Slashdot Mirror
Should The Next Windows Be Built On Linux?
scrm writes "The next version of Windows should be built on top of Linux, according to this article by Robert Cringely of PBS." If Microsoft wanted to, they could be the world's largest vendor of Free software .. couldn't they?
>> Unix is not Linux. FreeBSD is not Linux. OS X is not built on Linux.
-1 Redundant
What is your point?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
This is driving me nuts. WINDOWS XP IS BASED ON THE NT KERNAL!! Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, XP is Windows NT 5.1! Got it?! The author is so STUPID! It uses NTFS, it has the 'nt boot loader', it has a file called 'ntloader' in the system directory (or the root). And if that's not enough evidence just look at it. IT'S WINDOWS 2000 WITH A COUPLE CHANGES HERE THERE. Damn ignorant people. It's not like it's a big secret. XP is *NOT* based in any way shape or form on MS-DOS or any other DOS. It is totally and completely a derivative of NT. Why doesn't anyone know this? Not trying to be inflammatory, this just drives me crazy.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
First off, I hope you really meant gdi32.dll and not gdi.exe, as the various system files ending in .exe like gdi.exe and krnl386.exe and so on are only around for compatibility reasons for WOW (Windows on Windows, or the Win16 subsystem). Look at the file information on gdi.exe, for example. The version is not 5.1.2600.1106 (XP sp1), but 3.10.0.103 (ack! Win3.1!). Second, GDI is more like X's programming interface rather than the X server. It gives you all of the drawing primitives, and little more. In XP and later Windows operating systems, one could consider Terminal Services to be like X, since it's been integrated to handle all logins (even those while sitting directly in front of the computer).