Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:12:14 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Message-ID: <00e401c16133$bce6c030$0a00000a@contactdish> References: <1DA741CA6767A144BAA4F10012536C27A8E4@LKLDDC01.GARGANTUAN.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael writes: > What I meant was to retire the hardware that you > have WINNT running on now for use with FreeBSD, > as it can do wonders with equipment that Windows > can sometimes struggle with, and then reinstall > Windows on your new, faster hardware. What would be the gain? The Windows NT production system must be kept stable; attempting to rebuild it from scratch on a new hardware platform is not conducive to this end. Similarly, there are no performance constraints on the FreeBSD system, so even a tiny hardware configuration will suffice. The Windows NT system has slower processors, but nowadays, processor power is likely to be the least of the bottlenecks in the system. My NT system is rarely processor-bound, no matter what I'm doing. In contrast, it is often I/O-bound, thanks to applications (such as Internet Explorer) that must do thousands of disk I/Os just to start. Now, the production system is a very performant configuration of two 7200-rpm Ultra-SCSI drives; the FreeBSD system will just have one simple, slow IDE drive. Putting the NT production system on the new hardware would slow it to a crawl, no matter how fast the processor might be. > With that all said, I personally can't wait for > the day when *NIX catches up to Windows in the > desktop space, especially in regards to hardware > compatibility. I don't think that UNIX will ever match Windows in the GUI department, and I see no sign of any trend in that direction. As for hardware compatibility, that's a function of the market's requirements, not the OS. I'd expect UNIX to be more compatible with the hardware you'd put on servers (such as fancy backup hardware, network equipment, and so on) and less compatible with hardware you'd put on desktops (sound cards, scanners, DVD players, and so on). I'd expect Windows to be just the opposite. And indeed, this seems to be how things work out. > I have yet to purchase a piece of hardware that > Windows wouldn't run with, while I cannot say the > same for FreeBSD. It depends on what hardware you want. I daresay that a cartridge tape silo system is more likely to be supported on UNIX than on Windows XP. Ditto for a 9-track reel-to-reel tape drive (and yes, there are still lots of those around, on large systems). > I don't expect FreeBSD to be this versatile (yet) > without the army of developers (and marketing pukes) > that Microsoft has. Both operating systems have the same number of developers, although I suppose that FreeBSD developers can't dedicate full time to FreeBSD, since they have to eat. > Computer operating systems are no different, and > anyone who struggles trying to make a very powerful > server OS (like FreeBSD) be a just as powerful > interactive, multimedia, flashy OS (Windows) is > taking on an unnecessary burden. The inverse of this is exactly what I used to tell Microsoft: You can't have an OS that is a powerful server AND includes fancy GUIs, game support, and so on. It just doesn't happen. The biggest handicap for NT as a server has been that GUI and the overhead it incurs, plus the fact that it is very centered on the main keyboard and display; you pretty much have to be in front of the machine to do anything important. UNIX requires no GUI and has no overhead associated with it, and you can administer the system from anywhere, for the vast majority of administrative tasks. > The same can be said for spending endless hours > applying patches to IIS to make is as secure as > Apache is right out of the box. I've had a lot of experience with both IIS and Apache, and I prefer Apache. IIS has a pretty user interface (like all Windows software), but that's about all that can be said for it. It's really easier to configure a server by just editing a text file than it is by endlessly clicking and sliding and clicking and typing and so on. And I agree that the transparency of Apache and the simplicity of its design and configuration make it much easier to secure. With IIS, there is so much going on undocumented behind the scenes that you don't know about a security hole until the system has been compromised. > And, I wouldn't even consider building an IPv6 > firewall on Windows, which was suprisingly > simple on FreeBSD. I'm not convinced that either OS is really a good choice for a firewall, compared to a dedicated hardware device, but I believe UNIX is much better at it than NT. Here again, the extra overhead and complexity of NT works against it. > If I were a software developer, and had the smarts, > I would certainly do everything that I could to make > FreeBSD, which I am gaining more respect for each and > every day, a formidible competitor with Windows on > the desktop. UNIX will never be a competitor with Windows on the desktop; the OS design simply is not compatible with that goal. And I think it safe to say that NT/2000 will always be handicapped with respect to UNIX for server applications, for exactly the same reason. No OS can do both of these optimally, just as no OS handles real-time process control AND batch COBOL jobs optimally, either. 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?00e401c16133$bce6c030$0a00000a>