Netbook Performance: Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris

[nanonyme]

I'm talking about this: Linus has control over the kernel. He might as well introduce some code that makes the kernel have problem with the non official distro.

Technically only so far. Distros are known to remove and change stuff in kernels they use. (Sometimes causing more issues, sometimes fixing something. It's not like they'd be perfect anyway but my point was, it happens. The code is opensourced, it's not like there's Linus' Gestapo guarding you use it like he wants to. As long as you abide GPL, you can do pretty much anything you want with it)

[kraftman]

Technically only so far. Distros are known to remove and change stuff in kernels they use. (Sometimes causing more issues, sometimes fixing something. It's not like they'd be perfect anyway but my point was, it happens. The code is opensourced, it's not like there's Linus' Gestapo guarding you use it like he wants to. As long as you abide GPL, you can do pretty much anything you want with it)

I perfectly understand this I just replied some maggot who doesn't understand a thing. Oh, this bold text is his sentence .

[Apopas]

I have a double Masters, one in comp sci and one in math. I understand more things than you do.

...

No, it doesnt work that way. Linus has control over the kernel. He might as well introduce some code that makes the kernel have problem with the non official distro. If he does that all the time, then there will be to much trouble and everyone will change to his distro.

SUN has the same position. There are lots of Solaris distros now: OpenSolaris, Belenix (which is Ubuntu environment but with the Solaris kernel + ZFS + DTrace + etc), Milax, Korona, Aurorax, Schillix, etc etc etc. If someone needs Solaris distro, which distro do they choose, you think? SUN's distro or some random person's distro? There are lots of forks, and all companies will choose the official distro: OpenSolaris. No other company can come and fork OpenSolaris and make a fortune, because SUN owns Solaris.

But Linux is ok. There is no official Linux distro. Anyone can make a distro, and companies can buy which Linux distro they want. There is no THE one and only Linux distro. This is the reason Linux is successfull. Money drives it all.

Well, if for some reason something goes wrong with the official kernel, then each distro will remove or fix the parts they don't like. Also, even now 99% of the distros use their patched/fixed kernels and not the official one that Torvalds releases. They have freedom fortunately. And as long as they keep giving the services they used to do to their customers, then the users will stay to their distro till they find something that meets their needs better of course. Because for the users the names Torvalds or Cox means nothing. They found Linux with the names Slackware, Redhat, SUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu etc and their communities, in the same way the users of Solaris met it only with the names Sun and Solaris. You see, Linux was created from the begining from the users instead of Solaris which was developed by a company and then was given to the community. If that sucks for you or not, doesn't matter. It is a fact and the difference is enormous, but usually you can only feel it rather than understand it. The freedom of Linux made it able to give money and money made it succesful. Freedom drives it all.

Of course you are biased. I am biased. Everyone is biased. As soon as you state some opinion, you take a bias. Only ignorant people say they are not biased.

Speak for yourself sir, if you feel biased then you know very well that you are not able to make a conversation, so everything we say here is pointless.

[kebabbert]

Now I see, I don't have to say a single word more. You didn't understand even this I didn't agree to what Linus said, so why your logic told you something opposite? If it works this way it's just enough to deny what you were talking about to see how it is in real. You ignored proof which unmask your, Frantaylor's and Sun's lies. There's also explanation:

Forgive me for saying this, but your english is not the best. I admit my english is not perfect either, but I have a hard time understanding your text.

I write: "... according to one of the greatest scientists ever, it is pure chance that directs evolution. Pure probability..."

And you:
"I'm according to what Linus said. It was in Linux context, so probability? Btw. ask yourself about probability of this chance. Of course, there are some theories which can help, but I don't buy it..."

Which I dont really understand. "I'm according to what Linux said"? What do you mean? And then you write "It was in Linux context, so probability? ask yourself about probability of this chance" - which chance? I can not read your mind. I actually dont understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that there is a low probability that Linux would have evolved to this stage if it were only by random choice? I dont understand. Let me repeat that again: I can not read your mind. Be clearer.

I only saw Solaris advertisements when comes to such things and it seems it's just propaganda.

Is this SUN advertisement? It is SUN that has written this?

http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/choosing-solaris-10-over-linux

Is this SUN advertisement?

