From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Apr 7 17:47:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.cybersurf.net (smtp1.cybersurf.net [209.197.145.111]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0130537B422 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:47:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 01031149@3web.net) Received: from 3web.net ([209.197.158.55]) by smtp1.cybersurf.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GBG7IT00.FRG for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:47:17 -0600 Received: by rockingd.calgary.ab.ca (EzMTS MTSAgent 1.22b Service) ; Sat, 07 Apr 01 18:46:21 -0600 for Received: from 3web.net (10.0.0.2) by rockingd.calgary.ab.ca (EzMTS MTSSmtp 1.23f Service) ; Sat, 07 Apr 01 14:27:56 -0600 for Received: by mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:27:27 -0600 Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:27:26 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010407142725.A171295@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Mittelstaedt , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010406090934.A149383@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> <004101c0bf1d$7ddd8440$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <004101c0bf1d$7ddd8440$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from "Ted Mittelstaedt" on Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:44:55PM X-Envelope-Receiver: , Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I have already but I'll give 2 again, first is Windows to > illustrate the concept, second is FreeBSD to illustrate > an example: Sorry....I must have missed it or the context in the 1st go-round! > 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? I understand your example. Setting aside the issue of kernel support for garbage peripherals a-la Linux for a minute, is FreeBSD's server-centric kernel inherantly not as well suited to perform as a desktop platform as it could be? I realize that folks *are* using FreeBSD as a desktop platform, but are they "forcing" it to do so at the expense of the kernel's rock-solid stability? Bottom-line -- should FreeBSD be chosen strictly for use as a server, and Linux as a desktop platform, albeit the latter's instability that *sometimes* occurs in their effort to support as much relevant hardware/software as possible? -- -duke Calgary, Alberta, Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message