Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 versus UNIX
Message-ID: <1991May21.160543.22450@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 21 May 91 16:05:43 GMT
References: <1089@stewart.UUCP> <1991May15.110459.21996@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1101@stewart.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 17

In article <1101@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>
>>Well, to begin with, the "concept of the foreground process" is a major step
>>back from UNIX's dynamic priority reallocation, which automatically gives more
>>CPU time to *all* interactive processes... not just the one that happens to
>>have an active window.
>
>This is debatable.  NeXT-OS seems to have special treatment for the
>foreground process as well.

... although, it's more debatable than that, because the window
manager could just be adjusting the nice value of the process which
happens to belong to the foreground window. No change of philosophy
needed at all.

Ought not such a content-less thread belong on alt.religion.computers?