In the time since that comment was written (just under 5 years), Linux replaced most graphics drivers with ones based on in-kernel modesetting and the DRI2 interface. This was done without breaking applications. So, the assertion that changing the video driver model would be disruptive is kind of disproven by reality. I guess Linux has a liberal bias.
That's not to say that NT doesn't have benefits. Linux is still catching up with implementing some features that Windows has had for some time (and multiple GPU support is actually a great example of that), but so far there's no real evidence that these disparities are because of architectural differences.
Really, a worthwhile comparative analysis requires someone who has a deep understanding of the kernels they're comparing. I'm pretty familiar with Linux but know almost nothing about NT, so I'm a bad choice. But "Take the recent Linux arguments about the HardLocks code that is giving Linux trouble with multi-processor granularity"? That's not someone who knows Linux, otherwise they'd be using words that I recognise. "You call BSD a kernel, it technically is a set of APIs"? That's not someone who knows BSD either. This isn't an in-depth analysis of benefits that one kernel has over another. It's a handwavy justification of some NT design decisions without any reasoned comparison to Linux design decisions in the same area.
I'd love to read an in-depth comparison of the benefits of NT over Linux. This isn't it. Is there one?
That's not to say that NT doesn't have benefits. Linux is still catching up with implementing some features that Windows has had for some time (and multiple GPU support is actually a great example of that), but so far there's no real evidence that these disparities are because of architectural differences.
Really, a worthwhile comparative analysis requires someone who has a deep understanding of the kernels they're comparing. I'm pretty familiar with Linux but know almost nothing about NT, so I'm a bad choice. But "Take the recent Linux arguments about the HardLocks code that is giving Linux trouble with multi-processor granularity"? That's not someone who knows Linux, otherwise they'd be using words that I recognise. "You call BSD a kernel, it technically is a set of APIs"? That's not someone who knows BSD either. This isn't an in-depth analysis of benefits that one kernel has over another. It's a handwavy justification of some NT design decisions without any reasoned comparison to Linux design decisions in the same area.
I'd love to read an in-depth comparison of the benefits of NT over Linux. This isn't it. Is there one?