XPost: comp.os.linux.development.system   
      
   In comp.os.linux.development.system Nate Eldredge  wrote:   
      
   | I don't know of any such distribution.  I am not so confident that I   
   | would know if one did exist, but I would be surprised if one did.  As I   
   | said, I don't see how this behavior would be useful, and therefore I   
   | don't see why any distribution should implement it.   
      
   What about a distribution for building a run time system for an embedded   
   device?   
      
      
   | I couldn't understand why you wanted what you asked for, and so I probed   
   | a little more.  Partly I was curious if there was some reason for it   
   | that I hadn't thought of, and partly I wanted to know what your   
   | underlying goal was, in case I knew some other approach to it.   
      
   I'm looking at the possibility of building scripts to construct run time   
   system images (which may well be with the run time filesystem entirely in   
   rootfs loaded via initramfs ... that's yet another topic) that would be   
   for embedded devices.  The scope of possible devices is small.  And the   
   ROM, Flash, and/or RAM may well be small.  If I took the module approach,   
   I'd be wanting to restrict the modules to what the device might ever need.   
   I would certainly not need a driver for some 10Gbps PCIe NIC card if the   
   embedded system doesn't even have PCIe.  What I do want is to give the   
   developer the option to examine the list of devices detected to decide if   
   they should be statically linked or dynamically loaded.  Scanning the   
   embedded system to initialize the list would be one aspect of this.  How   
   to present the options to the developer would be another.  I'm not asking   
   how to do all this.  I just was looking for certain resources (distros)   
   to study to get ideas.   
      
      
   |> What does it take in Usenet to get people to either answer the question that   
   |> was asked or to now answer at all, but in particular to not make   
   presumptions   
   |> and certainly not make up other questions?   
   |   
   | As you must know, it happens very often on Usenet that someone asks a   
   | question which suggests that they have a misunderstanding of the issues   
   | involved, or are trying to solve a problem in a suboptimal or impossible   
   | way.  In such a case, answering the poster's question directly isn't as   
   | helpful to them as trying to get at the root of their problem and   
   | addressing other possible solutions.  I thought your question might be   
   | of this kind.   
      
   I also find that to be annoying.  Perhaps because in most cases it has presumed   
   things I already knew.   
      
   A more annoying thing that happens sometimes on Usenet and other means of   
   network discussion, is when someone who knows a way to do something assumes   
   that because I ask about what is the best way to do something, that I do not   
   know any way to do it.  But in fact it has been the case of such questions   
   that they knew only 1 way to do it, and I knew 10 ways to do it, and their   
   assumptions go the wrong way.  By the time I figure out what is going on with   
   the misunderstanding, they aren't listening anymore (it's really bad on IRC,   
   but that's a world of way too many immature kids).   
      
   --   
   |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked.  Due to ignorance |   
   |         by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked.  If you post to  |   
   |         Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP.        |   
   | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)