I suppose I see using a "one size fits all" scheduler as inherently full of tradeoffs between desktop, realtime, server, and 4096-core-compute-system requirements. IMO distributions and kernel hackers should be able to choose a scheduler that is optimal for their target audience. RHEL would probably stick with CFS, but Ubuntu Studio could use something more latency-oriented, like BFS.

Maybe if CK keeps bringing up the issue, eventually someone will figure out an optimal way of measuring perceived latency that will prove or disprove the anecdotes given by CK's "followers."