Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 08:57:02 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: james@wgold.demon.co.uk (James Mansion) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Message-ID: <199704201357.IAA00978@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <335A00EF.E5A@wgold.demon.co.uk> from James Mansion at "Apr 20, 97 12:41:35 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would have though that some very minor performance hit would be > worthwhile if you could make it much easier to: > - add new file systems, preferably layered too > Working on that. Adding new FS's is fairly easy, but the semantics are changing soon in order to support layering, and to make the FS design a little more consistant. Previously, we had tried to stay approximately compatible with the other *BSDs. That will likely go away with our new LFS -- it will be very VM friendly. > > - add support for native interpreted systems, such as Java > It isn't hard to do now... Just create a new image activator. > > - add new system calls > Trivial. You can add them dynamically. It is a good way to test new system code. You can add them statically by modifying a table, and adding the code into your tree. > > - add new 'objects' that can be integrated into select() or > poll() [in particular, threads and synchronisation primitives] > Interesting idea. At least as a kernel hacker, a person can zero in on the code that is needed to do things within a few hours, given source code. With the alternatives like UNIX or WinNT, you don't get source code, and are very dependent on limited interfaces. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704201357.IAA00978>