Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:26:12 -0500 From: "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>, <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Message-ID: <00cd01c160ea$3e6b07a0$6600000a@columbia> In-Reply-To: <007e01c160d5$bf7f5c20$0a00000a@contactdish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Imagine this... having a Microsoft discussion on a FreeBSD list... > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 6:59 PM > To: questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD > > > 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. Code stolen when Microsoft swallowed up a group of system programmers from Digital. > Windows 3.1 was largely > scrapped and > replaced with new code for Windows 95, so it certainly qualifies > as a rewrite; Umm, really? *shakes his head* I've always thought of 95 as an upgrade from 3.1 in that it had 32 bit extensions, a better memory manager, and no need to type win at the prompt. Otherwise, it's still a shell over a version of DOS. > the similarities and code blobs that remained had to be there for > compatibility. That code has to be there for legacy support. Easy way to commit corporate suicide is to scrap your legacy code completely and write something absolutely new. > Windows 2000 was a near-rewrite of large sections of Windows NT. At least they finally got it right, for the most part. > 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. Same old marketing hype. 2000 was supposed to be the merger of the Win9x and NT lines... didn't happen. XP was supposed to do that as well, and from what I can gather, it didn't happen. And it won't. Why should Microsoft limit their product offerings in order to HELP the consumer? Add more products, confuse the consumer even further... it only adds more profits to your corporate coffers, and after all, "The purchaser is always right"... > Windows NT, and the subsequent OSes that were built on the same > code base, have > always been extremely solid Eh, only if you don't sneeze in their direction... > secure As long as you don't have a network cable plugged into it, or a floppy drive, or a CD-Rom. That's the ONLY way that Microsoft EVER got NT certified as C3 by the DoD. Now, maybe it's just me, but since NT was built on "Networking Technology", and both a floppy drive and CD-Rom are generally required at one point or another in a machine's life... this severely limits the usefulness of NT if you want a secure environment. > and stable If you're running a package built to their standards, their specs, and with your checkbook. Most "stable" NT platforms were designed at the factory and shipped that way. > if a bit (or a > lot) bloated. No kidding. > 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. Hmm... having experience with 95, 98, NT and 2000... while NT and 2000 are more stable, the biggest problem with the 9x line has been the memory manager problems in addition to memory leaks. Maybe my experience has been atypical. > Windows NT is > extremely stable > for me, I'm happy for you. For the work it takes to make NT stable, you could have FreeBSD at near flawlessness. > and can run for years at a time (although I rarely leave > my machine running that long without turning it off). Then you haven't been bitten by one of the famous NT bugs. There's a limiting factor somewhere in the code as far as uptime, if I remember correctly. Something like 38-39 days. > 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. If you research it far enough, you can turn off most, if not all, of that junk that you don't need. Problem is, when you start monkeying with the configuration, if you move widget A, you end up screwing up sprocket C half-way across the machine's continuum. > UNIX has no fancy GUI Unless you run Solaris in it's stock incarnation... along with a few other commercial Unices which have a GUI built in. > and > few bells and > whistles, and minimal security and integrity features, and so it > runs like the > wind So, soft-updates and sshd running by default constitutes minimal security and integrity features? It's a lot better than some other versions of Unix that I've seen. > 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. Hype. Pure marketing hype. IBM supports Linux, and IBM is never wrong (don't get me started on this) so everyone is going to Linux. Hand me a crow bar... I need to get my tongue out of my cheek. --- Andy 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?00cd01c160ea$3e6b07a0$6600000a>