Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:43:09 -0700
From:      Jonas Luster <loki@smurftarget.net>
To:        Dale Chulhan - Home <dchulhan@uwi.tt>
Cc:        "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:  <20010407214309.A67182@netwarriors.org>
In-Reply-To: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt>; from dchulhan@uwi.tt on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:26:53PM -0400
References:  <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dale Chulhan - Home sez:

> Any comments?

Some..

> Dick, Windows NT was based on VMS not UNIX. In fact UNIX and Windows

The fact that Microsoft bought some VMS developers helped to the kernel
as we know it today, true, but get the scoop on what some developers did
after Microsoft tried to mutilate the very idea of VMSs architecture...

> 2000/NT are very different. Windows uses a micro kernel architecture,
> UNIX uses a monolithic kernel. That is why you have to

Not quite right. While some "mainstream" Unices or pseudo-Unices use
monolithic kernels, this is not a requirement. The HURD or Darwin, e.g.
use microkernels. Also the differences between Microkernel and
monolithic kernel are somewhere else, not in the realm of 'reload to
load'.

> recompile/reload the kernel when you add a driver. This is unlike

Most modern Unices support 'loadable' kernel modules.

> Windows 2000 where drivers can be loaded and unloaded automatically.

The forced reboots in Windows (and there are quite a few more than under
modern Unices, most machines I know have Uptimes somewhere in the high
onehundreds and were booted exactly once...) stem from Microsofts
'better safe than sorry' Ideology and not from an inherent need. In 2000
MS simply added some new fallback mechanisms making some reboots
unnecessary.

> 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 Unix needing a reboot to change IP-Adress or
similar parameters. Unix IP stacks are quite happy with being introduced
to different configuartions on the fly. Under Windows (!Win2K) this
concept would work, too, but MS elected to not activate configurations
until reboot.

> 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. Have you ever heard of RFCs? In

Microsoft did a great job in bastardizing/mutilating (they call it
'extending') Standards until interoperability is guaranteed. Take, for
an example, your list above. Kerberos was developed at MIT and not in
Redmond, Microsoft took it and ... BAMM. For some overview visit
http://www.thestandard.com and type "Kerberos" in the search box.

IPSec has been the most misunderstood standard ever, sure as heck,
Microsoft managed to misunderstand it even more and ... BAMM. I will not
get into the deeps of VPNs and what Microsoft did to this concept (VPN
is a concept, not a standard, btw.)

As for RFCs - in all my years of computing I've rarely come across
individuals, let alone companies so 'anti-RFC'. Take, for example,
Outlook and compare its behavior and output to common standards and
RFCs. You'll be surprised. Fact is, there is no world outside
heterogenous Windows-Network when it comes to the Redmond mindset. 

> fact, the Windows interface was a Xerox idea that Apple "borrowed" and
> was handed to Microsoft on a silver platter. Do you know how long

PARC indeed developed the first prototypes of a windowing system (as
well as the mouse, btw.) but it was not Microsoft who picked it up. Have
an Apple, while you rethink this statement :).

Rumor has it, Redmonds developers actually had some REALLY cool ideas on
how to make Win1 look and react, but Bill insisted on something "more
Apple than Apple itself".

> after that the first windows version of UNIX came up? In fact they
> even chose to call it X-Windows. Today, of all

X is named either 'X', 'X11', 'X11R{version}' or 'the X Window System',
but never 'X-Windows'.

> the mainstream Operating Systems, UNIX still has the slowest Windows
> interface.

Again, not quite true, but I'll leave the benchmarking to you :). As a
hint: check out NeXTs 'Postscript Display' and compare X11R6 on a 486
to Windows 95's GUI while moving opaque windows. I've seen both
redraw/refresh codes and find it hard to believe you :)

Hope that clarifies it a bit,

Jonas

-- 
"Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise" 
                                                  -- Bruce Eckel

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?20010407214309.A67182>