El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> of how crappy X is. This is an open argument on how to solve, but it > should not have resulted in really one scheduler over the other. Both So your argument is that SD shouldn't have been merged either, because it would have resulted in one scheduler over the other? > where capable but one is locked out now because of the choices of > current high level kernel developers in Linux. Well, there are two schedulers...it's obvious that "high level kernel developers" needed to chose one. 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 only one of them could be merged. The difference is that EVMS developers didn't get that annoyed, and not only they didn't quit but they continued developing their userspace tools to make it work with the solution included in the kernel (http://lwn.net/Articles/14714/) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
