Will Unix-based operating systems overtake the M$ Windows monopoly someday?

[Asher]

I should note that the kernel MacOS X uses is really good, and is not a traditional Unix kernel (hence why Linus hates it).

[Whaleboy]

If you're trying to say something, just come out and say it.

I believe I did. You once told me that you have no problem with other people using linux, and that you only use Windows/MS because its a better tool for you. The more extreme, uncompromising and unaccepting your position becomes, the less statement becomes, being replaced by the suspicion that your love of all things MS is less rational than you purport it to be. Just a thought

[Asher]

So because I'm consistent in thinking that Windows is better than Linux, the less valid it is?

I'm "uncompromising" because there's nothing to compromise with -- most of the bull**** *nix advocates spew is patently so, and easily dispensed with.

If you ask any OS design prof, they'll tell you that Linux's monolithic kernel design is obsolete. Hell, Linus' profs at Helsinki University told him the same thing -- he didn't listen.

All of the other modern OSes out now are microkernel designs: Windows NT, MacOS X, BeOS, BSD, etc.

[Wraith]

--"And MS' security isn't "crap"."

Sure it is. 2003 is a step in the right direction, since it isn't shipped with everything turned on, but it's still crap for a server platform. Until MS allows me to install server without all their vulnerability-ridden bloat (like IE; a back-end database server has no need for this) they aren't paying a whole lot of real attention to security.

Of course, the thing they could do that would be the biggest boost to their security isn't a new thing. It's something that's been known as good at least since the Multics days. Keeping the data and the code strictly seperate... Microsoft's "the code is the data is the code!" push with VB, etc, is their single biggest security weakness.

If they change those two things, then I'll believe they're serious about security.

And before you try to attack me, about the only relatively mainstream OS I respect on the security front is OpenBSD.

--"With notable exceptions like the US nuclear aircraft carriers, right?"

Well, there was that one destroyer I think was, where Windows crashed and they had to be towed back to port. You'd think they'd have learned, but military contracts have a lot less to do with technical suitability than lobbying.

--"POSIX compliance is no longer a goal, etc"

Unless the US government has changed their procurement rules, I doubt this. The only reason Windows ever got POSIX compliance was so they could sell to the feds.

--" as well as basic things like latency to user input."

Hehe. Yeah, Windows is a great model there

Wraith
"Computer! Take me to the weasels!"
-- Zim ("Invader Zim")

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wraith
Sure it is. 2003 is a step in the right direction, since it isn't shipped with everything turned on, but it's still crap for a server platform. Until MS allows me to install server without all their vulnerability-ridden bloat (like IE; a back-end database server has no need for this) they aren't paying a whole lot of real attention to security.

IE doesn't install by default. That's why when that IE vuln. was fixed a while ago was "critical" on all OSes but Win2K3, where it was "moderate" since IE is an optional component.

--" as well as basic things like latency to user input."

Hehe. Yeah, Windows is a great model there

It sure as hell is.
Linux doesn't even come close to being a responsive as a GUI, even with the 2.5 kernel.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Asher

If you ask any OS design prof, they'll tell you that Linux's monolithic kernel design is obsolete.

Yo the last time I looked at the source code I was all, "I CANNOT believe they put this much crap in here!" I swear I must have scrolled down through vi for a good 30 minutes reading through all the crap.

Maybe Linus put an ascii picture of his dog in there or some ****. I dunno.

[Asher]

Ted

Somewhat related...what most people don't realize is how flexible and well-designed the NT kernel is. It's very portable (designed to be), and it's very small and efficient.

The entire OS on the Xbox, for example, uses the NT kernel and uses up 500KB, including all of the drivers.

Then all of the variations of the kernel: XP Embedded, XP Pro, Windows 2003 Server, Datacenter, etc. -- MS knows how to make kernels. The NT kernel is a marvel of modern software engineering, even.

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe Windows NT should be a modern Wonder of the World

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
Maybe Windows NT should be a modern Wonder of the World

hi ,

, small wonder hé




have a nice day