that
> machine, which is recommended anyway.

    I forgot to also mention that this is why I consider Linux easier to set
up than Windows.  Tell me, how do you make a custom kernel for Windows?  You
don't.  That means you cannot set it up the way you want.

Memory: 63432k/65536k available (800k kernel code, 412k reserved, 864k data, 28k
 init)

    Personally, I like the fact that the kernel for my machine takes up a
whopping 2104k.  I can decide what is linked in statically and what is linked
in dynamically.  I can decide not to include support for a great many things.
That means less memory used, faster boot times, so on and so forth.

    Hell, in a debate with someone over Linux being a more effcient router
than NT I pointed out that I could boot a Linux machine with full routing
capabilities in under 4Mb.  To prove this, I booted my laptop, stripped it of
anything not needed for router work and got it to come in under 4Mb with
plenty of room to spare.  In fact, I think I shaved it down to under 2Mb for a
complete boot.

    That, to me, means it is easier to set up.  It is easier because I can
actually set it up.  Windows, forget about it.  You can't touch it.  That is
not easy to set up, that is impossible.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------