From owner-freebsd-smp Tue Dec 15 05:31:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA27874 for freebsd-smp-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:31:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from databus.databus.com (databus.databus.com [198.186.154.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA27868 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 05:31:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from barney@databus.databus.com) From: Barney Wolff To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:20 EST Subject: Re: Pthreads and SMP Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: <367664a50.5e3e@databus.databus.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The debate has crossed the border into silliness. The issue is not whether threads are good or bad, but simply whether they will be available to designers. If I can't use Posix threads to keep multiple cpus busy from a single address space, I'm not interested in FreeBSD as an SMP OS. Yes, I can and do use multiple processes and select, often. But if I can't have a decent pthread implementation, FreeBSD is taking itself out of the running. For each problem, I'll choose the technique that seems best, but I'll choose it on an OS that leaves the choice to me. Barney Wolff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message