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/3745996

Has SUN written this?

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1313798,00.html

And this?

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1286507,00.html

Do you want more links? Where did you see "only" Solaris advertisements and propaganda, in my links? You know, most people would say that these links are real life stories. Not SUN advertisements.

I have a question. A) Where did you see "only" SUN advertisements?

The reason why you have problems with my logic is very clear - you're just dumb. I cleared some thing few times, but you don't get it. Person with average intelligence shouldn't have a single problem with understanding me.

Have you ever considered the possibility that it is you that is dumb? I have intelligence far above average. I have tried the Mensa web test and emailed Mensa, and they replied that I have a very good chance to enter Mensa. If try the real Mensa test and enter Mensa, then I am more intelligent than ~95% of all people. Can you say the same thing? Maybe the reason I have problems following your logic is not because of me (I have far above average IQ and have studied logic at the university) maybe the problem is that you have not studied logic? Maybe you should do that?

How that's possible you're so dumb? You started talking about some problems and now you're asking? Do you expect I'll explain you a single word, because it seems you've got problems with obvious things and if you're talking nonsenses it's ok?[B] This what problem.

You dont have to call me ugly names, right? We are grown up people. I hope.

And also, I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND. Please spell it out. Your english is not good. Your logic is wrong. Your thinking is wrong. I understand almost nothing about what you are trying to say. And I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND.

I wrote: Yes, but facts/claims doesnt change.
You wrote: So, you should worry...
Why should I worry? For what? Let me say that again: I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND. BE CLEARER.

I just did you a favor, because I noticed you started trolling and I wanted to tell you you're wrong. I believed you don't want to be shamed, but it seems you don't care

That was nice to not ashame me, but I dont care because I am interested to learn more. If you really have good links showing that I am wrong, please post them!

Nope, Solaris is a mess, but dead one.

Question B) How do you know that the Solaris code is a mess? Can you back that claim up? You have several times said that Solaris becomes unstable under large load, and never showed such links. Whereas I have showed links. Can you show links, or can you not?

It's not bug free and it's old pile of crap right now. Call it mature if you want.

Of course Solaris kernel is not bug free. Have I claimed that, somewhere??? If you claim it is a pile of crap, then prove it. Show links that Solaris kernel have problems with stability and scalability. If you can not show such links, then you are wrong. Do you agree? If you want to claim that you are correct, then you must prove that you are correct. That sounds reasonable? Where are your proofs? Links?

You ignored the most important thing in my response:

http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/cgi-bin/blog.cgi/2007/04/10#bonwick_scalability

I'll repeat. It unmasks Sun's propaganda and it shows this company is just bunch of cowards and maggots. Die as "sun" as possible

No, I did not ignore your link. I answered that link. I wrote: "Linux claims to run on 1024 cpu machine, but how well does it run? And such a machine is only used for number crunching - it is not used as big iron server where lots of users login och do office work. And number crunching is easy to do. Server workload is much more difficult, because it is general work. It is like a CPU vs GPU. The GPU can only do one thing and does it fast. The CPU is slower, but can do many more things. A number crunching cluster is like a simple GPU. A server is like a CPU. A GPU can never replace a CPU.

For the other link, about Bonwick talking about Linux scaling bad - well that is a fact. Linux scales bad. It is not FUD or lies. Linus scaling experts admit that Linus v2.4 scales bad on Big Iron. And you know, it takes decades to scale well. Linux v2.6 can impossibly scale well. Maybe Linux v 6-7 can scale well on Big Iron.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci929755,00.html

And also, you posted a link that showed that Linux scales bad. So how can Bonwick be FUDing? Even YOUR link showed that Linux scaled bad! Is your own link FUD???

I assure you and some other idiots I won't let such FUD to be spread :>

Ok, fine. But then you should have evidence? Proofs? Links that show that Linux scales well on Big Iron? Where are them links? You have showed some benchmarks on a 32 CPU machine - but that is not proof that Linux scales well in GENERAL, on every workload. And you showed a discussion about Linux on 1024 CPU machine - but how well does it run Linux? Maybe Linux sucks on that machine? There are no links on that. You have only showed that Linux compiles on a 1024 cpu machine and that you have showed that there are performance problems on that 1024 CPU machine - which the discussion is about.

