[ale] kernel/userspace debate

[Eric Zundel Ayers]

I would argue that for some services, like NFS and telnet, the feature
set is static and performance so critical that moving it to kernel space
is an OK thing, even a welcome thing.  A Web server, however, can be
configured in a zillion ways, with different modules and the protocol is
still evolving.   PLUS, people have different web servers that they want
to run.  It would kill competition to offer one built into the kernel.
Plus, since Microsoft is designing the OS, you can be sure that any web
server that ran in user space would be slower. (they wouldn't tune the
OS for web servers running in user space)

-Eric.

jason at alltel.net writes:
 > At the post ALE meeting nutrition session last night, during the MS
 > bashing segment of the programme, the news of MS moving IIS (Internet
 > Information Server, their web server) into the NT kernel was the
 > subject of much ridicule.
 > 
 > While I agree that kernel space is no place for a web server (or
 > even telnet, Slowlaris be damned) I cannot help but think that Linux
 > folks are being a shade hypocritical by so vehemently denouncing this
 > practice. Was it not our own Linus who sanctioned moving nfs
 > services into the Linux kernel? How does this issue differ from
 > that of placing a web server in kernel space?
 > 
 > hmm?
 > 
 > 
 > ----
 > Jason Boyles <jason at alltel.net>
 > "Happiness, n. An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the
 > misery of another."
 >