> "OpenBSD was late to the game of multiprocessing, deliberately ignoring multi-CPU machines. They only had to change their minds when suddenly consumer CPUs started being multi-core/multi-threaded."
Which seems like an entirely reasonable choice if they felt there were bigger priorities. OpenBSD received SMP support in November 2004, right at the same time as the first mainstream dual-core CPU arrived on the market. I get what you mean by "late to the game", but I also feel that it's not really a fitting statement.
Yes, I said they focus on other things. It's not criticism. But it is true that they dismissed SMP, and did not see dual-core coming. They were late because they were reacting to dual core launching.
> I also feel that it's not really a fitting statement.
In what way? Linux got it almost a decade before that. Windows NT got it more than a decade before OpenBSD.
SunOS approaching 15 years before OpenBSD.
ChatGPT claims Mac OS X got it in 1999 with Mac OS X Server, but I could not immediately confirm that one.
Again, this is not criticism. But I don't see how it would be inaccurate to say they were late, when I think they were literally last.
They were last, but not late. SMP in the x86 world was miniscule in terms of multi-CPU setups. It didn't "happen" until the multi-core era, and OpenBSD was well in time for that.
Which seems like an entirely reasonable choice if they felt there were bigger priorities. OpenBSD received SMP support in November 2004, right at the same time as the first mainstream dual-core CPU arrived on the market. I get what you mean by "late to the game", but I also feel that it's not really a fitting statement.