begin quoting Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. as of Wed, May 25, 2005 at 05:19:01PM -0700: > On May 25, 2005, at 10:03 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > >Did you add pre-emptive kernel patched to the Linux system? That > >adds a lot in apparent responsiveness. > > Uh, no. You don't add "customer patches" to Windows XP or OS X in > order to make them "sufficiently responsive". > > I don't want to do this. I shouldn't have to do this. I refuse to > do this. > > I don't want to play with my OS. I want to do stuff with my computer. Playing with the OS like that is _fine_ for a hobbyist's OS. But much of the Linux community doesn't want Linux to be a hobbyist's OS anymore, but a lot of that hobbyist attitude still comes along with the OS.
If I pay myself my billable rate while I recompile the kernel to make the OS "sufficiently responsive", Linux suddenly becomes a VERY expensive proposition, and the price/performance curve changes drastically. Anything you HAVE to do to make the machine usable counts against the total cost. [snip] > The only microprocessor which still probably qualifies as CISC is an > ARM. I poked around the ARM website and didn't see much that discussed what actually goes on from a programmer's viewpoint -- is that sort of support an extra-cost, or was I fighting the web again? -Stewart "RISC/CISC agnostic. Endianess now... that's different." Stremler
pgpxAMgk8fyL9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