You have no links that shows that Linux scales well. If you want to debunk the FUD, then you should show proofs that support you. That you are correct. Right? Then I will get convinced.

You didn't read. Few years. Linux has RCU and that's why performance and scalling is much better then on Solaris.

I told you, RCU is no guarantee that it works well. I can say that a car has a special kind of super engine, but maybe it is not well implemented? Maybe the car is crap, but uses a good engine? If Linux uses RCU, it does not prove anything. Maybe Linux implementation of RCU is crap?

If RCU is soo good for Linux, why does Linux scale bad on Big Iron, then? Admittedly, Linux scales well on large clusters, maybe because of RCU?

Anyway, RCU or not, Linux sucks on Big Iron. But scales well on clusters.

Performance and stability is something why they run Linux instead of such crap.

Question C) Can you prove that claim? Show me links proving that Linux is chosen over Solaris because of performance and stability issues. There are no such links. Why do you lie, then? Are you a liar?

I don't care what you think I just won't let you spred FUD. If someone's and idiot why should I care what he thinks? Your links are jokes and link which I gave eliminates them as "proofs". I gave you some very valuable links.

Fine. If you want me to stop "spreading FUD" I will stop. I promise. But then I need to see some proofs so I can change my mind. Please show me links and proofs that you are correct, and I am wrong. If you can show such links, then I will change my mind. I promise.

Regarding your "valuable links", please do not show links on some guy having problems on installing ancient Solaris v8 - as a proof that Solaris is unstable on large systems. Please show me some real life testimonies. Do not show me a feature list or whatever.

P.S. Don't fool yourself by talking about Tannenbaum.

Que? What do you mean? Do you mean that professor and researcher Tannenbaum says that Linux scales bad? Or do you mean that Tannenbaum does not Linux? What the hell do you mean with this sentence? I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND.

Ok, now you will face the problems I have with you. What do I mean when I write like this?
"Yes I know but I am correct on Tannenbaum, and your second argument is flawed"
Tell me what I mean. Go ahead. Tell me what I mean. What do I mean? I am easy to understand, yes?

And one thing, please answer my questions A, B and C. I am waiting eagerly.

[kebabbert]

Well, if for some reason something goes wrong with the official kernel, then each distro will remove or fix the parts they don't like. Also, even now 99% of the distros use their patched/fixed kernels and not the official one that Torvalds releases. They have freedom fortunately. And as long as they keep giving the services they used to do to their customers, then the users will stay to their distro till they find something that meets their needs better of course.

Well I am not convinced on this. If Linus T releases the official Linux distro, then I believe everyone will switch to the official distro. I do not believe customers will stay on some inferior Linux distro. Linus T own distro will get the hottest newest tech, and all other distros will lag behind.

Of course you are biased. I am biased. Everyone is biased. As soon as you state some opinion, you take a bias. Only ignorant people say they are not biased.

Speak for yourself sir, if you feel biased then you know very well that you are not able to make a conversation, so everything we say here is pointless.

I do not speak for myself. If you dont believe you are biased then you should reconsider. That is wrong thinking from you. You ARE biased as soon you state an opinion.

I talked to some guy, he said:
-I have no opinion on this, I just remark that X is better than Y.
-But then you have an opinion! That statement is a opinion. You are subjective!
-No no no, I have no opinion! I just remark that X is better than Y! I am not subjective, I am objective!
-But THAT is an opinion! You HAVE taken a bias! You are subjective!
-Nononono

etc. It took 15 minutes before he understood that he really was subjective. You should study philosophy if you believe that you have no bias. You are wrong on this.


It is like when some girl says:
-You and I share nothing in common
-But you are wrong on this, then we share one thing in common: That we have nothing in common!
Ergo, you can never say to anyone that you have nothing in common. Dumb girl to not understand that.

[Apopas]

Well I am not convinced on this. If Linus T releases the official Linux distro, then I believe everyone will switch to the official distro. I do not believe customers will stay on some inferior Linux distro. Linus T own distro will get the hottest newest tech, and all other distros will lag behind.

In my previous post I said exactly the same, that everyone is gonna use Torvald's distro if it proves that it's better and not just because he is Torvalds. But again he is just one guy, Redhat, Novell, Canonical, the community and all the other distributions on the other hand have millions of developers. So the chances are totally against him.

