Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:44:55 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Duke Normandin" <01031149@3web.net> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <004101c0bf1d$7ddd8440$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010406090934.A149383@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have already but I'll give 2 again, first is Windows to illustrate the concept, second is FreeBSD to illustrate an example: In order to enhance the feel, response, and desktop usability of the GUI interface, in Windows NT 4 Microsoft removed what memory protection there used to be by allowing the graphics system privileged access to the hardware. This was a departure from Windows NT 3.51 and the result is that now application programs with programming flaws in them can lock up the server, whereas before under NT 3.51, they could only crash the graphics system, while leaving the rest of the server intact. Now, let's take a look at the Linux example. A few days ago there was a complaint posted here that FreeBSD needs to have a SCSI emulation layer, _just_like_Linux_ so that people can use their garbage-grade IDE cdburners with all the SCSI utilities. The poster said their IDE burner worked fine under Linux SCSI emulation. A response was posted that said that the reason that FreeBSD does NOT have a IDE2SCSI emulation layer is because putting something like that in the kernel is Not A Good Thing. So, there you have it, an example where Linux has implemented a Not A Good Thing in the Linux kernel, just to support end users with cheap IDE cdburners. If that's not compromising system integrity for the sake of desktop users I don't know what is! How many OTHER Not A Good Things are implemented in the Linux kernel, I wonder? Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Duke Normandin >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:10 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River > > >On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:13:45PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >[snip] > >> As a server admin, I have complete confidence that if the FreeBSD core >> project were asked to make a design decision on some aspect of >FreeBSD, that >> was a design decision that would either favor the desktop at the >expense of >> compromising system integrity, or favor system integrity at the >expense of >> the desktop, I am completely confident they would shaft the desktop every >> time. >> >> With the Linux crowd, I don't have this confidence. I believe >that if the >> Linux community had to make a tradeoff between system integrity and >> something that would improve the desktop, if some large commercial >> organization was pushing them to shaft system integrity to gain something >> for the desktop, they would do it. > >Would you give some concrete examples as to *how* one precludes the other. >-- >-duke > >Calgary, Alberta, Canada > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?004101c0bf1d$7ddd8440$1401a8c0>