Re: thread rant

From: Igmar Palsenberg (
Date: Sat Sep 02 2000 - 15:58:42 EST

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:

> Q: Why do we need threads?
> A: Because on some operating systems, task switches are expensive.

No. threads share variable and code memory, processes do not. And
sometimes it can make your life a lot easier. Even if you can use things
such as SHM or so.

> Q: So, threads are a hack to get around operating systems that suck?
> A: Basically.

I don't agree.
> Q: So, why must Linux support threads?
> A1: : |
> A2: So other programs can be easily ported to Linux!
> That can already happen. It's not the *best* implementation. It's
> not as fast as it can be. But it works. And that's all it should do. If
> you're not happy, cope.
> "But threads on this system are faster than on Linux!"
> The fact that the system implements threads speaks enough about
> it's capabilities. ie, it's trying hard to suck less. So, from my POV,
> we're looking to make Linux suck more by effectively emulating systems
> that are trying to suck less.
> But, I've never done anything worthwhile for Linux, so take this for what
> it's worth, from an asshole.
> -MB


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST