Instead of, why not...

Anthony Atkielski atkielski.anthony at
Sat Feb 12 12:25:21 GMT 2005

Ted Mittelstaedt writes:

> Well now Michael, maybe his experience is only with NT 3.51 - that was
> pretty stable before Microsoft put the GUI into ring 0 to make all the
> gamers happy (in NT4)

Later versions of NT and its successors are also extremely stable,
although you're correct in that NT 3.51 had the "purest" kernel and the
greatest stability and security thereof.  Putting GUI functions into the
kernel and other related actions were huge steps backward.  A lot of the
code put into NT4 was copied wholesale from Windows 9x, and anyone who
has seen the source code of both operating systems knows just how scary
and depressing this is.

The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when
kernels are compared.  However, NT-based systems are more vulnerable to
badly-written applications than UNIX systems are, and that is entirely
the fault of Microsoft, which weakened the NT base deliberately
beginning with NT4 in order to court the desktop market.  This is one
reason why I wouldn't want to see FreeBSD make the same mistake.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list