-
How big is your kernel?
[dak@Shuttle ~]$ du -h /boot/vmlinuz26
1.7M /boot/vmlinuz26
(I stole this topic from the Archlinux forums)
Arch Linux
Openbox
-
Code:
prieta@silver:~$ du -h /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.15-1-486
1.2M /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.15-1-486
prieta@silver:~$
HA HA!!
mine's smaller!
wow... that's gotta be the first time i've been proud to say that.
Last edited by Davy; 08-11-2006 at 04:32 PM.
BEHOLD!!! MY AWESOME HUMILITY!
Ex Linux, Scientia
i use:
centos 5.2 on 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 (filer/print server)
ubuntu 8.10 on 1.6 GHz Celeron M (personal laptop)
-
2352105 Aug 7 23:25 /boot/linux-2.6.17-gentoo-r4
you know bigger is better
Just remember: Heaven is for the hedonist
Shadebug- registered linux user #379039
-
It's not how big it is. It's how you use it!
-
Linux speedy 2.6.17-gentoo-r4 #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jul 28 01:51:49 CDT 2006 x86_64 AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 GNU/Linux
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.9M Jul 28 02:13 bzImage-2.6.17-gentoo-r4
Linux helios 2.6.17-gentoo-r4 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Aug 9 02:33:15 CDT 2006 sparc64 sun4u GNU/Linux
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3.1M Aug 9 02:35 vmlinux-2.6.17-gentoo-r4
Need help in realtime? Visit us at #linuxnewbie on irc.libera.chat
Few of us will do as much for our fellow man as he has done.
--Andrew Morton on RMS
-
It's not how big it is. It's how you use it!
thats what people with the wrong size kernels say
Soule
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey
IRC #linuxn00b
Support your Distro.
Slackware Store
Archlinux Schwag
-
Originally Posted by soulestream
thats what people with the wrong size kernels say
Soule
Hahahahaha
-
Originally Posted by soulestream
thats what people with the wrong size kernels say
The reason that I didn't post my kernel size is NOT BECAUSE IT'S THE WRONG SIZE. It's because... um...
...um, I'll post the reason as soon as I think of it.
-
Just made a new one on my work laptop, 1.7M with a 1.6M initramfs
Home weighs in at 2.3M and a...whoa...5.3M initramfs
-
$whatis microsoft
microsoft: nothing appropriate
-
Jused to tease my son when he was comparing his GSM telephone with his friend's.
I'd say: "In my time we compared to see who has the biggest, you compare to see who has the smallest..."
Never thought the same rule would apply for linux-kernels
It's a known "problem" with OS/2. It runs continuously until the underlying hardware crumbles under you hands....
the irony of quality
-
1.4M vmlinuz.2.6.9.34.0.2.ELsmp
CentOS 4.3
And yeah, comparing for smallness seems to be the current criteria for various things.
the celtic geek
CentOS 4.4
Registered Linux User 392268
We Wear Woad When We Write Code
-
$ du -h /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.27-2-686
860K /boot/vmlinuz-2.4.27-2-686
Compared to the 2.2 days, that's pretty big.
-
pezplaya@trinity /usr/src/linux $ du -sh /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/bzImage
2.0M /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/bzImage
it depends a lot on if u use modules or have them built into the kernel.
you know i sense a lot of sexual innuendos... or maybe its just me and my minds in the gutter ;p
Gentoo
folding@home: 36480
-
Originally Posted by pezplaya
it depends a lot on if u use modules or have them built into the kernel.
Yes, that's definitely true. However, I remember when I used to compile purely monolithic kernels for my computer, including only the drivers for which I needed, and the output was still only around 800K (2.4 series).
This is not to say that bigger or smaller is necessarily better. I'm sure that much of the increase in size of the 2.6 series is due to more complete driver support. Although, with all other things being equal, if I had to pick a side, I would prefer smaller.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|