Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Byte ordering
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:16:55 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <20241015111655.000064b3@yahoo.com>
References: <vdvvae$1k931$2@dont-email.me>
	<memo.20241008222803.19028a@jgd.cix.co.uk>
	<nczNO.129339$WtV9.7429@fx10.iad>
	<vekb2f$1co97$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:16:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b82f3ff387ea9347e32983188b873679";
	logging-data="1720587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19a6BgtMZ8Ub2ISbCr1nvcXJyRvBqL/bOs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IVXAKWJtozzSeER/0mJ3hjDycB4=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2926

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:55:59 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 13:37:41 -0400, EricP wrote:
>=20
> > The Posix interface support was there so *MS* could bid on US
> > government and military contracts which, at that time frame, were
> > making noise about it being standard for all their contracts.
> > The Posix DLLs didn't come with WinNT, you had to ask MS for them
> > specially. =20
>=20
> And that whole POSIX subsystem was so sadistically, unusably awful,
> it just had to be intended for show as a box-ticking exercise,
> nothing more.
>=20
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DBOeku3hDzrM>
>=20
> > Back then "object oriented" and "micro-kernel" buzzwords were all
> > the rage. =20
>=20
> OO still lives on in higher-level languages. Microsoft=E2=80=99s one atte=
mpt
> to incorporate its OO architecture--Dotnet--into the lower layers of
> the OS, in Windows Vista, was an abject, embarrassing failure which
> hopefully nobody will try to repeat.
>

It sounds like you confusing .net with something unrelated.=20
Probably with Microsoft's failed WinFS filesystem.=20
WinFS was *not* object-oriented.

AFAIK, .net is hugely successful application development technology
that was never incorporated into lower layers of the OS.

If you are interested in failed attempts to incorporate .net into
something it does not fit then please consider Silverlight.=20
But then, the story of Silverlight is not dissimilar to the story of
in-browser Java, with main difference that the latter was more harmful
to the industry.

> On the other hand, some stubborn holdouts are still fond of
> microkernels -- you just have to say the whole idea is pointless, and
> they come out of the woodwork in a futile attempt to disagree ...

Seems, you are not ashamed to admit your trolling tactics.