Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020319222722.02620f00@pop3.cris.com> X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:32:17 -0800 To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" , From: Randall R Schulz Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project In-Reply-To: References: <00c501c1cfaf$50e1db50$0200a8c0 AT sknet01> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sir, We await your improved model for process control and the operating system that implements it. Randall Schulz Mountain View, CA USA Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. -- Samuel Johnson At 18:51 2002-03-19, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >I don't see it that the source of the problem is the implementation of >fork/vfork; the way I see it the very *concept* of forking makes little to >no sense. I've written a lot of code, and not once have I thought to >myself, "ok, now what I want to do here is duplicate the current process >in almost exactly its current state." Maybe it made more sense back in >the day, or maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me there's a lot >more efficient ways to do multithreading/multi"process"ing/IPC/etc (or >better yet avoid them altogether) these days. > >-- >Gary R. Van Sickle >Brewer. Patriot. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/