From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4B0E9239.4000308@conducive.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:35:37 +0800
From: W B Hacker <wbh@conducive.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090823 SeaMonkey/1.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
References: <<4B0E42E2.80906@conducive.org>>
	<98c0883597934b1e6f7edea9190916ea@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <98c0883597934b1e6f7edea9190916ea@brasstown.quanstro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Scanners
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a223995e-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

erik quanstrom wrote:

*snip*

>
> useless observation:
> it's fun to see the linux guys bragging about how their drivers are so
> small.  bsd drivers are typically half their size.  plan 9 drivers are typically
> half again as large.  to be fair, plan 9 drivers typicall give up things like
> tso.
>
> - erik
>
>

'half again as large' ?? or half the *BSD size?

And no - not at all 'useless' information.

To anyone accustomed to ASM or Forth, smaller (and still functional, of course)
indicates a better understanding of the task at hand, more throurough
exploration of the 'needfuls', and more effort sweating-out whatever desn't add
value. Worthwhile, all.

'Useless' OTOH, would be to try to use moving-kludge-Linux drivers as a model.

I'd sooner recommend OpenBSD or NetBSD. Better average quality, more long-term
consistent interfaces.