Thank god it's Friday! On Friday, 30 August 2019 12:34:20 CEST Roland Hughes wrote: > Yeaaaah. I always have trouble calling anything a "process" in the > wanna-be CPU world.
Yeah, who isn't pining for the "good olde dayes" of PDP-11 and VAX!
> Actually it's more the wanna-be OS world.
..or griping for real OS'es! Who needs a hierarchy in a file system! Why have
complex storage systems if you can have records in your files!
> A thread is a lightweight process.
On some systems they have been likened to lightweight processes. On others
(like almost all modern ones) this is a gross oversimplification that borders
on the absurd!
> Linux (and most other x86 based operating
> systems) only have lightweight processes.
Bullshit!
For one: on Linux both threads and processes are implemented as tasks with
varying degrees of resource sharing.
For another: most modern systems (including Linux, Windows, MacOS/X) have a
fully developed concept of processes, threads, tasks and kernel threads that
is not that different from the concepts of systems running on what used to be
called "big iron".
> When you get into OpenVMS,
> Z/OS, AS/400, TANDEM, etc. you get real processes and real threads.
You do realize you are talking Bullshit now - right?
I haven't worked with those other three, but OpenVMS does have processes very
similar to Unix - the main difference being that child processes cannot
survive their parent and there are a couple of IPC mechanisms that just don't
make sense outside VMS. Whether that is better or worse is debatable.
This is my personal opinion, but I find the process related concepts on e.g.
Linux (processes, tasks, cgroups, namespaces) much more mature than what you
get on a modern OpenVMS. This is not VMS' fault - it simply doesn't have the
same number of developers.
I guess that you also realize that you are implicitly accusing the chief
designer of OpenVMS of making a conceptually much worse OS with Windows NT -
right?
> The
> concept of something not having enough weight to be a thread on a real
> platform being called a "process" and that is has even lighter things
> people are trusting, in many cases with human life, always causes me issues.
Don't drink and write - it is embarrassing... :-P
> At any rate, having all of the GUI _have_ to occur in the main event
> loop (not to mention all of the bad examples showing database I/O,
> serial comm and other things there which should not be there) has been a
> real problem in the Qt world for years.
There is nothing as fun and as profitable like a good solid non sequitur!
Konrad
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
