Subject: Re: ACL's revisited
To: Wojciech Puchar <email@example.com>
From: Jaromír <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/25/2001 21:04:41
(Originally on tech-kern@, moved here as more appropriate after couple
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > and it probably will need new filesystem or lot of tricks (which will slow
> > > down things) to have enough space for ACL data in inode
> > Wojciech, the days of 0.9 VUP (=0.9 MIPS) MicroVAXen with 9MB RAM and
> > 67MB MFM disks running 4.3BSD UNIX are gone for more than a decade now.
> please read whats stated at www.netbsd.org just at centre.
You honestly don't expect that options like QUOTA or ktrace or bpf
would be cost-free, do you? That's why they are kernel _options_,
and thus can be omitted if you don't need them. However, expect
appropriate performance hit if you DO include them.
We take care to keep bloat at minimum. NetBSD has been quite
good in this, and you can balance the features vs. performance
to acceptable levels even for slower archs to much extent.
It's ridiculous arguing about how an optional feature might slow
down a system. If you don't need it, don't include it in your kernel
config, it's that simple. It's widely recognized different people
want different features. Don't go around telling us we should go
to some other OS if we want particular feature - we want to use
P.S. This is drifting away from technical discussion which is supposed
to take place on tech-kern. I'm moving this to netbsd-advocacy@,
sending this note to tech-kern on BCC only, to keep the link.
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
NetBSD - just plain best OS! -=*=- Got spare MCA cards or docs? Hand me them!