[Info-vax] openvms and xterm

[David Goodwin]

In article <v0fel2$3grqf$1 at dont-email.me>, ldo at nz.invalid says...
> 
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:05:21 +1200, David Goodwin wrote:
> 
> > WSLv1 exists and it does work surprisingly well.
> 
> But never quite good enough. And it is now abandoned.

Its still there and still works. And importantly its still supported.

> > WSLv2 works better though, and it is no doubt far easier to
> > maintain.
> > 
> > Still not sure what your'e arguing here though. Are you suggesting
> > Windows NT should have used a monolithic kernel for some reason?
> 
> You tell me: are two monolithic kernels better than one?

NT isn't generally considered to have a monolithic kernel.

> > Or that a flexible design was a bad idea because it didn't work out
> > perfectly in one scenario over 30 years later?
> 
> In the one scenario where it could have achieved something genuinely 
> useful, implementing an API which is amply documented and even comes with 
> a full open-source reference implementation, it completely failed to 
> deliver the goods.

I take it you are not aware of the operating systems origin then.

Windows NT started life as a next-generation portable high-end 32-bit 
OS/2 implementation known as NT-OS/2. It wasn't until the breakdown of 
the joint development agreement with IBM at the end of 1990 that it 
pivoted to being a next-generation Windows. A year later at Comdex 1991 
they were handing out a preview release of Windows NT with its new Win32 
personality firmly in place.

If converting the entire userspace personality from one OS to another in 
a year without any significant architectural changes doesn't validate 
the design I don't know what would.

I'm also not sure why you think WSL is a failure. Have you not used it?