Re: [why is kernel recompilation necessary?]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Pollywog wrote:
> On 28-Jul-2000 Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > That's not the case at all. As some people have mentioned in this thread,
> > certain proprietary drivers are distrubuted as binary-only kernel
> > modules. This would obviously not be possible if the whole kernel had to
> > be rebuilt to use a module. The commercial version of the Open Sound
> > System is one example of this (or was; I haven't used it since I built a
> > new machine with an ALSA supported sound card).
> I use the OSS commercial driver and was not aware that it is a kernel module.
> It seems that whenever I have installed a kernel module, I had to recompile
> the kernel; that is how I was told to do it.
There are other examples, too, of course. The userlink module, part of
some IPSec package is distributed separately from the kernel. The
installation instructions consist of ./configure && make && make install.
The 3dfx module needed to run glide apps as non-root users is another
C'mon, you don't have to recompile MS Windows in order to install a
"module". Do you really think the Linux community would let Windows
actually do something *better* than Linux? ;^)
| Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/
| PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----