No announcement yet.

Linux hacker compares Solaris kernel code:

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by nasyt View Post

    BTW. Windows Server 2012 as of today isn't insecure at all!
    yes, it is insecure and i also use to Linux

    samsung s6 edge plus handyh?lle
    Last edited by Farber; 12 September 2015, 05:25 AM.


    • #92
      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
      Linux - and everyone - can do whatever they want with the BSD code.
      Not true at all.

      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
      However, I don't know if it is reason to be ashamed, because as far as I know BSD motto sounds: to server others
      There is a point where the BSD license is way more mature than the GPL license, which is: "We expect everyone to share and to give code back to each other". However, humans are known for being AHoles, so there are people who will take a piece of BSD-licensed code and dual license it with the GPL, thus making the GPL improvements not accessable to the *BSD developers


      • #93
        Wrong thread.


        • #94
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          Yes, it's old. CK obviously, like everyone else, can see the better design patters in the Solaris kernel. That doesn't mean he thinks it's a better kernel or OS overall. Better design does not equal a better end result (you can have a wonderfully designed turd.) Con is not using Solaris, nor intends to.
          Hmmm ....
          Better design equates to a better source-code-layout for the developers in order to reach their goals such as expand the functionality of the code-base, refactor portions of the source code base, source-code maintenance, etc. with minimal headaches. There is a reason why university-trained mechanical/civil/etc. engineers learn facets of good design .... so that multi-storey skyscrapers (for example) do not come crashing down. A balance has to be struck between performance of code, clarity of code/design, maintainability of code ... amongst other things.

          I can write a very fast version of a certain algorithm but it's readability/design will be less optimal and, consequently, maintenance a headache. OTOH, I can write a much more maintainable/cleaner version of the algorithm with only a 5% performance hit. I prefer the latter. Also, if that algorithm is only responsible for a relatively small portion of the programs temporal footprint (e.g. consumes only 3% of the program's CPU time) then the high-performance option is less important.

          You'd rather have a software developer feel inspired and embrace ZTDP (zero tolerance defect policy) due to working with well-designed source code rather than a software developer that does not look forward to dealing with poorly designed code that has grown with a hack-like mentality (lack of time/resources given for implementation of a proper design).

          The catch is, well-designed code may come after several drafts/iterations of the project; at least for the very complicated projects.
          I do not think people would prefer to live in poorly designed houses.
          After the incubation period of sampling multiple designs/implementation, the order of good design trumps the chaos of poor design.

          This is why more mature operating systems, e.g. Solaris, have something to offer in the respective technology space; e.g. DTrace, ZFS, SMF, etc.