Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!ucsd!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!spdcc!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT & "threads"
Message-ID: <2821@ima.ima.isc.com>
Date: 28 Oct 88 17:02:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: ima.2821
References: <10736@reed.UUCP> <363@thor.wright.EDU> <3022@haven.umd.edu>
Reply-To: johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine)
Followup-To: comp.sys.misc
Organization: Not much
Lines: 13

In article <363@thor.wright.EDU> jsloan@wright.UUCP writes:
>Threads are neat. Not necessarily new, although MACH and OS/2 are the
>first "commercial" operating systems that I'm aware to feature them,
>but still neat.

OS/360 MVT had threads in the mid-1960s (whether they worked then is a
separate issue, but they were certainly there) and they weren't particularly
new then.  I think at this point they can be considered to be a time-proven
operating system feature, like, perhaps, virtual memory.
-- 
John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869
{ bbn | think | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something
Rome fell, Babylon fell, Scarsdale will have its turn.  -G. B. Shaw