In article <52C41B218DE28244B071A1B96DD474F60AD22D@DC-SRVR1.dotcast.com>,
Marty Fouts <marty@dotcast.com> wrote:
>With all due respect, as a person who was present for the early evolution of
>pthreads, I have to disagree with your assertion of how pthreads came to be.
Thanks for the corrections. And I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes.
However, I still would not call "pthreads" designed.
Engineered. Even well done for what it tried to do. But not "Designed".
This is like VMS. It was good, solid, engineering. Design? Who needs
design? It _worked_.
But that's not how UNIX is or should be. There was more than just
engineering in UNIX. There was Design with a capital "D". Notions of
"process" vs "file", and things that transcend pure engineering.
Minimalism.
In the end, it comes down to aesthetics. pthreads is "let's solve a
problem". But it's not answering the big questions in the universe.
It's not asking itself "what is the underlying _meaning_ of threads?".
"What is the big picture?".
That doesn't mean that there wasn't a lot of worthwhile work put into
it. So sorry for some of the more colorful commentary..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST