Hacker News Reader

Comment by qznc | Hacker News Reader

The article describes the elegance of NT compared to Linux. It claims that this elegance has some benefits, but it is probably unfeasible to verify that.

Object-oriented? Linux is partially object-oriented (e.g. file systems). Modularity? Linux does have modules and you can put substantial amounts of functionality in them. If you need or want to is another question. Client-Server? The discussion of micro- vs monolithic kernel is not completely settled, but so far Linux does pretty well despite theoretical and academic arguments against its architecture.

Elegance is nice, but at the end of the day it is the features and the performance which matter to the user. NT claims better flexibility, however it is Linux, which can be used from Cloud to Cluster to Desktop to Mobile to Small-embedded devices.

View on HN

> Object-oriented? Linux is partially object-oriented

NT's OO is actually very pragmatic. Things such as files, pipes, processes and locks are objects that, because they are global, can be shared across processes and worked on by many different APIs.

Every object has ACLs that are managed by the kernel itself, so you can create a named pipe that is accessible by users with a given role, for example.

You can use synchronization APIs with heterogenous collections of object handles; for example, you can tel the kernel to wake up on the next mutex, file activity or process exit simply by giving those objects to the appropriate wait API. Unix' select() pales in comparison.

NT claims better flexibility, however it is Linux, which can be used from Cloud to Cluster to Desktop to Mobile to Small-embedded devices

NT is deployed in all these cases too.

Putting it in embedded devices only became possible about two years ago, no?

No; NT Embedded existed based on NT 4, in the late 1990s.

Those versions did not run on embedded devices (in the common usage), but rather PCs that needed reduced functionality, such as ATMs.

Because it costs nothing, which is very important to those companies.

So do BSDs.

True, but somehow *BSD seem to have lost the enterprise train, as IBM and others decided to invest on Linux distributions instead.

Many think that's because BSD and UC Berkeley took the bullet for open source, USL v. BSDi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

Even though it got settled in a couple of years, the agreement was then secret and BSD was still under a legal cloud. And legitimately so, the settlement was eventually made public and had this gem:

"7. Further Participation in Litigation. The University agrees that it will not actively assist or support BSDI's defenses or counterclaims in the Federal Action or the efforts of any other party who asserts in any action the right to copy, use, or disclose to non-licensees of USL any of the material contained in the Restricted Files or the invalidity of USL's proprietary rights in the UNIX System. However, nothing in this provision shall prohibit the University from responding to any discovery permitted a third party under federal or state law or from defending any claim that may be asserted against the University or the Individual Regents." (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041126130302760).

(In retrospect it turns out SCO was never a real threat, for they didn't have the copyright to UNIX(TM), only the duty to collect fees for a 5% vig, and they knew before the lawsuits that they didn't have it (!!!).)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com