Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 12:06:54 EST


On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 10:42, Russell King wrote:
> What I'm not saying here is that anything one thing sucks (except maybe
> ARM on a desktop box running Gnome.) The point I'm trying to make is
> that you can give the kernel as much "interactive" feel as you like, but
> until user space gets It Right (tm), the kernel isn't really going to
> make one blind bit of difference to the "feel" the user experiences.
>
> I just wish someone would take away all the gnome developers high
> performance machines and give them slow old 486's. 8)

The GNOME stuff is mostly userspace problems not kernel space, and some
of it is tool problems (lack of tools to lay binaries out so they stream
from disk, lack of tools to put all the fixups in the same few pages).
Gnome noticably improved when prelinking in gnu tools began to work

To do a meaningful kernel comparison you need to look at 2.2/2.4/2.5
with the same user space setup.

As to the 486's. There is optimisation work for gnome and especially
startup going on. Seems its a bit slow on those old legacy sparc64
contraptions ;)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:54 EST