Re: Building Emacs-cvs on Cygwin

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     Microsoft Windows is not a complete system, as it is missing most end
>     user applications, and is also lacking the toolbox inventory of small
>     utilities that are a necessary ingredient of POSIX systems.
>
>     One has to add quite a bit of GNU stuff to MS Windows before it
>     becomes comparably useful.
>
> I stand corrected.  Nonetheless, isn't it a lot more than a kernel?

Yes.  The lines between kernel and non-kernel are partly drawn
differently than in typical POSIX systems (for example, with the whole
graphics subsystem running in supervisor mode), and system services
and kernels are not separated in a similar way to other system (I seem
to remember that the distinction between kernel thread and daemon is
not as absolute, but might be mistaken).  The basic design for Windows
NT/2000/XP (I think) is supposed to be microkernel-based to some
degree, whereas the 95/98/ME family is based on an old DOS kernel with
both 32bit and graphical extensions.

The system "as such" contains quite more than the kernel, that much is
true.  It is just hard to tell what is kernel and what not: running in
supervisor mode does not really seem like the absolute criterion.  And
the system "as such" has not as much "hands-on" usefulness for doing
non-trivial tasks than a typical Unix or lookalike, let alone a
GNU/Linux distribution.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum