From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr 18 16:43:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA13880
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA13875
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.4/8.6.9) id SAA02032; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:41:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199704182341.SAA02032@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...)
In-Reply-To: <199704182232.PAA03133@phaeton.artisoft.com> from Terry Lambert at "Apr 18, 97 03:32:43 pm"
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:41:34 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, terry@lambert.org, dennis@etinc.com,
        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > If you're talking about something else, then you are running a slightly
> > > different definition of "smoothly" or "integrated"; there is no inherent
> > > reason FreeBSD has to have any code, whatsoever, in common from version
> > > to version, except to deal with legacy issues.  Even then, common code
> > > isn't really required -- only common interface points that don't change.
> > 
> > That's total BS, and you know it.  Almost *always* fixing bugs requires
> > API/interface changes.  That's the nature of the beast, and you know it
> > as well as anyone, only you're trying to stir the pot again.
> 
> If FreeBSD had an NT-like HAL, where the hardware services were less
> dependent on the nature of the hardware suppling the services (look
> at the console and pcaudio code for a counter-example), the internal
> interfaces would be subject less to the vagries of change.  There
> are other areas besides a HAL which inter-kernel-component interfaces
> would do a lot to shut detractors like Dennis up, by giving them
> what they want without hog-tying yourself in the process.
> 
Well -- I don't want an OS like NT.  Microsoft has already done that,
and it shows *interesting* performance charactistics.  Of course, I
admit that it would be very nice if we could maintain more consistant
interfaces, but frankly, I have used the latest version of Unixware MP
code also, and I don't like that either...  It just doesn't work nicely.

John