I do not speak for myself. If you dont believe you are biased then you should reconsider. That is wrong thinking from you. You ARE biased as soon you state an opinion.

I talked to some guy, he said:
-I have no opinion on this, I just remark that X is better than Y.
-But then you have an opinion! That statement is a opinion. You are subjective!
-No no no, I have no opinion! I just remark that X is better than Y! I am not subjective, I am objective!
-But THAT is an opinion! You HAVE taken a bias! You are subjective!
-Nononono

etc. It took 15 minutes before he understood that he really was subjective. You should study philosophy if you believe that you have no bias. You are wrong on this.


It is like when some girl says:
-You and I share nothing in common
-But you are wrong on this, then we share one thing in common: That we have nothing in common!
Ergo, you can never say to anyone that you have nothing in common. Dumb girl to not understand that.

Well, every time someone says an opinion he is subjective, but not neccessarily biased but I won't expand this for fear that since I'm not native english speaker I understand the word bias with a differnet meaning than you. But the example with the girl is totally irrelevant.

You should study philosophy if you believe that you have no bias. You are wrong on this.

If you believe that from some posts in a forum about hardware and software you can safely claim that someone has studied more or less philosophy than you, you only prove that you must study philosophy in more depth.
Also, a friendly advice since I don't know you and I get no benefit if you accept it or not:
If you want people, especially the ones that don't know you at all (like us here) to take you seriously, stop posting things like your personal achievements in the universities, your masters and your scores in mensa club. They are sayings that proves nothing more than some level of arrogance which does not help at all any debates we have here.

[kebabbert]

In my previous post I said exactly the same, that everyone is gonna use Torvald's distro if it proves that it's better and not just because he is Torvalds. But again he is just one guy, Redhat, Novell, Canonical, the community and all the other distributions on the other hand have millions of developers. So the chances are totally against him.

So you mean that others would hijack and fork off the Linux kernel?? I dont think so. If Linus T releases THE official Linux distro, then everyone will switch to it, I believe. His devs will follow him and they will support the official Linux distro. What will RedHat etc do? Will they fight and fork of the kernel? I dont think so. Too much job to maintain another kernel. And all Linux people will rather use Linus kernel, than any other. I suspect.

Also, a friendly advice since I don't know you and I get no benefit if you accept it or not:
If you want people, especially the ones that don't know you at all (like us here) to take you seriously, stop posting things like your personal achievements in the universities, your masters and your scores in mensa club. They are sayings that proves nothing more than some level of arrogance which does not help at all any debates we have here.

Ah, great. Have you ever wondered WHY I was forced to post such information? Was it because someone attacked me by saying I was dumb, understood nothing, has intelligence less than average, etc etc etc? So in order to defend myself, I merely stated facts about myself. Instead of telling someone else to calm down, you support him and give "advice" to ME. Maybe you should give advice to him???? But no. Great.

If he hits me, and I hit back - you ask ME why I hit him. Great.

[Apopas]

So you mean that others would hijack and fork off the Linux kernel?? I dont think so. If Linus T releases THE official Linux distro, then everyone will switch to it, I believe. His devs will follow him and they will support the official Linux distro. What will RedHat etc do? Will they fight and fork of the kernel? I dont think so. Too much job to maintain another kernel. And all Linux people will rather use Linus kernel, than any other. I suspect.

Yup, I said in the very begining of our debate that the kernel would be forked in that case. It will be a hijack from Torvalds' part and not the opposite, as you think. Because it's too much job to maintain another kernel that's why Torvalds' kernel is gonna die. It's easier for Redhat, the other distribution companies and the community of indivinduals in general to maintain a kernel rather than for Torvalds and his fistful of programmers. That's exactly what happened with Xfree86 when it's leader decided to change its license. While it was the standard in each distribution, it was forked to Xorg and in a matter of time was adopted by everyone.

Ah, great. Have you ever wondered WHY I was forced to post such information? Was it because someone attacked me by saying I was dumb, understood nothing, has intelligence less than average, etc etc etc? So in order to defend myself, I merely stated facts about myself. Instead of telling someone else to calm down, you support him and give "advice" to ME. Maybe you should give advice to him???? But no. Great.

