From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Apr 7 21:43:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smurftarget.net (netwarriors.org [216.34.142.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34B537B42C for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:43:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from loki@smurftarget.net) Received: from loki by smurftarget.net with local (Exim 3.20 #1) id 14m72b-000HUu-00; Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:43:09 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:43:09 -0700 From: Jonas Luster To: Dale Chulhan - Home Cc: "chat@FreeBSD.ORG" , My List , The Trinidad and Tobago Microsoft BackOffice Users Group Subject: Re: Win NT vs UNIX ( cross fire ) Message-ID: <20010407214309.A67182@netwarriors.org> References: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3ACF5BED.86A4FB58@uwi.tt>; from dchulhan@uwi.tt on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:26:53PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * 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