🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19960128.117F4B8.13A52@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
Schmelling) wrote:

> Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <9601272105.AA17852@dxmint.cern.ch>, Dan Pop
> : <danpop@mail.cern.ch> wrote:

> : > Is it?  Pray tell, how is MacOS multitasking the following "application":

> : > main() { for(;;); }

> : Well, I don't particularly consider this a useful application.  Is this
> : what PMT people do with their machines all day?

> But this does not answer the question does it?
> How do you answer a question with another question?
> This is called sidestepping the issue.

What issue?  Someone comes up with a brain-dead example that exploits a
weakness of a system.  Big deal.  The question that is important to me,
and most others, is how often does that situation come up in Real Life? 
The infinite loop above happens about as often as the fork() bomb does on
Unix.  Theoretically possible; in reality, rarely.

This example give me absolutely no insight into comparing the two systems,
as it isn't something that people tend to buy computers for.

> Well, I hope even you would admit that a CMT os looses its multitasking
> ability when running a program like the one above. ;)

Yup, sure thing (well, interrupt tasks still take place).  It also runs
faster than the equivalent piece of code on a PMT system.  Macs suck at
multitasking trivial non-useful tight infinite loops.  If you wish to run
trivial non-useful tight infinite loops, buy a Unix box.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799