[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why *are* the kernels monolithic?



* Victor <victord_(_at_)_paid_(_dot_)_com> [2004-06-02 16:52]:
> Ben Goren wrote:
> >On 2004 Jun 1, at 10:41 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> >>One of the best things about OpenBSD is that it works out of the box. I
> >>don't have to worry about kernel modules not matching my kernel,
> >>runtime-loaded kernel rootkits or obscure module dependancy bugs. I
> >>can't recall one occasion where I have /wished/ for a particular driver
> >>to be a module.
> Surely such a kernel would be compilable with or without loadable module 
> feature, allowing choice.

the beauty of GENERIC is that it (basically) works everywhere, with 
close to zero drawbacks.
compileable options. humbug.

> But isn't there a benefit of getting companies to release binary module 
> drivers that they would otherwise not release?

who cares? binary only driver or no driver, there is no difference. it 
isn't worth a shit.

if they want to sell their hardware, they release sufficient docs for a 
driver to be written, or hire one of us to do for them, or do it 
themselves or somesuch.

> Also, 
> mission critical systems with huge uptimes don't like to be rebooted, 
> where again loadable modules become useful.

yeah, to reboot them in the middle of the day because the module is 
fucked.

there is no need for modules, because GENERIC contains 
basically everything on needs.

> Again, openbsd does not cater to that crowd

says who?

it's so funny when random people on our lists start guessing which 
"market" we want to address... they're all wrong, including you.

> and that's ok, but I think there are many reasons to support such a feature.

obviously not.

-- 
http://2suck.net/hhwl.html - http://www.bsws.de/
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)