From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Apr 7 14:36:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70CA37B423 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:36:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [194.78.241.123] ([194.78.241.123]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2/Skynet-OUT-2.11) with ESMTP id f37La2q07499; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:36:02 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt> References: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:35:57 +0200 To: Dale Chulhan - Home , "chat@FreeBSD.ORG" , My List , The Trinidad and Tobago Microsoft BackOffice Users Group From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Win NT vs UNIX ( cross fire ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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, /* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum */ /* 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