From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 20:11:56 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C9F16A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:11:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hobbiton.shire.net (hobbiton.shire.net [166.70.252.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F6743D1D for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:11:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from [67.161.222.227] (helo=[192.168.99.68]) by hobbiton.shire.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.43) id 1D03cQ-000K3d-3O for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:11:54 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <5637FDDF-7D32-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:11:53 -0700 To: 'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org' X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.161.222.227 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chad@shire.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on hobbiton.shire.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1+cvs (built Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:44:05 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on hobbiton.shire.net) Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:11:57 -0000 On Feb 12, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when >> kernels are compared. > > How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available > for perusal? > > Other than, of course, just running both and assuming that because > neither > happens to crash running a screensaver, that they must be roughly the > same. > That's a marketing comparison which has no value. After taking out all the kernel level stuff for the GUI and other performance enhancements that MS has made for the gamers and other people, I would say that it is probably true that the NT kernel and the BSD kernels are in the same order of magnitude of stability. Dave Cutler and his crew from DEC did a good job with VMS and VAX/ELN and RSX-11M and I would assume that they would do the same job in their kernel design and implementation for M$. However, since that happened MS has dumped a ton of crap into it. Chad disclaimer: I have not seen the source to NT but I do know the reputations of the implementors and designers of (at least the original) NT kernel. ex-DECcie