From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:31:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:31:43 -0400 Received: from isimail.interactivesi.com ([207.8.4.3]:46091 "HELO dinero.interactivesi.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:31:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:31:15 -0500 From: Timur Tabi To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <01061914180302.04670@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20010619090956.R3089@work.bitmover.com> <20010619095239.T3089@work.bitmover.com> <20010619095239.T3089@work.bitmover.com> Subject: Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) X-Mailer: The Polarbar Mailer; version=1.19a; build=73 Message-ID: X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ** Reply to message from Rob Landley on Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:18:03 -0400 > 2) Not only did Linux not have threads (at all), it didn't plan to have > threads, and anybody who brought up the idea of threads was dismissed. > Considering this was long before clone, and SMP hardware was starting to come > into the high and and looked like it might wind up on the desktop eventually > (who knew MS would keep DOS around another ten years, unable to understand > two processors, to displays, two mice, two keyboards, and barely able to cope > with two hard drives under a 26 letter limit...) Amen. This is one of the reasons why I also prefer OS/2 over Linux. > So I wound up work at IBM doing OS/2 development for a couple years. On a > project called Feature Install, which was based on a subclassed folder in the > workplace shell (object oriented desktop). [snip] > When they made up a test object hierarchy > for all the components of the entire OS, it created so many threads the > system ran out and got completely hosed. I had a command line window open, > but couldn't RUN anything, since anything it tried to spawn required a thread > to run. (Child of the shell.) Feature Installer is a bad example. That software is a piece of crap for lots of reasons, excessive threading being only one, and every OS/2 user knew it the day it was released. Why do you think WarpIN was created? > Sometimes they're an easy way to get asynchronous behavior, and to perform > work in the background without the GUI being locked up. But the difference > between "processes" and "threads" there is academic. Processes with shared > memory and some variant of semaphores to avoid killing each other in it. > Same thing. Not quite. What makes OS/2's threads superior is that the OS multitasks threads, not processes. So I can create a time-critical thread in my process, and it will have priority over ALL threads in ALL processes. A lot of OS/2 software is written with this feature in mind. I know of one programmer who absolutely hates Linux because it's just too difficult porting software to it, and the lack of decent thread support is part of the problem. > Bondage and discipline languages that enforce somebody's idea of good > programming practice usually just result in WORSE bad programs, and fewer > good programs written by people who know how to play with fire without > burning themselves. Saying you can't have threads because they can be > misused and "you shouldn't program that way" would be truly dumb. (Turned ME > off for a couple years, anyway.) Exactly. Saying that threads cause bad code is just as dumb as saying that a kernel debugger will cause bad code because programmers will start using the debugger instead of proper design. Oh wait, never mind ..... -- Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com