linux doesn't even have proper kernel support for userspace threads wtf?
why don't you use superior freebsd?
BSD doesn't respect your freedoms as it isn't GPL
>>54544655
Because I use the superior OpenBSD
>>54545400
Good thing I'm not a mentally ill freetard.
>>54544655
Sell me on BSD
>>54545678
>>54545803
This hasn't convinced me of anything
>>54545803
>2016
>Posting a graph from 2008
>>54545877
linux is literally crap
>>54545930
>Still posting pictures from 2008
>>54545970
>>54545926
>2008+8
>linux support for zfs is still shit
How has bsd improved recently?
By recently, I mean since the last time I fell for the bsd meme.
>>54544655
>linux doesn't even have proper kernel support for userspace threads wtf?
Uh, what the fuck are you talking about?
>>54545981
>hurr durr Linux sucks because it doesn't have ZFS
>completely disregarding the fact that it has a non-GPL compliant license preventing it from being included in the kernel
>>54544655
>superior BSD
>we can't into SMP yet
top fucking kekeroni!
>>54545981
>support for zfs
no biggie, zfs is shit anyway
>>54544655
What applications are available for FreeBSD?
>>54547158
Oh you know, user space threads, for when the architecture requires low level virtualization to multi-thread your driver cores and the remaining cache is less than 512 KB. You need to shift the process levels to a different logic tables or your thread is going to cycle, possibly causing memory leaks.
>>54547208
>fox and the grapes
>>54547171
Could you guys PLEASE stop using so many acronyms? I'm on my phone and googling every other word in your posts is a pain in the ass.
>>54547282
>Oh you know, user space threads
Yes. Linux have these.
>or when the architecture requires low level virtualization to multi-thread your driver cores and the remaining cache is less than 512 KB
>You need to shift the process levels to a different logic tables or your thread is going to cycle, possibly causing memory leaks.
Now you're just putting in some random words you don't really understand what means in order to sound smart.
>>54547310
>Now you're just putting in some random words you don't really understand what means in order to sound smart.
It's like you have that neurological disorder that makes music sound like noise to you, but instead of music, it's humor.
>>54547301
Hey summerfag, try not being a dumbass
>>54544655
>user space threads
>kernel support
u wot m8?
Because I use the superior BSD: OSX/Darwin
>>54547301
>phone
reddit is that way
>>54547301
get raped and die, mobile trash
>>54547399
I have a PC, it's just at home.
>>54547171
Why doesnt Torvald just reverse engineer an intercompatible ext file system then? It's basically just 128 bit ext
>>54547301
>>54547310
Linux doesn't really have user space threads
It has processes that share their address space or whatever (you use the clone() syscall and give it options such as share open files, share heap segment etc., fork() is just clone() with a specific set of options), but from the kernel's perspective, there is no difference between these "threads" and full processes
>>54547298
>the grapes have terrible fragmentation
>you need to keep at least 20% free space or the grapes turn to shit performance
>>54549140
>doesn't really
it doesn't really have support for html either
>>54547171
GPL has no bearing about ZFS being in Linux. If they wanted ZFS in Linux, they will write an implementation of it.
>>54549140
>Linux doesn't really have user space threads
Well obviously since Linux is a kernel.
Plenty of user space libraries with user space threads though.
>>54550854
Completely different
You can't create a thread in Linux, but you can create a new process that shares things like address space with its parent
>>54550902
Meant kernel support for threads that are created from userspace
>>54550938
What kernel support for threads do you need? What does it even do that's better than userspace threads?
>>54549140
>Linux doesn't really have user space threads
It really does.
> there is no difference between these "threads" and full processes
That's a lie. Look up the difference between Process Control Block and Thread Control Block in Linux.
Processes (fork()) cannot share heap, they have their own virtual address space. You need to use shared memory in order to do so. Threads, on the other hand, are part of the process.
>>54547476
>>54550891
You know they can't just take the code and relicense it right? You know that that's a copyright violation?
>>54550918
>You can't create a thread in Linux, but you can create a new process that shares things like address space with its parent
See >>54550984
Threads are not processes.
>>54550984
So don't take the code and relicense it. Write a new implementation using official ZFS as a guide. Problem solved.
>>54550984
>You know they can't just take the code and relicense it right? You know that that's a copyright violation?
both of the anons you quoted said something to the effect of
"write their own implementation and release it"
not "copy-paste the source code and release it"
>no drivers
>no software
>no support
>no fucking drivers
but hey guys it uses some clown-mode file system you should totally install it
>>54550984
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/807506/threads-vs-processes-in-linux
>>54550938
clone() with CLONE_VM, CLONE_FILES, etc.
>>54551207
See
>>54551127
Though in practice it doesn't matter from user space
>>54551017
>>54551047
>just make this thing from scratch that took almost a hundred different engineers 20 years to perfect
>>54551127
>parrotting stackoverflow
The guy obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. See PCB vs TCB
Why would they be two entirely different data structures (in fact, a PCB can contain multiple TCBs) if "hurr durr threads are just lightweight processes"
>>54551263
This book says the same
>>54551238
I don't see what your point is.
'Threads' are just an abstraction (i.e individual units of execution which things like share address space and file descriptors).
So, you can create these 'threads' from user space just fine.
The fact that Linux accomplishes through just one syscall which takes different flags for how much these units of execution should share is an irrelevant implementation detail.
>>54551263
>google "linux thread control block"
>get this
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8244073/thread-control-block-in-linux
Please link me to the source line you claim exists which begins the definition of this TCB
>>54551278
I don't give a fuck about what "the book" says
Here is the process control block definition
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/sched.h#L1388
Here is where child processes are stored:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/sched.h#L1509
Here is where threads are stored:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/sched.h#L1523
>>54551342
See >>54551343
Threads and processes are treated differently.
>>54551343
You seem to not understand what thread groups are
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9305992/linux-threads-and-process
Please show me the definiton of the TCB
>>54551401
Why are you sageing and reposting your shitty stackoverflow link?
>>54551449
It's a different link that explains thread groups
Show me the TCB
If it isn't just the same as the PCB it must be defined somewhere, right?
>>54551485
I told you threads and processes were treated differently, you're the one going on about PCB and TCB....
>>54551343
The book is written by one of the kernel maintainers
I'd rather trust him than some random guy on 4chan
>>54551263
>>54551500
>see PCB vs TCB
>>54551544
It is written by the same guy that gave the world the abomination that is NetworkManager....
>>54551572
That's not me, I'm >>54547310 and >>54547158
>>54551587
He just worked on it, and that is irrelevant
>>54545981
>zfs
Enjoy extortion lawsuits from Oracle.
>>54551613
>"he just worked on it"
Are you fucking copy-pasting shit from wikipedia now? wow...
>>54551608
Well the fact that they list their threads and child processes differently doesn't mean they are treated differently by the scheduler or anything. Every new thread gets a new task_struct like any new process and it is scheduled just like it was a completely separate process.
>>54551655
How do you know what Wikipedia says?
Anyway I looked it up as I had no idea about his (irrelevant) involvement with it
>>54544655
BSD doesn't have any drivers only ported Linux drivers.
>>54551661
>Well the fact that they list their threads and child processes differently doesn't mean they are treated differently by the scheduler or anything
What has scheduling to do with whether or not it's a lightweight process or something completely different (thread)?
You know that even threads need to be scheduled, right?
>Every new thread gets a new task_struct like any new process
But with completely different fields and values and size (see the Linux object handling system).
>and it is scheduled just like it was a completely separate process.
See my first point. By this logic kernel threads are processes too, because they are also scheduled.
>>54551679
>>54551613
>His background is only relevant when I decide it is and irrelevant when I decide that
Okay....
>>54551661
The only thing which matters for a scheduler is priority and time slices, and the priority score for a task takes into account whether they are child tasks, in the same thread group or not, etc.
>>54544655
Meanwhile, Darwin and NT have already moved to a performant hybrid micro + monolithic kernel architecture while Linux refuses to move on past Tanenbaum-induced butthurt and is still dealing with the kernel scheduler encouraging idling, causing ~20% latency increases for regular database operations over the past decade.
>>54551832
Linux is a hybrid kernel (see loadable kernel modules).
XNU is a proper Mach microkernel.
Darwin isn't even the name of the kernel you stupid fuck.
>>54551721
Yes, but they are added to the main list of processes just like they were processes and the scheduler schedules them without knowing if they aare threads or processes, and there is no difference between "the process" and any "threads" spawned by it in how they are managed
If you look at Windows NT threads are very different
>>54551857
Feel free to tack on that possessive s to Darwin if it soothes your butthurt buddy. I don't mind at all.
>>54551758
His background related to the thing is relevant, and the rest isn't. This shouldn't be surprising.
It doesn't matter if you thought Torvalds' diving app wasn't great, his role with the Linux kernel makes him an authority on that, just like Love.
>>54551871
>Yes, but they are added to the main list of processes just like they were processes and the scheduler schedules them without knowing if they aare threads or processes, and there is no difference between "the process" and any "threads" spawned by it in how they are managed
But THEY ARE SCHEDULED DIFFERENTLY you stupid fuck. See >>54551819
Why do you think the priority score takes the thread group into account?
>If you look at Windows NT threads are very different
Nobody "looks" at Windows NT, unless they are employed by Microsoft, because it's proprietary you idiot.
>>54551857
XNU is a hybrid kernel
>>54551896
>his background related to this thing that is part of the kernel is relevant but his background related to this other thing that is also part of the kernel isn't
>>54551900
There's plenty of books about Windows NT
The fact that it cares about the thread group number doesn't make them fundamentally different. If I take an arbitrary process and change its group number to another's, will it suddenly be a thread of that process?
>>54551917
>>54551857
>>54551832
Protip: They're all hybrid kernels
>>54551942
>If I take an arbitrary process and change its group number to another's, will it suddenly be a thread of that process?
No, because a process isn't a thread.
>>54551925
>>54551966
Okay but pretty much everyone else disagrees with you.
Strange how none of Linux kernel maintainers know how threads work.
>>54551942
>There's plenty of books about Windows NT
So *BSD have better thread models because there are some books that say that in Windows NT threads work this or that way and that's different than Linux so obviously the BSDs have better thread models
I give up
>>54552008
No one said either approach is better
>>54545620
This is the only correct answer right here. Heil DeRaadt, praise tedu
>>54551991
>Okay but pretty much everyone else disagrees with you.
Go ahead and try then. Try to make a separate process a thread of another process.
>Strange how none of Linux kernel maintainers know how threads work.
I'm never said anything remotely like this. I'm saying YOU don't understand how threads work in Linux.
>>54552025
It literally says so in OP
>>54551278
Where? Which chapter and section?
>>54552043
So Robert Love, a kernel maintainer, is wrong about there being no real difference between processes and threads?
Better send him an email before he gets into an embarrassing situation.
>>54551947
>>54551857
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+Linux+a+microkernel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel#Loadable_modules
>>54552090
No one ITT said Linux was a microkernel. It is a HYBRID kernel.
>>54552081
>So Robert Love, a kernel maintainer, is wrong about there being no real difference between processes and threads?
See >>54552078
>>54552078
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=370047&seqNum=3
>>54552081
Stop acting childish and please explain your claim, that you can just change the thread group of a process and suddenly it will somehow become a thread of another process.
Anyone used ghostbsd?
>>54550918
>You can't create a thread in Linux
You're an idiot.
>>54550938
>clone can't be called from userspace
m8...
>>54552133
I never claimed that. I asked a rhetorical question.
What is childish about believing a kernel maintainer understands the kernel better than you do?
