If your new implementation: 1) Is better than what Windows does today (hint: it's nearly lockless in Win 7, and O(1) since 2003) in every single way (ie: not sacrificing 50% of desktop users for 10% of server users).
AND 2) Maintains full compatibility with Windows applications (and I expect you to TEST this), drivers, etc in every way. I promise you I will wholeheartedly support its inclusion in ReactOS. In fact, I will do even more than just that. On 2009-12-21, at 5:53 PM, Jose Catena wrote: >> Post them on bugzilla, assign them to me and Cc [email protected] > > Thanks you. I'll post all together after tests completion, including > verification of that I didn't break rosbe/gnuc build in any way. > >> [email protected] and [email protected] are your men. I'd still >> recommend using IRC though, as most of the developers hang out there > > Well, perhaps I'll try IRC sometime, but based in previous experiences, I > don't think it's an efficient communication channel for things like this. > I hope we could manage well enough with these e-mail lists or direct > e-mail with these that you kindly provided. > >> Alex Ionescu will wear your spleen like a hat for this. Discuss it with >> him first if you want the remotest possibility of your scheduler being >> accepted in the tree > > Hehehe, I won't "discuss" much with him. I'll send to this list an > explanation > of what I intend to do, why, and how. The possibility of overcoming > the real-time scheduling limitations of windows (mostly due to DPC handling, > whose mere existence is one of the effects of an incapable scheduler), is > in my eyes one of the most appealing aspects of reactos. I have been > developing mostly for automation systems and pro audio, and I know well > the problem and how to solve it. If a windows compatible os fixes such > limitations, which is what I intend to do, I can assure you those industries > will be very interested. > In any case, if it is not accepted initially, perhaps at a later time, after > you can see a working implementation, much simpler than current one, > yet much more powerful and efficient. But if it's still not accepted, > I'm still willing to do it privately and I hope in such a case you won't > have > any problem with me using reactos sources for that. > > Best regards and thanks you very much for answering my questions. > > Jose Catena > DIGIWAVES S.L. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev Best regards, Alex Ionescu _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
