 | | Re: RCX as a PGP engine
|
|
I posted this msg. about 10 days ago but as my server was set up wrong it didn't work. sorry for the delay. At the time of posting this i have already seen the movie thrice so I'm about ready. I've recently (a month ago) created a RSA (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Ok, so I was wrong about this. I double checked the standard task scheduler, and sure enough, it cycles through the high priority tasks, until all are P_WAITING, then moves (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Final RFC on next legOS release (would have been legOS 0.2.6)
|
|
Concerning the name change, call for ideas and a vote, I would suggest that a NEW thread entitled similar to "Call for legOS name change" be created in lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos. The details when worked out and as outlined in the rlswork doc should (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
|
"Stephen M Moraco" <stephen_moraco@agilent.com> wrote in message news:GtKIM4.Gws@lugnet.com... (...) <snip> (...) Sounds good. Now, who would like to provide a second opinion? BTW, as far as intended purpose of the task scheduler... I can see how (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Deleting Programs
|
|
That would be great. Thanks Mark! Obviously, it will be prudent to make some or all of these optional at compile time... but I believe at least half of them are useful for most users. Anyone have an idea of priority on this addition? Should it be (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
