SPAM: Score 3.7: Re: Instead of freebsd. com, why not...
atkielski.anthony at wanadoo.fr
Thu Feb 17 09:51:08 PST 2005
Sander Vesik writes:
> Specificly, care to compare an average 1980s unix to
> WinNT, especially WinNT 3.5 and the modern enterprise versions and
> point out which part of which is more suitable for what?
The WinNT core is (or was) suitable for server use. It still retains
many elements of the design that was intended to make it suitable for
that use. But the GUI is a major obstacle to deployment, and a major
destabilizing influence, especially in the more recent releases of the
> In such a case, *NAME* those requirements.
I already have.
> Security does not conflict with the needs ...
I'm afraid it does. There's always a direct conflict between security
and user-friendliness, and between security and compatibility, and
between security and performance. On desktops, security is sacrificed
in favor of these other characteristics. On servers, security is
enhanced to the detriment of these other characteristics.
> Installing itself does not destabilize a server as it doesn't imply
> running an X server while teh sever is in production.
It doesn't need to be run. Just the installation makes destabilizing
More information about the freebsd-advocacy