🚀 go-pugleaf

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
: >: >crawl.
: >
: >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
: 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?

To avoid that one process can lock up my computer and force me to reboot
to get control back again.


Best Wishes, Bengt
-------------------Try to email: bengt.kleberg@enea.se---------------------
Disclaimer: 'If loops' are notoriously too short.
          I only represent myself, not ENEA Data nor the company I work at.