Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:10884 comp.unix.bsd:13590 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.funet.fi!nntp.hut.fi!nntp!sja From: sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux Date: 15 Mar 94 11:24:31 GMT Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 63 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <SJA.94Mar15132431@gamma.hut.fi> References: <DHOLLAND.94Mar13163925@husc7.harvard.edu> <SJA.94Mar14164332@gamma.hut.fi> <DHOLLAND.94Mar14164302@husc7.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: gamma.hut.fi In-reply-to: dholland@husc7.harvard.edu's message of 14 Mar 94 16:43:02 > > Unused hardware can be usually configured out of the kernel. > > I seriously doubt that whatever unused hardware support remains > > is going to make a big difference. > > That was just an example. There are all sorts of areas where excess > junk floats in. Yes, there can be excess junk in software. In this specific case: where, exactly, is there excess junk in BSD? There are a lot of very smart people working on NetBSD, FreeBSD, BSD 4.4 and Linux. If you have specific knowledge of excess junk in any of these systems, I'm sure you'll find at least someone who'll want to hear about it! So, instead of anecdotal stories about software having unnecessary code: where exactly in NetBSD-current, FreeBSD 1.0 or BSD 4.4 is that unnecessary code? What operations do you know to be slow because of unnecessary code? What parts of the kernel or utilities are "accumulated cruft" that can't already be configured out? Really, tell us, I wouldn't mind putting #ifdef OLD_DHZ11_CODE ... #endif in the BSD source if significant amounts of such code can be found. > ---------- 1 kernel kernel 215556 Mar 4 23:03 /vmlinux > Of course, my kernel is compressed. Maybe yours isn't. Oh, as we were discussing kernel bloat due to unnecessary code, I didn't think it might be even remotely relevant to look at compressed kernel sizes. Unless the CPU can execute such code without unreasonable overhead. The point remains: with Linux and BSD kernels being fairly close in size, I can but wonder: where's the bloat? > Code size is only part of it. Speed is another part. The memory > requirements of the basic utilities, too. Yup, that matters. As (I think) we were discussing code bloat due to old unnecessary code in the system, where exactly is that old code in either BSD or Linux utilities? Really, tell me, I wouldn't mind putting a few "#ifdef notdef"s in there. The source is available, so finding and fixing stuff like this should not be a problem. I've used NetBSD on a 486. A largish application runs 10-20% slower than on twice-the-price workstations. I've read some of the kernel's and utilities' source and haven't yet come across mountains of old unnecessary code. Is it really there somewhere? > > > Are you going to convince me that BSD > > > doesn't suffer from the same sorts of problems? > > Probably not. > Oops. I meant to say "are you going to TRY TO convince me..." :-) Not really even that. Probably no net article I can write is going to convince you beyond any doubt. If you _want_ to be convinced, ftp the BSD code and read it. All the source is available. It'll eat up a lot of your time, though. ++sja