> The widespread use of preemptive concurrency for reasons aside from parallelism, demonstrates my point. If your point is that kernel threads are more attract

> The widespread use of preemptive concurrency for reasons aside from parallelism, demonstrates my point. If your point is that kernel threads are more attractive that the alternative, once they already exist, then yes, but that continues to miss refuting my assertion. Using something ("off label"[1]) once it's already there, isn't the same thing as wanting/needing it in the first place. [1] consistent with my assertion that the "label" for threading specifies its use for multiprocessor support. After all, how did the early X server or Sun's NeWS manage to be so responsive before all that newfangled threading stuff in the 90s?