2 ms·

I agree with what sandGorgon said. I'm not defending the Linux kernel in comparison to other FOSS projects, especially really excellent ones like FreeBSD and p

by javert 17y ago

I agree with what sandGorgon said. I'm not defending the Linux kernel in comparison to other FOSS projects, especially really excellent ones like FreeBSD and possibly Solaris. Linux and FreeBSD have different comparative advantages over each other. My point is that both are way ahead of your typical Java shop, and way ahead of Windows, and that FOSS and Linux do not deserve the beating given to them by the author of the blog post. AFAIK CFS is considered >= ULE2 by most people, and I'm not aware of significant regressions introduced by CFS, so the high degree of conservatism you pointed out in the FreeBSD project wouldn't have been warranted in this case. I don't have the background to argue the finer points of this issue, but it's off topic for this thread, anyway. Also, you quote me talking about Git, and then say, "I'm not sure what innovations you're thinking of here." I'm thinking about git and the large-scale distributed development model that was pioneered by the Linux community.

tolenka 17y ago
My point is that both are way ahead of your typical Java shop, and way ahead of Windows, and that FOSS and Linux do not deserve the beating given to them by the author of the blog post. I think that's a bit unfair to Java shops. =) AFAIK CFS is considered >= ULE2 by most people, and I'm not aware of significant regressions introduced by CFS, so the high degree of conservatism you pointed out in the FreeBSD project wouldn't have been warranted in this case. I don't have the background to argue the finer points of this issue, but it's off topic for this thread, anyway. CFS is based on knowledge gleaned from years of work on earlier schedulers by Con Kolivas and Ingo Molnar. In the meantime, the scheduler was replaced several times in the "stable" tree while they "figured it out". It took just as long, made a bigger mess, and ultimately cost more to produce (not to mention all the flamewars and bad blood engendered in the process). Whether CFS >= ULE2 is a very nuanced question, but it's fair to say that the schedulers are much closer.
luckydude 17y ago
Um, the distributed development model was pioneered by BitKeeper, not Linux. MySQL ought to get more credit, they were in BitKeeper long before Linux was.

by javert 17y ago

tolenka 17y ago

My point is that both are way ahead of your typical Java shop, and way ahead of Windows, and that FOSS and Linux do not deserve the beating given to them by the author of the blog post. I think that's a bit unfair to Java shops. =) AFAIK CFS is considered >= ULE2 by most people, and I'm not aware of significant regressions introduced by CFS, so the high degree of conservatism you pointed out in the FreeBSD project wouldn't have been warranted in this case. I don't have the background to argue the finer points of this issue, but it's off topic for this thread, anyway. CFS is based on knowledge gleaned from years of work on earlier schedulers by Con Kolivas and Ingo Molnar. In the meantime, the scheduler was replaced several times in the "stable" tree while they "figured it out". It took just as long, made a bigger mess, and ultimately cost more to produce (not to mention all the flamewars and bad blood engendered in the process). Whether CFS >= ULE2 is a very nuanced question, but it's fair to say that the schedulers are much closer.

luckydude 17y ago

Um, the distributed development model was pioneered by BitKeeper, not Linux. MySQL ought to get more credit, they were in BitKeeper long before Linux was.