The beginning of the realtime preemption debate
Posted Jun 3, 2005 7:43 UTC (Fri) by
set (guest, #4788)
In reply to:
The beginning of the realtime preemption debate by jwb
Parent article:
The beginning of the realtime preemption debate
The 'audio people' are not driven by xmms playback issues, although the
general userbase would benifit from their concerns. They want to be able
to record live sessions and do live performances without drop outs or
clicks, which are show stoppers. This extends to live effects processing
and multimedia capture of all sorts. And the RT patch is completely
optional. It should have zero effect if you dont config it. The debate
is not about how this patch would affect the majority, but if it is the
best solution for a broad range of problems, which, if you read the
ungodly long thread on lkml, seems to have goosed a number of parties,
armchair and otherwise.
Actually, the issue I would rather have seen presented here would be about
the argument about what exactly 'real time' means. For example, some backers of the RT patch are saying it is better than RTOS's they are using
in their industry, and that it is potentially earthshaking. The adjective
'hard' when combined with 'real time' seems to be where the semantics
get difficult.
And no one even mentioned the patent fud;)
(
Log in to post comments)
