I am 1/3 of the way through this, and it doesn't I am afraid seem like a very good breakdown. For example. - Portability. Who cares, even in the 1990s, NetBSD

I am 1/3 of the way through this, and it doesn't I am afraid seem like a very good breakdown. For example. - Portability. Who cares, even in the 1990s, NetBSD is a thing. We've known learned that portability across conventional-ish hardware doesn't actually affect OS design in vary Overall, the author is taking jargon / marketing terms too much at face value. In many cases, Windows and Unix will use different terms to describe the same things, or we have terms like "object-oriented kernel" that, by default, I assume don't actually mean anything: "object oriented" was too popular and adjective in the 1990s to be trusted. - "NT doesn’t have signals in the traditional Unix sense. What it does have, however, are alerts, and these can be kernel mode and user mode." Topic sentence should not start with the names of things. It is extraneous. My prior understanding is that NT is actually better in many ways, but I don't feel like I am any closer to learning why.