I&#x27;m not the downvoter.  But you may be getting the downvotes because you&#x27;re throwing out snark (&quot;Really? I&#x27;m not so sure I trust the author to give rust fair treatment anymore&quot;) and dogmatic statements (&quot;An operating system that does multithreading is not the same as a modern machine&quot;) with no explanation or justification.  It sounds like you&#x27;re expecting us to agree with your statement as self-evident, or be relegated to the ranks of it ignorant if we don&#x27;t.  That is, it sounds like a one-up game (&quot;I&#x27;m smarter&#x2F;better informed than you&quot;), rather than real conversation.<p>If you don&#x27;t want to come across that way, give us some explanation of what you&#x27;re thinking and why.  Give us some evidence that your statement is true.  Something besides just dogmatic assertions that you&#x27;re right and the author of the article is stupid and&#x2F;or biased.<p>Moving on...<p>In the context of the OS, multithreading (or something essentially equivalent) <i>is</i> the only way to exploit the abilities of &quot;modern&quot; machines.  But &quot;modern&quot; doesn&#x27;t mean very modern (at least, as I understand it).  It means the difference between MSDOS and Windows: &quot;Windows is multitasking, whereas DOS... DOS is serially multitasking.&quot;  (I don&#x27;t recall who said that, but it was brilliant.)  Without this capability, you&#x27;re only running one program at a time.<p>Now, I don&#x27;t care if you implement this as &quot;theads&quot; or something else, but if you don&#x27;t have it, your OS is pretty much worthless, and has been since about 1990.