Brian, I probably *am* being unfair. I think it's a case of the blind men and the elephant <http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm> -- I'm looking only at a small portion off the API, recalling some 12-year-old articles about Windows strategy, recalling my experiences using Linux, and from this drawing a conclusion that Windows is inherently inferior. But you're right -- in the case of Git, we only *really* know that it's more of an impedence mismatch.
- Jim On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Raden wrote: > > > It sounds like the Windows kernel retains the awkward design that > > comes from forcing a single-user, desktop OS to do the job of Unix. In > > I don't think that's a fair statement unless you're talking about > Win9x/ME as NT was built from the start to be multiuser/server OS; just > because it's used widely on desktops doesn't change that. I don't see > this particular example as indicative of an inherent deficiency, it's > just that the system was designed around a different set of APIs, such > that code that was originally written with the assumptions of POSIX APIs > in mind (such as being able to get an inode cheaply from stat) takes a > speed/efficiency hit as a result. > > > Strange. "Reply All" in Gmail refuses to work with the message you > posted at > > 8:33 p.m. New York time. I had to paste your name in the "To:" field. I > know > > failing to copy everyone in group posts has been a matter of etiquette > in this > > group, and I don't want to be a bad "netizen." :) > > That's probably because I set the Reply-To: field to the list address as > I prefer reples on-list and not CC-d. I know that the custom on the git > list is to CC:, but the result of "reply to all" ought to do the right > thing in both cases. But I appreciate the thought. > > Brian >
