El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:07:05 -0700, Bill Huey (hui) <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> escribió:

quoted text
> 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?

quoted text
> 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/)
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/