On Friday 03 August 2007 15:51:59 T. J. Brumfield wrote:
> > I'm not going to argue with this point because I think this is exactly
> > what Linus meant. He wanted a scheduler that worked. And he knew it
> > wouldn't work immediately after merging it. So he had to go with the
> > person that he tru
> I'm not going to argue with this point because I think this is exactly what
> Linus meant. He wanted a scheduler that worked. And he knew it wouldn't work
> immediately after merging it. So he had to go with the person that he trusted
> the most to make it work, quickly. And this was Ingo. That m
On Friday 03 August 2007 14:27:30 Андрій Мішковський wrote:
> Bad things may happen if Linus gives a right of making decision to
> other people (a big group of people). ;)
> As you said, Linux is a public OS, so Con's code never will be lost.
> That's the base of open source - people come and go, b
The real question is WHY do people keep writing essays about topics that have
_already_ been exhaustively explored in other threads? If you want a better
understanding of the situation, read the archives, DON'T post another
duplicate message about the same scheduler parade.
Unless you've got so
T. J. Brumfield gmail.com> writes:
> 1 - Can someone please explain why the kernel can be modular in every
> other aspect, including offering a choice of IO schedulers, but not
> kernel schedulers?
IMHO, Linus has a grudge against Con, but I can't understand, why. Con has
written nice code, I u
On 8/3/07, T. J. Brumfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First off, I am an avid reader of the LKML but I'm not a developer.
> Admittedly I am a piss-poor C developer who likes to poke around the
> code, play with patches and attempt to learn, but in reality at best I
> pretend I understand it, and
6 matches
Mail list logo
