Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Nov 2008 22:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 337200
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-11-13
Well, let's just say then that in the eyes of some people, including the author of the article and me, there was the expectation that the kernel was going to be 'optimized'.
Which it isn't.
You, I and the author agree that it isn't.
You and I (and the author) disagree that such an optimization was to be expected.
Anyways, this discussion is much more relevant to me than deciding if memory footprint and thread count is a valuable indication of the 'likeness' of two kernels.
Hence my 'missing the point'.
Can we leave it at that?