From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20030709182624.21052.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fork: useless and painful?
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307091217460.4388-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307091217460.4388-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Wed,  9 Jul 2003 14:26:23 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f0335a58-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Ron says:
| I'm hearing the claim that fork is "useless and painful" (from an IBM K42
| guy).
|
| Maybe it's just me, but I've always liked fork.
|
| Am I nuts?

Not at all.  But all the published programs that people see use pthreads,
which is an anti-unix design.  If you want to change people's minds,
you have to show them programs that use rfork effectively.  (Linux has
cleverly engineered clone so that it can't be used directly, which feeds
the idea that pthreads are the right thing.)