Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2007 09:11 UTC, submitted by Tim Alson
Permalink for comment 253307
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-21
I doubt that "replacing the NT kernel with the Unix kernel...[would be]...a step backwards", since although Unix was originally designed 6 years before the kernel that NT reimplements, it HAS been developed further. And some things just work better in Unix than VMS/WNT (a single filesystem tree, for example). Besides, if anyone else (including Microsoft), in the past, now, or in the future wishes that their operating system had become a multi-vendor standard, then they should have taken the trouble to either open source it, or licence it to other vendors cheaply whilst making sure that all versions remained compatible.