Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 21:09:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vlesf3$1ck$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <87frlyrf2e.fsf_-_@example.com> <vlcbpg$l1os$8@dont-email.me> <vlecm0$1465i$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 21:09:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="1428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2079
Lines: 26

In article <vlecm0$1465i$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 22:13:05 -0000 (UTC)
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> gabbled:
>>On Sat, 04 Jan 2025 08:31:05 -0300, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>>
>>> For instance, is there any Windows software that
>>> handles a TCP connection in an accept-fork-exec fashion?
>>
>>Almost certainly not. Because process creation is an expensive operation 
>>on Windows.
>>
>>Windows NT was masterminded by Dave Cutler, who was previously responsible 
>>for the VMS OS at his previous employer, DEC. He was a Unix-hater, part of 
>>a bunch of them at DEC. They would instinctively turn away from Unix ways 
>>of doing things, like forking multiple processes. So the systems they 
>>created did not encourage such techniques.
>
>Presumably VMS relied heavily on multithreading then like Windows or was a 
>process expected to everything itself sequentially?

Many system services on VMS are asynchronous, and the system
architecture provides a mechanisms to signal completion; ASTs,
mailboxes, etc.  Thus, many programs (not all) on VMS are
written in a callback/closure style.

	- Dan C.