From owner-freebsd-isp  Tue Jul 22 17:05:48 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA08656
          for isp-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns.NL.net (ns.NL.net [193.78.240.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA08636
          for <FreeBSD-ISP@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jaknl by ns.NL.net (5.65b/NLnet1.3)
	id AA15245; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 02:02:01 +0200
Received: from pp200-1 ([192.168.0.200]) by jak.nl (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id BAA01068; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 01:49:06 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <33D546F6.9A3F2E94@jak.nl>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 01:49:10 +0200
From: Jan A Knepper <Jan@jak.nl>
Reply-To: Jan@jak.nl
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net>,
        FreeBSD-ISP@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD and NT
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <199707222142.OAA03553@MindBender.serv.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote:

> NT by itself (and NT with tons of development tools and such open)
> runs for weeks at a time without reboots, for me, and thousands of
> others.

Well, I don't know how and where you get this, but I am sorry to say I
can not agree with this.

>  Modern NT servers (as opposed to "workstations", which you
> described) are every bit as stable as Unix servers, with months of
> uptime.  FYI...

Not in my experience...Besides that NT how ever you turn it has to
improve a LOT as far as performance issues go.
Currently Windows NT 4.0 Server on a PP200 with 64MB RAM loses BIG TIME
in performance from Novell NetWare (or FreeBSD for that matter) on a P90
with 32MB RAM!
I have tested this here. We have 100 Mb/sec Ethernet and Windows NT
Server certainly has a long way to go. OK, it might work OK for a  heavy
duty machine with only a few clients, but forget about any performance
at all when the real users logon as clients. Not for no reason Microsoft
has more or less decided to break NT apart in different versions. If I
am correct there is going to be a lite workstation version, a heavy
workstation version and a non-graphic server version (and may be more).
Especially the server version has to go through a lot of changes to be
anywhere compatitive in performance to any other Network OS.
At the same time Novell is working at a 'better' memory management to
improve stability of NetWare. (While writing several NLM's I learned
that NetWare is very easy to crash from an NLM). So this is good I
guess.

As far as I am concerned... Yeah unfortunately for now I am pretty much
bound to NT since that is what customers ask these days. I however
wonder how long the world is going to take the M$ lies and promises for
true.

Don't worry, be Kneppie!
Jan

PS: On of the good things of NT is that there are quite a few C++
compilers available guess who is the best...