Freebsd vs. linux
bsilver at chrononomicon.com
Wed Feb 16 13:45:52 GMT 2005
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>> "They" were an outside team that worked on VMS. "They" started NT
>> before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows
>> became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally
>> wasn't going to have a GUI.
> Oh well ... it's a bit late to dream about what could have been.
> As I recall, this is what caused Microsoft and IBM to part ways. IBM
> was to collaborate on the NT project. But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS
> OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future
> on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right.
Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI.
They parted ways because MS was working on the Windows-centric version
of NT behind IBM's back, realizing they had a new cash cow out of
Windows 3.x. IBM was schnookered hook, line and sinker, and realized
it only after MS was presenting more and more updates to their project
with Windows API's instead of OS/2. MS wanted to split from Big Blue
because of cultural differences and MS wanted independence from IBM,
knowing full well that that dependence on OS/2 would be a hindrance to
their market engine.
Read ShowStopper!. It's an excellent history of the background of NT
(and Cutler). You can also read the Why I Hate Microsoft rant posted
at http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html .
I find it an excellent read for the history in it. (And do NOT turn
this into a OS-bashing thread. I am posting this because it has
history in it and was well written with history and footnotes. So
everyone stick to the facts and do NOT start the bashing crap).
> The GUI still requires destabilizing code in the kernel. It still
> up space and resources.
I'll agree there.
> And, worst of all, on a GUI-oriented server
> like Windows, you cannot administer the machine without using the GUI.
True to a point. Just because you have a GUI as the primary interface
it doesn't mean that the OS *must* have crappy administration tools.
It is just the tendency because of the low variety of "popular" server
OS's out there. The Mac is primarily GUI driven for it's audience and
uses a primarily GUI paradigm, but CLI admin tools are very much
available (and many of the Apple GUI tools act as front ends to the CLI
tools). It's a question of design.
>> <Xserves, etc.>
> They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple
> servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops.
> kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating
> systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well.
Wrong-o. Xserves are wonderful for people that want integration of OS
and hardware while at the same time are familiar with UNIX. Yes,
there's a lot of point and click, but 90% of their tools are mirrored
in CLI tools as well. Do more reading on how OS X works.
>> Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote
>> admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll
>> swap out most of the "GUI" stuff to disk.
> Why not just install FreeBSD?
Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI,
their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua. Don't need the proprietary layer,
then strip out Aqua/Finder/Apple tools, you've got Darwin. If you want
to install something else, be my guest. I personally don't care what
you're running, I was just pointing out if you want Apple stuff and
want to keep parity with OS X without their tools, use Darwin.
>> They most certainly profit from MCSEs.
> Yes, by training and certifying them. But after that, they're on their
> own, and out of Microsoft's revenue stream.
Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their
recertification. They are human advertisements, they are MS
evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are
brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging
more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS. SO that
would mean MS profits from them and their existence and their having to
get re-certified for their new OS's periodically. End of story.
More information about the freebsd-questions