[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OpenBSD and FS-Support (compiling kernel without support..)
Chuck Yerkes wrote:
>>Because this is not the (Open)BSD philosophy.
>>We don't need to modularize the kernel. It's good as it is.
> "change is bad" - I like it.
I don't see how you go from "we don't need to modularize the kernel" ot
"change is bad". That's like saying I am a fascist because I like tofu,
a total non sequitur.
> kernel modules let me:
> - not load things I don't need (union, ext2fs, several dozen other
> things) - to let me run a smaller kernel
> - load modules which might have GPL or other non-BSD licensed code
> (which a reiserfs modules would likely have).
You left out a couple:
- Insert malicious code, such as kernel level root kits after system
boot. Look at the many beautiful ones that exist for Linux (a direct
result of pervasive kernel modularisation). Of course, one may reply
that one uses securelevel to prevent module loading, but then what is
the point having loadable modules anyway?
- Generate endless n00b questions as they try to get FreeBSD, Linux,
Windows graphics drivers load on OpenBSD
- bloat the kernel with unecessary hooks for module loading/unloading
> - load and unload modules while debugging, rather than
> code, compile a kernel, boot, hope it works, debug.
> RATHER: modload module, try new calls, hopefully modunload.
Except that the "hope it works" step often involves a crashed or smashed
kernel. make and reboot is fast anyway.
> /usr/ports/kernelmods/ would be a fine way to carry non-BSD
> licensed modules and maintain the integrity of the goals.
Yes, we maintain the integrity of the goals by hiding the parts we
object to in modules. How Enron.
>>[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but
>>what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be-
>>ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there
>>was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :) -- Ted Unangst ?ber *fs
> Right, we can list the shortcomings of FFS. Esp FFS1. Snapshots
> in FFS2 let me do really cool things, now we just need fast directories.
So fix it. Or help the people who are.
> Ever have a machine with 1TB mounted go down hard? With XFS (and reiser
> and VxFS, and others), there is no fsck. There is no need for fsck.
So port background fsck from FreeBSD, or go use Linux. I can't see
anyone ever accepting GPL'd reiserfs, modular or otherwise.