> two weeks stale, but your take on the EVMS story is incorrect. The
> EVMS developers (that is, Kevin) sent out a nice, conciliatory email,
> the project sputtered on for a while, then basically died.
This is perfectly normal. It was outevolved and ran out of people who
cared enough to
On Saturday 28 July 2007 14:06, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) escribió:
> The main problem is clearly that no scheduler was clearly better than
> the other. This remembers me of the LVM2/MD vs EVMS in the 2.5 days -
> both of them were good enought, but
On Saturday 28 July 2007 14:06, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) escribió:
The main problem is clearly that no scheduler was clearly better than
the other. This remembers me of the LVM2/MD vs EVMS in the 2.5 days -
both of them were good enought, but
two weeks stale, but your take on the EVMS story is incorrect. The
EVMS developers (that is, Kevin) sent out a nice, conciliatory email,
the project sputtered on for a while, then basically died.
This is perfectly normal. It was outevolved and ran out of people who
cared enough to continue
On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:03, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
> > It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
> > What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
> > kernel innovates forward.
> > [...]
>
> This attitude has
On Thursday 02 August 2007 13:03, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
kernel innovates forward.
[...]
This attitude has risks over the long
Hi -
> My concern is that only "get my line of code merged" is seen as "the
> ultimate thing". It's more than that. Linux is about collaboration [...]
Unfortunately, this spirit of collaboration sometimes gets lost in
practice when feedback is asymmetric, obnoxious, or absent.
- FChE
-
To
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
> What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
> innovates forward.
> [...]
This attitude has risks over the long term, if outsiders with fresh
ideas are discouraged.
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
> > What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
> > innovates forward.
> > [...]
>
> This attitude has
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:05:01AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I've had several cases myself where I spent quite some time solving a
> problem, just to get some random remark from someone smart on lkml
> saying "if you had done you would have had simple and superior solution>". Was I pissed
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:05:01AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I've had several cases myself where I spent quite some time solving a
problem, just to get some random remark from someone smart on lkml
saying if you had done this simple thing you would have had this
simple and superior
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
innovates forward.
[...]
This attitude has risks over the long term, if outsiders with fresh
ideas are discouraged. Risking
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It does not matter [whose] code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux kernel
innovates forward.
[...]
This attitude has risks over the
Hi -
My concern is that only get my line of code merged is seen as the
ultimate thing. It's more than that. Linux is about collaboration [...]
Unfortunately, this spirit of collaboration sometimes gets lost in
practice when feedback is asymmetric, obnoxious, or absent.
- FChE
-
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:40 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > > And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
> > > is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
> >
> > and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
> > given
>
> You
> > And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
> > is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
>
> and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
> given
You mean, when Ingo announced CFS he mentioned Con's name?
I really
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 10:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me repeat the key message:
> >
> > It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> > It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> > It does not matter who's code gets merged.
>
> has to get the blessing of the maintainer. On the other hand,
> as you just said, the maintainer has no such obligation.
Umm nope. As a maintainer if you feed Linus stuff you wrote that he
thinks is a bad idea it will not go in, and you'll get an explanation of
why.
The process isn't perfect
On Jul 28 2007 12:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> Time to investigate...
Well it really is different.
Simple test:
- run Unreal Tournament 99 (nice 0, it gets 98%,99% CPU most of the time)
- in a shell, `renice 20 $$; while :; do date; done;`
The
On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me repeat the key message:
>
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
> It does not matter who's code gets merged.
>
> What matters is that the
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
Hua Zhong wrote:
I don't think it's the code superiority that decided the fate of the two
schedulers. When CFS came out, the fate of SD was pretty much already
decided. The fact is that Linus trusts Ingo, and as such he wants to merge
Ingo's code. Of course I cannot say it's wrong, and Ingo's
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:16 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
> > Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
> > suggestions? Definitely not.
>
> Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
>
> Unless the maintainer does a really
> Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
> Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
> suggestions? Definitely not.
Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
Unless the maintainer does a really bad job or pisses off Linus,
anyone who wants to merge his code
Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
suggestions? Definitely not.
Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
Unless the maintainer does a really bad job or pisses off Linus,
anyone who wants to merge his code into
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:16 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not.
Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or
suggestions? Definitely not.
Yes, and that's where the inequality is.
Unless the maintainer does a really bad job
Hua Zhong wrote:
I don't think it's the code superiority that decided the fate of the two
schedulers. When CFS came out, the fate of SD was pretty much already
decided. The fact is that Linus trusts Ingo, and as such he wants to merge
Ingo's code. Of course I cannot say it's wrong, and Ingo's
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem gets solved and that the Linux
On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
What matters is that the problem
On Jul 28 2007 12:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Time to investigate...
