Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: priorities (was Re: (none))
Message-ID: <128@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jun 88 23:34:17 GMT
References: <1814@van-bc.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 14

In article <1814@van-bc.UUCP> lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips) writes:
>In <3043@louie.udel.EDU>, CRONEJP%UREGINA1.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu (Jonathan Crone) writes:
> >ACtually the problem with RSL Clock was that the twit who wrote it
> >had the program set itself up with a prioiryt of 20.
>Nice attitude Jonathan. Someone writes you a nice clock and you call him a
>twit for making a mistake.

Maybe this is a naive question, but why is it a mistake to make a clock
program run at priority 20?  If you really want the clock kept up-to-date,
and it runs pretty fast, why not run at priority 20?  Isn't that what
priorities are for?  Who misses a couple of milliseconds every second?
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
..!sun!quintus!pds