Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:34:52 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "Andre` Niel Cameron" <AndreC@Axxs.net>, "Steve Brown" <gtabug@prayforwind.com>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: home pc use Message-ID: <008a01c171fa$7110be90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <3BF9B12B.3D521A4D@nycap.rr.com> <0111191831240Q.60958@chip.wiegand.org> <20011119220243.A268@prayforwind.com> <009a01c171a9$4eedbee0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120061026.A2767@prayforwind.com> <014601c171d2$22ada240$a50410ac@olmct.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
André writes: > I just thought I would add that out of Linux > (RH6.2 or 7.1) Windows (95/98/98SE/ME) and > FreeBSD 4.x FreeBSD wins hands down everytime. No surprise there. All of the consumer Windows products are fairly unstable, and they always have been. Windows 9x and its descendants were a considerable improvement over 16-bit Windows, but the fundamental architectural defects that caused the instability remained. Windows NT/2000 are far more stable, but I suspect that FreeBSD and some other UNIX variants still have the edge, simply because they are simpler operating systems, with less to go wrong. As for Linux, I haven't used it, but given the way it is cobbled together, I'm surprised it runs at all. It still amazes me that production systems are being entrusted to such a hodgepodge of code. Running X under UNIX is a separate issue; I suspect that is no more stable than latter-day versions of Windows. It takes a huge amount of resources to provide a GUI, and most developers yield to the temptation to take shortcuts in the code, too--shortcuts that bypass the OS for performance reasons, and compromise security and stability in the system in so doing. > I agree that KDE is a bit heavy on the system, > but its worth it weight. If you are running KDE on your own desktop, using FreeBSD as essentially a single-user system, that might be true. But it is extremely wasteful on a multiuser system. I would not run any X server on a large system with many users connected; let the users gobble resources on their own workstations, not on the central system. Then again, I'm not sure where you'd run X servers in a multiuser environment--where else is there besides the console? > I think one of my favorite things about BSD > is that when I change things its often as simple > as editing a text file. I like this, too. All the tabs and dialog boxes and what-not of Windows are pretty to look at and friendly for the total novice, but for day-to-day administration, they are a source of inefficiency and frustration for seasoned administrators. And it's virtually impossible to efficiently administer a Windows server remotely. Tweaking the Windows registry is a pain, too. > I found that enjoyable as often with bulky windows > simple config tasks often required the dreaded > reboot:). Yet another advantage of FreeBSD. Actually, at least in theory, very little in Windows requires a reboot, particularly on the industrial-grade Windows systems, such as NT and 2000 (and XP, I guess). But most Windows software is so poorly designed that it modifies or overwrites system files that cannot be reloaded without a boot, so booting is necessary; this is more likely to be the case on the consumer versions, because they aren't as resilient as the professional versions. And when you boot, there's always the chance that whatever change the last software installation made will prevent the system from coming back up, in which case you are very nearly dead in the water. The way I see it, you should never have to boot an operating system at all to make changes, unless you are literally reloading wired kernel modules that simply cannot be taken out of execution (e.g., a dispatcher). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?008a01c171fa$7110be90$0a00000a>