7 ms·

OpenBSD finally got multi-core threading for userspace programs, huh? Welcome to 2003[0]. (And people say BSD is still alive.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

OpenBSD finally got multi-core threading for userspace programs, huh? Welcome to 2003[0]. (And people say BSD is still alive.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tobiasu 14y ago
Lame attempt. Sun shipped M*N and 1:1 threading in Solaris 2.2 (1993). HP-UX followed in 1997. You're like a grammar Nazi unable to spell check his own posts.
- tytso 14y ago
  Sure, 1:1 threading is in fact very old technology. Which makes it all the more astounding that the *BSD's haven't managed to get that technology implemented in their systems until now.
  - tobiasu 14y ago
    FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonFly and OpenBSD do not share the same kernel...
    - throwaway54-762 14y ago
      But they share a common, non-restrictive source license. OpenBSD could have imported 1:1 threading from FreeBSD, which added it earlier.
      - zdw 14y ago
        OpenBSD has a huge anti-NIH sentiment. This can be a good thing, as bringing in code from others = bringing in their bugs as well. For example, rather than import the quite huge Intel formulated ACPI stack, they have one of the only non-Intel, non-Windows one out there. See also their reimplementations or forks of SSH, NTP, SMTP, BGP, etc. all done with a security focused mindset.
        throwaway54-762 14y ago
        As a result they also have an 8-year stale (and growing) feature set compared with Linux or FreeBSD. And bringing in used, tested, and maintained code from others brings in their bugfixes as well as their bugs.
        TallGuyShort 14y ago
        If you want the new features, use the systems that have them. OpenBSD would have little point to it if it tried to keep up with the Jones'. It has a unique focus - that's why it's useful to some people.
        4ad 14y ago
        For many people, the lack of Linux "features" is a feature.
      - tedunangst 14y ago
        OpenBSD rthreads was started at the roughly same time as the equivalent work in FreeBSD and NetBSD. It took a bit longer, but we got there. And both FreeBSD and NetBSD basically tossed out their first implementation, then rewrote it again. Fun times.
- throwaway54-762 14y ago
  That's a little harsh. BSD competes against other open source operating systems, i.e. Linux. The point is that this was long overdue. That still stands…
  - ams6110 14y ago
    I suppose in some sense OpenBSD "competes" with Linux, but although I don't know for sure, I doubt Theo sits around developing strategies for competing against any other OS. OpenBSD is what he wants it to be, take it or leave it.
ghshephard 14y ago
Developers (and users) weren't exactly clamoring for this feature. Reliable, Documented, Predictable, Secure. OpenBSD has never been about performance. If anything, I'm wondering why they are destabilizing their product with multi-core threading.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  People like things to be more faster. Maybe they accept a tradeoff of 10% slower, but 87.5% (one v eight cores) slower? Less likely. Then they run unreliable things instead. Security people don't use isn't secure.
16s 14y ago
I was told once by a prominent OpenBSD developer that, "threads are for idiots" in response to a bug report that I had made with regard to a threaded program crashing. This was many years ago. I got a laugh from it at the time. Now that I'm older, I sort of feel that he was right.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tobiasu 14y ago

Lame attempt. Sun shipped M*N and 1:1 threading in Solaris 2.2 (1993). HP-UX followed in 1997. You're like a grammar Nazi unable to spell check his own posts.

tytso 14y ago
Sure, 1:1 threading is in fact very old technology. Which makes it all the more astounding that the *BSD's haven't managed to get that technology implemented in their systems until now.
- tobiasu 14y ago
  FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonFly and OpenBSD do not share the same kernel...
  - throwaway54-762 14y ago
    But they share a common, non-restrictive source license. OpenBSD could have imported 1:1 threading from FreeBSD, which added it earlier.
    - zdw 14y ago
      OpenBSD has a huge anti-NIH sentiment. This can be a good thing, as bringing in code from others = bringing in their bugs as well. For example, rather than import the quite huge Intel formulated ACPI stack, they have one of the only non-Intel, non-Windows one out there. See also their reimplementations or forks of SSH, NTP, SMTP, BGP, etc. all done with a security focused mindset.
      - throwaway54-762 14y ago
        As a result they also have an 8-year stale (and growing) feature set compared with Linux or FreeBSD. And bringing in used, tested, and maintained code from others brings in their bugfixes as well as their bugs.
        TallGuyShort 14y ago
        If you want the new features, use the systems that have them. OpenBSD would have little point to it if it tried to keep up with the Jones'. It has a unique focus - that's why it's useful to some people.
        4ad 14y ago
        For many people, the lack of Linux "features" is a feature.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      OpenBSD rthreads was started at the roughly same time as the equivalent work in FreeBSD and NetBSD. It took a bit longer, but we got there. And both FreeBSD and NetBSD basically tossed out their first implementation, then rewrote it again. Fun times.
throwaway54-762 14y ago
That's a little harsh. BSD competes against other open source operating systems, i.e. Linux. The point is that this was long overdue. That still stands…
- ams6110 14y ago
  I suppose in some sense OpenBSD "competes" with Linux, but although I don't know for sure, I doubt Theo sits around developing strategies for competing against any other OS. OpenBSD is what he wants it to be, take it or leave it.

ghshephard 14y ago

Developers (and users) weren't exactly clamoring for this feature. Reliable, Documented, Predictable, Secure. OpenBSD has never been about performance. If anything, I'm wondering why they are destabilizing their product with multi-core threading.

tedunangst 14y ago
People like things to be more faster. Maybe they accept a tradeoff of 10% slower, but 87.5% (one v eight cores) slower? Less likely. Then they run unreliable things instead. Security people don't use isn't secure.

16s 14y ago

I was told once by a prominent OpenBSD developer that, "threads are for idiots" in response to a bug report that I had made with regard to a threaded program crashing. This was many years ago. I got a laugh from it at the time. Now that I'm older, I sort of feel that he was right.