Re: Which is better?
- From: Aragorn <stryder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:25:24 GMT
On Sunday 19 March 2006 09:28, Stanislaw Flatto stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
So Microsoft got a Unix OS, mangled it properly, renamed it NT and
needs desperately external crutches (AV, firewalling, and so on...) to
hobble around.
Pedant point... NT is not a UNIX, and never has been. ;-) The original
NT's - 3.x and 4.0 - also had a UNIX-compatible API which was
POSIX-compliant, but NT never had POSIX-compliance in itself.
The NT kernel was written by Dave Cutler, who had also written the DEC
VMS kernel. In fact, the NT kernel actually has some original VMS code
in it. DEC caught Cutler doing that redhandedly after he had
transfered to Microsoft, and that is why Microsoft settled by agreeing
to support DEC's Alpha in Windows NT.
The actual NT kernel however is only a kind of supervisor - a
microkernel, if you will - running underneath a Win32 kernel - very
similar to how the Darwin kernelspace is built up, but without the
UNIX-like nature.
However, it's the Win32 personality that dominates what Windows NT is,
and this turns it into just the same old junk as before, but with a
genuine 32-bit kernel instead of something DOS-based and with ACL's -
which can conveniently be bypassed by installing Windows in a /vfat/
partition.
Allegedly, Microsoft is working on a totally new operating system -
codenamed /Singularity/ - which they say is not intended for commercial
publication. However, recently I read that they already have plans to
a successor for the not-yet-released Vista, and that they call this one
"DarkStar" - sounds very familiar to "Singularity", right? - and that
this will be a total rewrite of the Windows platform.
Still, I don't trust Microsoft to ever deliver something original and
good - they've "borrowed" just about everything elsewhere already - and
I doubt that it will ever be a UNIX architecture.
And to finally come back to the topic - thank God, as I really don't
want to be debating Windows in this newsgroup - GNU/Linux is a
UNIX-style operating system, and without UNIX there wouldn't even be an
Internet.
Networking in Windows was bolted-on as an afterthought. UNIX systems
have always been multiuser systems and originated on larger hardware
architectures.
So *of* *course,* GNU/Linux is the best networking system of the two
platforms the OP mentioned, and always will be. It's also the best for
a server. And for a workstation. And well... for everything else,
really. ;-þ
What was the question, again?
What? Did someone ask a question? :-þ
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
.
- References:
- Which is better?
- From: Better
- Re: Which is better?
- From: Stanislaw Flatto
- Which is better?
- Prev by Date: Re: Knoppix live CD and Internet
- Next by Date: Re: Which is better?
- Previous by thread: Re: Which is better?
- Next by thread: Re: Which is better?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
