On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:36:43AM +, s. keeling wrote:
> Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > David Brodbeck wrote:
> > > To me it always smacked a little of "me-too-ism", too ... the GNU
> > > folks felt Linux wasn't GNU-ish enough, so they had to go write their
> > > own kernel.
> >
> >
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
> > To me it always smacked a little of "me-too-ism", too ... the GNU
> > folks felt Linux wasn't GNU-ish enough, so they had to go write their
> > own kernel.
>
> The GNU Hurd has existed long before Linux existed. Hurd has been in
>
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Just my $0.02. YMMV
> [*]
> $ uname -a
> Linux Presario-1 2.6.10-1.771_FC2 #1 Mon Mar 28 00:50:14 EST 2005 i686
> i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>
> It took my machine 3 seconds to do a "copy" after selecting
> that text on my screen, because the disc ran that long after
> I clicked on
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
I have tried running some long-term computations in the background
using my machine, and found that nice was unable to deal with it.
Exactly the points he brings up...
momentary freezes of the display (5-10 seconds)
lots
On Jul 24, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
I've found Linux using up to about 60% of my memory
for "disc cache". This, I trow, is part of the problem.
There's been much debate about this among kernel developers, I
understand. On one side there are people who point out (quite
correct
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 04:02:39PM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The modularity has some positives: a failure in one module will
>> not bring down the whole system. of course this is pretty rare in
>> linux these days too, but is certainly possible. It al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/24/07 14:36, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
>
> [*]
> $ uname -a
> Linux Presario-1 2.6.10-1.771_FC2 #1 Mon Mar 28 00:50:14 EST 2005 i686
> i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>
> It took my machine 3 seconds to do a "copy" after selecting
> that text on my screen
Bob Proulx wrote:
David Brodbeck wrote:
To me it always smacked a little of "me-too-ism", too ... the GNU
folks felt Linux wasn't GNU-ish enough, so they had to go write their
own kernel.
The GNU Hurd has existed long before Linux existed. Hurd has been in
development for many years. (H
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[snip]
The modularity has some positives: a failure in one module will
not bring down the whole system. of course this is pretty rare in
linux these days too, but is certainly possible. It also provides some
serious security bonuses because a security failure in one
On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
David Brodbeck wrote:
Linux *is* under the GPL. But it's under GPL v2. The FSF is
pushing hard for Linus to relicense it under GPL v3. The two
licenses are not considered compatible.
Hmm. That's interesting. Care to elaborate? I though
Kent West wrote:
It's my understanding that the Hurd pre-dates Linux; it's just that once
Linux came along, the development on it moved at a much faster pace than
on the Hurd, and Debian was ported to run on it while the Hurd project
languished.
For those not up on the project, as I underst
On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
I have tried running some long-term computations in the background
using my machine, and found that nice was unable to deal with it.
Exactly the points he brings up...
momentary freezes of the display (5-10 seconds)
lots of ghosting of moving mo
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
I wonder what those who support the GPL so strongly on Linux support
mail lists will do in response to that argument? I personally don't
like or use the GPL, so I really don't care. But ISTM that those
who have argued so
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
recently decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his reasoning.
http://apcmag.com/6735/interv
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> David Brodbeck wrote:
[...]
>>
>> To me it always smacked a little of "me-too-ism", too ... the GNU folks
>> felt Linux wasn't GNU-ish enough, so they had to go write their own
>> kernel.
>
>
> It's my understanding that the Hurd pre-
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Kent West wrote:
It'd be nice if a coder of Con's caliber were to get interested in
the HURD. I think that project has a lot of potential, but I'm
afeared it has little future without some motivated developers.
HURD kind of suffers from bein
On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
I wonder what those who support the GPL so strongly on Linux support
mail lists will do in response to that argument? I personally don't
like or use the GPL, so I really don't care. But ISTM that those
who have argued so fervently in favor of th
David Brodbeck wrote:
> To me it always smacked a little of "me-too-ism", too ... the GNU
> folks felt Linux wasn't GNU-ish enough, so they had to go write their
> own kernel.
The GNU Hurd has existed long before Linux existed. Hurd has been in
development for many years. (Hurd is technology
David Brodbeck wrote:
HURD kind of suffers from being late to the party. It would have to
offer something really new and exciting to pull people away from Linux
and BSD, I think.
To me it always smacked a little of "me-too-ism", too ... the GNU folks
felt Linux wasn't GNU-ish enough, so
On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Kent West wrote:
It'd be nice if a coder of Con's caliber were to get interested in
the HURD. I think that project has a lot of potential, but I'm
afeared it has little future without some motivated developers.
HURD kind of suffers from being late to the party.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:14:33AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:34:51AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> > Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> >> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
> >>> Con Kolivas, th
Kent West ha scritto:
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>
>> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
>>> Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
>>> recently decided to quit.
>>>
>>> Loss for Linux (and Linus)
>>
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Kent West wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
recently decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his re
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:34:51AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
>>> Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler, recently
>>> decided to quit.
>>>
>
Kent West wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
recently decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his reasoning.
http://apcma
Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
recently decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his reasoning.
Hugo
Did you
Hugo Vanwoerkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
>
> I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
> Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
> recently decided to quit.
>
> Loss for Linux (and Linus)
>
> Here's his reasoning.
>
> Hugo
>
Did you fo
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler,
recently decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his reasoning.
http://apcmag.com/6735/intervi
Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/24/07 09:31, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler, recently
decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Lin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/24/07 09:31, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
> Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler, recently
> decided to quit.
>
> Loss for Linux (and Linus)
>
>
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler, recently
decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his reasoning.
http://apcmag.com/6735/interview_con_kolivas
--
To
Hi,
I don't really think this is OT, albeit not directly Debian related.
Con Kolivas, the kernel hacker who authored a better scheduler, recently
decided to quit.
Loss for Linux (and Linus)
Here's his reasoning.
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubsc
32 matches
Mail list logo
