posted by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC

Thom, final

If we are going to turn this into a contest about who was first to claim that the Windows kernel didn't need to be replaced, I've got some bad news for you - because I've been saying that in various articles for a long time now. The earliest article I could fine is one I wrote 18 months ago [1], and several followed.

And no, you most certainly weren't the first to report on what MinWin actually was. Not even by a long shot. Looking at OSNews, this is what we had to say when Eric Traut's demo first made its rounds around the 'net [2].

"First up is a streamlined microkernel codenamed MinWin, around which a re-engineered Windows line will be built. Described as 'the Windows 7 source-code base', in reference to the successor to Windows Vista which is slated for a 2010 release, MinWin strips back the current NT-based kernel to the barest of bare metal."

You took that first sentence out of context, by not linking to the original news item it was part of. As you can see, we clearly explained this was a stripped-back variant of the NT kernel, which is an accurate depiction. This was well over a year ago. We again made this clear, along with several other websites, on other occassions, all well before your 5 month mark. So, no, you're *not* the first person to report accuretely on MinWin.

But again, you're steering away from the actual matter at hand, which is that in your Windows 7 Unmasked article, you misrepresent what MinWin is supposed to stand for, even though you claim to be the first to accurately explain what MinWin is. Which raises the question - why would you suddenly proclaim an understanding of MinWin that you claim to have been debunking earlier?

From my conversations with you over the course of the past few days, it has become more clear than ever to me that I already answered this question myself in my original reply to your Unmasked article: no, you're certainy not clueless, and yes, you certainly know what you're talking about. This leaves us with the only possible option: you did a Dvorak. You are writing all this nonsense merely to attract readers, and then, when these readers call you out on your bullshit, you claim they are all Windows zealots. Classic Dvorak behaviour. Your latest article confirms this trend - you made up a fake claim about Microsoft supposedly delaying the Windows 7 beta to next year, even though this was clearly the company's target all along, and they have never made a promise otherwise [3].

This is the last email on this debate. We promised the editor-in-chief of Infoworld this debate would be civil, and without any personal attacks, and I think that at least I have remained true to my word. Now it's up to the readers to decide which of us is making more sense.


[1] _Development_Process
[2] _the_MinWin_Kernel
[3] _windows_7_be.html

Table of contents
  1. Randall, opening
  2. Thom
  3. Randall
  4. Thom
  5. Randall
  6. Thom
  7. Randall
  8. Thom
  9. Randall
  10. Thom, final
e p (0)    78 Comment(s)

Technology White Papers

See More