Comment Re:Credit for millions of jobs?? (Score 1) 363
I took your advice and did look things up.
In Win95, another process could easily corrupt another one's process memory. A simple demonstration of this fact were all the in-memory game patch tools which never required driver-level access.
As for the NT Kernel, it's so suspiciously similar to the VMS and RSX-11 kernels there was almost a lawsuit over it. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising because the primary designer (Dave Cutler) was the same guy for all three!
Selecting a word and changing the font? Have you conveniently forgotten the Macintosh?!
Yes, Apple (1978-1983 with the Lisa) and MIT (1984 with X-Windows) both copied the modern GUI from Xerox. Of course, their development efforts were simultaneous and independent. Microsoft (1985 with Windows), however, is in a bit of a different time scope.
"Client/server kernel technology, not monolithic or microkernel"? Do you have any idea what you're saying? I'm guessing you haven't taken an introductory class in operating system design. Please take a few minutes to view Wikipedia's informative article on the subject. In short, there was and still is plenty like it.
And then, of course, there are the strawmen. No one is claiming Microsoft copied the WinAPI or GDI/GDI+. Those are disingenius arguments. They're Microsoft proprietary and, quite frankly, not the greatest APIs. In fact, both are being phased out by Microsoft as fast as they are capable of pushing the whole managed code initiative... ... but RTF?! A TeX rip-off format designed for being able to portably transfer documents between Windows and Macintosh copies of Word as their actual format sucked? Yeah, no copying there!
Then you refer to Visual Basic (1991), in which anyone who was using computers at the time can quickly rejoin with Apple's Hypercard (1987) and its family of applications spawned.
And finally, if you had ever applied "the same eye of scrutiny" to Microsoft as you barely applied to Apple or Linux, you would easily have come to the above conclusions. (Apple is responsible for the first mass market personal computer. Linus's original announcement post made it clear he was making a derivation.)
In Win95, another process could easily corrupt another one's process memory. A simple demonstration of this fact were all the in-memory game patch tools which never required driver-level access.
As for the NT Kernel, it's so suspiciously similar to the VMS and RSX-11 kernels there was almost a lawsuit over it. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising because the primary designer (Dave Cutler) was the same guy for all three!
Selecting a word and changing the font? Have you conveniently forgotten the Macintosh?!
Yes, Apple (1978-1983 with the Lisa) and MIT (1984 with X-Windows) both copied the modern GUI from Xerox. Of course, their development efforts were simultaneous and independent. Microsoft (1985 with Windows), however, is in a bit of a different time scope.
"Client/server kernel technology, not monolithic or microkernel"? Do you have any idea what you're saying? I'm guessing you haven't taken an introductory class in operating system design. Please take a few minutes to view Wikipedia's informative article on the subject. In short, there was and still is plenty like it.
And then, of course, there are the strawmen. No one is claiming Microsoft copied the WinAPI or GDI/GDI+. Those are disingenius arguments. They're Microsoft proprietary and, quite frankly, not the greatest APIs. In fact, both are being phased out by Microsoft as fast as they are capable of pushing the whole managed code initiative...
Then you refer to Visual Basic (1991), in which anyone who was using computers at the time can quickly rejoin with Apple's Hypercard (1987) and its family of applications spawned.
And finally, if you had ever applied "the same eye of scrutiny" to Microsoft as you barely applied to Apple or Linux, you would easily have come to the above conclusions. (Apple is responsible for the first mass market personal computer. Linus's original announcement post made it clear he was making a derivation.)
