Date: 15 Mar 2001 00:33:06 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Core's function (was: The Project and onward [was: Re: cvscommit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c]) Message-ID: <xzplmq8x6x9.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Andrea Campi's message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:17:32 %2B0100" References: <20010313121002.F59348@wantadilla.lemis.com> <3794.984471257@critter> <20010313104930.C60817@daemon.ninth-circle.org> <20010313133108S.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <3AAEA353.B31800B5@originative.co.uk> <20010314104739.A50356@gurney.reilly.home> <20010314104739.A50356@gurney.reilly.home> <200103140142.UAA42549@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20010314020407.Y412@hand.dotat.at> <20010315001732.B552@webcom.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> writes:
> I'm trying to get more people in the company I work for, a BT subsidiary, to
> install and use FreeBSD. Problem is, the CTO is a great AIX fan, and is
> always touting the preemptive kernel of Mach based architectures. Anybody care
> to give me pointers, by private mail, on what arguments we have against that?
We don't have any arguments against preemptive kernels. We think
they're a good idea. In fact, we think they're such a good idea that
we ("we" as in "Jason Evans, John Baldwin, Jake Burkholder and Bosko
Milekic, with a little help from some other people, including me")
are working our collective butts off making our kernel preemptive. The
-CURRENT kernel has been partially preemptive for the past month or
two.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzplmq8x6x9.fsf>