[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: proper place to discuss kernel 'bloatedness'?
    In message <>, Marek Ha
    bersack writes:
    | On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Lars G. T. Joergensen wrote:
    | > 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.

    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....

    brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh]
    system administrator [WAY too many hats]
    carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
    We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.025 / U:25.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site