3 ms·
Yes, I said they focus on other things. It's not criticism. But it is true that they dismissed SMP, and did not see dual-core coming. They were late because the
by knorker 3y ago
Yes, I said they focus on other things. It's not criticism. But it is true that they dismissed SMP, and did not see dual-core coming. They were late because they were reacting to dual core launching.
> I also feel that it's not really a fitting statement.
In what way? Linux got it almost a decade before that. Windows NT got it more than a decade before OpenBSD.
SunOS approaching 15 years before OpenBSD.
ChatGPT claims Mac OS X got it in 1999 with Mac OS X Server, but I could not immediately confirm that one.
Again, this is not criticism. But I don't see how it would be inaccurate to say they were late, when I think they were literally last.
- daneel_w 3y ago> "In what way?" They were last, but not late. SMP in the x86 world was miniscule in terms of multi-CPU setups. It didn't "happen" until the multi-core era, and OpenBSD was well in time for that.
- knorker 3y agoI think you're nitpicking semantics, and don't know what your point is. Anyway, this is not a productive semantics debate. Have a nice weekend.
- daneel_w 3y agoIf you were the last person to get to the train station but the train still hadn't left, then you really were not late for the train.