About TODO Blog RSS Old blog Projects Gallery Notes

Sat, 20 Jan 2007

M-on-N threading scheduler is ready.


It works similar to O(1) scheduler in that regard, that it has two queues of tasks too. When task runs out of its timeslice, it is moved into inactive queue, which becomes active, when active queue is empty.
It seems, that system scales good with increased number of CPUs, at least when system created several busy-loop threads, they ate both physical CPUs on my Core Duo system (according to 'top'), although it is possible that distribution is unfair.
Code is not yet ready, I know about at least two nasty bugs there, and it lacks syscall substitution part, which is a major part, but there is progress indeed.

/devel/threading :: Link / Comments (0)

Why is kernel.org so slow some tims (LWN.net article).


Here is an article about problems with filesystem access kernel.org started to face recently which ended with the fact that Linux does not scale too good when number of directory reads becomes too high. Another part of the problem is the fact, that ext3 (current kernel.org fs) does not group directories close to each other to reduce number of seeks needed to read several subdirectories, but it was pointed that for example XFS does have some methods to group directory information close to each other on disc. Another problem is absence of readahead for directories.

/devel/fs :: Link / Comments (0)

RIAA/MPAA and others.


I always woder how is it ever possible to sue someone for getting something for free - how they can sue you for downloading a music files? When you gown down to street and see a dollar, no one will sue you for stealing if you get it. The same applies for book, which is someone's intellectual property. Then why Internet is different?

Of course I understand, that amount of money in Internet is not even remotely near to the amount of books one can find on the street or any other similar situations.
But why defendant are so inert, why do they only try to say, that they did it by accident?
RIAA/MPAA allow to sell _information_, which in Internet means set of bits. And they want to limit your rights to do whatever is allowed by Constitution.
When someone gets a disk with songs, one has exactly those bits - it is _product_, it is not service. One can do enything with product, since after it was bought, it belongs to the new owner, but service can only be used according to rules.

So, when I see a freely downloadable music in Internet, I just see some information, which does not belong to RIAA/MPAA, since it was bought by someone as product (bits of information on CD is a product, not a service), so one can use it whatever it wants including sharing.

I agree that pirates make a copy in cinema (with bad quality always) illegally, since cinema provides service, which has rules. But if information has been sold, it does not belong to previous user no matter what he wants to say - consider situation, when you are buing a TV, and shop does not permit to watch some chanels on it.

I think there must be an attack on that front, not swampy defence.

Idea has been casted by reading Slashdot about all those idiotic RIAA/MPAA legal actions...

P.S. it may sound to naive though, since I'm completely not a lawyer, but I do not understand what is the different between information in form of bits on disc and any other products, which EULA if breaks laws becomes invalid.

/other :: Link / Comments (0)