Re:Rumors of Cmd’s death have been greatly exaggerated
by quotemstr on Thursday January 05, 2017 @11:48AM
(#13328669)
> NT is more Unix than Unix in a lot of ways, where everything is an object
Yep. NT's design in this respect is great. Each NT object also has a name in a global system namespace; each object has its own access control list; and most objects are dispatcher objects that you can use with functions like WaitForMultipleObjects. In Windows, it's trivial to wait for, say, a socket* and a process at the same time.
I've always wanted to add NT-style process handles to Linux. A few other people have tried, but Linus has rejected their patches on the grounds that if you can open a handle to a process (preserving its PID), a program can fill up the process table.
I've never bought this argument. You can fill up the process table in other ways today without a ulimit, and we can make the process ulimit apply to process handles too.
...
* Screw you, in-process winsock providers. My programs treat sockets as regular HANDLEs, and if you install some shim that breaks this model, shame on you.
Yep. NT's design in this respect is great. Each NT object also has a name in a global system namespace; each object has its own access control list; and most objects are dispatcher objects that you can use with functions like WaitForMultipleObjects. In Windows, it's trivial to wait for, say, a socket* and a process at the same time.
I've always wanted to add NT-style process handles to Linux. A few other people have tried, but Linus has rejected their patches on the grounds that if you can open a handle to a process (preserving its PID), a program can fill up the process table.
I've never bought this argument. You can fill up the process table in other ways today without a ulimit, and we can make the process ulimit apply to process handles too.
...
* Screw you, in-process winsock providers. My programs treat sockets as regular HANDLEs, and if you install some shim that breaks this model, shame on you.