5 ms·

> if kqueues were clearly superior technically, then applications which rely heavily on widely-multiplexed kernel notifications would naturally have migrated to

> if kqueues were clearly superior technically, then applications which rely heavily on widely-multiplexed kernel notifications would naturally have migrated to the superior solution. I get it -- you don't like the way I phrased my point. More power to you. But you keep shadowboxing a straw man. My point was: It doesn't matter if kqueue is clearly superior technically or aesthetically or otherwise, Linux (not epoll) wins for reasons that have nothing to do with that. In order to actually make your point re: aesthetics, you have to make a much stronger case, which is that epoll actually is at least the technical equal of kqueue, not merely your feeling that apps would have naturally migrated, etc. Instead of -- people chose Linux (again not epoll) because of ... inertia, herd mentality, knowledge base, app availability, etc. Good luck.

ajross 4y ago
> you have to make a much stronger case, which is that epoll actually is at least the technical equal of kqueue It is, though. Period, full stop. There are no event handling problems solvable with kqueue that cannot be implemented in epoll with code of equal or higher performance and equivalent complexity. There's not one you can point to in practice. Not one. So... doesn't the burden of proof go the other way? Again, I repeat: you're still trying to have an aesthetic argument (in this form: that Linux won for reasons it "doesn't deserve" or something), but you're using the language of unambiguous technical determinism. And, as BSD has discovered over three decades of this nonsense, that doesn't get you anything but an echo chamber.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  What are we arguing about again? You simply disagree as to whether epoll is the equal of kqueue? Who cares? > It is, though. Period, full stop. Yeah I didn't ask for you not to explain yourself. > you're still trying to have an aesthetic argument (in this form: that Linux won for reasons it "doesn't deserve" or something) No I am not. I don't care either way whether Linux deserved it or not. I am only saying, at the time it mattered, technical merit wasn't the reason Linux beat all the other Unixes, because obviously it wasn't. This truth is at least interesting to consider. Now, reread my initial comment, and ask whether your nitpicking matters one iota? Just because you think my affection for kqueue is an aesthetic rather than technical choice (because broken semantics aren't technical, okay whatever) doesn't matter to the point of the comment at all. You bike shedded my comment. I agreed with your nitpicky point, but said there may be other concerns, and then its 5 comments about how I'm still wrong about something-I-know-no-what? I guess my aesthetic sense? JFC. You've never made an affirmative argument! It's all sniping from the sidelines.

ajross 4y ago

> you have to make a much stronger case, which is that epoll actually is at least the technical equal of kqueue It is, though. Period, full stop. There are no event handling problems solvable with kqueue that cannot be implemented in epoll with code of equal or higher performance and equivalent complexity. There's not one you can point to in practice. Not one. So... doesn't the burden of proof go the other way? Again, I repeat: you're still trying to have an aesthetic argument (in this form: that Linux won for reasons it "doesn't deserve" or something), but you're using the language of unambiguous technical determinism. And, as BSD has discovered over three decades of this nonsense, that doesn't get you anything but an echo chamber.

mustache_kimono 4y ago
What are we arguing about again? You simply disagree as to whether epoll is the equal of kqueue? Who cares? > It is, though. Period, full stop. Yeah I didn't ask for you not to explain yourself. > you're still trying to have an aesthetic argument (in this form: that Linux won for reasons it "doesn't deserve" or something) No I am not. I don't care either way whether Linux deserved it or not. I am only saying, at the time it mattered, technical merit wasn't the reason Linux beat all the other Unixes, because obviously it wasn't. This truth is at least interesting to consider. Now, reread my initial comment, and ask whether your nitpicking matters one iota? Just because you think my affection for kqueue is an aesthetic rather than technical choice (because broken semantics aren't technical, okay whatever) doesn't matter to the point of the comment at all. You bike shedded my comment. I agreed with your nitpicky point, but said there may be other concerns, and then its 5 comments about how I'm still wrong about something-I-know-no-what? I guess my aesthetic sense? JFC. You've never made an affirmative argument! It's all sniping from the sidelines.