frank at ifm.tu-chemnitz.de
Wed Mar 26 01:07:00 PST 2003
On 25 Mar 2003, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 03:39, Frank Gruellich wrote:
> > On 24 Mar 2003, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> > > I'll go a bit farther and say that kmod _completely and entirely_
> > > obsolesces the use of kerneld. The big sneaky thing about it is that
> > > it's so dratted transparent it's often hard to tell it's active.
> > You are very right. But three reasons for kerneld:
> > 1. The tech factor: AFAIK kmod never unloads modules. That would be done
> > by any cron facility. So, if you omit cron, kerneld would be your choice.
> However, crond is already installed on everything that matters.
Read! I said: "if you omit cron". There could be reasons to do so.
(Would you use crond on a kiosk machine?)
> > 2. The fun factor: kmod can't load a funny screen saver program but the
> > blank.
> This is why we have XScreenSaver.
I use X very rarely.
> Kmod isn't for loading screensavers _at all_.
I know, it's task of kerneld. ;-) BTW: Did you read the word _fun_?
> > 3. The didactic factor: I really like configuring strange programs ;-)
> Kerneld is _obsolete_. Do you keep libc5 around, too?
I know people doing that. Their reason: libc5 is much smaller. Your
Please, open your mind,
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support