[openbeos] Re: [FAQ] FAQ #1: CFS and Haiku's new scheduler comparison
- From: "André Braga" <meianoite@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:13:20 -0300
On 6/12/07, Charlie Clark <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With comments like that I can understand why the poster wished to
remain anonymous!
Hey, hey. Nobody asked me for anonymity. *I* guessed that it would be
better not to mention names because *I* didn't ask for permission to
quote anyone. If anyone here is at fault, it's *ME*.
Linux's scheduling and desire to be all things to
all people is one of its bigger problems.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I think the energy in the Linux development
world is wonderful! And slowly but surely it will approach a very
balanced compromise between all things people want Linux to do. Even
if such compromise is simply extreme tailoring (way beyond what is
currently possible) at compile time with the right config options.
I'm only wary of people believing Linux has "Solved Every Problem
Right Now", and that everything that they come up with is a "Fresh New
Look at the Issues that Plague the World Since the Big Bang". ;)
Thank you André for a very informative paper. We don't have a heap of
coders out there ready, willing and desperate to reinvent the wheel
at every passing programming fad so we need research based development.
?
+1 for Minix
+1 for Tanenbaum
+1 for microkernel
You DO realise however that Tanenbaum only implemented a very simple
and linear scheduling algorithm for Linux, right? :)
He did however cite Waldspurger's paper. And while I ended up finding
it again independently, if I read the damn bib references I'd save
myself quite some time, too.
The difference is that Ingo Molnár is a *key* Linux developer for
quite some time and he's a RedHat employee; I'm just unemployed Joe
Nobody finishing college!
Charlie
See ya,
A.
Other related posts:
