Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:55:31 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability Message-ID: <EDC4D6B1-7D67-4E22-90B7-5A91C916AB56@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <85271.1294128867@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <85271.1294128867@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031333400.1450@desktop>, Jeff Roberson = writes: >=20 >> Also, linux likes to change things very rapidly. Not to mention a = lot of=20 >> their APIs go against the grain on BSD and we would not find them=20 >> aesthetically or architecturally pleasing. >=20 > Absolutely. >=20 > But we, as a project, must also weigh the cost of our sensibilities > and preferences, against how much work we must expend to uphold them. >=20 I have mixed feelings about Jeff's shim layer. On the plus side, I = think that there's value to emulation without copying. On the negative = side, I agree with ALexander's concern that it's a large chuck of code = to be maintained. Emulation isn't a bad thing. It allows IHV's as well = as individual developers to take baby steps with getting familiar with = FreeBSD. It lowers the barrier to entry. The ones who aren't going = to put in the effort to making the leap from "emulation" to "native" = likely aren't going to take the leap with going from "nothing" to = "native" either. I understand the argument that it will coddle people = into using just the emulation and not the native interfaces, thus = degrading the value of the native interfaces. I'm just not sure how = much I believe that in my experience. I recall years ago Matt Jacob mentioning with some concern that the = project seemed to be aimed at creating a "FreeSolaris" of sorts; many of = the architectural decisions seemed to be based on the argument that = Solaris was doing it, so FreeBSD should too. That's fine, and there's a = certain amount of comfort in following an arguably decent architectural = standard like Solaris, though I understand what I believed to be Matt's = point about retaining some identity and exploring new paths rather than = just following old paths. In my not so humble opinion, Linux is not an architectural model to be = envied or copied, regardless of how pragmatic it might seem. Sure, = gratuitous differences can be argued against, but there are a lot of = fundamental architectural things that linux succeed at purely by brute = force of will, and nothing more. FreeBSD should be careful to not envy = that model. I think that there's a lot less value in both the long and = short terms in a "FreeLinux" than in a "FreeSolaris", and neither are = all that good in the long term. Having an emulation gives people a lower barrier to entry and some = stepping stones to getting comfortable with FreeBSD. It gives them a = series of achievable goals with costs and benefits at each step that can = be weighed. Aiming at simply evolving the native interfaces to be like = linux simply means that FreeBSD becomes a poor copy of linux with = nothing else under the surface to set it apart or create an attraction. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EDC4D6B1-7D67-4E22-90B7-5A91C916AB56>