Instead of, why not...

Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC chad at
Sat Feb 12 20:11:57 GMT 2005

On Feb 12, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>> The stabilities of NT-based systems and UNIX are roughly the same when
>> kernels are compared.
> How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available
> for perusal?
> Other than, of course, just running both and assuming that because
> neither
> happens to crash running a screensaver, that they must be roughly the
> same.
> That's a marketing comparison which has no value.

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$.  However, since that happened 
MS has dumped a ton of crap into 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.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list