From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 20:55:01 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 C617F16A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:55:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7985043D2F for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:55:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1102.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A6BAC1C0009F for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:55:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1102.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 86A541C0009E for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:55:00 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050212205500551.86A541C0009E@mwinf1102.wanadoo.fr Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:55:00 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1188345459.20050212215500@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <5637FDDF-7D32-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> References: <5637FDDF-7D32-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:55:01 -0000 Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > 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$. They did. The kernel is excellently written. Microsoft threw a lot of that away in favor of the gamers you mention and of clueless Windows desktop users generally. The solid NT kernel is still there, but MS has drilled a great many large holes through it. > 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. I have seen the source to both NT and the Win 9x family, and the difference is like night and day. The former was clearly written by a lot of people with a lot of prior experience under their belts; the latter was clearly written by people who had never written much of anything before they started working on Windows. -- Anthony