Article View: comp.arch
Article #10756Re: <None> (Should be Open Systems, bloody NEWS system...)
From: Peter Mayne
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:14
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:14
53 lines
2845 bytes
2845 bytes
In article <id.2K0W.G37@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >You seem to have a strong opinion about this, so could you explain to me >precisely how the UNIX API is lacking, and what specific features of NT >would be impossible under a UNIX API. Which UNIX API? (Here we go again. :-) Asynchronous I/O. Waiting for multiple synchronisation objects. ACLs on objects. Quotas. >Why did Microsoft have to create >a completely new API from scratch, and implement it in such a way that >programs using it are entirely insulated from their UNIX API environment >(POSIX shell)? Which new API? POSIX 1003.1, which is a standard and therefore hardly new? 1003.1 is an API standard, not a shell standard. > >Well for UNIX, where access to virtually all system resources is provided >through the filestore, I would agree. But NT has half a dozen different >mechanisms for interacting with the system... how can multiuser security >be managed if it only protects a minor part of the system? All interactions with the NT kernel go through the object manager, and hence through the security subsystem. >Since OS/2 and NT have virtually the same level of backwards-compatibility >with DOS, how do you make out that the OS/2 approach is any way diferent? NT uses the protected subsystem approach made popular by Mach. OS/2 provides a DOS API, but the NT kernel knows nothing about DOS, since DOS (and OS/2, and POSIX, and...) APIs are provided by the subsystems. >I'm sorry, but you seem to be discussing a completely different set of >software packages than I'm familiar with or have been discussed in the >media. >-- >Peter da Silva `-_-' >Ferranti International Controls Corporation 'U` >Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 USA >+1 713 274 5180 "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?" We seem to have moved into software architecture. :-) PJDM -- Peter Mayne | My statements, not Digital's. Digital Equipment Corporation | Canberra, ACT, Australia | "AXP!": Bill the Cat
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec22.011414.21727@ryn.mro4.dec.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!news!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!newsReferences:
<jdd.724022716@cdf.toronto.edu> <1992Dec14.191335.2834@lsl.co.uk> <BzGL07.2wK@dscomsa.desy.de> <id.2K0W.G37@ferranti.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.arch Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!news!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!news From: pjdm@chmeee.enet.dec.com (Peter Mayne) Subject: Re: <None> (Should be Open Systems, bloody NEWS system...) Message-ID: <1992Dec22.011414.21727@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Lines: 54 Sender: news@ryn.mro4.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: Peter.Mayne@cao.mts.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation References: <jdd.724022716@cdf.toronto.edu> <1992Dec14.191335.2834@lsl.co.uk> <BzGL07.2wK@dscomsa.desy.de> <id.2K0W.G37@ferranti.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:14:14 GMT