Re: Recompiling kernel broke my ppp
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Paul Christenson wrote:
>
> There is something that I've been wondering.. Why is everyone so
> fascinated with modules? I acknowledge that they have their uses, but how
> many people really need to UNLOAD a module once it's loaded?
>
> If you need it, compile it into the kernel, where it belongs. You'll find
> that there are a lot fewer problems if you do.
>
Well, I have two answers:
1. On a 386/sx with 4MB of RAM the ability to load modules (sound
alone is 160K) only when you need them means a lot less swapping.
Granted, the ideal solution would be to add more memory, but many of
us are poor. A person with low memory can benfit a lot by making
lightly used drivers into modules (ppp, floppy, sound, etc...).
2. Some drivers can't be used effectivly unless they are module. For
example, on my system, I have 2 parallel ports. One I use for my
printer. The other I use with plip. These 2 drivers (lp and plip)
are mutually exclusive when compiled into the kernel. The first one
that loads would requisition all of the printer ports. The second
would then fail to find any ports. With modules, I can say, "lp use
port 1, plip use port 2".
Just my 2 cents...
Erv
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
____
----==-- _ / / \
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ / / /\ \ - edwalter@usa.net
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / / /_/\ \ \ - walter@chem.wisc.edu
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ /______\ \ \ - edwalter@students.wisc.edu
http://www.linux.org \_________\/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: