On 2005.06.17 13:22:02 +0000, Gary Thorpe wrote:
> 
> --- "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, John Kelly wrote:
> > 
> > > >> I'm not in favor of using any version beyond 1.6.X, due to
> > > >> stability concerns.
> > >
> > > >What stability concerns?
> > >
> > > Kernel size doubled, gcc 3.X is a hog that ought to be slaughtered,
> > > threads and SMP are in developmental transition.  That's not what I
> > > have in mind for a stable server.  Not to mention the bad reports I
> > > have read about NetBSD 2.X problems ...
> > 
> > Your original email mentioned Debian Linux as the alternative.
> > 
> > GCC 3.3.5 I believe is the default GCC with Debian (but like Debian,
> > NetBSD via pkgsrc has alternative versions).
> > 
> > As for kernel sizes, my Linux kernels on my Linux boxes grew from
> > around
> > 534380 bytes to 1279069 bytes and even 2220021 bytes -- and using
> > many
> > modules. 2.2M is close to the 2.3 MB and 2.6 MB kernels I see on some
> > NetBSD 2.x boxes.
> 
> Also, NetBSD kernels are not compressed by default while Linux kernels
> usually are. So that means the real difference could be much larger
> (unless you do not use zImages or bzImages and only uncompressed Linux
> kernels). I think the boot loader for NetBSD can load gzipped kernels
> though...
> 

Yes, it can; see:
	http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-tuning.html#tuning-kernel-shrinking

		-- Rui Paulo