Lame attempt. Sun shipped M*N and 1:1 threading in Solaris 2.2 (1993). HP-UX followed in 1997.

You're like a grammar Nazi unable to spell check his own posts.

Sure, 1:1 threading is in fact very old technology. Which makes it all the more astounding that the *BSD's haven't managed to get that technology implemented in their systems until now.

FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonFly and OpenBSD do not share the same kernel...

But they share a common, non-restrictive source license. OpenBSD could have imported 1:1 threading from FreeBSD, which added it earlier.

OpenBSD has a huge anti-NIH sentiment. This can be a good thing, as bringing in code from others = bringing in their bugs as well.

For example, rather than import the quite huge Intel formulated ACPI stack, they have one of the only non-Intel, non-Windows one out there.

See also their reimplementations or forks of SSH, NTP, SMTP, BGP, etc. all done with a security focused mindset.

As a result they also have an 8-year stale (and growing) feature set compared with Linux or FreeBSD. And bringing in used, tested, and maintained code from others brings in their bugfixes as well as their bugs.

If you want the new features, use the systems that have them. OpenBSD would have little point to it if it tried to keep up with the Jones'. It has a unique focus - that's why it's useful to some people.

For many people, the lack of Linux "features" is a feature.

OpenBSD rthreads was started at the roughly same time as the equivalent work in FreeBSD and NetBSD. It took a bit longer, but we got there. And both FreeBSD and NetBSD basically tossed out their first implementation, then rewrote it again. Fun times.

That's a little harsh. BSD competes against other open source operating systems, i.e. Linux.

The point is that this was long overdue. That still stands…

I suppose in some sense OpenBSD "competes" with Linux, but although I don't know for sure, I doubt Theo sits around developing strategies for competing against any other OS. OpenBSD is what he wants it to be, take it or leave it.

Developers (and users) weren't exactly clamoring for this feature. Reliable, Documented, Predictable, Secure.

OpenBSD has never been about performance. If anything, I'm wondering why they are destabilizing their product with multi-core threading.

People like things to be more faster. Maybe they accept a tradeoff of 10% slower, but 87.5% (one v eight cores) slower? Less likely. Then they run unreliable things instead. Security people don't use isn't secure.

I was told once by a prominent OpenBSD developer that, "threads are for idiots" in response to a bug report that I had made with regard to a threaded program crashing. This was many years ago. I got a laugh from it at the time. Now that I'm older, I sort of feel that he was right.