From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261404AbVFJXLS (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:11:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261389AbVFJXLF (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:11:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.lnxw.com ([207.21.185.24]:4876 "EHLO smtp.lnxw.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261402AbVFJXJS (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:09:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:15:02 -0700 To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Bill Huey , Lee Revell , "Paul E. McKenney" , Tim Bird , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, karim@opersys.com, mingo@elte.hu, pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de, sdietrich@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread Message-ID: <20050610231502.GF21618@nietzsche.lynx.com> References: <20050609235026.GE1297@us.ibm.com> <1118372388.32270.6.camel@mindpipe> <20050610154745.GA1300@us.ibm.com> <20050610173728.GA6564@g5.random> <1118436338.6423.48.camel@mindpipe> <20050610210614.GD6564@g5.random> <20050610221914.GA20694@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610223751.GE6564@g5.random> <20050610230121.GB21618@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610230510.GG6564@g5.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050610230510.GG6564@g5.random> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bill Huey (hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 01:05:10AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > I don't care what folks did for ages, I care what I think is best to do > _now_ with linux, and I don't see why one should go with RTOS when much > simpler and more reliable and _more_performant_ solutions exists when > switching to linux, even for the printers. Covered in the previous mega-flame-war RT acceptance thread. > Those are sort of problems where metal-hard may be simpler to deal with, > if there's a skip they'll record a second time, and you can just use > measurement and proabability there, without providing any guarantee. > > Perhaps you can't handle valid criticism cause you have a conflict of > interest. Look, I don't like being pissy with you, but this has already been covered in that monster thread from hell. Really, it was already covered. bill