Subject: Re: fork2
From: [email-masked] (root)

15 Nov 1997 06:44:44 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text
To: [email-masked] (Alex)
Cc: [email-masked]

Alex wrote:
> 
> > All this is very easy, as everybody in this list can see. Debugging it wouldn't
> > be necessary, since gurus do not make mistakes. But since there could be some
> > low level people that do make mistakes, they could use mtgdb (the new multi
> > threading gdb), that has to be written prior to doing anything like this...:-)
> 
> * Sarcasm noted.

Well, it is just ironic...
>  
> > But I have a better solution:
> > Why run Unix under a non-Unix system?
> > Why re-invent Unix's wheels so that other OSes that lack those wheels can run?
> 
> Ever used a system where they might require you to run NT, as the only
> hacked up DHCPd is for Win32 (in the case of some cable modem companise),
> or perhaps the IS people don't want to have to deal with (spare the
> Unix is easier to admin speech) more than one different operating system
> (hence limit it to NT.. etc).
> 

There is no free lunch. If you want only NT, you will have to accept that
fork() is NOT there.
fork() implements a separation of the child *process* that, in my opinion,
is much more powerful than starting a new thread of execution, since it
*separates* and isolates the child process from the parent. You share between
the new and the old processes only the variables that you want to share.
Starting a new thread shares everything.

fork() can only be implemented at the OS level. NT could do it easily since
it could just modify the working set of the new process to point to the newly
allocated pages instead of pointing to the old ones. But, for whatever
reasons, Microsoft has decided not to implement fork().

When I use Windows, I accept that fork() is not there, as well as many other
Unix features.
When I use Unix, I accept that Windows is not there. 

Of course, I know already that  this project
tries to emulate some things from Unix under NT, a worthwhile undertaking. But
there are limitations, that will always be there since the OSes underneath 
are quite different.

> 
> Linux is not Unix either.  It is _NOT_ the real thing.  If you don't like
> the project then leave it alone. 'Nuff said.
>  

This is the first time I hear that Linux is not a real Unix implementation.
Since I am not a Unix specialist, I can live with that. Please do a global
search and replace, and replace Unix with Linux in my above message.

> > There isn't a better Unix emulator than Unix itself.
> 
> Keep in mind, there is no "real Unix" out there, 

There is no real Unix out there??? Well, each time I login to one of those I
must be dreaming then. Strange. It looks so real to me...

> and Linux is about as
> much of a real Unix(tm) as NT.  It just emulates it better.
> 
> - alex

I know many people do not like Linux Alex. But, polemic aside, nobody will
discuss the fact that Linux has implemented Unix in a really innovative way:
as a collective effort that has been donated to the community by people that
like free software. I use it every day, even if I am not an 'evangelist'.
If you do not like Unix, do not use Linux.

-- 
Jacob Navia	Logiciels/Informatique
41 rue Maurice Ravel			Tel 01 48.23.51.44
93430 Villetaneuse 			Fax 01 48.23.95.39
France
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".