On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:56:59 +0200 (CEST)
Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Andrew Rodland wrote:
>
> >...
> > Very nearly off topic, but I've had a few people on IRC tell me that
> > they love O(1) specifically because it has a 'nice that actually
> > does something'. As a matter of fact, I've had to change my X
> > startup scripts, to make it a bit less selfish; the defaults are
> > just plain silly, now.
> >...
>
> This is exactly a reason why O(1) shouldn't go into 2.4:
>
> E.g. my X is as suggested by my the installation routine of my
> distribution (Debian unstable/testing) niced to -10. It would be a bad
> surprise for _many_ people if they upgrade their 2.4 kernel because of
> other security and/or stability fixes and such a setting is then
> wrong.
>
Same setup, actually -- I changed it to -3 and it seems nicer.
As for it going into 2.4, well, I'm not incredibly strongly for it, but
I do get a feeling that most of the distros (especially the ones famous
for patching their kernels beyond recognizabliity) will start jumping on
this particular wagon soon. Does the kernel want to be like debian
("Well, yeah, the releases are horribly out of date, but normal human
beings don't actually _use_ the releases") ?
P.S. Do not suppose from this message that I do not love debian
immensely. :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST