Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:40:15 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux Message-ID: <762166945.20050215064015@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <77803d5ce17805187218b4cdfb6cc83d@HiWAAY.net> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEGIFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <77803d5ce17805187218b4cdfb6cc83d@HiWAAY.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Kelly writes: > Servers should also have the most reliable software but that is where > Microsoft cuts corners for additional profit and provide employment > for MSCE's whom otherwise would not be needed. No, Microsoft does not deliberately cut any corners, nor does it care about providing employment for MCSEs. Microsoft doesn't understand servers very well. Most people at Microsoft grew up using microcomputers, and that's all they know (sound familiar?). They truly have no idea of some of the constraints that apply to the server world. As a result, they don't build ideal server software. The closest they've come has been with the early versions of Windows NT, which had a very solid kernel. But since desktops seemed to be more lucrative than servers, they regularly gutted the OS with each new release in order to provide things like better game performance and a prettier GUI, destabilizing it and rendering it less secure. Today's NT-based kernel is much less "pure" than the original. Even so, Windows 200x is quite stable, stable enough to work in a server environment in many cases. I'd still prefer UNIX for maximum reliability and stability, but Windows does a respectable job for less critical applications. > There is no reason a server should not have a GUI so long as it does > not detract from the server's function. A GUI always detracts from a server's function. Nobody is sitting in front of a server, so spending a lot of resources on a pretty graphic interface is a complete waste, and it destabilizes the machine. This is something that Microsoft (and some other parties) have trouble understanding. > Use of a GUI to "dumb-down" the system doesn't work as Microsoft has > shown. That has never been an objective of Microsoft. Their servers have elaborate GUIs because the operating systems come from the desktop world, and won't function without a GUI. One of the most serious criticisms made of Windows in the server world is that you cannot run a Windows server without a GUI, and remote administration is an unbelievably awkward nightmare. > Apple is smart enough to pull it off ... Apple has no advantage over Microsoft in this respect. They are locking their own OS into a GUI, too. But they probably realize that their future is in desktops, not servers. > ... but all Microsoft has done is continue to guarantee employment for > MSCE's who continue to exclusively recommend any and everything > Microsoft who in turn continually ensures these champions stay > employed. As I've said, Microsoft doesn't care about employment of MCSEs. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?762166945.20050215064015>