>>54552174
It creates a new process that shares things like the address space with its parent
>>54552175
>What is childish about believing a kernel maintainer understands the kernel better than you do?
Are you Robert Love?
No. Stop talking on his behalf. I'm saying YOU don't understand Linux' thread model, and you've clearly demonstrated this over and over again ITT by saying stuff like "you can't create a thread in Linux" and "you can just change the thread group of a process and make it a thread of another process".
>>54552192
Also known as a thread.
>>54552192
>It creates a thread that shares things like the address space with its parent
FTFY
Please help me complete the following worksheet, anons.
--------------------
REASONS TO USE BSD:
1) __________
2) __________
3) __________
--------------------
Thank you for your support.
Regards,
Anon
>>54552230
Which BSD?
Reasons to use FreeBSD:
>ZFS
Reasons to use OpenBSD
>autism
>>54552204
Here he claims it himself
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=370047&seqNum=3
I never talked for him, I cited him
If I'm wrong, he's wrong too, as we claim the same.
>>54552224
It's a process in every single way except for sharing those few things
Who bhyve here ?
Anyone tried openBSD vmm yet ?
>>54552251
>Here he claims it himself
Protip: It's not saying what you're saying.
>If I'm wrong, he's wrong too, as we claim the same.
No, you don't. You claim that Linux doesn't have threads. He's saying that it doesn't differentiate between the two types of tasks.
Those are two vastly different statements.
>It's a process in every single way except for sharing those few things
No it's not a process. It is a runnable
T A S K
A
S
K
>>54552282
Exact quote:
>To the Linux kernel, there is no concept of a thread. Linux implements all threads as standard processes. The Linux kernel does not provide any special scheduling semantics or data structures to represent threads. Instead, a thread is merely a process that shares certain resources with other processes.
>>54552114
Linux is not a hybrid kernel. Modules do not make it a hybrid kernel. I even posted a Wikipedia link. Here, I'll even quote it for you.
>This modularity of the operating system is at the binary (image) level and not at the architecture level. Modular monolithic operating systems are not to be confused with the architectural level of modularity inherent in Server-Client operating systems (and its derivatives sometimes marketed as hybrid kernel) which use microkernels and servers
>>54552305
>pointers that point to the same thing vs pointers that point to different things is the same ergo linux doesn't have threads
Please kill yourself
>>54552248
>ZFS
see >>54551109
>autism
you got that right at least
>>54552324
>I even posted a Wikipedia link
>>54552248
There's ZFS support on Linux, too. I've used both implementations, the Linux one lacks some features, i.e. the ability to assign specific permissions to users, i.e. for creating snapshots, etc.
Other than that it's been more than decent.
>>54552342
>a thread is merely a process
>there is no concept of a thread
>Linux implements all threads as standard processes
that puts it pretty clearly doesn't it? or are you still confused even after it being stated thrice?
>>54552343
>needing drivers on a fucking disk server
You literally only need a ethernet driver and a drivers for your disks
>>54552359
>I claimed something on 4chan without any sauce
>someone responds using wiki as they are sauce
why are you better?
>>54552374
Are you dim or what?
I've never disputed that threads and processes are held in the same fucking data structure.
HOWEVER, you are saying that threads are processes which is demonstratively false as threads share a bunch of attributes processes don't.
>>54552394
>>54552377
>needing BSD for a fucking disk server
i wonder why literally nobody in the fucking world uses this
>>54552418
>I like data loss
>>54552402
They are fundamentally the same. Yes, they have some differences, like shared address spaces, no one claimed they didn't, but they aren't different from actual processes.
Read this again until you get it:
>>54552305
>>54552441
>no one claimed they didn't,
You literally claimed you can't create threads in Linux you fucking shit.
10 / 10 bait you got me I'm mad as hell
>>54552429
I'm sure the 2 (maybe 3 including yourself) BSD disk servers in existence are just wonderful, chugging along happily and serving up files to their owners and maybe three other people total.
