Subject: Re: libpthread
To: None <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 06/20/2003 20:16:39
> [...quick recap of SA history...]
> Now, consider the alternatives:
> 1) It should have been left on the branch [...]
> 2) Back it out, after the problems became apparent. [...]
> 3) Have no native thread support.
> Err.. "*BSD is dying".
What I don't get is how any of those are significantly worse than what
we have now,
4) NetBSD pretends to have thread support, but it fails
dismally when anyone tries to use it; apparently nobody
exists with the skills, tools, inclination, opportunity,
whatever, necessary to debug and fix the problems.
To parallel to your `quote' for (3),
"NetBSD not only can't get threads working, they insist
on pretending they can".
NetBSD still has no native thread support in any practical sense, it
appears; I can't see how pretending to is better than being honest. In
theory, it might garner people to work on it, but it appears that just
I expect to start seeing autoconfiguration scripts that recognize
NetBSD and disable threads even though they're autodetected, to the
accompaniment of snarky comments like the ones I've occasionally seen
about other OSes which have features they pretend to support but
actually don't. I see that as worse even than (3).
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML email@example.com
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B