Re: "Real" Multitasking (Re: GNO questions...)

[derek@slab.slip.uiuc.edu (Derek Taubert)]

slp@vax1.mankato.msus.edu said:
> Sorry for the second post in a row, but I just reread my post and I think I
> failed to emphasize what was in fact the point of my original post, and the

It would be more appropriate that you apologize for making the FIRST post.  

> Likewise, if someone asks, "Which is better, cooperative or preemptive
> multitasking?" an ignorant individual would reply "[one or the other] is
> better."  A more knowledgable programmer knows that each has its advantages
> and disadvantages.  Only the ignorant believe one is better than the other,
> period.

So why are you raising the issue without any solid grounds whatsoever?  You
seem to admit that your own actions are counter productive.

> Someone actually sent me mail saying they were glad I posted what I originally
> did, because everytime they mention [their favorite multitasker], people jump
> on them and berate them because it isn't preemptive.  This is ludicrous
> behavior.

Well, indeed this behavior is unfounded, but who made you the defender of the
earth?

> I rose to the defense of cooperative multitasking because everyone
> seems to be putting it down.

Cooperative multitasking is neither a physical entity nor a religion, it does
not need to be defended, especially not by you.

> I do not myself believe cooperative multitasking
> is better than preemptive multitasking.  But neither do I believe that
> preemptive is better than cooperative.  It's situational.  In general, I
> prefer preemptive for OS's, and cooperative for threads withing a single
> program, but I can think of counter-examples for each!

I urge you to give these examples, with real implementation specific data, not
some qualified theories you pulled out of a hat.  I mean it, let's have it.
I'm not about to let you get away with this.

> So, what I'm really saying is this: stop ragging on one or the other.  It's
> pointless.

Pardon me for being the one to point out to you that you were in fact the
aggressor of this entire discussion, and really should practice more of what
you preach (right or wrong), or stop preaching.

> If you believe [type1] multitasking is better than [type2]
> multitasking in all situations, you're an idiot, and you only display your
> ignorance whenever you rag on one type or the other because you believe
> [type1] is always better in all situations.

This may or may not be true, but so far you haven't presented any valid
arguments that would place cooperative above preemptive.  Yes, the comparison
fields are extremely situational, but I am positive that you don't have enough
experience with operating system implementations to be making any sort of
conclusion.  Your entire argument centers on the falicy that since cooperative
multitasking has less overhead involved in switching, it is therefore better
for single user systems.  The other aspects involved in making an operating
system work far outweigh this single issue, and you haven't even given them any
consideration.

And, oh, thank you for judging the entire population's mental capacity based
upon a single issue.  Your impetuous behaviour is outdone only by your lack of
sagacity.  Take your "expert" opinion and present it to a crowd of fools, then
you may have something...

from previous article:
> People who refer to preemptive multitasking as "real" multitasking are
> people who know sh*t about what's what.

current:
> Neither approach is the best, nor can you
> know which is the best for a situation until you've fully explored the pros
> and cons of that situation.  I gave my rules of thumb that I use in my
> original post, but I never meant them to be taken as anything more than that.
> They were only rules of thumb, and weak ones at that.

Well, now.  Seems your tone has changed substantially in just a few short
sentences.  Don't back out now, you're just about to be clobbered.  Tell me
more about how efficient cooperative multitasking is.

> There is no one answer to the question, so let's stop stomping on [such and
> such a system] just because it uses [such and such an approach].

There's the smartest thing I've heard you say.  I challenge you to listen to it.
Especially since you are obviously gasping for a way to get out of an argument
you shouldn't have started in the first place.

Derek