Well it really is different.
Simple test:
- run Unreal Tournament 99 (nice 0, it gets 98%,99% CPU most of the time)
- in a shell, `renice 20 $$; while :; do date; done;`
The shell
has to get the blessing of the maintainer. On the other hand,
as you just said, the maintainer has no such obligation.
Umm nope. As a maintainer if you feed Linus stuff you wrote that he
thinks is a bad idea it will not go in, and you'll get an explanation of
why.
The process isn't perfect
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 10:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/1/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me repeat the key message:
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not matter who's code gets merged.
It does not
And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
given
You mean, when Ingo announced CFS he mentioned Con's name?
I really doubt
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:40 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what matters
is that brilliant, new ideas get rewarded one way or another.
and in this case, the reward is that the idea got used and credit was
given
You mean, when
Roman Zippel wrote:
When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had
already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform
an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he
wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We've had people go with a splash before. Quite frankly, the current
> scheduler situation looks very much like the CML2 situation. Anybody
> remember that? The developer there also got rejected, the improvement was
> made differently (and much
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> Here's the problem, *a lot* of folks can do scheduler development in and
> outside community, so what's with exclusive-only attitude towards the
> scheduler ?
There is no exclusive-only attitude towards the scheduler.
If you send me small and obvious
* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the problem, *a lot* of folks can do scheduler development in
> and outside community, so what's with exclusive-only attitude towards
> the scheduler ?
You came to us as an ex-BSD developer (which has a completely different
contribution
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:57 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> >
> > We obviously all saw how the particular authors tried to address the
> > issues. Ingo tried to address all concerns while Con simply ranted about
> > his scheduler being
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 04:18:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ingo posted numbers. Look at those numbers, and then I would suggest some
> people could seriously consider just shutting up. I've seen too many
> idiotic people who claim that Con got treated unfairly, without those
> people
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
> comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
> the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his
>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 04:18:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ingo posted numbers. Look at those numbers, and then I would suggest some
people could seriously consider just shutting up. I've seen too many
idiotic people who claim that Con got treated unfairly, without those
people
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:57 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
We obviously all saw how the particular authors tried to address the
issues. Ingo tried to address all concerns while Con simply ranted about
his scheduler being better.
* Bill Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the problem, *a lot* of folks can do scheduler development in
and outside community, so what's with exclusive-only attitude towards
the scheduler ?
You came to us as an ex-BSD developer (which has a completely different
contribution culture) and
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
Here's the problem, *a lot* of folks can do scheduler development in and
outside community, so what's with exclusive-only attitude towards the
scheduler ?
There is no exclusive-only attitude towards the scheduler.
If you send me small and obvious
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical
comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best. The root of all
the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
We've had people go with a splash before. Quite frankly, the current
scheduler situation looks very much like the CML2 situation. Anybody
remember that? The developer there also got rejected, the improvement was
made differently (and much
Roman Zippel wrote:
When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had
already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform
an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he
wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
The current kernel development process tries to pretend that there is no
human involvement. Which is plain inaccurate: It is *all* human
involvement, without a human not a single bit of kernel code would
change.
IMHO, the above statements are all plain conjectures.
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 17:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hi Kasper,
>
> * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> > smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> > world of warcraft via
* George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > > > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more
> * George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > > > > scheduler has, the better. [
* George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > > > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after
> > On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious initial merging
> > > trouble it should be
* George Sescher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
> > Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
> > scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious
* George Sescher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious initial
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious initial merging
trouble it should be much easier to
* George Sescher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious initial
* George Sescher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
scheduler has, the better. [ Btw., after the obvious
* George Sescher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* George Sescher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd encourage you to do it - in fact i already tried to prod Peter
Williams into doing exactly that ;) The more reality checks a
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 17:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
hi Kasper,
* Kasper Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
The current kernel development process tries to pretend that there is no
human involvement. Which is plain inaccurate: It is *all* human
involvement, without a human not a single bit of kernel code would
change.
IMHO, the above statements are all plain conjectures.
On 7/30/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, how hard is it for people to just admit that CFS actually
> does better than SD on a number of things? Including very much on the
> desktop.
Actually in benchmarks Ingo has quoted, SD was better on the desktop
(by a small
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 14:48 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
> > was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
> >
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
>
> He said having reality checks is a good thing. He's encouraging some
> poor bastard to maintain plugsched out of mainline to have SD or
> whatever to compare to.
