Yes, that aligns more closely with my mental model of a "lock-free algorithm", but what I see in practicality is people avoiding (or re-inventing) synchronization primitives, thinking that they don't belong in a "lock-free algorithm".
You can still use standard kernel-provided synchronization objects (mutex/events/semaphores) in your "lock-free applications", as long as you provide timeouts to blocking wait() calls, and handle abandoned objects gracefully.
You can still use standard kernel-provided synchronization objects (mutex/events/semaphores) in your "lock-free applications", as long as you provide timeouts to blocking wait() calls, and handle abandoned objects gracefully.