Albert alwagner at
Wed Feb 25 20:36:28 PST 2004

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:33:13 -0500
Craig Colton <meerkats at> wrote:

Hi, Craig.  Thanks for the reply.

> On Wednesday 25 February 2004 08:13 pm, Albert wrote:
> > In this link:
> >
> > it says:
> > "If you are maintaining one system and memory is not in short
> > supply, it is probably easier to avoid modprobe and the various
> > files and directories it needs, and just do raw insmods in a startup
> > script." Which startup script(s) would that be?  Does anyone here do
> > this?
> >
> I'm no kernel expert, but this statement is nothing but goofy krap
> (maybe its out of context?). The only advantage of using modules is 
> that they can be  loaded and unloaded as necessary, thereby not
> wasting computer resources. Why would you insert modules (insmod) at
> startup if they are not needed? This, as far as I can see, is no
> different than having the drivers "built in".

My understanding was that the only resource lost is a little memory. You
still retain all the flexibility of modules.  You can manually unload
and load for testing and debugging.  But the big difference from "built
in" is that you don't have to mess with a working kernel.  

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
because there will be no words in which to express it."
    -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

More information about the blfs-support mailing list