From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Dec 20 13:52:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from freebie.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-101-2-1-14.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.59.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FAF37B405; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from contactdish ([10.0.0.10]) by freebie.atkielski.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id fBKLq3R29904; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:52:03 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from anthony@freebie.atkielski.com) Message-ID: <025a01c189a0$8f750c70$0a00000a@atkielski.com> From: "Anthony Atkielski" To: "John Baldwin" Cc: "Gilbert Gong" , , "Jeremiah Gowdy" References: Subject: Re: Microsoft Advocacy? Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:52:02 +0100 Organization: Anthony's Home Page (development site) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG John writes: > No. Stop being paranoid. It's not paranoid at all. Ever _read_ those employment contracts you sign when you hire on as a software engineer? Even when your employer doesn't claim rights to whatever you write outright, you may still be required to give him first crack at buying any code you write, which can interfere with writing anything intended to be open-source. Having a software company claim rights on a chunk of FreeBSD because of such an agreement would be a very, very serious problem. > It's not that unsual for people writing > Unix software. In that case they can run whatever they want on the desktop. I've written stuff for my FreeBSD box with Visual C++, and then just moved it over with FTP to compile it. The Visual C++ editor and IDE are extremely ergonomic. In some cases, I can also compile and test on Windows, although that is somewhat of an exception to the rule. > Spin mutexes in the kernel don't need to actually > have a lock to spin against since the disabling > of interrupts that they perform is sufficient > protection. What about multiprocessor systems? What about unmaskable interrupts? I prefer spinning against locks, myself. Better safe than sorry. > It doesn't, because they aren't that different. If it makes no distinction, it cannot give either type of process preference. > The way it works is that when a process > performs I/O, it's priority gets bumped if it > blocks waiting for I/O, and processes get > "punished" for using the CPU. What a striking innovation. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message