On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 09:06, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:46:09AM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > Argh. > > I never said that it had anything to do with A. Scheduling or B. > > Security. > > That's what your sentence above implied, but it may or may not be my > lack of reading comprehension. >
My mistake then. I was just stating that though very blessed work has been done to improve the arcane (sp?) posix threads, there's still a long way to go. > > I did say that NT still has a lead on that front. > > And I'm asking: why? what makes it better? this is not idle bantering > - I'm actively looking for areas of Linux that can be improved, and MS > has been known to have good ideas once in a while ;-) Posix thread library is problematic. Here's a couple of examples. A. Threads: Lack of true, low level, thread control. For instance, in Win32 I can save a thread's context, suspend it remotely (from another thread or even a controlling process) implant the saved context into it, and it'll continue running from the were I stopped it. (Kind'a like hardware interrupt) Under Win32 the thread scheduling is more robust, I've got more levels of control between low, normal, and real time. (Without messing with the scheduling type, FIFO, RR, etc) Oh, and the lack of true smart wait function is problematic. (I usually create a mutex that goes with a thread to emulate a true thread wait function.) B. Events (posix conditions). Wait it doesn't work right (PulseEvent never did... MS, like MS, just refuses to fix it), NT events are much easier to use, and have much better control. The posix conditions are a just pain in the back side. C. Process. fork + exec, is far less effective and feature rich then CreateProcess (Or, CreateProcessAsUser, etc) D. Process, Thread control. Lack of Affinity mask (Ability to divert a single process / thread to be used on CPUn,y,z outside the OS's discretions) E. Wait functions. WaitForSingleObject (WaitForMulitpleObjects) is by far better then anything posix. The ability to create a single wait that will work on threads, processes, files, events, mutexes, etc, is a true blessing. I'm currently looking into ways to emulate the WaitFor* on posix machines. > > > Oh. Here's something I don't get. Why can't one say a single word in > > favor of Windows without it being considered a flamebait? > > You can say anything you want, including statements in favor of > Windows, provided you back them up. "$OS is better" is a > troll. "$OS is better because of the scheduling algorithm, > described in [REF] and implemented in the file sched.c" is a welcome > piece of information. Sadly I'm no guru. Though I've contributes in the past several fixes and the Linux community, I fear that I can contribute little to the kernel development level. (Not from a lack of will... just lack of knowledge). Having said all that, If'll find a way to implement a single wait function, I'll be happy to share it. (Actually I do have a open source linux project of my own, but I digress) Make no mistake, I rather work harder with less features at my hand under an stable and open environment (Linux) then to work with feature rich APIs, that run under a close, unstable environment from hell. (Windows, from MS...) -- Take care, Gilboa Davara XML - Systems Israel. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
