Re: How to check the kernel compile options ?

[Mike Touloumtzis <miket@bluemug.com>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:54:30PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On February 7, 2002 09:34 pm, Mike Touloumtzis wrote:
> > Some possible available avenues of argument for you are:
> 
> I think you're just arguing for the sake of argument, which basically sums
> up all the arguments we've seen against this.

Not at all.  I really believe that embedded unnecessary information in
the kernel is a bad idea.  I don't want my kernels to get any bigger
than they are now unless useful features are being added (I have no
problem with that).  I develop for embedded devices, so I'm particularly
sensitive to this issue.

My understanding is that "keep features out of the kernel if possible"
is the majority opinion, not a crackpot weirdo stance.

> Let me put it in simple terms: you've got an alarm clock, haven't you?  When 
> you set the alarm, you don't need to have any little light on the front that 
> tells you the alarm is set, do you?  Because, after all you're not stupid, 
> you know you set it.  And you can always get out of bed and look at the 
> position of the switch, right?

I don't think this is a close enough analogy to illustrate anything.
The examples I chose to illustrate my points were IMHO closely related
software packaging issues.

miket