In <393B4EE7.62E32E7F@kasey.umkc.edu> David L. Nicol (email@example.com) wrote:
> Pawel Krawczyk wrote:
>> Patch is OK, when you really want to do a ,,patch'' - a fix or some
>> *small* feature update. Distributing a whole API or code deeply involved
>> with the IP stack (Free S/WAN) as a patch causes a lots of problems with
>> mutual incompatibility, fuzzy patching etc. This becomes a real problem
>> when you want to use loop encryption, IPSEC, ReiserFS and other features
>> in one single kernel.
> People are now writing things that are too complex to be modules, or they
> don't want them to be user level processes (S/WAN is a piece of cake if
> you don't mind running everything through SLIP)
> What about microkerneling? Is that just too much headache? what kind
> of license did Mach have anyway? FreeMach anyone?
Join FSF's HURD project if you need Mach and microkernel. Perhaps eventually
you'll create something great to replace Linux (I doubt it, though). Linux is
not mikrokernel kernel and will stay this way for foreseeable future.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST