| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| SCHED_DEADLINE v6 released |
| By special contributor cloud on 2012-10-27 01:05:38 |
| A new version of the real-time Linux scheduler called SCHED_DEADLINE has been released on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. For people who missed previous submissions, it consists of a new deadline-based CPU scheduler for the Linux kernel with bandwidth isolation (resource reservation) capabilities. It supports global/clustered multiprocessor scheduling through dynamic task migrations. This new version takes into account previous comments/suggestions and is aligned to the latest mainline kernel. A video about SCHED_DEADLINE is also available on YouTube. |
|
| Demo? Almost. |
| By ericxjo on 2012-10-27 01:50:26 |
|
From the YouTube description: Unfortunately, however, the movie has been filmed in sequence, and then assembled to let people understand that all these activities were concurrent (we were not able of making three video simultaneously). Well, that undermines the demo... |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE: Demo? Almost. |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-27 03:56:37 |
|
ericxjo, Well, it probably boiled down to something as simple as them not having three cameras. I don't have any trouble believing it could do all three at the same time. Although they should have panned from one to the next. Even a non-realtime kernel should have been able to handle those three tasks simultaneously without any trouble at all on an old 486. I'd be more impressed if the tasks demanded much harder real time restraints. And then executing them while compiling linux and browsing with firefox! |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: lie-nux at it again. |
| By NuxRo on 2012-10-27 10:01:18 |
| And because it's such a useless, big lie that it took over most of the computing world. You're a funny guy. |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[3]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-27 12:09:12 |
|
For some reason I do not believe a thing you're saying. > even though i use mint linux executing off a usb drive... linux is simply a badly written program with big claims. it is too complicated ( libraries, many commands, slow, crashy... ). A badly written program with many commands and libraries? If you were an OS-developer you'd know the difference between a kernel and userland. |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE[5]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-27 12:30:56 |
|
> you have answered your own doubts. You're not making any sense here. > the good os is simple in architecture No, a good OS is one that fits its intended purpose. There is no single definition of a "good os." > by architecture linux is not microkernel. And? No one claimed it was. > so this talk about "user-land" is shouting out that in linux there is not natural separation between kernel and "what ever one might call it". Oh, really? Why are there so many different operating systems which use Linux-kernel but an entirely different userland? Oh, that's right: you have no idea what you're talking about. > don't forget the aspect of these complicated "dependencies" when one has to "install" some program. what happened to the unix method of copy some program to a directory and just use it ?? Ahahaha. Fail. Next time learn what you're talking about. Edited 2012-10-27 12:32 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[7]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-27 12:44:25 |
|
> "Oh, really? Why are there so many different operating systems which use Linux-kernel" firstly such programs cannot be anything other than being called "distros". Android is a good example of a Linux-kernel with non-GNU userland. There are also plenty of different kinds of embedded systems that use Linux-kernel without GNU-userland, like e.g. HDTVs and several BluRay-players. > when you said fail... please elaborate. Package manager - files has nothing to do with the application itself. You CAN just copy and application and its dependencies to another directory and run it from there just fine. You've clearly never heard of shared libraries and the likes and you just expect all applications to be statically compiled, and that says enough about your level of technical abilities. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[9]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-27 13:08:33 |
|
> 1. does package manager never say "this or that .so file is not present". You not having set LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable properly does. Read http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Li... Basically, the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable must include the path to the location where the libraries are. This is a security feature. You, on the other hand, seem to expect the system to just automatically use whatever files that happen to be in the same directory as the executable, something that is fine in small, embedded systems, but Linux is meant for multi-user systems and on those it's a bad idea to do that. If you do not have the libraries installed at all, well, that's your own issue. Package managers exist exactly for the reason that people don't have to hunt for the dependencies themselves. If you insist on not using a package manager then you must manually hunt all the dependencies and install them. > 3. cannot a modern linux system be used at all without package manager. ?? Yes, it can. You just have to install all the dependencies by hand. See e.g. LSB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin... It's not worth it, though. Why do you even want to not have a package manager? Is there some good, specific reason for that, or is it just that you do not understand how package managers and shared libraries work under Linux? > will you agree to contribute to a clock-less multi-core microprocessor and control program development if you are sure about your abilities. i will tell you the site to vist and see the documents. No, thank you. I have no need or interest in such. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[11]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By WereCatf on 2012-10-27 13:25:34 |
|
> if you take a walk and re-consider linux again... boring, complicated, un-reliable, pretentious. That's your opinion. > try running lie-nux on your next airplane. good luck not "crashing". I have several Linux-servers running 24/7, no crashes. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[12]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By sameer on 2012-10-27 13:29:43 |
| ok. i am signing off. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: lie-nux at it again. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-27 14:07:49 |
|
Perhaps Linux is badly written, complicated and certainly its coders aren't the most pleasant people, but it's hard to associate Linux with slowness (perhaps it is when run from a USB flash drive) or crashing. Linux (the kernel) and GNU wonderland are, in my experience, just fine. The GUI stuff is often buggy and crashes, but it won't take down the system itself. A Linux server will go on and on for months and years. If you experience crashes it's probably defective hardware or some rare buggy driver. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |