> On Jan 29, 12:54am, James Rogers wrote:
>
> } The interface might be intelligent, but the OS/kernel is definitely
> } retarded. Not worth the trade-off in my opinion. NT 4.0 is *sort of* the
> } best of both worlds, but is bulky and a wee bit buggy right now.
>
> As it races to catch up with a 26 year old operating system? Macs and
> NT are trying to turn themselves into Unix, advantage NT. Okay, so I
Haven't you seen Unix giving up ground in favour of NT? That's a real
threat. The lemmings are on the move, towards a yet another monopoly. Well.
> hear threading is more advanced than Unix processes and fork(), and I
Multithreaded flavours of Unix do exist, see Mach. SMP version of
Linux are also available, btw.
> haven't had filesystem corruption with power-crashed NTs or Macs yet,
That's property of the file system, not of the OS. I don't see why we
at all need file systems, when virtual memory, persistant objects and
garbage collection would do perfectly.
> (although they give out warnings, I've heard of problems from other
> people, and my machine were never networked a la NFS.)
NFS is slow, but it works. A faster version has been released recently,
afaik.
> Memes to spread: Microsoft is trying to catch up with a free, 26 year
> old OS (older than many programmers at Microsoft).
It wasn't free during most of the time, desastrous marketing being
part of why it ain't widespread yet (and never will, but I never liked
mainstream things).
ciao,
'gene