Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 08:14:59 -0800 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> Cc: petri@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, peter@jhome.dialix.com, p.richards@elsevier.co.uk, bde@zeta.org.au, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-user@freefall.freebsd.org, phk@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Modularity vs overhead [cvs commit: src/lkm/gnufpu Makefile] Message-ID: <199512151615.IAA00553@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:50:56 %2B0100." <7013.819031856@critter.tfs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Poul> It is a necessary step to get the kernel even more modular. >> >> Yes, but will that gain real functionality / performance, besides getting >> more-pleasntly-to-look-at sources? If I wanted a really fashionable >> modular self configuring plaug and play kernel, I would more probably >> go to Solaris or Bill Gates or whatever ... > >We gain a lot of functionality, and we can avoid all the dead code in >the kernel at the same time. The goal is to install on 4MB machines, so reducing bloat is part of the design goal. I don't think anyone is interested in becoming Slowaris, but I would argue that its probably not Slowaris' PnP code that makes them slow, just easier to setup. >-- >Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. >http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. >whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc >. >Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so. -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512151615.IAA00553>