Meanwhile, everyone else on earth gets along just fine without it -- including governments and huge corporations whose very existence hinges upon the data they store.
>>54552458
Where did I claim you can't create a "thread"? I merely claimed you can't create anything that is truly a thread (which would be different from a process in some fundamental way), but merely a *process* that works, from the perspective of user space, as a thread.
I claimed this, basically:
>To the Linux kernel, there is no concept of a thread. Linux implements all threads as standard processes. The Linux kernel does not provide any special scheduling semantics or data structures to represent threads. Instead, a thread is merely a process that shares certain resources with other processes.
>>54552493
https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/testimonial/netflix/#!
>>54552192
>I don't know what a thread is
kid...
>>54552493
Netflix runs on FreeBSD
>>54552495
>Where did I claim you can't create a "thread"?
>>54550918
>I merely claimed you can't create anything that is truly a thread (which would be different from a process in some fundamental way)
IT IS DIFFERENT IN A FUNDAMENTAL WAY, THREADS SHARE ADDRESS SPACE, PROCCESSES DO NOT
Just because the Linux kernel slaps it all together and calls it "tasks" doesn't mean that threads and processes are different things.
>but merely a *process* that works, from the perspective of user space, as a thread.
Try to write into another process' address space then, if you truly believe there is no difference between threads and processes in Linux.
>>54552518
Neither does the Linux kernel
>>54552517
Just for kicks here's the entire testimonials page:
https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/about/testimonials/
>>54552493
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software
>The operating system is the Unix-like Orbis OS, based on FreeBSD 9.
>>54552543
Whatsapp uses FreeBSD too, Apple uses PF (Packet Filter )
>>54552495
>>54552545
>the linux kernel doesn't differentiate between threads and processes
does NOT fucking lead to:
>therefore there is no difference
It doesn't differentiate, but there IS a difference.
>>54552543
Do you have no reading comprehension?
Read it again. You'll get it at some point.
>To the Linux kernel, there is no concept of a thread. Linux implements all threads as standard processes. The Linux kernel does not provide any special scheduling semantics or data structures to represent threads. Instead, a thread is merely a process that shares certain resources with other processes.
Robert Love certainly claims threads are processes, if maybe a special kind, and not some special, different entity.
I don't care so much about the pros and cons of FreeBSD vs. Linux as I do about how hardcore Linux proponents are such strong supporters of *nix monoculture. It's not at all healthy for "*nix system" to always == "Linux distro". Variety is a requirement of growth and improvement, so extinguishing every option for Linux serves precisely nobody well in the long run.
Frankly it's shocking to see that attiude from a crowd that purportedly all about choice and freedom.
>>54552543
Apple's AirPort routers have been running a customized build of NetBSD for around a decade now
>>54552495
>can't create anything that is truly a thread
of course you can; just because you have a fuck up definition of thread doesn't change anything
>>54552584
See >>54552578
It doesn't say that "hurr durr there is no difference, threads are processes"
It says "the linux kernel doesn't differentiate/know about the difference".
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE
>>54552588
I only support your right to make choices as long as you make the right choices
>>54552230
OK guys, so far we have the following.
>REASONS TO USE BSD:
>1) ZFS
>2) autism
>3) __________
Anything else? In particular, anything for desktop users?
>>54552588
>so extinguishing every option for Linux
*every option other than Linux
>>54552606
which means I actually have no choice
>>54552545
of course it does
>>54552613
>using BSD on your desktop
Who in their right fucking mind would do this?
That's more retarded than running Debian on your desktop.
>>54552192
>responding to the guy who always posts "m8..." or "kid..."
he seriously does this shit every BSD thread
>>54552602
That's what I've been saying all along though
See:
>>54552441
>>54552631
>I don't have anything of value to add
we know, cuck, we know
>>54552645
>I said cuck
>>54552645
see? knew it was you
it's getting pretty sad to be honest
>>54552636
You fucking back pedalling piece of shit.
>"[processes and threads] are fundamentally the same"
They are fucking not. They are held in the same datastructure, yes...
but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.
