Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!rit!cci632!tvf
From: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: >New features for MINIX
Message-ID: <49778@cci632.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 91 18:43:06 GMT
References: <3915@rwthinf.UUCP>
Reply-To: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., An STC Icon, Rochester, NY
Lines: 29

In article <3915@rwthinf.UUCP> u31b3hs@cip-s01.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Haardt) writes:
  (In responce to some other user's request for features, along with a
   reply to that message from ast)
->>>16. Better scheduling algorithms.
>>It is a single user machine.  Round robin should be good enough for that.
>You never saw my machine, a few months ago there were up to three real
>users and sometimes up to 6 logins.  I like and use multitasking for
>working, but if one jobs eats a lot of CPU time, round robin is no longer
>good enough.

I can see both sides to this.

I, too, have a multi-user machine.  I'll have UUCP's, my wife doing
word processing, and myself doing homework on my 386sx running 1.5.10
(using Bruce Evan's nice 386 32-bit mode software).  We can feel it
sometimes.  A nicer scheduler would be nice.

But...it's not like we're stuck to the scheduler out-of-the-box.  It
really boils down to how serious {ast, ph} are about keeping Minix as
a nice, small teaching OS.  If that's the case, I wouldn't want them
to change it, but someone could write a "better" scheduler.

If {ast, ph} wanted to become a serious alternative-to-Unix/Dos OS
vendor, however,...
-- 
Thomas V. Frauenhofer, WA2YYW, tvf@cci.com   | "Death is Irrelevant.
{uupsi,ccicpg}!cci632!tvf@uunet.uu.net       |  One time I saw an elephant in
tvf@frau.UUCP                                |  my pajamas - how he got there I
tvf1477@ma.cs.rit.edu                        |  don't know!" - Groucho Borg