From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:45:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:45:09 -0400 Received: from jalon.able.es ([212.97.163.2]:10407 "EHLO jalon.able.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:44:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:48:37 +0200 From: "J . A . Magallon" To: landley@webofficenow.com Cc: "J . A . Magallon" , landley@webofficenow.com, "J . A . Magallon" , landley@webofficenow.com, Mikulas Patocka , Timur Tabi , "linux-kernel @ vger . kernel . org" Subject: Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Message-ID: <20010625154837.A8068@werewolf.able.es> In-Reply-To: <01062412555901.03436@localhost.localdomain> <20010625003002.A1767@werewolf.able.es> <01062414211303.03436@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-Reply-To: <01062414211303.03436@localhost.localdomain>; from landley@webofficenow.com on Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 20:21:12 +0200 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.1.6-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This discussion seems to go nowhere. Thanks for your comments. I know much more on Linux than before. I am happy that processes in Linux are so marvelous. Linux does not need a decent POSIX threads implementation because the same functionality can be achived with processes. Do what you like, you write the kernel code. I could write my soft using fork special fetaures in Linux. But I want it to be portable. If threads in linux are so bad, it is bad luck for me. I will go slow. It its the only portable way todo afordable shared memory threading without filling your program of shm-xxxx. -- J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you... mailto:jamagallon@able.es Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586 Linux werewolf 2.4.5-ac17 #2 SMP Fri Jun 22 01:36:07 CEST 2001 i686