Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:55:00 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <1188345459.20050212215500@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <5637FDDF-7D32-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEGHFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <5637FDDF-7D32-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1188345459.20050212215500>