Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:51:05 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SPAM: Score 3.7: Re: Instead of freebsd. com, why not... Message-ID: <128456842.20050217185105@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <dcb2c27a050217030879ce4b5a@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641B03@mvaexch01.acuson.com> <1613371449.20050216040529@wanadoo.fr> <dcb2c27a050217030879ce4b5a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sander Vesik writes: > Specificly, care to compare an average 1980s unix to > WinNT, especially WinNT 3.5 and the modern enterprise versions and > point out which part of which is more suitable for what? The WinNT core is (or was) suitable for server use. It still retains many elements of the design that was intended to make it suitable for that use. But the GUI is a major obstacle to deployment, and a major destabilizing influence, especially in the more recent releases of the OS. > In such a case, *NAME* those requirements. I already have. > Security does not conflict with the needs ... I'm afraid it does. There's always a direct conflict between security and user-friendliness, and between security and compatibility, and between security and performance. On desktops, security is sacrificed in favor of these other characteristics. On servers, security is enhanced to the detriment of these other characteristics. > Installing itself does not destabilize a server as it doesn't imply > running an X server while teh sever is in production. It doesn't need to be run. Just the installation makes destabilizing changes. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?128456842.20050217185105>