Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:54:42 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <20050214075442.GA95608@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <156527043.20050212140322@wanadoo.fr> References: <1337541312.20050212132519@wanadoo.fr> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEGHFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <156527043.20050212140322@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-02-12 14:03, Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >Ted Mittelstaedt writes: >> How exactly does one do this when the NT kernel code isn't available >> for perusal? > > One gains access to the kernel code. Hmmm, how? > However, just observing the systems and studying their design tells a > lot as well. The NT kernel is very well designed. Very little can be said about a black box system. Even then, a great deal of this little stuff is purely hypothetical and based on a lot of unproven assumptions. Assumptions which may be true for version 3.14 of said software but fail miserably with 3.15. Now, when this is compared to something that is documented, clearly and visibly, in an open source tree... we can see why the apparent stability of NT is worth very little :-(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050214075442.GA95608>