norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (06/04/89)
From article <3895@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > [I claim that Deitel isn't such a great authority on operating systems > because one of his main examples is CP/M] [I point out that CP/M is only one of the case studies that Deitel provides and I fail to see why the inclusion of CP/M in a case study detracts from the main body of work.] [Again, Peter argues that Deitel's inclusion of CP/M in his book makes my reference to the book invalid.] Well Peter, I still fail to see how Deitel's inclusion of CP/M detracts from his discussions of process management, storage management, processor management, auxiliary storage management, performance, and networks and security. However I will agree that the inclusion of CP/M was dubious at best. I suppose that Deitel included it only to document what was commonly used on microcomputers at the time. Since you still object to Deitel's book, can we agree that Peterson's and Silberschatz's book is a decent reference for basic operating systems concepts? [Peter then suggests the use of "transparent multitasking" rather than "true multitasking".] [I claim that "preemptive multitasking" is still the better phrase] [Peter says...] > Since pre-emptive multitasking is not necessary for transparency (see, as > a counter example, the Polyforth development system of the mid-70s) I don't > think that's a better term. [I say...] >> Transparent multitasking is still ambiguous: Is it transparent to the >> programmer, program, or user? > [Peter says...] > Yes. Yes. Yes. OK, I guess I walked into that one :-). I still contend that "true multitasking" is like "true facts": 'True' adds no meaning to the phrase. But I also believe that Peter's suggestion to use "transparent multitasking" is one that I can adopt. (However, I still would rather use a term that explains the mechanism behind the transparency.) But even if we adopt the term "transparent multitasking", there will still be two camps that use it: those who demand a preemption mechanism and those who do not. I do not believe that transparent multitasking without preemption will satisfy most of the people screaming for "true multitasking". (-: Even I would like to see preemption on the Mac, it's just not very high on my priority list. :-) BTW Peter, could you send me a short blurb on the Polyforth system? I would like to see how it supported transparent multitasking without preemption. > -- > Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' > ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U` --- -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences UUCP: {cbosgd, rutgers} 219 Mathematical Sciences Building !okstate!norman Stillwater, OK 74078-0599