From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:44:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.172242.4046@cuug.ab.ca> wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.145119.7923@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>        NS486 has been demoed.  It cannot be purchased in stores.
>>	It cannot be ordered.  It cannot be reliably judged.
>
>You mean Chrysler didn't actually order NS486? McGaw (sp?) cellular
>didn't order it? They shouldn't have announced ordering it if they can't.


	Nice.  Now, when will they take delivery?  I'm sure that if
	I was a corporation, I could order 100,000 copies of 
	Taligent's Pink ahead of time.


>>        Until such time as it has even limited availability and
>>        can be judged by something other than NeXTs press releases
>>        (which have repeatedly shown themselves to be a little
>>        less than truthful) it is v a p o r.
>>
>
>NS486 does have limited availability. Many people use it and are judging
>it right now. Can you point out any non-truths in NeXT's press releases?
>I think it's your anti-NeXT bias speaking here.


	Untruths?  You must be joking.  Surely you don't want to
	start the NeXtDimension thread again?


>>>Dave Cutler (the guy in charge of NT) has said that NT isn't a microkernal.
>>>The guys that worked on Mach at CMU aren't working on NT. I assume those guys
>>>already know NT isn't a microkernal.
>>
>>        That's interesting.  Care to cite a source?
>>
>Why? You have yet to cite a source :). Anyway, read comp.os.mach. The
>thread Mach vs. NT has attracted MS guys. Read what they have to say.
>There's also a book by Helen Custer (I don't know the title).


	I've read the Mach newsgroup.  There is, exactly, one paraphrased
	quote from Dave Cutler, which sounds to me to have been misreported
	(i.e. "NT is not the MACH microkernel" vs. "NT is not a microkernel")
	as this statement contradicts every previous statement he
	has made.  In any case, take anything you read in a newsgroup
	with a grain of salt.  The original poster didn't giver a source
	for the quote either--who says he didn't misunderstand or pull it
	out of thin air?

	In case you missed it, there's also been a couple of posters who
	are insisting that NT is *really* Mach3.0, and one who is insisting
	that NT is Mach 3.0 and that means NT is *not* a Microkernel.

	Other newsgroups make poor references.  As for the book--
	both "Inside Windows NT" and Byte magazines two overviews
	describe NT as a 50k microkernel based OS.


>>>Instead of making misguided, inflammatory comments, why don't you read
>>>the newsgroups involved. There's a lovely thread in comp.os.mach about
>>>Mach VS. NT. It'll explain all about NT not being a microkernal.
>>
>>
>>        Already do.  .mach ought to just be an advocacy group for
>>        all of the reality that you see there.
>>
>
>I see. It doesn't agree with your reality, so it's fantasy. Well, I can't
>argue with your reality if it doesn't coincide with everybody else's.
>So let's face facts. If I cite a source, you'll say that source is incorrect.
>If I correct your facts, you will contradict me with your own facts, based
>on your own reality.


	If you cite "what someone said in a newsgroup" as a source,
	I'll quite settle for my own reality (magazines, books, printed
	sources).


>There's really no point in continuing your attack on NeXT. If you can't
>provide factual arguments, all you have is opinion. 


	Weak.


-- 
	This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
	to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.

	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.