Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:55:14 -0700
From:      Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
To:        Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Cc:        malaizhichun@tom.com, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Why does FreeBSD not use the Linux kernel?
Message-ID:  <CAHu1Y70aEvfupOGJysK_kqdeOBJ13JPLkKxKOVCHPfcWtGfVmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200617141857.b208232a.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <3a48ab1ab198c330400be3e942f921f2cd3c3e11.camel@tom.com> <20200617141857.b208232a.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:19 AM Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:33:25 +0800, kindu smith wrote:
> > Why does FreeBSD not use the Linux kernel? The structure of FreeBSD is
> > very good, such as the startup and directory structure, and the user
> > island program. The only shortcoming is poor hardware support. This is
> > mainly due to the lack of drivers provided by the kernel.
>
> While there are certain basic drivers in the kernel, the
> majority of drivers is provided by loadable kernel modules,
> either developed by the FreeBSD team itself, or available
> from the ports collection. They use interfaces provided by
> the kernel.
>
>
The chief difference from my perspective is that it is possible in FreeBSD
to create a monolithic kernel and prohibit the loading of kernel modules,
foiling one step in the chain of a rootkit.  It's especially convenient for
embedded devices, security appliances, etc.

Some features cannot work as loadable kernel modules, such as kernel NAT in
ipfw supplied by LIBALIAS.

--=20

"Well," Brahm=C4=81 said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is =
no
wiser, but an intelligent person requires only two thousand five hundred."

- The Mah=C4=81bh=C4=81rata



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y70aEvfupOGJysK_kqdeOBJ13JPLkKxKOVCHPfcWtGfVmQ>