Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:17:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Huey <billh@mag.ucsd.edu> To: des@flood.ping.uio.no (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linux and freebsd kernels conceptually different? Message-ID: <199906101017.DAA27419@mag.ucsd.edu> In-Reply-To: <xzplnds8jkm.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> from "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" at Jun 10, 99 11:56:57 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You say that as if it's a good thing... I'd amend it to "The Linux > camp seems to think it's a good idea to ignore countless man-years of > research and development in the field of OS design, and make the same > mistakes other people have made, corrected and documented years before > them. I haven't seen that many ignorants in my short encounter with > FreeBSD." It's a good thing because assumptions about memory useage within the kernel, portability abstractions, internal buffer queue overhead, etc..., need to reexamined to see if they are still relevant. This is always good, assuming that this is done properly with peer review and that folks listen to it. The Linux kernel is quite good in many areas and doesn't deserve the rap that the FreeBSD folks dump onto it. Alost every problematic area, VM, NFS is actively worked on by many qualified folks. The source is very well documented and relatively easy to read. > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906101017.DAA27419>