Len Umina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would suggest the following change:
Thanks for pointing out the wording problem, but the proposed change is too much: it contains many details that may be true for your system but are not true in general. For example, on some systems users other than the superuser can decrease the niceness. And 10 is not the default on many systems. The documentation should describe only what we know is true in general for "nice". More important, we shouldn't use the word "priority" when talking about niceness. From the coreutils manual: A niceness should not be confused with a scheduling priority, which lets applications determine the order in which threads are scheduled to run. Unlike a priority, a niceness is merely advice to the scheduler, which the scheduler is free to ignore. If you can think of a less-confusing phrase than "most favorable scheduling" please let us know. Perhaps "most preferred scheduling" would do? _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
