From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 12 12:32:41 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA09096 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA09050 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11737; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 22:17:04 +0300 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 22:17:03 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: Ollivier Robert cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. NT Stability In-Reply-To: <199608121853.UAA02791@keltia.freenix.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Ollivier Robert wrote: > According to Dennis: > > 1) Its rather new... > > 2) It was written by Microsoft > > Blind bashing will never make things progress. > > >From what I've heard, NT is probably the first thing ever written by > Microsoft that can be called "Operating System" even if I don't agree with > many architectural and protocol choices (but I'm partial to Unix). > > It has flaws and bugs but which OS doesn't ? OK, how about getting along without another BSD vs. NT flame war? This thread started quite sensibly, for heavens sake, let's have it the favor of also ending so!!! Sander > -- > Ollivier ROBERT -=- The daemon is FREE! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr > FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 2.2-CURRENT #17: Fri Aug 2 20:40:17 MET DST 1996 >