[svlug] RE: WC:>: Open Source Philosophy Model?

[Rafael Skodlar]

On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Bob Munck wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: listman at just4u.com On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec
> > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 1998 5:26 AM
> 
> 
> > 	- Linux is already vastly superior to Windows NT.  Microsoft
> > 	has no hope of catching up because 

Correct!

> 
> >(a) they don't have the resources
> 
> Pardon me?  MS has some 11,000 people in R&D, annual profits of

11,000? Oh man. They sabotage each other.

> $4,500,000,000.  How big is Linux, maybe 5,000 function points?

So what? They should be ashamed to come up with such a crap [NT] (I can
prove it in the first minute after the bootup) with so many people while
Linux got developed by a bunch of unpaid cool heads.

> MS could start from scratch and build a completely new OS of the
> same level of functionality in six months with a tenth of those
> resources.
> 

They can't get the current code in place much less design it from
scratch. Get real.

> 
> > and (b) NT's design is fundamentally unsound.

Sysadmins with any knowledge of computers know that.

> 
> In what way?  I'd agree that NT and Win98 have had way too much
> crap piled on top of them, as have Mac OS, Solaris, and even Unix,

On Solaris you are not forced to install everything like you do in NT.
Solaris is just fine and when NT gets half close come back to brag about
it.

> but NT's fundamental design was done by some very sharp people

who were pushed around by marketing ploy=promise that the OS will run DOS
programs so that people won't need to buy new programs. What a bunch of
lies! I can run old programs on Solaris most of the time. Try runing DOG
programs on NT! That's where fundamentals come into picture. Unix was
designed on a multitasking multiuser arhitecture. Windog came out of a
PCjr and that's where it belongs.

Perhaps those "sharp people" are taking a revenge on MS. Unfortunately, we
are the victims one way or the other.

> based on their experience doing MACH and with Unix and VMS before

What a shame they couldn't come out with something better.

> that.  I've been designing and studying operating systems for a
> bunch of years, and there isn't much in the guts of NT that I
> would do differently, and nothing that I would call "unsound."

Good for you. My experience with sound on NT is not very good. One of my
programers complained recently that the sound stoped working. All by
itself. We disabled the SB card, rebooted (of course!) your superior OS
screamed "new hardware found" asked for a CD, reinstalled a bunch of files
that were on the HD already and started to work again.

Ever disabled and enabled TCP/IP drivers in Network setup on windoze
because of "minor problems"? You need a CD to do that, same goes for any
other config change!!! 

> 
> Bob Munck
> 

All I want on NT is decent basic tools to do the sysadmin work. 

Basic stuff doesn't work reliably. Copy in Exploder on NT system fails all
the time. That's basics! I don't want (or have time) to snoop around MS
site to find out what patch I need to get the Exploder working. I wanted
to copy one partition to a removable SyQuest cartridge.  I tried it
different ways, the system locked up every single time. The same SyQuest
drive works on a Sparcstation without any problem. No special drivers
needed on Unix like you need in Wxx, etc. My Linux boxes handle SyQuest
drives (IDE and SCSI)  without any problems. And I can do most of the
sysadmin work remotely.

Need more? Windoze need printer drivers on all machines. How foolish!

Don't talk about good design at the same time you talk about NT!

   Rafael



--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo at svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe