Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 22:47 UTC
Linux Ingo Molnar released a new patchset titled the 'Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler'. He explained, "this project is a complete rewrite of the Linux task scheduler. My goal is to address various feature requests and to fix deficiencies in the vanilla scheduler that were suggested/found in the past few years, both for desktop scheduling and for server scheduling workloads."
Permalink for comment 233250
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Tuishimi on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 23:30 UTC
Member since:

Every time I read one of these articles I am astounded at the infighting and "name calling"-like behavior of these developers. And then there is Linus attitude "I don't want to be polite."

This kind of attitude can't be good for any project/developer in the long run, I would think... Even under the guise of "it fosters competition."

How about instead of competing, everyone "sits down", figures out a good way (not even necessarily the best way) to do something, then they all work together to make it happen. Then they enter a process that enables them to review what they have done, propose changes in the future and start the whole process over again in a cyclical, and always "polite and professional" manner?

When I worked in openVMS we had regular code reviews (and all patches were subject to peer code review). In those code reviews the "gurus" or maybe mentors is a better term, that usually attented as well would offer advice if you asked or would ask if they could comment about how you did something. But they usually did not have to ask as the first thing out of the person whose code was being reviewed was "please offer any suggestions that could improve what I've done."

And you know what? That advice was accepted and more often than not changes were made to incorporate it. That's how the younger developers learned some of the tricks of the trade. The only competition that existed was in each developer's desire to improve their own code!!

Reply Score: 3