Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Jul 2013 23:43 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 567331
To view parent comment, click here.
RE[3]: changed my thinking
by Laurence on Thu 18th Jul 2013 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: changed my thinking"
Member since:

It must not be that easy, since your equivalence is off. ;-)

NT refers to an entire OS architecture (HAL, kernel mode, and user mode), not just the kernel. Microsoft never gave the kernel any "witty" code project name, so it is basically referred to as the "NT Kernel."

Fair point, though any such comparison was never going to be perfect even if NT did categorically state just the kernel as Windows uses a micro-kernel vs Linux's monolithic design. So there's some subtle differences between the two architectures in where different managers reside.

But for the sake of a general overview, I think the comparison I made works. It's just a question of how far you want to draw the comparison as, like with any analogy, there's always going to be aspects that don't compare perfectly.

Edited 2013-07-18 09:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: changed my thinking
by tylerdurden on Thu 18th Jul 2013 18:53 in reply to "RE[3]: changed my thinking"
tylerdurden Member since:

I'm sorry but your comparison did not work.

Again, NT refers to an entire OS architecture, not just the kernel. Whether the NT kernel is micro, macro, or hybrid is irrelevant. Whereas linux is just a kernel as far as Mr. Torvalds is concerned. There is a reason why Stallman is adamant about the whole GNU Linux moniker. Because that's what a linux distro is at the end of the day: an instantiation of the GNU Operating System using the Linux kernel.

And yes, in the big scheme of things, this sort of nitpicking is irrelevant. However, correctness is still important to understand context. And in this case Linux and NT refer to two radically different design and development philosophies.

E.g. Having the GNU userland being segregated from the kernel has helped the different FOSS OS stacks immensely; Linux was able to gain traction and increase development pace/momentum because it had access to a mature and stable userland for day one, the BSDs were able to fork their kernels left and right with relatively little manpower, because they can borrow from multiple userlands as needed, and pure research projects like HURD can dilly dally without significantly impact the speed of development of the rest of the GNU stack.

Conversely, Microsoft is responsible for the entire OS stack under the NT umbrella, with a more synchronous and integrated design and development approach. Which also has it's positive and negative qualities.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: changed my thinking
by Laurence on Thu 18th Jul 2013 20:52 in reply to "RE[4]: changed my thinking"
Laurence Member since:

I've only read the first paragraph and its pretty clear that you've missed my point. The comparison was about how NT is sat on all of Microsoft's flagship products and how people don't generally drill down to the exact version of Windows when paraphrasing the OS. Just like how with Linux. My point wasn't that NT and Linux are the same in terms of technology, like how you've focused on.

And what's more, my point about the kernel architecture being different was intended to emphasise just how different NT and Linux are if you nitpick the argument. Ie I'm saying they're obviously technologically different if you wish to dwell on specifics, but the point of the analogy was a higher level overview of how people refer to OSs that share a common core in spite of having a different range of target platforms.

So save your lectures about kernel design, linux and NT. I know all that stuff already. It's just not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Reply Parent Score: 5