Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:05:52 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: [RFD] New driver system (was Adding new syscalls via modules) |
| |
In <000e01bec6ed$196bda40$28032ed4@sasha.storactive.ru> Alexander Maryanchick (Sasha@GDev.msk.ru) wrote: > I'm afraid to hurt somebody, but it's must be said: > Linux extensibility is unacceptable poor. :-(
> Some examples: > 1. ext2compr, Undelete Tools, KGI,... are patches. > User must rebulid his kernel to install them. > Linus must spend his time to think about these patches. > Developers do not write cool features > (patches are hard to distribute and require coordination > with other patches) > Such patches MUST be distributed as modules.
Why ? It's MUCH more easy to write and support such patches then to write and support windows-style "separate module" for Windows which will patch kernel in memory on the fly :-))
> 2. See 'albods', 'forks' & related discussion. > Too long discussion for one open() flag. > It would be cool to write a little module and see :-)
You can write patch with easy... And you can write module as well with technique borrowed from windows toys: kernel patching in memory... It's just non-practical in case of Linux since there are just a few Windows kernel but A LOT OF linux kernels (there are more Windows kernels then official Windows releases but still not as many as different Linux kernels -- if you'll count all possibilities including usage of different compilers, different compiler options, etc :-)
> 3. See winfiles.com, download.com, etc. > A lot of virtual drivers: CD-ROM cache, HDD encryption, > web acceleration, ... > Most of these features can not be in full volume > implemented in Linux without the evil patching the kernel.
And you know what ? Thay can not be implemented in Windows without evil patching the kernel as well :-)) Just there you must patch binary-only kernel without sources on the fly in memory (it's not theory -- I seen code for some of this toys). And this way is not practical for Linux: there are contless combinations of compilers/compiler flags...
> While we spend time rewritting patches, M$ distributes drivers :-(.
Yes. And when our patches are finally fixed M$ drivers still do not work as expected... And I STILL can not use Delphi4 due crash in video driver :-((
> I think, the lack of extensibility is a MOST important weakness of Linux > kernel. > We need to fix this problem. Do you agree?
No. Adding new feature to Linux is more easy then addign new feature to Windows. We have completely other problem: most nice toys from winfiles.com are not interested to hackers with enough skills to implement them and users who want them do not have enough skills...
- 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/
| |