Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:26:07 -0500 From: Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux Message-ID: <cd316e498ebfbbb665f88c0a6b3cd136@chrononomicon.com> In-Reply-To: <762166945.20050215064015@wanadoo.fr> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEGIFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <77803d5ce17805187218b4cdfb6cc83d@HiWAAY.net> <762166945.20050215064015@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Microsoft doesn't understand servers very well. Most people at > Microsoft grew up using microcomputers, and that's all they know (sound > familiar?). They truly have no idea of some of the constraints that > apply to the server world. As a result, they don't build ideal server > software. The closest they've come has been with the early versions of > Windows NT, which had a very solid kernel. "They" were an outside team that worked on VMS. "They" started NT before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows subsystem became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally it wasn't going to have a GUI. > A GUI always detracts from a server's function. Nobody is sitting in > front of a server, Three of ours are sitting right behind me. > That has never been an objective of Microsoft. Their servers have > elaborate GUIs because the operating systems come from the desktop > world, and won't function without a GUI. They have GUIs because they thought it was easier to market. They have GUIs because they're easier for novices to use as servers. They have GUIs because MS started trying to market "servers" to the workgroup and not corporate markets. They have GUIs because NT was a new kid on the block, people were familiar with Windows, and they were able to help marketing-wise slip some sales in because it was a lower learning curve. They have GUIs because believe it or not, sometimes you don't need the strict definition of a "Server" in order to serve files to a couple other computers in your home network and that "Server" can, in fact, do double duty. > One of the most serious criticisms made of Windows in the server world > is that you cannot run a Windows server without a GUI, and remote > administration is an unbelievably awkward nightmare. That's two criticisms, and at this point, I really think most people don't give a rat's behind about the GUI in a server, since the OS should be paging out unused pages to swap if the server settles down. Remote administration sucks, yes I'd agree. You have to jump through hoops to find decent tools for reigning in Windows in many situations. > >> Apple is smart enough to pull it off ... > > Apple has no advantage over Microsoft in this respect. They are > locking > their own OS into a GUI, too. But they probably realize that their > future is in desktops, not servers. That surely explains their sales of XServes and RAID servers. Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll swap out most of the "GUI" stuff to disk. >> ... but all Microsoft has done is continue to guarantee employment for >> MSCE's who continue to exclusively recommend any and everything >> Microsoft who in turn continually ensures these champions stay >> employed. > > As I've said, Microsoft doesn't care about employment of MCSEs. They most certainly profit from MCSEs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cd316e498ebfbbb665f88c0a6b3cd136>