Since Most Everythings's right with SCO Can we make it smaller?

[Ray Shwake]

rbraun at spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes:

>Reading this thread, I can't help but to wonder:  why worry about
>kernel size, these days?  I've long been one to complain about the fact
>that software seems to get larger in direct proportion to the decrease
>in memory costs, and often slower due to its increasing complexity, but
>in the case of a reasonably well-performing O/S with lots of features,
>why worry so much about kernel size?

	Recent history proves this assumed correlation false. The radical
increase in memory demands (roughly 1987-90) resulted from the move to
RISC, windowing environments (MS and X Windows), heavy networking, etc.
That same period also witnessed *increased* memory prices partly resulting
from the move to 1 MB chips (and general shortages of same) and the foolish
memory floor price agreement with Japan.

>Add another megabyte to the system and the problem will go away.  Seems
>a fairly simple and economical solution.  Even at 1-2Mb, kernels remain
>significantly smaller than most applications.  (As compared to ten
>years ago on mainframe computers, when a kernel was typically many
>times larger than an application.)

	This line of thought assumes, at minimum, that the system
architecture supports minimal, and inexpensive, memory increases. That's
not always the case. Examples: Try to take a NEC Powermate from 2 MB to 3,
4 MB to 6, or 8 MB to 12. Can't do it. Another example. To increase a NeXT
workstation from 8 MB, one must take it all the way to *20* MB (16 if one
gets rid of surplus 1 MB SIMMS). Inexpensive it won't be.

	In summary? End the bloat. Bring on the UN!X Lite.

-----------  
uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake				shwake at rsxtech