Arrogant is hardly the word. Insolent maybe.
true that certainly makes it better.
Say whatever. But when I'm flaming someone I'm not going get off my big fat arse and post links to prove my point.
i see. i didn't know you were dragging your arse along with your mouse pointer. Which GUI do you use? :D
If the "flamee" wishes to confirm what I'm saying, he may do it at his own expense ( b/w, time, money etc... etc... ) ;)
*sigh* i prefer the scientific method - supply evidence to support a statement. Especially when the question is one that involves research related concepts.
And I _wasnt_ referring to singularity. I clearly mentioned in my post that Win2k / 2k3 was using a semi-microkernel architecture. Obviously you lost that bit. Fine.
thanks for clearing that i did not assume what you were referring to hence asked if you were referring to singularity. Since there is no way for us to ascertain if singularity design was/is being used in the current M$ systems its still a point of some uncertainty.
Mohan posted this. Did you miss it? or overlooked it? >From Galvin's book's appendix (7/e): http://codex.cs.yale.edu/avi/os-book/os7/online-dir/Win2K.pdf See page 4.
i did see that only since you were so adamant on ``true microkernels" and not hybrids or anything lesser it did not qualify.
> The article is dated 12 May 2006 if you cared to look. By May of 2006, it was quite clear that Vista was _ahem_ doomed :P
really? It seems that development was frozen on November 8th, 2007 and only after that it was it released for testing and eventually made its way to sections of the general public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista However if you are speaking rhetorically implying that everything M$ makes is doomed from the start that's another matter :P Regards, - vihan -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
