Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:50:56 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: petri@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Cc: 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: <7013.819031856@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:56:04 %2B0100." <199512151056.LAA00802@achill.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
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. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7013.819031856>