>>54544655
>why don't you use superior freebsd?
No mative Netflix client. You'd think Netflix would make one since they use freebsd to make money and don't contribut anything back.
>>54552672
A back-end and a client is not the same thing.
Hell, they gave some code back to FreeBSD.
>>54552672
It's not Netflix' fault that Chrome and Firefox can't into HTML5 on FreeBSD.
>>54552657
yeah, sad to be a cuck with nothing to say; why are you here?
>>54552695
lol you really are the /g/ equivalent of barneyfag, aren't you
>>54552660
>a thread is merely a process
-robert love
So yes, they are. According to Robert Love.
The FireFox and Chrome processes are both processes, despite having some differences.
>>54552588
Free software advocates are basically the software equivalent of "progressives", they mean well but they believe they're the most correct and no one else is allowed to have a different opinion.
Rational people just use a simple and easy to understand license like BSD/MIT just to avoid dumb drama.
>>54552728
then they get harassed by freetards constantly questioning their license choice
>>54552718
You're leaving out half of the sentence, you fucking idiot.
From Linux' perspective, there is no difference. But there certainly is a difference.
>>54552728
This desu.
RMS is a god-damned social democrat. He definitely doesn't care about any real freedom.
>>54552672
They wrote a fuckhuge patch for the network stack not that long ago.
>>54549140
>>54552744
Read my original post. It specifically says "from the kernel's perspective"
>>54552745
>>54552728
>MUH FREEDOM TO ENSLAVE
If ZFS is so superior then why the hell is it licensed with a viral license?
>>54552746
Okay whatever but can I watch Netflix now?
>>54552711
>lel what are threads?
please, cuck, spare us and go back to iMessage
>>54552770
You're just backpedalling like crazy and conducting damage control now. In the context of OP, it clearly says "linux doesn't have user-space threads" which it clearly does. You explicitly stated yourself that you can't create threads in Linux, which is false. You said other stupid shit, for example that you can just manipulate a process and it will suddenly become a thread of another process.
>>54552807
i dont even care about the threads discussion
you just make me laugh because you spend DAYS and hours on here calling people cucks
>>54552775
CDDL is not "viral" that's why the BSDs can freely incorporate it. All variations of GPL and AGPL are so-called "viral" licenses because when you link an application with them the application has to adopt the same license. CDDL only requires that the code under CDDL remain under CDDL anything can link to CDDL(except GPL because it's impossible to meet the requirements of both licenses).
>>54545930
>Linux does more with 2 cores than FreeBSD can with 20
>>54552811
That was a rhetorical question about changing it you retard
I also said "Linux doesn't really have threads", which is to say thaf OP is technically correct, but not really, either, as I explained afterwards. You can't have something that is a thread from the kernel's point of view, it's all processes, but what it does is essentially threading.
All this "discussion" has been about your shit reading comprehension
>>54552832
CDDL sounds like it's basically MIT/BSD that's immune to the GNU crew's usual trick of GPL assimilation.
>>54547301
On my android phone all i do is highlight the work and i can bring up a quick google snippet of the word
>>54552866
>"i can't read graphs"
>>54552820
>don't care about tech
>just jerking it to animu and sucking apple dick
as I was saying
-current isn't stable enough for me as it is the upstream of arch linux
>>54552832
>CDDL is not "viral"
It most definitively is. It is copyleft.
>>54552872
>muh damage control
You're full of shit. You've repeatedly stated over and over again that there is no difference between threads and processes in Linux, when it most certainly is (hint: shared address space).
>>54552929
I have said throughout the thread and from the very start that they have shared address spaces which you would realize if your reading comprehension was at not-a-nigger level.
>>54552888
According to Bryan Cantrill there were people at Sun that wanted a strict copyleft license like GPL but Solaris had proprietary components that they couldn't just rewrite so they had to find another license. Sun settled on something based on the original Mozilla public license but with parts rewritten to be clarified and certain parts removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc
>>54552992
You've said that this difference "is not fundamental", which it most certainly is. Stop back pedalling.