My bad, it was me who misread that (I didn't react to the name, I was
thinking
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're advocating plugsched now?
On 30/07/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd suggest people here take a look at the code. It's not what Ingo was
> saying, and it's not what the code is set up to do. He's just stating that
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, George Sescher wrote:
>
>
> You're advocating plugsched now?
I'd suggest people here take a look at the code. It's not what Ingo was
saying, and it's not what the code is set up to do. He's just stating that
the way he split up the files, it's actually easier from a
> * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] As far as im concerned, i may be forced to unofficially maintain
> > SD for my own systems(allthough lots in the gaming community is bound
> > to be interrested, as it does make games lots better)
On 30/07/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Absolutely.
>
> Con quit for his own reasons. Given that Con himself has said that CFS
> was _not_ why he quite, please discard this... bait. Anyone who's name
> isn't Con Kolivas, who pretends to speak for him is at the very
* Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So whats wrong then?
> > >
> > > Ingo decides to do a better scheduler - to some extent inspired by
> > > Con's work. And after 48 hours he publish first version that
> > > _anyone_ can see and comment on. Whats wrong with that?
> > >
> > > Did
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 16:31 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
> > but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:23:31PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > > I
> > > > > actually also think that the
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Satyam Sharma:
> Hi Martin,
Hi Satyam,
> > I believe that Ingo did not meant any bad at all. I think its just
> > the way he works, he likes to have code before saying anything. But
> > still I believe before I'd go about replacing someone else code
> > completely
Hi Martin,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > > I
> > > > > actually also think that the communication
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Diego Calleja:
> > This time it was Con being the Mindcraft catalyst. But he's on *our*
> > side and he got beat down by the Linux kernel community. That's the
> > tragedy here. He was beaten down by the very people he was trying to
> > help out and support. It
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > > I
> > > > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con
> > > > could have been better especially when
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > > I
> > > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
> > > have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
> > > was still working
On Sonntag, 29. Juli 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
> > I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when
> > people were reporting huge improvements
hi Kasper,
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
> smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
> world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is
> despite many patches he
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
> but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit. CFS
> basically locks him and his ideas out, not just from a
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> > I
> > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
> > have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
> > was still working hard on SD.
>
> You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look
> I
> actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
> have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con was
> still working hard on SD.
You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment at
about 48 hours after he started to work on
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
> > El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> > > So "modal" things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run.
> > > But they are a total disaster in the
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
part. And I suspect that that actually is true for most kernel developers,
because quite frankly, that's what 99% of them ends up using. If a kernel
developer uses Windows for his day-to-day work,
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
> > then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes
> > to mind) and let them choose what pleases them most,
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> People are suggesting that you'd have a separate "desktop kernel".
> That's insane. It also shows total ignorance of maintainership, and
> reality. And I bet most of the people there haven't tested _either_
> scheduler, they just like making
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
People are suggesting that you'd have a separate desktop kernel.
That's insane. It also shows total ignorance of maintainership, and
reality. And I bet most of the people there haven't tested _either_
scheduler, they just like making statements.
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
You cannot please everybody in the scheduler question, that is clear,
then why not offer dedicated scheduling alternatives (plugsched comes
to mind) and let them choose what pleases them most, and
Am Samstag 28 Juli 2007 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
So modal things are good for fixing behaviour in the short run.
But they are a total disaster in the long run,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, I've _always_ considered the desktop to be the most important
part. And I suspect that that actually is true for most kernel developers,
because quite frankly, that's what 99% of them ends up using. If a kernel
developer uses Windows for his day-to-day work,
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con was
still working hard on SD.
You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment at
about 48 hours after he started to work on CFS?
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
was still working hard on SD.
You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment at
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:00:39 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
The scheduler could have and still can undertake good solid transformation,
but getting folks to listen is another story which is why Con quit. CFS
basically locks him and his ideas out, not just from a technical
On Sonntag, 29. Juli 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 01:41 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Hi,
I never tried Con's patchset, for two reasons:
I tried his 2.4 patches ones, and I never saw any improvements. So when
people were reporting huge improvements with his SD
hi Kasper,
* Kasper Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in
smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s),
world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. And this is
despite many patches he sent
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con could
have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS while Con
was still working hard on SD.
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
I
actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con
could have been better especially when Ingo decided to
Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Diego Calleja:
This time it was Con being the Mindcraft catalyst. But he's on *our*
side and he got beat down by the Linux kernel community. That's the
tragedy here. He was beaten down by the very people he was trying to
help out and support. It should have
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
