I'm not surprised. For many applications, a 386 is all you need (and
all you can afford).
> On another issue, I've been very upset by the behaviour exhibited by
> a number of people on this thread. It's an often repeated claim, by
> Eric Raymond or on Kernel Traffic or in half a dozen other places,
> that one great benefit of having the Linux source code is that
> arguments can be settled on technical grounds alone.
I agree. I've campaigned against the rampant flaming and abuse that
litters this list. I see no need for it.
On the plus side, this time around it's been less abusive and
personal.
> If there isn't a patch then this is all rather pointless. But I
> cannot see a great deal of sense in beating Richard into submission
> before he even tries to write the patch. Wait until it's written,
> then shoot big holes in it. If Richard does not write the patch then
> the problem goes away. If he does write it then Linux can only
> benefit or break even.
The last time we had this debate was back in September, when I posted
a patch which created a separate run queue for RT tasks. The patch has
been there for ages. See: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/