With SL7 I always compiled a kernel ending up with about 500kB in size.
With SL9.1 I am getting 1.1Gb. Why is the kernel now so big and which are
the components that take most space when compiled into it. I am always
interested in a tight kernel, doing just the necessary things.

Thanks

JB

JB <danube@delet.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> With SL7 I always compiled a kernel ending up with about 500kB in size.
> With SL9.1 I am getting 1.1Gb. Why is the kernel now so big and which are

Slackware 7.0 included Kernel 2.2.3, Slackware 9.1 came with 2.4.22.
Times change, sizes increase. Live with it, or run the latest 2.2.x
kernel.

BTW, i dont belive that your's is really a 1.1 GB monster-kernel. That
would be enough to include every version you can find at kernel.org.

Regards,
Kai Brust

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:25:15 +0000, Kai Brust wrote:

> JB <danube@delet.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>
>> With SL7 I always compiled a kernel ending up with about 500kB in size.
>> With SL9.1 I am getting 1.1Gb. Why is the kernel now so big and which are
>
> Slackware 7.0 included Kernel 2.2.3, Slackware 9.1 came with 2.4.22.
> Times change, sizes increase. Live with it, or run the latest 2.2.x
> kernel.
>
> BTW, i dont belive that your's is really a 1.1 GB monster-kernel. That
> would be enough to include every version you can find at kernel.org.
>
> Regards,
> Kai Brust

Sorry,1.1Mb of course.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:31:05 +0200,
JB <danube@delet.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> Why is the kernel now so big

More drivers and features, I guess.


--
Mark Hill <usenet@mark.ukfsn.org>
GPG KeyID: 4A3B58AC