Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Aug 2005 19:37 UTC, submitted by Robert Millan
Thread beginning with comment 24325
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
>> given the bloat of the Linux kernel (5.7 million lines of code against 1.2 million
>> lines of code for FreeBSD).
> Bloat as in supporting far more device drivers? Many more file systems? Many more
> architectures? The kind of bloat that in addition to running on big iron it is also runs
> on a number of hand helds?
Bloat as in stuff I have no use for.
Of course the definition of bloat is subjective. Many people consider KDE/Gnome bloated, not because they don't actually have more features than Fluxbox, but because they have "features" one might not give a damn for.
Of course it might well be that Linux also uses more code to support the same features: I have no evidence for this though. It's not unlikely, given the reputation of Linux development for being more chaotic and less organized than FreeBSD - and for a good reason, of course: Linux, much more than FreeBSD, tries very hard to be all things to all people. Nothing wrong with it: it's Linux's "job", and it does it well.
> How big is your kernel anyway? Mine is 1.7MB.
I'm not on FreeBSD right now (sadly..).
From the FreeBSD FAQ:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/kernelconfig.h...
"Most kernels tend to be around 1.5MB to 2MB."
The kernel size is greatly affected by the drivers/peripherals you're using.
Moreover, I don't know if Linux and kFreeBSD have the same compression rate.
Too bad you (and, apparently, some mod) missed the point of my post, that was to underline that Coverity openly discouraged the interpretation of those numbers as a direct comparison (i.e., what you and the original poster are doing).