<div>Jim,</div>
<div>I think we agree on some things (e.g., modular design is not conducive to Digital Rights Management) and I must defer to your expertise on most of what's left, but I have to speak up on a couple.<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/22/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jim Lux</b> <<a href="mailto:James.P.Lux@jpl.nasa.gov">James.P.Lux@jpl.nasa.gov</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">...<br>I don't know that Windows (at least since NT) isn't actually already<br>a small kernel surrounded by (dare I say "embraced and extended by")
<br>a lot of utilities. Sure, they're not command line utilities with<br>cryptic 2 letter names </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>It's trivial to overlay aliases on any cryptic two-letter commands you like. Fortune offered a menu-driven user interface for folks who didn't like "creat" or "su" in Sys V, in '81 ish.
</div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">and a man page full of switches. However, an<br>awful lot of what people talk about as "Windows" isn't the kernel (a
<br>lot of the GDI, for instance, has been separate from the "kernel",<br>per se, since pre WinNT)</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I misread that, at first, as "GUI". I see that MS has the term "Graphics Device Interface" and I'll allow that is separate from the "kernel".</div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">> If they really do create a<br>>minimal kernel, it perforce will look and behave a lot like the linux
<br>>kernel ...</blockquote>
<div>...</div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">It does all this now. The question is whether you can get rid of a<br>lot of the other stuff, since at a very fundamental level, windows
<br>follows an event driven model, where the events are largely from user<br>interaction. </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Ding. The "event driven model" that is "fundamental" in MSWin (since W95 or W98) comes from the GUI (but not the GDI) being integrated with the OS. Which is not conducive to interoperability.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For a long time, the only way to remotely administer a NT box was with a third party application pushing the pixels of the remote GUI over the phone line to the troubleshooter's client. To me, using MSW as a server was ...not efficacious. Programs don't talk to each other using bitmaps and mouse clicks, unless there is a layer of OCR in between. Imagine replacing every occurance of "|" is a shellscript with a call to OCR AI.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unix is great for development, because of it's modularity and the design intent of interoperability. VMS, in contrast, was designed for data processing, was not so great for development (e.g. DCL) but, with a thick filesytem and low-level shared memory etc, beat unix at OLTP by many years (for example).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>MS is designed for market share. All 3 of those systems are good at what they were designed for.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Peter</div><br> </div>
!DSPAM:471d102733992889862676!