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

Re: Why *are* the kernels monolithic?



On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 10:39:27AM -0400, Victor wrote:
>
> But isn't there a benefit of getting companies to release binary module
> drivers that they would otherwise not release? There is also an added
> convenience of allowing people who are not technically proficient to
> load drivers without recompiling their kernel. Granted OpenBSD does not
> cater to that crowd, I would still think it's a useful feature. Also,
> mission critical systems with huge uptimes don't like to be rebooted,

``Don't like''??? What the hell does it mean, is the operating system
working better when uptime grows? never saw that.
Uptime masturbation (sorry), again and again and again.
High availability doesn't mean big uptime.
If you can't afford a reboot, then your system is poorly designed.
That why redundancy exists, preventing some kind of denial of service.
If you can't justify a reboot, then how would you justify a hard drive
failure?

> where again loadable modules become useful. Again, openbsd does not
> cater to that crowd, but to say that there is no "convenience" in it is
> just plain wrong. It is both convenient and useful. Maybe not to you,
> and that's ok, but I think there are many reasons to support such a
feature.
>
> However, I understand that openbsd team doesn't care for this feature,
> and that's ok.
>

Of course there's a benefit: bringing more people to openbsd, like linux
and freebsd did.
But the drawback is that, at this point, they really can't ask any other
manufacturers to diclose hardware spacs so they can be supported,
everyone will ship his own binary driver you'll have to trust blindly.
Wich hurts OpenBSD too. Why would they release specs to OpenBSD if they
can provide binary drivers to Linux?

--
Linux is something for Windows haters, BSD is something for Unix lovers.
[ Eric Dillenseger GPG(OxE3E404D8) ]

[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]