>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.
In the case of worst-case latency, each of the above 3 operating
systems performs better than Linux.
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 ?
>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. 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. 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.
>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.
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.
The originator of this particular thread voiced a parallel observation
that Ingo's patches improved things even for the fairly common case.
In response to which you and others have pilloried him as an idiot.
If I was you, I would be ashamed of myself.
--p
-
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/