"nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> | While poor old Vista was getting bogged down in endless meetings
>> | over minutiae like shutdown menu elements, the Linux kernel team was
>> | pounding pell-mell down the trail like a team of amped-up sled dogs.
>
>
> Yes, and the Linux kernel has never needed a 60% code rewrite. This
The linux kernel is an ongoing community project. It changes all the
time and has seen many faces over the years.
> speaks well of the basic design of the Linux kernel: it is something
> you can keep building on. As for Windows, the Wall Street Journal
> article was revealing to me:
>
> http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/06jan/bigb_microsoft.htm
>
> Apparently the XP code is so spaghetti that it could not be upgraded
> without a major rewrite. Now that it has been accomplished, I was
You cant upgrade when you are doing a complete rewrite.
Windows was never played with too much over the years for one simple
reason - people had bought SW and releasing too many changes risks
breaking that SW and legacy data. Its called the real world. You would
be amazed how many companies use version 1.2 of app X even though it has
progressed to 2.8. Why? Because it works for them and the managers arent
interested in rocking the boat. The computer is there to do a job - if
it can do it then let it do it. They don't get a hard on from compiling
the latest patch into their kernel.
|
|