>>54553072
From the context of my first post you should know what I meant.
Also you seem to not know what fundamental means. A synonym is underlying. So what underlies a thread is a process. It's just a kind of process, fundamentally.
>>54552394
He's just here to shitpost about Linux, it doesn't matter m8.
>>54553142
Why is he so butthurt though?
>>54553127
>From the context of my first post you should know what I meant.
The fucking context of your first post was you saying that Linux doesn't have threads.
Jesus fucking christ you are a stubborn autist, aren't you?
>Also you seem to not know what fundamental means. A synonym is underlying.
Hint: Underlying does not mean "implementation". The underlying difference between threads and processes is still that threads share address space while processes do not.
>So what underlies a thread is a process. It's just a kind of process, fundamentally.
No, it's not "a kind of a process". It is a thread. It's held in the same data structure from Linux' point of view, but it really isn't the same thing.
You're a fucking imbecile.
>>54553127
The "OS" is "kind of an process", but the fundamental (or underlying if you want) difference is that it's fucking not.
Stop being an idiot.
>>54552628
/thread
>>54553167
>>54549140
This is my first one.
Fundamentally they are processes, just a special kind of it. It is merely a process that has a few special things, or equivalently, it's fundamentally a process.
>To the Linux kernel, there is no concept of a thread. Linux implements all threads as standard processes. The Linux kernel does not provide any special scheduling semantics or data structures to represent threads. Instead, a thread is merely a process that shares certain resources with other processes.
>>54553191
Clearly, you're the retard as you can't even figure out what fundamentally means even though you have Google
>>54553236
>Linux doesn't really have user space threads
This is objectively false, it has user space threads.
It doesn't matter how you rant about how threads and processes are both stored in a task struct and that the kernel doesn't know (and doesn't need to know) about the difference.
The FACT is that it has user space threads and the fundamental difference between threads and processes are that threads share address space.
End of fucking discussion.
The quote you are so fond is not saying what you are saying. I suggest you sit down and read it before posting it again.
>>54553267
I'm not the one trying to redefine a fucking word so I don't lose an argument on 4chan, you miserable cunt.
>>54553236
Fundamentally, you're an idiot.
>>54553279
You really have shit reading comprehension if you can't understand that "merely a process except blah" means it's basically a process.
>>54553305
fun·da·men·tal·ly
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əlē/
adverb
adverb: fundamentally
in central or primary respects
So if it is like X except Y it is fundamentally X you giant mouthbreather
>>54553338
>in central or primary respects
YES
IN CENTRAL RESPECTS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THREADS AND PROCESSES IS THAT THREADS SHARE ADDRESS SPACE YOU FLAMING RETARD
>>54550984
>Processes (fork()) cannot share heap, they have their own virtual address space. You need to use shared memory in order to do so. Threads, on the other hand, are part of the process.
"threads" are just "full processes" that requested cow memory semantics instead of shared memory semantics ( CLONE_VM ). Are you being stupid on purpose?
>>54553338
>maximum damage control
Your butthurt is fucking hilarious
>ITT: People who don't know the difference between a process and a thread
CS confirmed for meme
>>54553369
Calm down now, see, in central respects they are processes, but they have some differences. If you can define them as X but with a minor difference they are basically X. I know this is confusing to an autist like you that something can be thought of something else because that's basically what it is.
>>54553410
>they are the same... but they are different
>however, you can redefine them as X except they are Y but they are basically X
How stupid are you if you cannot even grasp the difference between a thread and a process?
Just stop posting.
>>54553386
PROJECTING THIS HARD
I'm actually just drunk and bored so I thought I could try to teach you reading comprehension skills but you just won't comprehend this lesson. Some people should just be castrated and ostracized. It's hopeless.
>>54553446
>I'm actually just drunk
Explains a lot
>>54553428
I know the difference, but in Linux specifically they are fundamentally the same.
