Xah Lee's Unixism

[jmfbahciv at aol.com]

In article <2mmdj0t6mjgif88en11skbo3n8uiuj46nc at 4ax.com>,
   Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:26:03 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "John W.
>Kennedy" <jwkenne at attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Andre Majorel wrote:
>>> On 2004-08-31, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC) in alt.folklore.computers,
>>>>Andre Majorel <amajorel at teezer.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2004-08-30, Antony Sequeira <usemyfullname at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
>>>>>
>>>>>If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
>>>>>hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
>>>>>would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
>>>>>including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
>>>>>side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
>>>>
>>>>DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+! 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wasn't it in version 2 that they added directories and
>>> Unix-style file handles ?
>>
>>Yes, and also a single-process pipe emulator.  Ever since 2.0, MS has 
>>been trying to turn MS-DOS (later, Windows) into a Unix clone.
>
>MS has been borrowing code from Unix to create a real OS: TCP/IP;
>NTFS<-ffs; memory mapped files<-mmap.

All right.  Now I'm mystified.  Why did they have to borrow code
from Unix?  They already had VMS.  ISTM, VMS had all of the 
above.
 
>Shame they keep trying to add their own ideas in too: that must be
>what causes the crashes! 

Nope.  If you want to know what will get added to the next release
of MS' OSes, just read their small company acquisitions in the WSJ.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.