Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:25:19 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <1337541312.20050212132519@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEGGFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <200502120402.56761.reso3w83@verizon.net> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEGGFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Well now Michael, maybe his experience is only with NT 3.51 - that was > pretty stable before Microsoft put the GUI into ring 0 to make all the > gamers happy (in NT4) Later versions of NT and its successors are also extremely stable, although you're correct in that NT 3.51 had the "purest" kernel and the greatest stability and security thereof. Putting GUI functions into the kernel and other related actions were huge steps backward. A lot of the code put into NT4 was copied wholesale from Windows 9x, and anyone who has seen the source code of both operating systems knows just how scary and depressing this is. The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when kernels are compared. However, NT-based systems are more vulnerable to badly-written applications than UNIX systems are, and that is entirely the fault of Microsoft, which weakened the NT base deliberately beginning with NT4 in order to court the desktop market. This is one reason why I wouldn't want to see FreeBSD make the same mistake. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1337541312.20050212132519>