From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 17 17:51:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1FA16A4CE for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:51:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2E243D4C for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:51:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 62F711C0009D for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:51:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 41C3E1C00094 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:51:06 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050217175106269.41C3E1C00094@mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:51:05 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <128456842.20050217185105@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641B03@mvaexch01.acuson.com> <1613371449.20050216040529@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: SPAM: Score 3.7: Re: Instead of freebsd. com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:51:08 -0000 Sander Vesik writes: > Specificly, care to compare an average 1980s unix to > WinNT, especially WinNT 3.5 and the modern enterprise versions and > point out which part of which is more suitable for what? The WinNT core is (or was) suitable for server use. It still retains many elements of the design that was intended to make it suitable for that use. But the GUI is a major obstacle to deployment, and a major destabilizing influence, especially in the more recent releases of the OS. > In such a case, *NAME* those requirements. I already have. > Security does not conflict with the needs ... I'm afraid it does. There's always a direct conflict between security and user-friendliness, and between security and compatibility, and between security and performance. On desktops, security is sacrificed in favor of these other characteristics. On servers, security is enhanced to the detriment of these other characteristics. > Installing itself does not destabilize a server as it doesn't imply > running an X server while teh sever is in production. It doesn't need to be run. Just the installation makes destabilizing changes. -- Anthony