Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!think!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!agate!saturn!golding
From: golding@saturn.ucsc.edu (Richard A. Golding)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: Why is OS/2 a memory hog?
Message-ID: <9810@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 89 07:45:04 GMT
References: <89304.173824GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET> <3056@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <1989Nov15.155723.4430@mks.com>
Organization: U.C. Santa Cruz, CIS/CE.
Lines: 24

In article <1989Nov15.155723.4430@mks.com>, alex@mks.com (Alex White) writes:
> >current version of whatever feature you want.   For example, it has more
> >support for process management -- lightweight processes & semaphores 
> >etc -- than most versions of Unix.
> ...
> I would also point out, that if its a good idea, then Unix will implement
> it very quickly and simply.  Given unix source, I could put some form
> of threads in place within a week.

Very few Unix systems *don't* have threads available these days.  The
difference is that threads have been implemented as libraries, rather
than as kernel-level entities.  Sun OS4 has liblwp (light-weight
processes) as a standard feature; Brown Threads and others exist as
publicly available implementations...  Of course not all library-based
implementations are preemptive, but many are.

Of course, for Unix you can get specialised toolkits (e.g. ISIS), which 
you certainly can't for OS/2.

-richard (golding@saturn.ucsc.edu)
-----------
Richard A. Golding, Crucible and  UC Santa Cruz CIS Board 
Internet:  golding@saturn.ucsc.edu 	
Work: {uunet | ucscc.ucsc.edu}!cruc!golding