Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

From: Pavel Machek (
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 17:27:10 EST


> I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did. It'd fit in with the history of
> NT. (Version numbers really approximate, I don't have my notes with me.)
> NT 1.0: the inherited OS/2 1.x code ported to 32 bit mode, sort of.
> NT 2.0: 1.0 didn't work so let's try porting it to the mach microkernel.
> NT 3.0: that didn't work either, so let's hire Dave Cutler (chief unix hater
> at Digital research and ex-head of the VAX VMS operating system) to port VMS
> on top of the steaming pile of code that is NT.
> NT 3.5: punch holes in the mach microkernel to get some performance, try to
> fix some of the more obvious bugs.
> NT 4.0 stabilized (a bit) because dave cutler (and the team under him) was
> still around. They hadn't yet again changed horses in midstream.
> Eventually, with the same team working on the same code, it's bound to
> stabilize a bit.) Bloated a bit as well, but that's proprietary software for
> you.

Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?

I'm "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:22 EST