Re: IDE? IDE-TNG driver

From: Thomas Molina (
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 23:07:02 EST

On 17 Aug 2002, Scott Bronson wrote:

> > Everyone I've heard advocating a moduleless kernel uses an argument that
> > boils down to "it's slightly more secure." Does anybody have a GOOD
> > reason for not using modules? Obsolete or embedded hardware arguments
> > don't count.
> Someone replied off-list saying that initrds are too hard to create.
> That's true. They are. One day, hopefully that will change.
> Any other reasons?

Wouldn't the logic be a lot simpler if kernel developers didn't have to
worry about whether their module was built in or inserted at some point in
the future? All the bits could be assembled and symbols would be resolved
at compile time.

ICBW but it appears the largest percentage of users have modules inserted
at boot time, never to be ejected or disturbed. The modules might as well
be built in.

I've never really grokked the whole initrd anyway. What is the point of
building a kernel minus the bits it needs to actually boot the system?
That just forces this ludicrous jerry-rigged mess to provide the
capabilities that should have been built in at compile time.

Of course, we're never going to get away from modules now anyway, so the
argument is probably moot. With PCCARD, USB, Firewire, and Hotplug PCI
there are too many ways to add components not present when the system is
built on an adhoc basis. The alternative would be a bloated monstrosity
with dead code not needed by most people. I remember my early days of
Linux and seeing literally dozens of kernels compiled with different
options, with no clue how to choose the right one for my system.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 23 2002 - 22:00:14 EST