Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC
Windows Two weeks ago, I published an article in which I explained what was wrong about Randall Kennedy's "Windows 7 Unmasked" article. This was noted by Infoworld's editor-in-chief Eric Knorr, who suggested that Randall and I enter into an email debate regarding the various points made in our articles. We agreed upon publishing this email thread as-is, unedited (I didn't even fix the spelling errors), on both Infoworld and OSNews. We agreed that Randall would start the debate, and that I had the final word. Read on for the entertaining email debate (I figured it would be best to give each email its own page, for clarity's sake. My apologies if this makes each individual page much shorter than what you're used to from OSNews).
Thread beginning with comment 338947
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Now, this was easy... ;-)
by TBPrince on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 19:42 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

My question is: Thom, why did you ever enter a debate with someone stating that he could judge a kernel by number of its threads? It's like saying that a coconut palm and a pine are the same tree because they have the same number of leaves...

This was too easy for you: we know you could fight harder battles ;-)

I really can't understand why someone who said a blatant bs is willing to turn this into a widespread debate and look even more childish...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Now, this was easy... ;-)
by segedunum on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 00:37 in reply to "Now, this was easy... ;-)"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Because he didn't say that at all, although Thom thought he did and got fixated on it. He used thread count as one metric in a series of articles to judge, based on past Windows releases and history, just how much upheaval the Windows 7 kernel (amongst other elements of Windows 7) was going to be for everyone and how much overall change had occurred.

The answers were none and an indeterminate and insignificant amount that could not be verified other than through hearsay.

Edited 2008-12-03 00:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Counting kernel threads is not an acceptable metric. Even when that's simply a fraction of the whole analysis.

I cannot take as serious someone stating that, I'm sorry. Let alone someone tracking kernel threads on Windows as history (or worse, proof) of his statements.

And by saying that, we're not stating that those kernels are different: we're just saying that you cannot tell by counting threads.

I'm among those who think that Windows kernel doesn't need a rewriting: that's not the point where Microsoft should improve as first priority. Nevertheless, a rewrite which cut ties to other components upward the stack and keeps the kernel serviceable per se, for sure is a good work and it's worth the pain. And justifies a new version because you won't be able to rewrite kernel that way without changing much inside the OS itself.

I'm not a fan of these academic debates but if we really need to do that, it's better to do that using real facts and not a simplistic approach.

Reply Parent Score: 2