3 ms·
Maybe education, but I haven't heard of that use. NetBSD tends to go for simplicity of code over everything else.
by awda 12y ago
Maybe education, but I haven't heard of that use. NetBSD tends to go for simplicity of code over everything else.
- 4ad 12y agoNetBSD kernel code is not simpler compared to FreeBSD/OpenBSD kernel code. On average, it's probably the same. I can definitely think of some things for which it is more complex.
- awda 12y agoIt dumbed down the malloc() interface, for example (no tags).
- dfc 12y ago> I can definitely think of some things for which it is more complex. How do you write this in a comment and then click submit? Why would you not include at least one example?
- icmp 12y agoI guess it should be largely the same since OpenBSD originally forked from NetBSD...
- protomyth 12y agoA very long time ago and much has changed for both.
- koenigdavidmj 12y agoMaybe this is just a bad example, but I was digging through the timing wheel code of the kernels of all three main BSDs at one point. FreeBSD and NetBSD had nearly the same code. OpenBSD's was rather simpler and did not have a lot of the locking code that the other two had. My guess is that OpenBSD has either a giant lock or its kernel only runs on one core.
- dmm 12y agoMost of the OpenBSD kernel is under a big lock but they are adding more fine grained locking. OpenBSD didn't add kernel threads until 2012. A bit late in comparison to freebsd and linux but it wasn't a priority to them. It also allowed them to benefit from the lessons everybody else learned the hard way.