On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:31:31 -0500 (CDT) Daniel Taylor <dante at plethora.net> wrote: > Patches are applied at the whim of the core developers and Linus. > > Dave Miller and Alan Cox are pretty good at tracking meritorious > patches and helping keep them on target, but there is a definite > barrier to getting patches into the kernel. > > In some ways this is a good thing. I've seen more different scheduler > patches fall by the wayside because nobody understood them, including > the original authors. In some ways it is not so good, as the number of > interface changes in recent years has begun to outweigh functionality > improvements. > > I think the model is due to fall apart in the next few years, I don't > really know what the current state is as I got fed up and dropped out > about 4 years ago. > If this is the case, and to help to boost performace better, wouldn't it be easier/better to develop more towards today's processors/architecture than to keep "legacy" systems in as well? Just a thought... Shawn