Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:18:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:18:03 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:61683 "EHLO brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:17:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:45:03 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel To: Chris Lattner cc: Jamie Lokier , Alexander Viro , "Mohammad A. Haque" , Ben Ford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, orbit-list@gnome.org, korbit-cvs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Linux Kernel ORB: kORBit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Chris Lattner wrote: > 1. kORBit adds about 150k of code to the 2.4t10 kernel. > 2. kNFS adds about 100k of code to the 2.4t10 kernel. > 3. kORBit can do everything kNFS does, plus a WHOLE lot more: For example > implement an NFS like server that uses SSL to send files and > requests... so it is really actually "secure". So can you implement a kNFS server in kORBit that takes less than 50kB of RAM? Otherwise it's still a contributor to bloat and this argument won't work ;) I guess it's time to stop the flaming and to see what can be achieved using kORBit. The people who favour kORBit should IMHO be left alone and given the opportunity to show what can be achieved with kORBit ... if they don't achieve anything, the nay-sayers can always claim their "victory"; if something useful comes out the kORBit people can claim usefulness. regards, Rik -- Hollywood goes for world dumbination, Trailer at 11. http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/