Hi Terry,

I can't reply to you directly. I didn't mean to imply that TempleOS is not multiprocessing. From what I gather there is only one user (with multiple processes) and that user owns all the files, hence no file permissions that say "this file belongs to user X" and "this file belongs to user Y", only user X can read/write/execute X's files, and the same for user Y. The author of the article linked to here states that TempleOS is a single user (but multiprocess!) system.

I wonder why you haven't implemented threads? Not enough of a benefit in your opinion? Aren't threads supported by modern CPUs. Don't they allow faster context switching than switching context for processes? Though I guess Erlang disagrees!

> I wonder why you haven't implemented threads?

What TempleOS calls “processes” is what you are used to calling “threads”.

There's no memory protection, so like for other multitasking systems without memory protection (like AmigaOS...) the process/thread distinction doesn't matter.

It is multiprocessing, but not fair sharing. I like to call it single-process multiple thread. There is no difference between "task", "Process" or "thread". It is single address map. Paging in not used, basically.

I don't think many people today realise how profoundly this can affect an OS (despite the many challenges). AmigaOS was the same, and it allowed a lot of hacks that are much more challenging to replicate in efficient ways on more modern OSs.

Why are all, but this comment of you, [dead]?

I think an admin has to approve his comments because he has been shadowbanned.

In the past he made racist and homophobic remarks and got shadowbanned. His mental illness is hard to understand at times. The same thing happened to him on Reddit. He has to use multiple accounts to get around the shadowbans.

I think he is like Brandon Eich who donated to the wrong charity, made good contributions and solid programming work, but holds opinions that are not socially acceptable.

>Brandon Eich

I'd take HolyC over Javascript any day.

The admins said a few months ago that they would add the possibility for high-karma users to unban select post of shadow banned accounts.

It might have landed (either in closed beta or I don't have enough karma to do it). Or maybe it was simply revived by an admin...

Terry,

You are currently shadow banned.

He knows this already.

Not anymore, apparently. At least the post I suppose you couldn't reply to in this thread isn't [dead] right now. Another comment of his still is.