If he hits me, and I hit back - you ask ME why I hit him. Great.

You do well and hit back, he does well and hit back, I would do the same. The matter is that you did it with a childish way. If you feel that he acts like a child against you, the right way isn't for sure to continue this.

[nanonyme]

So you mean that others would hijack and fork off the Linux kernel?? I dont think so. If Linus T releases THE official Linux distro, then everyone will switch to it, I believe. His devs will follow him and they will support the official Linux distro.

In theory, maybe. In practise I don't see why on Earth he would want to. He's an engineer and he already has plenty enough if not too much responsibility. I really don't think he'd even want to touch the mess of managing kernel+userland combinations originating from hundreds or thousands of projects. Generally you have to be pretty clueless to start a new distro, it's just too much work. Your point is completely theoretical and thus moot.

[kraftman]

Forgive me for saying this, but your english is not the best. I admit my english is not perfect either, but I have a hard time understanding your text.

My English shouldn't be a big problem, but your logic is a problem. I have troubles with understanding you sometimes, because you write nonsenses.

I write: "... according to one of the greatest scientists ever, it is pure chance that directs evolution. Pure probability..."

And you:
"I'm according to what Linus said. It was in Linux context, so probability? Btw. ask yourself about probability of this chance. Of course, there are some theories which can help, but I don't buy it..."

Which I dont really understand. "I'm according to what Linux said"? What do you mean? And then you write "It was in Linux context, so probability? ask yourself about probability of this chance" - which chance? I can not read your mind. I actually dont understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that there is a low probability that Linux would have evolved to this stage if it were only by random choice? I dont understand. Let me repeat that again: I can not read your mind. Be clearer.

People are intelligent, so Linux evolution is driven by some intelligent people not by probability. So many problems with such obvious thing?

Is this SUN advertisement? It is SUN that has written this?
http://lethargy.org/~jesus/writes/choosing-solaris-10-over-linux

Is this SUN advertisement?

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/3745996

Has SUN written this?

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1313798,00.html

And this?

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1286507,00.html

Do you want more links? Where did you see "only" Solaris advertisements and propaganda, in my links? You know, most people would say that these links are real life stories. Not SUN advertisements.

I was talking about Sun's advertisements, so why you gave those links?

I have a question. A) Where did you see "only" SUN advertisements?

Only Sun, so not Linux's advertisements? Big problems in understanding this? :>

Have you ever considered the possibility that it is you that is dumb? I have intelligence far above average. I have tried the Mensa web test and emailed Mensa, and they replied that I have a very good chance to enter Mensa. If try the real Mensa test and enter Mensa, then I am more intelligent than ~95% of all people. Can you say the same thing? Maybe the reason I have problems following your logic is not because of me (I have far above average IQ and have studied logic at the university) maybe the problem is that you have not studied logic? Maybe you should do that?

Nope, because I talked to far smarter and more intelligent people then you and they react far different and they would just stop this discussion long ago. You can try Mensa for idiots test, you should pass. Btw. you will base on what saying you're more intelligent then 95% of all people? All people taken such test? Does such test really measure intelligence? I don't think so. I recommend you to stop believing in such crap. Basing on your posts it's more probable you're more stupid then 95% of all people.

You dont have to call me ugly names, right? We are grown up people. I hope.

I hope, but can you proof?

And also, I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND. Please spell it out. Your english is not good. Your logic is wrong. Your thinking is wrong. I understand almost nothing about what you are trying to say. And I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND.

Nope, it's opposite. If you were intelligent you would just understand everything what I already said :>

I wrote: Yes, but facts/claims doesnt change.
You wrote: So, you should worry...
Why should I worry? For what? Let me say that again: I CAN NOT READ YOUR MIND. BE CLEARER.

Yep, if the fact is you're dumb and if you consider facts doesn't change you should worry. However, sentence "You're dumb" can concern some period of time. You're dumb now - a fact. In next few years who knows? Fact won't change, but it's related to some period of time - now, in this case (but who knows :P). Facts don't change, but they become out of date (no longer valid?) if I can say this.

That was nice to not ashame me, but I dont care because I am interested to learn more. If you really have good links showing that I am wrong, please post them!

