People have gotten so fed up over non-inclusion of a pluggable scheduler that they are considering a fork? Usually something like this means they are really asking for a fork to change leadership, or at least take things in a new direction.
Now, can someone honestly tell me what would be wrong with a pluggable scheduler, besides saying "Linus/Ingo say no"? Think for yourselves and answer. Other places in the kernel have selectable things, like a selectable IO scheduler. But selectable CPU scheduler? No way! The ole "it will confuse users" is really a bogus argument. Non-power users can take a default scheduler and not lift a finger. There isn't going to be a scheduler that is optimal for ALL loads, much like there is not a single allocator that works for "optimal" for all allocation loads, nor a perfect IO scheduler.
What I think I'm seeing is plain ego-tism. Not invented here type of stuff. Perhaps giving users a choice of schedulers in some form or another (pluggable or compile option) would mean Ingo doesn't know it all about scheduling. Now, we can't have that now can we? The scheduler algorithms would probably be simpler if they didn't try to do it all with one, by the way, and you could probably eek out a little more performance because of that.
Some of the people pontificating on the issue used to think source code control systems were for the weak minded, and that debuggers should be outlawed, if you all can remember that far back.
As if SMP is the only technology that could enable "bad things" from "terrorists". I guess SCO never thought of building a cluster of cheap PCs (ie a beowulf cluster?) to get more processing power for your money than say an SMP system. Because.. we all know, you can't do research w/o SMP systems. Clusters of PCs can't do squat apparently.
Also, I am thankful that SCO clarified for us that only SMP systems can do encryption.
So, whats next? Sue the people who can help build beowulf clusters? Sue the PVM guys? Sue anyone who makes technology because it can make it "rogue nations?" Better watch who buys those toasters guys!! Wouldn't want Iran to get their hands on any electronic circuits.
The question to me really is not how to do it -- the poster just got a new car with a good audio system -- he doesn't want to throw away his radio and buy a new head unit. The question I would like to see answered is why in the heck is some kind of mini-jack line input not supplied by at least luxury car makers? It seems such a trivial addition to a car that would allow people to use alternate audio devices -- whatever the device is. They can take their favorite MP3 player or whatever with them in the car. Then, they dont have to go buy specific solutions (ie from phatnoise) when they already have equipment. The cassette & fm interfaces aren't great.
Some poster here said at least the honda element has a jack. Im just puzzled why at least luxury car makers dont add a jack, then try to sell marked up audio devices (like ipods) -- just like they do cd players (you could go to a car stereo store and get better cd changes for cheaper if you wanted, yet many people just take the "factory" one thats marked up so much).
Seems like there are plenty of rube goldberg solutions to make it work, but it seems that in this day and age of innovation -- why hasnt such a simple thing been added to car stereos by default in general.
I got mine in the mail from ebgames on Friday morning. Been playing it alot -- its a great system.
All three games I got were damn nice. RSII looks very good. Luigi's Mansion is somewhat addicting -- much more addicting than I thought it would be. I'd say more but I'm busy playing. I don't really know what all the fuss is about. These new consoles (xbox and gc) are fairly nice.
Slashdot Mirror
People have gotten so fed up over non-inclusion of a pluggable scheduler that they are considering a fork? Usually something like this means they are really asking for a fork to change leadership, or at least take things in a new direction.
Now, can someone honestly tell me what would be wrong with a pluggable scheduler, besides saying "Linus/Ingo say no"? Think for yourselves and answer. Other places in the kernel have selectable things, like a selectable IO scheduler. But selectable CPU scheduler? No way! The ole "it will confuse users" is really a bogus argument. Non-power users can take a default scheduler and not lift a finger. There isn't going to be a scheduler that is optimal for ALL loads, much like there is not a single allocator that works for "optimal" for all allocation loads, nor a perfect IO scheduler.
What I think I'm seeing is plain ego-tism. Not invented here type of stuff. Perhaps giving users a choice of schedulers in some form or another (pluggable or compile option) would mean Ingo doesn't know it all about scheduling. Now, we can't have that now can we? The scheduler algorithms would probably be simpler if they didn't try to do it all with one, by the way, and you could probably eek out a little more performance because of that.
Some of the people pontificating on the issue used to think source code control systems were for the weak minded, and that debuggers should be outlawed, if you all can remember that far back.
As if SMP is the only technology that could enable "bad things" from "terrorists". I guess SCO never thought of building a cluster of cheap PCs (ie a beowulf cluster?) to get more processing power for your money than say an SMP system. Because.. we all know, you can't do research w/o SMP systems. Clusters of PCs can't do squat apparently.
Also, I am thankful that SCO clarified for us that only SMP systems can do encryption.
So, whats next? Sue the people who can help build beowulf clusters? Sue the PVM guys? Sue anyone who makes technology because it can make it "rogue nations?" Better watch who buys those toasters guys!! Wouldn't want Iran to get their hands on any electronic circuits.
What a goofy charade this is.
The question to me really is not how to do it -- the poster just got a new car with a good audio system -- he doesn't want to throw away his radio and buy a new head unit. The question I would like to see answered is why in the heck is some kind of mini-jack line input not supplied by at least luxury car makers? It seems such a trivial addition to a car that would allow people to use alternate audio devices -- whatever the device is. They can take their favorite MP3 player or whatever with them in the car. Then, they dont have to go buy specific solutions (ie from phatnoise) when they already have equipment. The cassette & fm interfaces aren't great.
Some poster here said at least the honda element has a jack. Im just puzzled why at least luxury car makers dont add a jack, then try to sell marked up audio devices (like ipods) -- just like they do cd players (you could go to a car stereo store and get better cd changes for cheaper if you wanted, yet many people just take the "factory" one thats marked up so much).
Seems like there are plenty of rube goldberg solutions to make it work, but it seems that in this day and age of innovation -- why hasnt such a simple thing been added to car stereos by default in general.
All three games I got were damn nice. RSII looks very good. Luigi's Mansion is somewhat addicting -- much more addicting than I thought it would be. I'd say more but I'm busy playing. I don't really know what all the fuss is about. These new consoles (xbox and gc) are fairly nice.