18 Dec
1998
18 Dec
'98
8:18 a.m.
Hans wrote:
That's it so simple, that it's only a covered
disk driver.
No, even a file system supporting only a byte-stream model still provides
much more service than a disk driver.
From
an OS I want OS services for common jobs and common solutions
to avoide the millionth invention of the weel. Take the simple
Apple DOS and their relave files - Within Unix not even this
simple kind of optimization is available - From a _real_ OS
I like to have services like SAM/ISAM fileslibrary management
etc. not just stupid, slow and clumbsy byte streams
Why do you think it's better to put this functionality into an
already-bloated monolithic kernel, rather than implementing it as
a shared library in user space?
By keeping as much stuff as possible out of the kernel, you will
generally end up with a more robust system.
- If you
do it to simple, you miss the chance of geting high level
optimizations.
I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand what optimizations
the kernel could do better than a shared library with regard to
fixed-length record access (as done by Apple DOS).
Eric