I did. You've got problems. I said I'm not interested in proving you something (maybe I was for a while), because I don't care too much what you think. What I'm interested is you to stop writing a FUD.

Question B) How do you know that the Solaris code is a mess? Can you back that claim up? You have several times said that Solaris becomes unstable under large load, and never showed such links. Whereas I have showed links. Can you show links, or can you not?

I explained what I think about some links. It's a mess, because Linux already killed it. It's big pile of old code, so it's hard to manage and/or its devs aren't able to make it better. Some big changes needed?

Of course Solaris kernel is not bug free. Have I claimed that, somewhere??? If you claim it is a pile of crap, then prove it. Show links that Solaris kernel have problems with stability and scalability. If you can not show such links, then you are wrong. Do you agree? If you want to claim that you are correct, then you must prove that you are correct. That sounds reasonable? Where are your proofs? Links?

If I say something it's sometimes, because I want to say, not because you claimed. You didn't proof a thing Mensa you say - "If you can not show such links, then you are wrong."

If you can not show such links, then you are wrong.

This is how your logic works. You don't care about the truth and reality, but you just base on some links which are clear propaganda. Tell me, why should I talk to you?

No, I did not ignore your link. I answered that link. I wrote: "Linux claims to run on 1024 cpu machine, but how well does it run? And such a machine is only used for number crunching - it is not used as big iron server where lots of users login och do office work. And number crunching is easy to do. Server workload is much more difficult, because it is general work...

Where are your proofs? It runs better then Solaris, because they use Linux, isn't this obvious? Tell me, what workloads are on this machine used by SGI? How do you know its workloads are less "difficult"? The problem is, this machine isn't a cluster, but it's a Big Iron. If you want to be treated more seriously answer what I asked here.

For the other link, about Bonwick talking about Linux scaling bad - well that is a fact. Linux scales bad. It is not FUD or lies. Linus scaling experts admit that Linus v2.4 scales bad on Big Iron. And you know, it takes decades to scale well. Linux v2.6 can impossibly scale well. Maybe Linux v 6-7 can scale well on Big Iron.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci929755,00.html

And also, you posted a link that showed that Linux scales bad. So how can Bonwick be FUDing? Even YOUR link showed that Linux scaled bad! Is your own link FUD???

You're amazing me. You're manipulating the facts. Linux 2.6.xx scales wonderful. It's even mentioned it this article 2.6 (2.6.0, very old kernel) will scale easily up to 16 CPUs. Maybe it take decades for Solaris guys and this is a proof its code is a mess (or rather design). As I showed you Linux 2.6.8 scaled easily up to 64 CPU's and current kernels scales up to 4096 CPUs on big irons. Oh, and Bonwick is a layer, Sun probably paid him. I gave you link which shows he lies.

Ok, fine. But then you should have evidence? Proofs? Links that show that Linux scales well on Big Iron? Where are them links? You have showed some benchmarks on a 32 CPU machine - but that is not proof that Linux scales well in GENERAL, on every workload. And you showed a discussion about Linux on 1024 CPU machine - but how well does it run Linux? Maybe Linux sucks on that machine? There are no links on that. You have only showed that Linux compiles on a 1024 cpu machine and that you have showed that there are performance problems on that 1024 CPU machine - which the discussion is about.

Are you dumb? I showed you 2.6.8 scales great to 64 CPUs and it's performance is fantastic.

There are no links on that. You have only showed that Linux compiles on a 1024 cpu machine and that you have showed that there are performance problems on that 1024 CPU machine - which the discussion is about.

Thank you. If this discussion is about incompetence you should be shamed now. There's explanation why those people had problems. Not Linux, but configuration fault. If I explained this you should stop replying now. Still, Mensa? XD

I told you, RCU is no guarantee that it works well. I can say that a car has a special kind of super engine, but maybe it is not well implemented? Maybe the car is crap, but uses a good engine? If Linux uses RCU, it does not prove anything. Maybe Linux implementation of RCU is crap?

The problem is you don't know a thing. You're just asking, guessing and believing. Stop fooling yourself . Maybe, maybe, maybe... I already showed you Linux scales great, so why such stupid questions? To be completely fair with you there was a bug, but completely not related to what we are talking about here .