On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 14:50, Bret Johnson <bretj...@juno.com> wrote: > > My terminology is compliant with that definition.
*Sigh* I am aware of that. The general term "re-entrancy" is not synonymous with the specific term "reentrant kernel". I do not wish to seem mean, but when I say to you that you are not explaining this well, it is not a useful or constructive answer to acknowledge it and then go on to say "well this backs me up" followed by "but that is not what I mean". Brent, I am a professional explainer of hard concepts. It's my job. I get paid for it. I am not here to try to decode what you are talking about and then explain it better. That is what I get paid to do and you are not paying me. I am telling you, gratis, that your explanations are lacking, and rather than an essay-length response, a better one would be to _come up with better explanations_. > I haven't redefined anything. Individual subroutines may be re-entrant but > the entire kernel itself is not. When the industry considers that all mainstream OSes have reentrant kernels, _yes it does_ and you need to find some better explanations. You are not doing that. Allegedly, Einstein said: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." E.g., you can't have the _same_ copy of the kernel running on multiple CPU's concurrently Multiple cluster OSes do that, such as Plan 9, Inferno, and Parhelion HeliOS. https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/06/heliosng/ > The problem is, the CPU's _themselves_ really haven't gotten a whole lot > faster than they were in the 386 days. Drastic oversimplification to the point of not being true, accurate or representative. I'd say Koomey's Law replaced Moore's Law circa 2007-2008, when the x86 industry went through the multicore transition. From ~1975 to ~2005: CPU bandwidth approximately doubled every ~1½ years. Since ~2005: bandwidth increases ~10% every 1½ years. That is not what you are saying. > I know it's not -- it's probably not clear to most people since it's it's a > completely different way of thinking than what they're used to. And again, > I'm not saying that it's a "good" idea or that it should even be implemented > -- but it can at least give a different perspective on how things _could_ be > done. I suggest you watch my series of talks at the FOSDEM conference from 2018-2020. Not because I am saying I am an examplar of cogent explanation -- I am not -- but because they constitute a fairly serious dive into alternate OS architectures, while you seem to think I am just not bright enough to understand your searing insights. > Again, while interesting, none of those are what I'm talking about. I know they aren't. I specifically chose them to illustrate how your attempted explanation was amenable to misinterpretation. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884 Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
