> I personally don't think that's a very good arguement.
I second that...
> Second, Microsoft DID release a multitasking os for the pc platform
> (xenix, that's already been discussed earlier in the thread), but
> thought that DOS would be the way to go.
Lest we forget, there was OS/2 1.3 and Windows NT 3.1 before 1995 too. If
you're not too picky, even Windows 3.x could be called a multitasking OS --
it has cooperative multitasking for some Windows apps, in a similar fashion
to MacOS.
> Fourth: Yes the windows style thingy looks similar to X-Windows, but
> that doesn't mean that it was derived from the same code, or that the
> backend works the same way at all. In fact, it works a fair bit
> differently. The *ideas* had probably have been used, and customised
> from there. Copyright violation of intellectual property. I do actually
> believe that Microsoft did pay for the right to use a windowing style
> system, as did the unix comunity. X-windows originated from Xerox, and
> some lovely person bought it off them. Can't remember who.
I don't think anyone wants to go near the Xerox Parc WIMP intellectual
property can of worms... Apple probably has some inconvenient questions to
answer there, too, as it came out with a GUI long before Microsoft.
> Fifth: the so called "security measures" in NT aren't really the same as
> Linux at all. About all there is are file permisions and passwords and
> access lists. To get a lot of the security that a unix os (such as
> linux) provide you have to PURCHASE third party products for to get them
> on NT. You don't even have half of the security features that NT has
> under windows 95.
While Win9x doesn't give you much in terms of security, NT's access control
features are quite comprehensive, surely? ACLs aren't even implemented for
Linux yet.
> While I do not support or reject Microsofts arguments, I do believe that
> the facts have to be recognised.
Hear, hear.
-- Juha
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
