At 12:30 even 9/26/02 +0530, N Joshibaba wrote: >but the kernel architecture (monolithic / macrolithic / hybrid (?)) of >Windows and Linux is different right ? Also there is difference between >Windows 9x and NT kernel > >AFAIK Linux kernel was written keeping in mind POSIX nd I guess POSIX nd >Windows don't go together
AFAIK POSIX is an standard. M$ has full right to be compliant, *if* it so wants to. >Also I think you are assuming that Linux is the *best* kernel available >(BTW what happened to HURD ?) which arguably is not the case right, IMHO. GNU/Linux is the best choice due to its 'open' & 'free' nature. It is under constant and heavy development and one day (soon) may become the best. Stallman wants HURD to be in, but I think it lacks the developer following that Linux has. >I've seem ppl on Usenet (Microsoft Developers well versed with GNU/Linux) >refer to Windows 2000 with reverence. I too think that Microsoft did come >up with something 'stable' with >Windows 2000. Win2K is indeed stable. And, I suppose, a good secure OS to have if one does not mind paying the big bucks and wants professional technical support. The last truly useless piece of junk from M$ was windows95. Even windows98SE is quiet stable (though not as efficient as GNU/Linux and of course completely insecure). >I mean when I look at Windows Xp ; it iz a hybrid of Win 9x and Windows >2000 right? Modified & improved Win ME interface on top of NT kernel. It is all eye-candy than genuine performance improvements, I suppose. M$ already was inspired by the Mac OS X & the various good looking managers on X to name the last windows with an 'X' in it. :-) quasi HSC pass, too! '-) _______________________________________________ http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
