18 Feb
2004
18 Feb
'04
9:38 p.m.
Am Mittwoch, 18. Februar 2004 21:55 schrieb Enrico Weigelt:
You shouldn't really care about this [flaming].
I care about it, if I intend to eventually get improvements in (which was the
prerogative of the 'improve linux then' idea).
as for kgi, I just ignore linux - other XFree86-using systems are interested
in jumping ship and eventually linux will need to face the decision again -
under different circumstances. that option wouldn't exist for NT-on-Linux
though due to its linux-specific nature.
Well, for me it doesnt matter.
I've no trouble with patching the kernel. On many larger projects it is
quite normal (i.e. the MUA mutt has many "inofficial" patches, which are
good but not yet included in the main distributions). Often it is because
the maintainers feel the patches are not "good enought" for getting into
main branch. Thats no problem for me - and no real reason for starting
completely from scratch :)
they just want to extend some parts of the MUA. ReactOS
otoh couldn't rely on
stable behaviour (or APIs) within linux to build a feature-by-feature,
API-by-API copy of WinNT - quite a difference.
and not being able to follow the kernel in its track is a bad thing, too - see
the 2.6.3/2.4.25 release with patches for exploits as example - do you really
want to isolate all these all the time as you're unable to just merge with
it?
that's a lot of work :)
What's wrong with the memory management and the vm
subsystem ?
hmm.. rewritten way to often to rely on it? (even within
"stable" kernel
series)
What's wrong with the filesystem ?
different
semantics from NT filesystems.
where are streams, OIDs, ...?
What's wrong with the socket interface and the
networking stuff ?
no problem, which is why it might be copied over.
I can understand, if you dont like Xwindow - for just
local applications
its perhaps a little bit bloated, but if you gonna use remote displays,
you dont really want RDP ...
X isn't bloated, au contraire, it lacks quite a
bunch of features. it's
client/server design is pretty solid (and damn fast) though.
what I have a problem with is the architecture of their (and kernel's) drivers
Ah, several different vm subsystems.
There was something for some other unices, but I dont know if its still
in the kernel.
icbs, and no, it should be gone. also, show me that it's
semantically similar
to the way NT does it
the current ROS design is pretty much modelled after NT - which makes further
compatibility easier. that wouldn't have been possible with a linux based
system (except if it would look the same by now, which means that only
bootstrapping were affected)
patrick mauritz