🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4iugmv$i9d@news1.delphi.com>,
John Strohm <john.r.strohm@BIX.com> wrote:
>Bengt Kleberg wrote:
>>: In article <4i0dak$m4d@news1.delphi.com>,
>>: John Strohm <john.r.strohm@BIX.com> wrote:
>>: 			.
>>: >Programmer's Manual_.  Oberon is a beautiful workstation-class operating
>>: >system AND window system that requires all of 150 kbytes or so to run. 
>>: >Compare with workstation Unix clones that require multiple megabytes to
>>
>>Last time I looked Oberon did not have preemptive multitasking.
>>Has that been added?
>
>Not that I know of.
>
>Observe that the Oberon System works just fine WITHOUT preemptive
>multitasking.  Observe that Microsquishy Windoze works just fine WITHOUT
>preemptive multitasking.  Observe that the early Macintosh operating system
>worked just fine WITHOUT preemptive multitasking.  Observe that there are a

Windoze...Mac...work just fine.... oxymoron?  Mac's still do not have 
preemptive multitasking.

>rather large number of embedded systems that work just fine WITHOUT
>preemptive multitasking.  (As a convenient example, I can count four
>computers aboard F-16C/D that friends of mine programmed, and NONE of them
>used preemptive multitasking.  Preemptive multitasking is, in fact, a very
>dirty word around Fort Worth Division; it is believed to detract from
>determinism, the ability to KNOW how the system is going to work.  Oh, and
>the quad-redundant digital flight control system, without which the
>airplane CAN'T fly, doesn't use preemptive multitasking, either.)
>
>So why do you require preemptive multitasking?

In an embedded architecture, leanness is important, but a more general OS 
should have pre-emptive multitasking.  Your F16 is not about to be 
running user programs, but your general workstation might be running all 
sorts of misbehaving crap.


Kin Lau