Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:43:59 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.2: ULE vs 4BSD Message-ID: <20061126194359.GB76643@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200611261706.57754.fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> References: <499c70c0611260212sa53a2bcq6345f063b7bfdddf@mail.gmail.com> <cb5206420611260418h70415e4buc807f001e9b0c9da@mail.gmail.com> <200611261706.57754.fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--WhfpMioaduB5tiZL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:06:57PM +0000, RW wrote: > On Sunday 26 November 2006 12:18, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > On 11/26/06, John Smith <almarrie@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > What shall I use as a scheduler on it? 4BSD or ULE? > > > > The general consensus is you should not touch ULE unless > > you're a developer willing to fix some outstanding issues and > > maybe take active maintainership of it. >=20 > I think that's a bit strong. I've used both, off and on, on my Desktop ma= chine=20 > and not seen any real difference. Guess you're one of the lucky ones then. I hope you can understand why in general users should not use a kernel feature with known problems, and they should at the very least turn it off and reconfirm their problems before reporting them, to avoid wasting developer time. Kris --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFae5+Wry0BWjoQKURAsYQAKDtk0eFPbSNONLWW2w72j8v2WNPSQCeLRu8 HJjAyyrokje3MW0MsK0+jzg= =D2C1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061126194359.GB76643>