Xah Lee's Unixism

[John Thingstad]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel  
<amajorel at teezer.fr> wrote:

> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <john.thingstad at chello.no> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:19:43 +0000 (UTC), Andre Majorel
>> <amajorel at teezer.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2004-09-02, John Thingstad <john.thingstad at chello.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that the NT kernel is not entirely stable yet really
>>>> shouldn't supprise anyone. Afterall Unix has messed with it's
>>>> kernel for 30 years.
>>>
>>> I feel compelled to point out that Linux achieved considerably
>>> better stability after just a few years.
>>>
>>
>> I feel compelled to replay that Linux is based on the Posix standard
>> which is basically a recipie for writing unix. They did not write a
>> new operating system. They implemented a tested and proven one.
>
> Are you arguing that the stability comes from the API, not from
> the implementation ? If so, why has NT become more stable over
> the years, since its API has not changed ?
>

No but the algorithms for memory management, disk mangement and FTP in  
unix were
well documented at the time. Linux Pauling started out with minix and then
went on to make a (mostly) posix compliant unix.

Seem to remeber this from my student days.

Operating Systems (design and implication) Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Intrucudes minix, a mini unix compatible with version 7 of unix.
(Not to be confused with system V.. the roman numerals were introdused by  
AT&T)

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/