>>54553446
You literally claimed that there is no fundamental difference between a thread and a process, and then trying to say that they are fundamentally the same thing.... except they're not, because apparently there is this pesky difference that you just choose to ignore.
If you don't know the difference between a thread and a process you don't belong on /g/.
>>54553454
Yes. I figured you're a retard, so that explains your part too. Funny when a drunk and a mouthbreather meet. It hasn't been productive, that's certain.
>>54553463
What is the difference? How does threads fundamentally differ from processes?
>>54553504
See my first post. They share some resources, such as their address space.
>>54553528
>threads and processes are the same
>threads are fundamentally different from processes
Which one is it?
>>54553504
>>54553528
Also this isn't how they are fundamentally different, because they aren't. If they were fundamentally different, they wouldn't really be the same at all, but they are the same except for minor details. Note that fundamentally different is a lot stronger than not fundamentally the same; no idea why you are trying to take a stronger position when you fail to defend your weaker.
>>54553583
>it's "minor details" because that suits my argument
kek
>>54553583
>most OSes implement threads as something completely different than processes
>all CS theory talk about them as separate things
>hurr durr they are fundamentally the same becuz mah Loonix
Linux is shit and you shouldn't use that as your baseline for concepts in computing.
>>54553623
Considering how much task_struct contains, and how much scheduling and all that goes around (without caring which it is) I believe it is fair to say they are fundamentally the same.
I would claim that's what Robert Love said, too, but you would just keep on denying.
Anyway, despite drunkenness, you're getting quite tiresome so good night and sleep tight.
>>54553661
>task_struct contains, and how much scheduling and all that goes around (without caring which it is) I believe it is fair to say they are fundamentally the same.
Except threads and processes have vastly different values in these fields, and for threads, most of these fields are just ignored.
>>54553661
>Considering how much task_struct contains,
This is not really an argument.
struct device can hold a bunch of different objects, but no one in their right mind would claim that a PCI device is (fundamentally) the same thing as a IDE device.
You need to learn how the Linux object system works. Everything is cast to whatever object type it is, and it even has inheritance.
god damn. yall go hard on a saturday night.
Well, I can say this now
I just installed FreeBSD and have it (almost) fully functional. Only thing I'm putting off is the wireless networking because it's a long read and probably a pain in the ass.
But for the rest, I am happy. But it feels like I'm starting from zero again, learning a whole new OS and such. Of course that's not really true since ganoo linux is also of the UNIX family. But there are a few subtle differences like mounting a USB drive, and I ran into a funny problem with dbus-uuidgen which I'd never seen on linuks before. Also remapping CAPSLOCK to Ctrl was different, and so on. That's why it feels like I am a newbie, because most of what I'm used to doesn't work the same way!
the #freebsd channel is a bit quiet though, they really don't seem like the guys at #gentoo or #archlinux or whatever where everybody's ready to jump to help you.
Also, I just spent my saturday night installing FreeBSD, feelsgoodman
>>54554683
cont.
But for the rest, well, it feels just as when I was using linax. The same programs are present, so I have i3 + tmux + irssi + vim +zsh just as always so it feels seamless. Now I'm ready to learn about the mysterious ZFS everybody talks about.
Also the disk drives have weird funny names like ada0 da0s1 and so on. No lsblk either....
Although this might be placebo or just the product of some bias, I feel like I have a better tool in my kamputor now. For one thing I like the fact that I'm not using a userland from one vendor, and a kernel from another one, all glued together by yet another one. And the documentation is p good. I typed `man security`, I like the result.
Sorry for the blogpost, now that I think of it, I do have a blog.
>>54554748
/dev/ names in BSDs tend to be less generic and more based on what driver the device is using
>>54554683
>>54554748
What you're experiencing is what users of basically every other Unix experience when using Linux. Linux has its own special way of doing things. The BSDs sometimes refer to them as linux-isms
>>54545400
>>54545620
It does respect your freedoms, it just lacks copyleft.
