By non blocking I meant the blocking of synchronous calls to the OS., thereby
effectively freezing other OS calls while the OS believes it is blocked.
Surely OO is more than fad of the day. However it sounds like Linux is more or
less OO by the mere fact that it is comprised of so many packages (assuming
these packages do one thing and do it well !).
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, you wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, you wrote:
> > The latest 'Linux is crap because' are :
> >
> > 1) 'Linux is only capable of blocking'. I thought Unix became non blocking about
> > 1980, but I'm not sure. If it did I assume Linux is as well.
>
> Linux wasn't non-blocking in 1980. It wasn't ...
> As for Unix, are you sure it was that recent. :-)
>
> > 2) NT / 2000 are completely object oriented from the ground up. Linux / Unix
> > are 'monolithoc monstrosities that wouldn't know an object it it bit them'. I
> > really don't know if the Linux kernel is OO or not.
>
> It is true the Unix and Linux are not OO kernels.
> OO is the fad-de-jur. It is unproven that the advantages
> outweigh the disadvantages in the low-level, time critical functions of the
> kernel.
>
> > 3) 'Linux / Unix is only capable of non pre-emptive scheduling, which is crap
> > compared to the vastly superior MS models'. Again, I have no answer to this.
>
> Total FUD! Those IDIOTS should learn the facts before they open their mouths.
> Unix has ALWAYS had pre-emptive scheduling.
