On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> --Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[email protected]> wrote (on Monday, October 03, 2005 00:05:45 +0100):
>
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 05:05:42PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >>
> >> > and, what is the linux kernel?
> >> >
> >> > it's a daft, monolithic design that is suitable and faster on
> >> > single-processor systems, and that design is going to look _really_
> >> > outdated, really soon.
> >>
> >> Linux already has a number of scalable SMP synchronisation
> >> mechanisms.
> >
> > ... and you are tied in to the decisions made by the linux kernel
> > developers.
>
> Yes. As are the rest of us. So if you want to implement something
> different, that's your perogative. So feel free to go do it
> somewhere else, and quit whining on this list.
>
> We are not your implementation bitches. If you think it's such a great
> idea, do it yourself.
martin, i'm going to take a leaf from the great rusty russell's book,
because i was very impressed with the professional way in which he
dealt with someone who posted such immature and out-of-line comments:
he rewrote them in a much more non-hostile manner and then replied to
that.
so, here goes: i'm copying the above few [relevant] paragraphs
below, then rewriting them, here:
> >
> > ... and you are tied in to the decisions made by the linux kernel
> > developers.
>
> Yes, this is very true: we are all somewhat at the mercy of their
> decisions. However, fortunately, they had the foresight to work
> with free software, so any of us can try something different, if
> we wish.
>
> i am slightly confused by your message, however: forgive me for
> asking this but you are not expecting us to implement such a radical
> redesign, are you?
martin, hi, thank you for responding.
well... actually, as it turns out, the l4linux and l4ka people have
already done most of the work!!
i believe you may have missed part of my message (it was a bit long, i
admit) and i thank you for the opportunity, that your message presents,
to reiterate this: l4linux _exists_ - last time i checked (some months
ago) it had a port of 2.6.11 to the L4 microkernel.
so, in more ways than one, no i am of course not expecting people to
just take orders from someone as mad as myself :)
i really should reiterate this: i _invite_ people to _consider_ the
direction that processor designs - not just any "off-the-wall"
processor designs but _mainstream_ x86-compatible processor designs -
are likely to take. and they are becoming more and more parallel.
the kinds of questions that the experienced linux kernel
maintainers and developers really need to ask is: can the
present linux kernel design _cope_ with such parallelism?
is there an easier way?
that's mainly why i wished you "good luck" :)
l.
p.s. martin. _don't_ do that again. i don't care who you are:
internet archives are forever and your rudeness will be noted
by google-users and other search-users - long after you are dead.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
