OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I have to work with a crowd who's basic attitude seems to be 'take me now
> Bill'. They cannot understand why I like to try / use Mozilla despite its
> problems, they cannot understand why I have a colourful screen background and
> the worst sin of all - not using Windows Explorer and opening a seperate window
> for every directory.
>
> So now you know what I'm up against !
>
> 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.
>
BLocking what? System calls?
Of course they are! would you like to see two concurrent syscalls
modifying the same directory without any lock?
Oh, and BTW, there's a per-directory lock. Locks are here, but fine
grained. In no case a syscall will block the whole system, or it's a
bug.
> 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. Just look at include/linux/fs.h.
> 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.
>
It's the opposite. Win9x does cooperative multitasking between
kernel32.dll and I/O drivers. Have you ever wondered why Win9x would
block when you wrote to a floppy? Well, now, you know. Period.
Speaking about Neanderthal Technology, it's exactly the same, except
that the base microkernel is preemptive.
--
fg
# rm *;o
o: command not found
