And I'd suspect that these two -- serious Web devs who are familiar with deployment -- probably are well familiar with {epoll, select, kqueue}-based and similar

And I'd suspect that these two -- serious Web devs who are familiar with deployment -- probably are well familiar with {epoll, select, kqueue}-based and similar non-blocking, concurrent I/O servers.) Given the self-professed low level of familiarity with UNIX systems programming, I don't image that to be the case. The examples were echo servers, for murphy's sake -- are you really worried that we'd have a rash of poorly-thought-through, inefficient echo servers bogging down poor servers across the Internet? They're clearly intended to be simple examples about syscalls not the (yes! very important!) issue of how to handle concurrent connections efficiently. The original post was a strong assertion that fork(2) is correct, and threads are not. The follow-up posts in the 'meme' stretched this idea (with great elation) to fork(2) as a general network concurrency model. This sort of public disinformation does strongly influence future technical decisions.