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 , and
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 .
<div class="cquote">"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."</div>
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
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 .
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.