sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Glenn Shannon" <warl0k AT lvcm.com>
- To: "'Sergey A. Lipnevich'" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>, "'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, 3 Aug 2002 11:44:49 -0700
I would have to side with Sergey on this one.
Alan Cox is god. Nuff said. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: sm-discuss-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:sm-discuss-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Sergey A.
Lipnevich
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 11:39 AM
To: Eric Sandall
Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19
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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
-
[SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/03/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19, bluebird, 08/03/2002
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Glenn Shannon, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Treeve Jelbert, 08/03/2002
- RE: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19, Glenn Shannon, 08/03/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19, bluebird, 08/03/2002
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Eric Sandall, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Eric Sandall, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/03/2002
- RE: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19, Glenn Shannon, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Eric Sandall, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Treeve Jelbert, 08/03/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19, Bob Cottingham, 08/03/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19,
Chris Brien, 08/03/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] We have 2.4.19, Jon Svendsen, 08/03/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.