Construct · 3 fields · 3 citations

Where does fork collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one word, three constructs Nearest construct by meaningprocesscompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to fork is process.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

fork3 CONSTRUCTSfork() callRITCHIE · PROCESS SPLITProject forkROBLES · DIVERGENT COPYTuning forkROSSING · STEEL RESONATOR

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Operating systems

A process-creating system call

In an operating system, fork is the system call that creates a new process by duplicating the process that calls it: the running process becomes a parent, and a nearly identical child begins executing from the same point, with its own copy of the parent's memory and its own process identifier. Ritchie and Thompson's 1974 The UNIX time-sharing system described the primitive by which a process splits into two independently executing processes that hold separate memory images but share their open files. The referent is an event inside a computer's kernel, timed in the microseconds a call takes to return, and it is not a split in a codebase, a tactic on a chessboard, or a two-pronged bar of steel.[1]

Unit
A kernel call that duplicates a running process and returns twice
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Traced by counting the calls and timing their return in the kernel, and by inspecting the parent and child entries in the process table

Open-source software

A divergent copy of a project

In open-source software, a fork is a divergent copy of a project's codebase taken up by a separate group who continue to develop it on their own, often after a disagreement over direction, licensing, or governance: the copy shares a common history with the original but is thereafter maintained apart. Robles and González-Barahona's 2012 A comprehensive study of software forks: Dates, reasons and outcomes examined why forks are declared and how rarely they rejoin the parent. The referent is a social and organisational event in a developer community, counted by projects and contributors, and it is not a duplicated process, a chess tactic, or an acoustic resonator.[2]

Unit
A separately maintained copy of a codebase and its community
Recovery means
A fork ends by dying out, by superseding the original, or, more rarely, by merging back into it
Measured by
Studied through repository histories, commit and contributor counts, and the dates and stated reasons a fork was declared

Acoustics

a two-pronged steel resonator that vibrates at a fixed frequency when struck, used as a reference pitch.

A tuning fork is a two-pronged steel resonator that, when struck, vibrates at a fixed frequency and sounds a nearly pure tone, used as a reference pitch and in hearing tests: the prongs move in opposition while the stem carries the vibration to a surface that radiates the sound. Rossing, Russell, and Brown's 1992 On the acoustics of tuning forks analysed the fork's modes of vibration and its behaviour as a sound source. The referent is a physical object and its resonance, described in hertz, and it is unrelated to a process call, an open-source project, or a chess move.[3]

Unit
A struck two-tine resonator's fixed pitch, in hertz
Recovery means
The tone decays as the vibration damps, and contact through the stem transfers the energy to a soundboard
Measured by
Characterised by its resonant frequency and its rate of decay, using frequency counters, microphones, and modal analysis

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how fork sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

node2 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, two constructscoupling4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructs

References

  1. Ritchie, D. M., & Thompson, K. (1974). The UNIX time-sharing system. Communications of the ACM, 17(7), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1145/361011.361061
  2. Robles, G., & González-Barahona, J. M. (2012). A comprehensive study of software forks: Dates, reasons and outcomes. In I. Hammouda, B. Lundell, T. Mikkonen, & W. Scacchi (Eds.), Open source systems: Long-term sustainability (pp. 1–14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33442-9_1
  3. Rossing, T. D., Russell, D. A., & Brown, D. E. (1992). On the acoustics of tuning forks. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 620–626. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17116

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct