In article <linux.kernel.200002240913.EAA30458@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>,
Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>Peter T. Breuer writes:
>> So what? Who cares. It's supposed to be convenient. If that's what it
>> takes to be convenient, that's what it takes.
>
>NO. The kernel API is not supposed to be "convenient" for humans.
Why not? If I want a hostile environment where I have to use
userland tools to get even the tiniest bit of information out, I'll
use one of the *BSDs, Solaris, or Windows.
>The kernel API should not even be POSIX. The kernel API should be
>as fast as possible. It should efficiently support POSIX, Java,
>and even Win32. The C library should hide the kernel API,
libc isn't part of the kernel, and it's naive to assume that any of
the problems with inexperienced kernel programmers will go away if
the kernel published interface is pushed out into a pieces of
userland code that's controlled by a third party.
> and there
>should be tools that humans can use.
There are!
``cat'', ``awk'', ``sed'', ``perl''
____
david parsons \bi/ it's deja-vu all over again.
\/
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:16 EST