Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: What constitutes a good OS?
Message-ID: <42793@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 91 18:48:11 GMT
References: <5461@auspex.auspex.com> <42617@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <5510@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu

In article <5510@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>What "little files"?  Did I say that each one of those resources would
>go in a file of its own?  No, I didn't.

Again, I was analogising.  If you don't put them all in little files,
then you need special code in each application to pull them apart.  If
every application and the kernel uses this code, then you might as well
put it in the kernel.

Every time I say "it's easier and more efficient to put it in the kernel"
you say "but it's just as easy to put it in a library". When I say "it's
very inefficient to put it into a library as easy to use as the kernel"
you say "who said I was going to do it the easy way."  I'm not
arguing that you *can't* put it in the user lib, only that it is an
order of magnitude harder and slower to put it in the user lib. You have
not given me any reason so far to doubt that. Try thinking this way:
It's already in the kernel.  Why would you take it out and put
it into a user lib?  Then maybe this kind of response would help
progress the discussion.   :-)           -- Darren

-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, 
      Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas -----
              =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=