[Info-vax] openvms and xterm

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:53:31 +1200, David Goodwin wrote:

> 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.

You know how they like to use marketing-speak to avoid coming out and
saying something is EOL?

From
<https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/the-windows-subsystem-for-linux-in-the-microsoft-store-is-now-generally-available-on-windows-10-and-11/>:

    Additionally, the in-Windows version of WSL will still receive
    critical bug fixes, but the Store version of WSL is where new
    features and functionality will be added.

So it’s quite clear: no more “new features and functionality”. And
when was the last time you saw a “critical bug fix” for WSL1, by the
way?

>> You tell me: are two monolithic kernels better than one?
> 
> NT isn't generally considered to have a monolithic kernel.

It has the GUI inextricably entwined into it. It doesn’t have a
virtual filesystem layer--most filesystem features seem to be
specifically tied into NTFS. It doesn’t have pluggable security
modules. Does it even have loadable modules at all?

And its “personality” system seems a lot more unwieldy and clumsy than
Linux’s pluggable “binfmt” system.

> Windows NT started life as a next-generation portable high-end 32-bit
> OS/2 implementation known as NT-OS/2.

I know. Note that “32-bit”: it was never designed to make a transition
to 64-bit easy. Also note that “portable” nonsense--that was another
abject failure.

As for “next-generation” ... drive letters, that’s all I need to say.

> 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.

Has anybody demonstrated OS/2 software actually running under NT? Just
curious.

> I'm also not sure why you think WSL is a failure.

WSL1 certainly is. Else there would not have been WSL2, would there?