Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:59:18 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Message-ID: <007e01c160d5$bf7f5c20$0a00000a@contactdish> References: <3.0.5.32.20011029080008.00fa6e38@mail.sage-american.com> <006b01c160cd$4df664c0$0a00000a@contactdish> <20011030000407.A13434@md2.mediadesign.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There are, you won't be able to use it during > install though I guess... you'll have to install > a port for it (/usr/ports/net/pptpclient) I thought there might be a problem. Hopefully I'll be able to install from the CDs I have and then get enough connectivity to transfer any additional stuff I have to download from my Windows machine over the LAN, until the UNIX machine is able to connect directly to the Net on its own (which isn't certain, since I don't know if I can open two PPTP connections at a time over the DSL line, but I think I can). > Rewritten??? /me hasn't seen a real rewrite > since DOS 1.0 (and maybe windows NT 3.1) Windows NT was new code, not a rewrite. Windows 3.1 was largely scrapped and replaced with new code for Windows 95, so it certainly qualifies as a rewrite; the similarities and code blobs that remained had to be there for compatibility. Windows 2000 was a near-rewrite of large sections of Windows NT. I believe Windows XP is a port of some code to an NT/2000 foundation, to increase stability, but I have no detailed information on that. Windows NT, and the subsequent OSes that were built on the same code base, have always been extremely solid, secure, and stable, if a bit (or a lot) bloated. Most people who complain about Windows stability are either running the unstable versions in the Windows 9x family, or are running bug-laden third-party drivers or applications with administrator privileges. Windows NT is extremely stable for me, and can run for years at a time (although I rarely leave my machine running that long without turning it off). Still, it is true that, in a pure server role, it is difficult to justify the staggering mountains of code that Windows wades through even in its most basic configurations. A great deal of code is either never executed at all, or is executed only to verify that some bell or whistle is not needed, or exists to support the elaborate GUI of the OS. UNIX has no fancy GUI, and few bells and whistles, and minimal security and integrity features, and so it runs like the wind; and if you don't need any of these things, it's easy to see why UNIX might be the preferred choice. However, if someone is going to run UNIX, I really don't understand why they'd choose Linux over FreeBSD or its brethren. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?007e01c160d5$bf7f5c20$0a00000a>