> > Both of these ideas allow one to customize a standard release to a
> > great extent and without having to learn a whole bunch or edit any
> > standard files.

> This is good?  Surely you jest.  As a user, the last thing I want is to
> have to use a system "configured" by someone with the
> proverbially-dangerous little learning; as an admin, the last thing I
> want is to inherit such a system.

A lot of systems are used by single individuals who must
also `administer' their system.  I don't see how it is any
more dangerous for them to say include this driver with
these parameters compared to the current system (where they
must understand much more of the config file and which magic
define controls what thing).  If the dependencies are done
right even bigger subsystems can be safely added.  And all
of this can be done without taking away the freedom of
expert users.

> Isn't this what LKMs are for?

Not unless the whole kernel can be composed of only LKMs.

> Surely you jest.  I'm using NetBSD _because_ it doesn't do these things
> the commercial vendors have been inflicting on me for years.

I use NetBSD because I can change things.

> In short, if you want commercial-vendor style software...
> ...you know where to find it.

Argue on the merits of an idea not its origin.  Think about
how a binary only release can be modified to include drivers
to local devices, enable/disable NFS etc.  If this can be
done safely *without* having to learn the whole system or
screwing up the system in the process it is a good thing.

Gotta go

--bakul