>> A second option would be to port NetBSD to Win32 so that it runs as a
>> process (or series of processes) under Win32.
>> Oh I understand that.  I still believe that there is value *even* to you of
>> a NetBSD/Win32.  For one thing it is neat.  For another, its a whole lot
>> more unix than the posix environment and thus might attract some new users.

>What is the point of porting NetBSD to Win32?
>Why not port it to the NT Executive/"Microkernel" (which is not really a
>microkernel) and run NetBSD as a separate subsystem, along with the
>Win32-, OS/2-, Win16/Dos- and POSIX-subsystem?

Agreed.  This holds much more interest to me, though it doesn't solve
the problem of running NetBSD on WinCE devices.

>The question is whether the "API"(?) of the NT Executive is
>freely "available" for any developer to use, or is it just closed to MS
>and those who pay MS a lot?
>(I have to admit I have not checked that out... Did Softway have to pay?)

Who knows besides Microsoft and Softway? :-)  My slightly-educated
guess is that they did it under contract for Microsoft, so Microsoft
could offer increased functionality to the spec-compliant government-
bid sort.  This would mean that Microsoft would have given the
necessary info to Softway as part of the contract, and would have
likely made them the sole supplier of such a thing, in the process.

The Softway OpenNT thing is an interesting exception, because before
OpenNT, Microsoft claimed that subsystems were not for public
consumption, that no other subsystems were planned, and that the
interfaces were not licensable.

>Yes, I know that the Win32 subsystem is "in charge", but would it be
>possible to let another subsystem be "in charge"? (Who really needs a GUI
>on a server? And besides, the MS GUI does not suit me.)

I don't know that it's "in charge", really.  It's been awhile since I
looked at the design docs, but I believe the graphics subsystem is
actually doing the work as a peer to the Win32 (and OpenNT/Posix)
subsystems.  It just so happens that GDI has very Microsoftish
semantics.  IMHO, they took a step backwards when they moved GDI into
kernel space.

>And: Softway's OpenNT is commercial, just like BSDI, for instance.

True.  Which is what would make NetBSD/NT so cool.  On the other hand,
it is probably also why it will never happen.  OpenNT source is
tichtly controlled by Softway, keeping the Microsoft proprietary
subsystem interfaces secret.  Allowing them to be published in a free-
source OS would be nothing short of opening them up for public
consumption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                           michaelv@MindBender.serv.net
      Contract software development for Windows NT, Windows 95 and Unix.
             Windows NT and Unix server development in C++ and C.

        --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
    NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3,
        Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32...
    NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------