Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:27:26 -0600 From: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <20010407142725.A171295@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <004101c0bf1d$7ddd8440$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from "Ted Mittelstaedt" on Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:44:55PM References: <20010406090934.A149383@mandy.rockingd.calgary.ab.ca> <004101c0bf1d$7ddd8440$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010407142725.A171295>