| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
inotifyinotifyPosted Jul 23, 2006 17:55 UTC (Sun) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)In reply to: inotify by cventers Parent article: OLS: On how user space sucks Look at the Linux 2.6 process - I would call that "Fast, cheap, good". It's not perfect, but it's damn fast, it's still F/OSS and it's still /very/ good. I wouldn't call the 2.6 process "fast, cheap and good". It might be fast, but it's certainly not good (the last usable kernel for me was 2.6.14) and definitely not cheap - I'd like to know how many kernel developers are funded for their work on the kernel. I think it's not a particulary low number.
(Log in to post comments)
inotify Posted Jul 23, 2006 18:00 UTC (Sun) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] If 'cheap' is a function including n (the rate of change) rather than aconstant, then I think the kernel is about as 'cheap' as you can get.
It's unfortunate that you've had problems since 2.6.14. What sort of
After having seen the survey conducted here on kernel quality, it would
inotify Posted Jul 24, 2006 6:42 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Each kernel gets better for me. 2.4 series was better then 2.2. 2.6 is better for me then 2.4
Lower latencies, more usable desktop. Better responsiveness. My hardware is supported out of the box on new kernels, which is wasn't for older. ALSA sound drivers are a huge improvement over OSS for me. With dmix I can have, get this, more the _one_sound_ at a time and it doesn't sound like crap. Multimedia performance has improved.
(of course I am still taking about the kernel here.. it's desktop scedualing options makes life better)
Stability has improved. Wireless support has improved. Udev makes things easier for me now that I just tell the computer what /dev files I want vs having to dig around and finding the stupid major minor numbers for everything.
Maybe if the other person was to post WHY 2.6.15, 2.6.16, 2.6.17 series kernels are unusable maybe they would have receive more sympathy.
inotify Posted Jul 24, 2006 12:27 UTC (Mon) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] My hardware is supported out of the box on new kernels, which is wasn't for older.Your mileage may vary, but I never managed to boot my old 486 with 2.6 kernel - fortunately it worked with 2.4. It didn't worked well, the TCP connection tracking code kept tracking connections that were long gone, so the system ran out of memory, but it still worked. On the other hand, one of the two reasons I use 2.6 on my other computer is that with 2.6 I dont' have to reboot between watching a DVD and burning a CD-R. Stability has improved. Wireless support has improved. Udev makes things easier for me Again your mileage may vary, but my computer locks up hard with every single 2.6 if I make a larger I/O operation while watching TV with xawtv - and this wouldn't make a useful bug report. I don't have wireless cards and never felt the need for dynamic /dev, so these features do not make me happy. WHY 2.6.15, 2.6.16, 2.6.17 series kernels are unusable Recording audio from TV doesn't work with mplayer. I've reported the bug and it's supposed to be in mplayer and supposed to be fixed, yet it still didn't work when I tried last time. So I stick with 2.6.14.
|
|||||||||||