Before there's any mis-speaking going on, what does ODBC (Open Database
Connectivity) have to do with Microsoft's claims to an object oriented OS?
Perhaps the technology that was intended for direct comparison to CORBA is
COM (Microsoft's Component Object Model). I think the statement these
Microsoft Zealots are trying to make is that this object brokering system is
integrated with the operating system.
I think that all of the talk about a monolithic kernel versus a
componentized kernel is entirely valid. However, these guys are probably
using "operating system" to mean a whole lot more than the NT kernel --
which is accurate. A Linux kernel isn't a full Linux opering system. You
really have to have init running at least.
Arguing from this standpoint goes back to the difference between object
oriented design or programming in a language that is object oriented.
Whatever "object oriented" REALLY means...
--Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 11:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Cooker] Re: Linux vs NT
>
>
> WindowsNT is not an object oriented OS, it is a library
> oriented OS. Just have
> them look at their disk drives and count the number of .dll
> files- i.e. dynamic
> (loading or linkng, I can never remember which) libraries.
> What they are
> referring to are the OLE and ODBC functions of Windows. CORBA
> gives Linux the
> same functionality of ODBC, and OLE has caused as many
> problems as it has
> benefits.
