From kde-devel  Sun Apr 14 00:38:44 2002
From: Dave Leimbach <leimbacd () bellsouth ! net>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:38:44 +0000
To: kde-devel
Subject: Re: KDE in the Kernel
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=101876304316939

On Sunday 14 April 2002 05:20 am, Sarang Lakare wrote:
> On a non-technical note : If we value freedom, then choosing which OS t=
o
> run is also a "freedom" that we should value. Thus, we cannot force use=
rs
> to choose linux over any other OS (all the BSDs are pretty heavily used
> too)
>
Here Here!

> From a technical point of view : I really see no reason why konqueror w=
ould
> become faster if its in the kernel! Besides, konqueror is just a shell.=
 In
> reality, all the stuff konqueror does is via plugins. Which means that =
to
> add konqueror to kernel means adding Qt, and most of KDE to the kernel.
> Instead, you can think of your new_kernel =3D current_real_kernel+Qt+KD=
E :)
> Which means that you already have konqueror in the kernerl itself!
>

Things that run at the kernel level don't necessarilly run any faster tha=
n=20
user programs either.  They may have more permissions to mess the system =
up=20
and direct access to crucial data structures but to even think of doing s=
uch=20
a thing would begin to compromise portability.

Besides... how happy do you think Linus would be if he knew you thought a=
bout=20
sticking C++ code in his kernel?  [Yes I know he has submitted bug report=
s=20
and such to KDE and that he probably reads this list from time to time.]

Lastly I don't think IE is really that fast...  Fastest browser I have ev=
er=20
used is Opera.  I think it can be proven also that IE is really not in th=
e=20
WinNT/2k/XP kernel too.  MS claims that IE is part of the system but I do=
n't=20
believe removing it would be as crippling as they say.

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<