Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:54:13 GMT From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unix 2000... Message-ID: <20000930.12541300@bartequi.ottodomain.org> References: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10009290255390.28516-100000@cello.qnet.com> <20000929.13432900@bartequi.ottodomain.org> <xzp7l7v9wvi.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20000930002606.Q81242@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 9/30/00, 8:26:06 AM, "Crist J . Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> wrote regarding Re: Unix 2000...: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 03:00:01PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@inwind.it> writes: > > > I seem to understand that the process is far from completion. The > > > difficulties on the part of M$ clearly show that NT is decidedly n= ot > > > the right tool for the job. If they are bent on wasting time (and > > > money) on this project, then so be it. > > > > AFAIK, they're transitioning to Windows 2000, not NT. > Yup. Looks like they are really doing it this time. The chatter at the= > last BAFUG was that they have pretty much replaced the FreeBSD-Apache > machines. Anyone care to whack at the site to see what servers are > responding? ;) > Here are some news articles, but they are all about two months old. > http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_428711,00.html > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2610894,00.html > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12290.html > http://www.bsdtoday.com/2000/August/Newswire24 > http://www.ugeek.com/news/geeknews/q22000/gee2000803002036.htm Oooops, I still had the 10% or so percentage in mind :-) Summing up: if the operation is completed within this fall, the initial move to Windows NT 4, then to NT5, ahem, Windows2000, will have required a 4-year effort -- it was promised in 1997. Four years... hmmm, correct me if I am wrong or partial: in four years, the FreeBSD Project not only developed a whole operating system, but also achieved technical excellence. I see that move as an immense waste of money and time on the part of M$. Moreover, I am not quite sure Windows2000 will be able to handle **that** load; only time will tell. What strikes me most is the **enormous** deployment of resources aimed at producing a *monster* that is no match to Unices; the mountain bore a little mouse... The statement, made in 1998 by certain well-known authors, that NT was a modern [sic] OS, designed and implemented in a completely different way from Unix [sic], sounds humo(u)rous today, in the light of what has been said in the "Unix 2000..." thread :-) 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?20000930.12541300>