Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:35:57 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Dale Chulhan - Home <dchulhan@uwi.tt>, "chat@FreeBSD.ORG" <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>, My List <TheTechies@onelist.com>, The Trinidad and Tobago Microsoft BackOffice Users Group <mbug@listbot.com> Subject: Re: Win NT vs UNIX ( cross fire ) Message-ID: <p05100109b6f50eeaf6ed@[194.78.241.123]> In-Reply-To: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt> References: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:26 PM -0400 4/7/01, Dale Chulhan - Home wrote:
> Dick, Windows NT was based on VMS not UNIX. In fact UNIX and Windows
> 2000/NT
> are very different. Windows uses a micro kernel architecture, UNIX uses
> a
> monolithic kernel.
Micro kernels are not the be-all and end-all of OS design. They
can work well, or they can work poorly. It all depends on the
implementation. Frankly, the implementation of Windows NT is by a
bunch of poorly paid amateur programmers who were consultants
"bought" and treated as little more than code-monkeys, put through
the mill, and then when they got to whining too loudly about not
being paid enough or being required to work too much overtime hours,
they got their contracts dropped. Having a revolving door of
contractors that never stay there longer than a few months is not a
really good way of developing an OS.
It's not the fault of the programmers that Windows NT (and all of
its derivatives) is so badly screwed up. This is what Microsoft
wanted, and they made sure to hire the people who were ignorant and
inexperienced enough to do precisely that.
> That is why you have to recompile/reload the kernel
> when
> you add a driver.
Most versions of *nix I am familiar with allow you to build a
static kernel image with drivers included, or to dynamically load
drivers as they are required. There are advantages to both methods,
and anyone that categorically rules out one or the other is simply
doing so out of stupidity and ignorance.
> This is unlike Windows 2000 where drivers can be
> loaded
> and unloaded automatically. In fact, you can change IP Addresses on
> Windows
> 2000 and you do not need to reboot. This is also very unlike most
> versions
> of UNIX.
I do not know of a single version of *nix that has ever existed
in the history of time (at least, those that have had an IP stack)
that could not have the IP address of an interface changed and not
require rebooting.
To the best of my knowledge, this whole "change and reboot" thing
is something that Microsoft invented with their OSes, because they
always assumed that these things were done once and once only, and
only on boot. The fact that it's taken Microsoft this long to be
able to handle changing an IP address without rebooting the machine
(and that you consider this such an important issue) is a clear
indication that you have smoked way too many recreational
pharmaceuticals, as distributed and given away by certain people of
questionable intent from Redmond.
> The technology in the Windows 2000 Operating System is standards based,
> not
> stolen from the UNIX OS. IPSec, VPN, Kerberos are all technologies that
> are
> standards based.
Indeed, these are all standard technologies. They were designed
and built on *nix OSes first, and only lately has Microsoft taken
them up and tried to proprietarize them so as to make them work in a
Microsoft way on only Microsoft OSes, and lock out the rest of the
world.
> Have you ever heard of RFCs?
Indeed, I have. Do you know what "RFC" stands for? Do you know
the history of RFCs, and how the Internet was built? Do you know the
history of how Unix was invented?
> In fact, the Windows
> interface
> was a Xerox idea that Apple "borrowed" and was handed to Microsoft on a
> silver platter.
Xerox PARC definitely invented the windowing interface, with mice
and all that. Yes, indeed, that is true. However, it took the
Macintosh to popularize that interface and bring it to the rest of
the world -- Xerox got their cut as a stockholder in Apple.
Later, Microsoft realized how important the windowing interface
was, and effectively put a shotgun to the head of Steve Jobs and said
"We won't develop any applications (which they had a stranglehold on)
or port BASIC to the Macintosh, nor will we continue to allow you to
ship BASIC for the Apple II series, if you don't license your
windowing technology to us". This is a known and undisputed fact.
Indeed, this was just the first widely recognized use of
Microsoft's monopoly powers in an attempt to rape and pillage
whatever technologies they wanted from whomever they wanted. Later,
Microsoft was even stupid enough to put down in writing things like
this, and then have their sales representatives deliver those
messages to the CEOs and CTOs of Fortune 100 companies.
> Do you know how long after that the first windows
> version of
> UNIX came up? In fact they even chose to call it X-Windows.
Uh, no. There were many windowing interfaces for versions of
Unix back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, of which the X Window
System was just one (MIT has a copyright on this technology, and they
insist that you use either that term spelled and capitalized
precisely as I have done, or you simply call it "X").
I recall a presentation at the Winter 1990 USENIX technical
conference on a windowing system called "W", which I believe was
either a contemporary of "X", or may have been a precursor.
You really need to research your facts before you spout off.
> Today, of
> all
> the mainstream Operating Systems, UNIX still has the slowest Windows
> interface.
In what context? Do you have a windowing interface that will
allow the program to run on one machine, allow the complex display
portion to be run across the network on a different machine (perhaps
halfway around the world), and have all that be controlled from a
third machine that may itself be half-way around the world? Do you
even know where the concept for "thin client" came from, and what led
to the development of "Windows Terminals"?
Let me ask a question -- does Windows 2000 handle multiple users
simultaneously logging into the same machine now? Windows NT sure
couldn't -- it may have had protected memory, multi-threading, and
multi-processing (which it was really, really bad at), but it was
still a single-user OS.
Can you administer every aspect of the machine without being
forced to log into the graphical console? Just how many copies of PC
Anywhere do you still need?
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
/* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root@ihack.net> */
/* Represented as 1045 digit prime number by Phil Carmody */
/* Prime as DNS cname chain by Roy Arends and Walter Belgers */
/* */
/* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob */
/* where title-key = "153 2 8 105 225" or other similar 5-byte key */
dig decss.friet.org|perl -ne'if(/^x/){s/[x.]//g;print pack(H124,$_)}'
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05100109b6f50eeaf6ed>