Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!bria!mike
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: OS generalizations)
Message-ID: <353@bria>
Date: 14 Jan 91 11:43:02 GMT
References: <1991Jan13.070039.12473@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> <11295@lanl.gov> <1991Jan13.202218.3093@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>
Reply-To: uunet!bria!mike (Michael Stefanik)
Organization: Briareus Corporation, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 26

In article <1991Jan13.202218.3093@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> altair.cis.ksu.edu!jxf (Jerry Frain) writes:
>jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>>From article <1991Jan13.070039.12473@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, by jxf@altair.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain):
>
[ trivial squabble about various and sundry things by Jim Giles deleted  ]
>
>Taking this concept in the context of operating systems, it would follow
>that a "multitasking operating system" is one which may establish separate
>threads of execution, hence a multi-threaded OS.  A popular example would
>be the MACH kernel.

So, you are saying that for an operating system to be multitasking, it would 
have to have multiple threads of execution within the context of the kernel
itself?  I always took "multitasking" to mean that the kernel provided the 
capability of context switches between user processes.  By your definitions,
since a process cannot be switched out in kernel mode, this would mean that
UNIX is not multitasking -- but it is! (He says stubbornly, stamping his foot
on the ground ... :-)

Oh, the joys of semantics and the common tongue ...
-- 
Michael Stefanik, Systems Engineer (JOAT), Briareus Corporation
UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
--
technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly
found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."