Subject: Re: *_TINY kernels
To: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@NetBSD.org>
Date: 11/14/2007 15:49:04
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:04:55AM +0000, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:30:37 +0900
> Henry Nelson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, maybe we're talking about different things. I need a TINY
> > install floppy image, and then a TINY kernel for the first boot.
> > Finally it is very helpful and time-saving to edit a GENERIC_TINY
> > configuration file, as opposed to editing a GENERIC file, to get
> > ready to build a custom kernel.
> Having TINY in arch/i386/config is easy; I see no reason to make it go
It was an inquire triggered by the desire to remove pccons. Having a
kernel config around which is almost completely untested is asking for
bitroot and pccons is currently only referenced in INSTALL_TINY.
> > But in a couple of more years I imagine I won't be using TINY as
> > other than a curiosity since people are throwing away perfectly good
> > Windows98-class notebooks these days. (I cannot say anything about
> > other parts of the world.)
I had to switch to a Thinkpad A21 which is certainly Win98 class. Why?
Because the mainboard in my normal Thinkpad died during pkgsrcCon. The
only major hassle was the limited amount of memory. Heck, even ACPI S3
worked. It seems like I have to change the CMOS battery now, otherwise
it is working fine. Note that I wouldn't dare to run GENERIC on that
machine, but I need a lot more hardware support than what is given by
That said, pccons can go, INSTALL_TINY use wscons and otherwise I will
keep them alone.