🚀 go-pugleaf

Kevin Hayes wrote:

> If you want to settle for WinNT and all it's limitations. There's more

What limitations do You think NT has (I personally miss better multi-
user support like native telnetd support and inlcluded support for X
wich I have in Unix)?

> to an OS than Memory Management - many seem to forget that.

I agree 100%. Memory management is only one (but a basic) aspect of
designing a good and solid OS. Process and thread scheduling, good
hardware layers, networking resources, interprocess communication,
security authorication, stable and fast file system, portability,
generally clean design, good API:s and application layers, etc.

The task to build a good OS incorporates a lot of things if you
want to more advanced things and want it to be easily expandeble
in the future.

I also think that no OS is 100% good for all type of tasks. But I
have found NT, Unix and OS/2 to generally be a very good platform
for most tasks. They have all basic OS concepts (like full memory
protection and pre-emptive scheduling with dynamic priorities)
wich is an important foundation for a modern OS.

Other good but more unusual OSes is Plan 9, BeOS and Hurd.

Best regards,

m a r t i n  n

-- 
Martin Nisshagen          martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)    "verdi + callas = 
MTS Technology, Sweden    http://www.mts.se/martin     100% pleasure..."