In <200007011535.LAA26880@renoir.op.net> Paul Barton-Davis (pbd@Op.Net) wrote:
> "Khimenko Victor" <khim@sch57.msk.ru> writes:
>>I want good OS and not pile of crap like Windows or IRIX. And THE BEST and
> There's no dispute here about the quality of Windows.
> There are some people here who think that IRIX is "a pile of crap".
> I haven't heard anybody here who knows anything about BeOS internals
> call it "a pile of crap", though there have been intimations that it
> is becoming less lean-and-quick than it was originally.
Let's wait and see. If BeOS is better for you then Linux then use it instead.
> In the case of worst-case latency, each of the above 3 operating
> systems performs better than Linux.
Perhaps. I doubt it in Windows case, though. I've seen quite a few times
how Windows just started to do something deep inside it it and stopped to
respond for few seconds altogether. So how ANYONE can even talk about
latency mesuared in MILLIseconds, not in SECONDS for that beast is beyond
me.
> If their other features/implementation make them "a pile of crap", so
> be it, but that doesn't stop the fact that in this area, they beat the
> pants off Linux. Can you name *one* other area (other than SMP
> stability - though I run a dual system and have never had a problem)
> where this is true ?
Ask Mindcraft :-)
>>FASTEST way to get pile of crap is to add one small feature, then another,
> No, the FASTEST way to get a pile of crap is to add a pile of
> crap.
Oh, yeah. But it's so obvious way that I excluded it :-)
> And the best way to find out if something is a pile of crap is
> to ask the only judge(s) who matter. Its too bad that some of them are
> so verbally abusive.
>>You mixing two things: GOAL of patch is REALLY appealing. TOOLS used by patch
>>looks like a band-aid solution even for patch's AUTHOR ! Let alone Linus.
> There are several people on this list who appear to dispute that even
> the GOAL of the patch is appealling.
Who ? Just curious.
> Larry McVoy, in particular, has raised doubts about whether its even
> appropriate to aim for the kind of worst-case latency that we've been
> discussing.
And rightfully so. Patch is NOT about "worst-case latency". It's called
"real-time" and said patch DO NOT provide that. Patch tries to reduce
linux kernel latency "in most cases" but you STILL will not have GUARANTEED
"worst-case latency" of 5ms or 100ms. And Larry rightfully said "if you need
real-time then you need real-time period." Perhaps you DO NOT need real-time
but then WHAT exactly you need and WHY you think low latency patch will give
you that ?
>>Like you or not but aesthetic ground is THE ONLY decision ground for Linus.
>>If you did not like it - switch to other OS. Or make a fork if you wish.
>>Stuff GUI in kernel like NT, make different page mapping for threads like IRIX
>>.
>>Do anything you want, have fun. Just not sugget this to Linus, please.
> You can be an obnoxious person sometimes. I guess we have to try to
> live with that.
> The purpose of the original letter was to clarify the extent to which
> an approach similar to Ingo's was considered as appalling as "stuffing
> the GUI in the kernel" or using a different page mapping for each thread.
> I think you've made your position clear.
>>The only thing that IS matter is simple fact: is it considered a
>>piece of crap or not. Yes, it's subjective. Thus Linus CAN accept
>>things initially considere d like a crap. It happened. But "public
>>campaighn" like yours will make things LESS appealing to Linus, not
>>more. Just like it's with ReiserFS: Hans's whinin g made reiserfs
>>acceptance almost impossible for 2.4 even if initially developer s
>>thought about it's inclusion in 2.4 ...
> This is such total BS. Nobody here has been "whining". People got
> upset with Hans because of his personal accusations about the choices
> people made.
Hans done that :-) He used quite a few styles to upset peoples: whining,
screaming, accusing. He was highly sucessfull: quite a few peoples become
upset ... Now Robert Dinse tried to do the same for low latency patch. He
was less successfull though ...
> We (the original signees of the letter I sent) were trying to get a
> higher profile for an issue that profoundly affects the uses to which
> Linux can be put. More specifically, we wanted clarification from
> Linus on whats kinds of approaches to solving the latency issue he
> would consider.
Hmm. Looks like you got enough opinions on that question too. No ?
> The originator of this particular thread voiced a parallel observation
> that Ingo's patches improved things even for the fairly common case.
Such observation can be predicted and he is not first one who noted this.
This part was good. But then he concluded that improvement should be enough
for patch to be applied as "a onfiguration option". Thus showed that he
REALLY can not understood why patch was rejected in first place. For that
part he was pilloried (sa you formulated it). And rightfully so.
> In response to which you and others have pilloried him as an idiot.
> If I was you, I would be ashamed of myself.
Why ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:09 EST