5 ms·

It's there but not loaded. A slimmed-down kernel make the difference from ~100MB (kernel) + 32MB (Modules) to 2MB (Kernel + Modules), faster load, or for small

by nix23 4y ago

It's there but not loaded. A slimmed-down kernel make the difference from ~100MB (kernel) + 32MB (Modules) to 2MB (Kernel + Modules), faster load, or for smaller devices, and overall less potential attack surface.

cassianoleal 4y ago
Surely you don't reduce 132Mb of kernel+modules to 2Mb just by disabling bluetooth.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nix23 4y ago
  >>A slimmed-down kernel The magic of reading....
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    I think you're missing my point. By the time you want to slim down the kernel that much, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, they're not that different. That was not the point of this thread, so back at ya: > The magic of reading....
    - nix23 4y ago
      It should be clear that Bluetooth is not 90% of the kernel size...that's why i wrote "slimmed down" which means disable/not-compile everything not needed (like just one of 3 firewalls, filesystems, network-stacks etc). >By the time you want to slim down the kernel that much, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, they're not that different. Yes, but you don't do that by blacklisting modules right? Because that was your solution ;)
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        That was the solution to what this thread is about: easily disabling bluetooth.
        nix23 4y ago
        No it was about why to build the kernel without some modules.
- oriolid 4y ago
  No. You do that by not enabling support for all that stuff that's available in the kernel but you don't have any idea what it even is.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    I don't know why you people keep bringing up those subjects that have nothing to do with the thread. This is about easily disabling support for one thing. The OP says it's easier in FreeBSD because you add a line to a text file and recompile the kernel. We're saying it's also very easy in Linux even without recompiling the kernel by simply blacklisting and/or deleting a module. Alternatively, recompiling the kernel is also quite easy but what's the point? To shave off 5kb from the kernel, or not even that, since the module is external anyway? My time is worth a lot more than those potential few kbs. By the time you're fine-tuning your kernel to be the absolute minimum for a specific machine, it doesn't really matter if it's FreeBSD or Linux. It will take time and probably quite a bit of trial and error. And then again, if you have ever run `make menuconfig` on a Linux kernel tree you probably know it's pretty easy. In fact, the discoverability is excellent there, since the options are presented to you with explanations. Is that harder than manually editing a conf file, having to know beforehand exactly what lines to add/delete/edit and with what values? If you think it is, you can also edit the conf file for the Linux kernel. I have nothing against FreeBSD, but this argument is total nonsense.
    - nix23 4y ago
      > I don't know why you people keep bringing up those subjects that have nothing to do with the thread. Hint is was not about about Bluetooth ;) But maybe everyone else is wrong, just not you.

by nix23 4y ago

cassianoleal 4y ago

Surely you don't reduce 132Mb of kernel+modules to 2Mb just by disabling bluetooth.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nix23 4y ago
>>A slimmed-down kernel The magic of reading....
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  I think you're missing my point. By the time you want to slim down the kernel that much, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, they're not that different. That was not the point of this thread, so back at ya: > The magic of reading....
  - nix23 4y ago
    It should be clear that Bluetooth is not 90% of the kernel size...that's why i wrote "slimmed down" which means disable/not-compile everything not needed (like just one of 3 firewalls, filesystems, network-stacks etc). >By the time you want to slim down the kernel that much, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, they're not that different. Yes, but you don't do that by blacklisting modules right? Because that was your solution ;)
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      That was the solution to what this thread is about: easily disabling bluetooth.
      - nix23 4y ago
        No it was about why to build the kernel without some modules.
oriolid 4y ago
No. You do that by not enabling support for all that stuff that's available in the kernel but you don't have any idea what it even is.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  I don't know why you people keep bringing up those subjects that have nothing to do with the thread. This is about easily disabling support for one thing. The OP says it's easier in FreeBSD because you add a line to a text file and recompile the kernel. We're saying it's also very easy in Linux even without recompiling the kernel by simply blacklisting and/or deleting a module. Alternatively, recompiling the kernel is also quite easy but what's the point? To shave off 5kb from the kernel, or not even that, since the module is external anyway? My time is worth a lot more than those potential few kbs. By the time you're fine-tuning your kernel to be the absolute minimum for a specific machine, it doesn't really matter if it's FreeBSD or Linux. It will take time and probably quite a bit of trial and error. And then again, if you have ever run `make menuconfig` on a Linux kernel tree you probably know it's pretty easy. In fact, the discoverability is excellent there, since the options are presented to you with explanations. Is that harder than manually editing a conf file, having to know beforehand exactly what lines to add/delete/edit and with what values? If you think it is, you can also edit the conf file for the Linux kernel. I have nothing against FreeBSD, but this argument is total nonsense.
  - nix23 4y ago
    > I don't know why you people keep bringing up those subjects that have nothing to do with the thread. Hint is was not about about Bluetooth ;) But maybe everyone else is wrong, just not you.