Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
atkielski.anthony at wanadoo.fr
Sat Feb 12 20:55:01 GMT 2005
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.
More information about the freebsd-questions