On 03/20/2016 03:39 PM, Aaron Digulla wrote:
I'd prefer is the process with the focus wouldn't get disturbed by other processes. That feels like a good heuristic.
In absolute terms what you're asking for is OS8, CP/M, or early MS-DOS, that is a single talks "operating system'. In the days of the TTY a single user UNIX would give priority to keybaord interrupts, and in the return from the interrupt the scheduler would let the process blocked waiting for the keystroke (an editor perhaps) wake up and process the input. Those days are long gone. By the time the Consent Decree let UNIX source be available and ported to the early 16-bit micros UNIX was already doing a lot of multi-tasking. Cron was running; it was supporting email scheduling, certainly UUCP, perhaps some form of networking - that was definite even for BSD by the begining of the 1980s. That was 30 years ago or more. Try running 'ps' right now to see how many processes and threads your machine is handling. # ps -ef | wc -l 314 # ps -uanton | wc -l 60 And that latter figure is with only FOUR actual user applications running under KDE .. well five if you count this edit window separately. Occasionally Thunderbird will wake up for each of the accounts i have and check to see if there is more mail waiting. That's more IO. So really what you're asking for is a single tasking OS. Well perhaps that's what you do have. Perhaps you only have a singe CPU/core and it can do only one thing at a time and the scheduler has it switching backwards and forwards. "Faster than the eye can see." Perhaps you could explain why you were playing a game while restoring a 100K backup? Do you do this often? Is that why its something critical? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org