Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Salvador Mirzo Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer Subject: Re: OT: Windows Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 19:17:15 -0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 17 Message-ID: <87msg6cjh0.fsf@example.com> References: <86wmflc83k.fsf@example.com> <0azdP.296066$DYF8.131534@fx14.iad> <1PVdP.468818$oR74.302907@fx16.iad> <87frlyrf2e.fsf_-_@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 23:17:16 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5cb1bd16bd6d6af1cba28574274e482c"; logging-data="696449"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/x51snBF9Gt9PM3uFjP3H3k3ZH+N8b6N4=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:scrWu1msbYIo1TFlvfZQ47pCiAQ= sha1:MtW2nJM4q4hb2inTmYeggc8Z91o= Bytes: 2165 Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes: > 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. Is that Dave with a YouTube channel?