Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • To: Eric Sandall <sandalle AT hellhound.homeip.net>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19
  • Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:38:57 -0400

Lots of them. But here's the killer: I'm using it ;-).
Seriously, I only understand the kernel development in the limited fashion. I'm familiar with microkernel OS structure, schedulers, preemption, interrupts, device handling, etc., but only as an IT professional, not as a kernel developer. So, when I read about Alan's approach to many things from his own words, I just felt his thinking is right.
Practically, I _never_ had any problems since using linux-ac exclusively for months (which is not an incentive in itself), I like how the I/O never gets in the way, and that's about it. It's not really about Alan's patches, but about the kernel itself, so I'd be really surprised to see a huge difference in kernels from all these guys. Alan's a little less conservative than Marcello and provides patches that make sense, earlier.

Strong reason for using other set of patches for me would be going with a better security and such, but not performance. Or if I start developing/using something which would require specific kernel features not present in stock kernels. Apart from this, it's just a game of being up-to-date, really ;-).

Eric Sandall wrote:

Why linux-ac? How is it better? I'm using linux-preempt atm, but if
there're good arguments to switch to -ac, I will. :)

-One of Three









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page