Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:18:01 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: michaelv@HeadCandy.com (Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com) Cc: terry@lambert.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Some recent changes to GENERIC Message-ID: <199607111718.KAA29355@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199607110450.VAA01629@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> from "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" at Jul 10, 96 09:50:14 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> Maybe I have a bad attitude, but... This is Unix. If they can't or > >> don't want to build their own kernel, they should be running Windows > >> or OS/2. > > Terry writes: > >This is Unix, the most sophisticated OS available. It should support > >use of fallback drivers and dynamic loading of replacement devices > >as needed, so if they can't or won't build their own kernel, it will > >have no effect on their ability to run the system, one way or another. > > Well, yeah, that's a great goal. But, how do we solve the ATI/S3/com4 > conflict and kernel bloat with the source base that exists _right_ > _now_ in 2.1.5 (and/or NetBSD 1.2)? Better ideas? My general soloution to this type of question is to consider how things should be, not how they are, in formulating my answer. I believe that when faced with the task of promoting change, there are two choices: evolutionary and revolutionary. Microsoft and Novell have done the evolutionary, and we are far from satisfied with their results. It is time to try the revolutionary. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607111718.KAA29355>