![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
James Bruce wrote: > That said, its important not to claim something about a patch which > doesn't match the common definitions. Ingo has been very careful in the > claims he's made, but I think a lot of people have read his posts too > quickly and misinterpreted what he's claiming for the current patch. > This includes people on both sides of the fence. He's also been silent > for much of this discussion as its gotten out of hand, showing he's > clearly wiser than all of us. > I have never been in any doubt as to the specific claims I have made. I continually have been talking about hard realtime from start to finish, and it appears that everyone now agrees with me that for hard-RT, a nanokernel solution is better or at least not obviously worse at this stage. Ingo actually of course has been completely rational and honest the whole time - he actually emailed me to basically say "there will be pros and cons of both, and until things develop further I'm not completely sure". Which I was pretty satisfied with. Then along came the lynch mob. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-31 11:38 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||