Not meaning to be a Linux fanboy, but according to this post by Greg KH, key Linux kernel developer, Linux runs on more archs than NetBSD. But you might be right about NetBSD being able to run on more _old_ archs, though.
We might be enjoying the benefits of Google, but are Google's employees themselves not content? Acoording to this link on NYT[reg. required, yada, yada], the top search for "out of touch management" in Google caused the search engine to list as its first result a page describing the company's top management.
But is it Linus' fault that people idolize him? I would think that he doesn't really care about the fan following. Respect the man for what *he* is, not what his followers do.
Ok, i've asked this before, and i could not get any responses. Is the new ULE scheduler prone to the same problems as Con Kolivas of the Linux Interactivity patches fame, claims?
According to this, Con Kolivas suggests that the ULE scheduler is prone to the same problems that the Linux O(1) scheduler faced initially. Can someone with a more detailed knowledge of the workings of the ULE scheduler throw some light on this?
Slashdot Mirror
Not meaning to be a Linux fanboy, but according to this post by Greg KH, key Linux kernel developer, Linux runs on more archs than NetBSD. But you might be right about NetBSD being able to run on more _old_ archs, though.
We might be enjoying the benefits of Google, but are Google's employees themselves not content? Acoording to this link on NYT[reg. required, yada, yada], the top search for "out of touch management" in Google caused the search engine to list as its first result a page describing the company's top management.
But is it Linus' fault that people idolize him? I would think that he doesn't really care about the fan following. Respect the man for what *he* is, not what his followers do.
Ok, i've asked this before, and i could not get any responses. Is the new ULE scheduler prone to the same problems as Con Kolivas of the Linux Interactivity patches fame, claims?
According to this, Con Kolivas suggests that the ULE scheduler is prone to the same problems that the Linux O(1) scheduler faced initially. Can someone with a more detailed knowledge of the workings of the ULE scheduler throw some light on this?
Not nit-pickin, just to confirm things, wasn't it OpenBSD with the one-hole-in-7-years record?