Re: [DEB-USER] Re: M$ licenses Unix
On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 13:22, Kevin McKinley wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2003 11:20:24 -0700
> "deFreese, Barry" <Barry.deFreese@nike.com> wrote:
> > Not that this is a good arguement but Windows NT/2000/XP are microkernel
> > based you know.
> > Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe that wasn't a good point to bring
> > up... :-)
> Windows NT may be "microkernel-based" but it hasn't been a true microkernel
> since at least NT 4.0 (and may never have been).
When they put the graphics kernel into the "mirockernel" as it wasn't
fast enough . Yeah good one MS.
> OTOH Linux hasn't (for most people) been a true monolithic kernel since
> kernel modules were implemented in what, 2.2?
"It is possible to make things of great complexity out of things
that are very simple. There is no conservation of simplicity"
-- Stephen Wolfram
Richard Heycock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
key fingerprint : 909D CBFA C669 AC2F A937 AFA4 661B 9D21 EAAB 4291