Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:55:24 -0800 | From | Stuart Lynne <> | Subject | Re: proper place to discuss kernel 'bloatedness'? |
| |
> | > Couldn't the kernel be split up into a server kernel and workstation > | > kernel? > | And where would you split the kernel? What makes a linux machine a server is > | not the kernel, but the various daemons SERVING some kind of service. The > | kernel "merely" provides a medium for those daemons - networking, file > | systems, access to hardware etc. > +--->8 > > Most of the difference between "workstation" and "server" is parameter tuning, > not kernel code. This is true even of NT, where (aside from bundled software) > the primary difference is registry entries which tune various parameters. > > And most of the "kernel bloat" is device drivers. I can *almost* see some > point in splitting off e.g. SCSI or sound trees --- except that every time I > do something like that with my own code, I end up regretting it. It's one > of those "nice in theory" things....
I would suggest splitting the kernel source into that which might be required to boot and that which is not required to boot and is easily handled as a module.
I.e. almost all block device drivers stay with the main kernel tar ball. Almost all character devices and all network drivers could easily get moved into a Linux Modules source tar ball that could have an independant (to the kernel) life.
Is there any compelling reason for being able to compile ethernet drivers into the main kernel? They work fine as modules. Ditto for serial, isdn, sound, etc.
-- Stuart Lynne <sl@fireplug.net> 604-461-7532 <http://edge.fireplug.net> PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00 88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |