[Still Thinking]

You would think that a scheduler that just assigned the next available core to the next process would do something good, but the designs of the OSes were apparently blind-sided by multi-cores.

I know. I've written one-off stuff that even does that (with other types of resources). I guess it goes to prove Brook's law that once you get past a few programmers, productivity takes a nosedive.

At least stuff that runs all the time in the background like anti virus and firewall can be assigned to cores 2-4, and let the foreground stuff you consciously run be on core 1. I've done some of that but haven't taken the time to do it all as yet.

[Tarpon]

Yeah, when I was running the OS development group, it was clear that as the number of programmers went up, what went out the door went way down. The only way was with as few software engineers as possible and divide the work into packaged and constrained entities. This is where UNIX/Linux model kills MS. A giant hairball is not going to work very well, ever.

I had many a conversation with the original AT&T UNIX team on what they saw as the ideal way to develop complex systems. Sure would be nice if programmers today would learn the lessons of the past — They should dig out some of the old UNIX style guides and follow them.

[jokar]

bump