Re: [PATCH/RFC] thread-utils: better wrapper to avoid #ifdef NO_PTHREADS

> I also think we may want to make a fundamental shift in our view of
> thread support. In the early days, it was "well, this is a thing that
> modern systems can take advantage of for certain commands". But these
> days I suspect it is more like "there are a handful of legacy systems
> that do not even support threads".
>
> I don't think we should break the build on those legacy systems, but
> it's probably OK to stop thinking of it as "non-threaded platforms are
> the default and must pay zero cost" and more as "threaded platforms are
> the default, and non-threaded ones are OK to pay a small cost as long as
> they still work".