> Being one of the people who is IMHO one of the closest to being Joe
> Blow User on this thread, I think that Mr. Gooch's results are almost
> completely irrelevant to a plain old user. I cannot think of one
> application that would be found in the typical office at present that
> actually would need real-time scheduling.
I don't really know what I'm talkning about, but my impression is that
among other things
- WinPrinters and Modems
- ISDN Faxing
- CD recording
do require real time performance. I.e. a CD could end up useless if
the recorder wasn't fed data at the appropriate rate. Not that I ever
had any problem with a reasonably loaded PPro server...
I think Richard's best argument is the claim that scheduling code will
be simplified, and of secondary importance is the conjecture that
RT could be an advantage (necessity?) for some services on an otherwise
heavily loaded server.
Joe B. User doesn't really matter, if good enough were good enough, we
wouldn't even have 2.1. After all, spinlocks don't mean a lot of
difference to Joe (the ``average'' user runs UP) , neither does fbcon
(Joe boots into X anyway), nor a lot of other specialized stuff.
~kzm
-- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants- 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/