当前在线人数15751
is NT's architecture really advanc - 未名空间精华区
首页 - 版面精华区 - 新闻中心精华区 - 科技新闻版精华区 - 精华区文章阅读 首页
未名交友
[更多]
[更多]
is NT's architecture really advanc

发信人: moi (最后一个莫西干人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 11:33:15 2000), 转信

someone is always talking about NT's more advanced architecture.

but we all know that from the begining, M$FT want its NT somewhat compatible
with DOS, (such as the driver letter, etc), which is definitely not a advanced
one.

so after such comprimise, can it still be as advanced as it claims?


fortunely, unix did not have such a poor-tech burden from its begining.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.238.42.181]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:11:03 2000), 转信

that was clearly a mistake.
NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
It is designed from scratch, a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system
(or as it claims. xixi, never give up any chance of bashing NT^^) The MSDOS
ability is provided from VDM, Virtual DOs Machine, and it is just like other
user-mode process, getting paged and dispatched like all other threads.  It is
basically a DOS emulator under NT.
I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.

【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: someone is always talking about NT's more advanced architecture.
: but we all know that from the begining, M$FT want its NT somewhat compatible
: with DOS, (such as the driver letter, etc), which is definitely not a advanced
: one.
: so after such comprimise, can it still be as advanced as it claims?
: fortunely, unix did not have such a poor-tech burden from its begining.


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: moi (最后一个莫西干人), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:15:34 2000), 转信

no. my point is that to support some dos convention, just like the driver letter
NT has to make some compromise. this certainly will hurt NT.



【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: that was clearly a mistake.
: NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
: It is designed from scratch, a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system
: (or as it claims. xixi, never give up any chance of bashing NT^^) The MSDOS
: ability is provided from VDM, Virtual DOs Machine, and it is just like other
: user-mode process, getting paged and dispatched like all other threads.  It is
: basically a DOS emulator under NT.
: I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
: bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
: way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.
: 【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: : someone is always talking about NT's more advanced architecture.
: : but we all know that from the begining, M$FT want its NT somewhat compatible
: : with DOS, (such as the driver letter, etc), which is definitely not a advanced
: : one.
: : so after such comprimise, can it still be as advanced as it claims?
: : fortunely, unix did not have such a poor-tech burden from its begining.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.238.42.181]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:19:28 2000), 站内信件

【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: someone is always talking about NT's more advanced architecture.
: but we all know that from the begining, M$FT want its NT somewhat compatible
: with DOS, (such as the driver letter, etc), which is definitely not a advanced
: one.
: so after such comprimise, can it still be as advanced as it claims?

you cannot have it both ways. If NT didn't support DOS, Microsoft is
intentionally breaking competitors' compatibility; If It does support DOS,
it is inferior. What would you do?

: fortunely, unix did not have such a poor-tech burden from its begining.
Are you saying that Unix isn't burdened by legacy compatability issues?

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:21:20 2000), 站内信件

【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: that was clearly a mistake.
: NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)

No, DOS is a beautiful OS: small, fast, low-overhead. Did I say it is small? :)

: I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
: bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
: way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.

so, NT itself doesn't suck. The marketing does, right?

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:22:41 2000), 转信

When DOS crashes, which it often does, you will have to press the power button.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : that was clearly a mistake.
: : NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
: No, DOS is a beautiful OS: small, fast, low-overhead. Did I say it is small? :)
: : I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
: : bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
: : way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.
: so, NT itself doesn't suck. The marketing does, right?
No, NT still sucks. Its kernel doesn't.
and Microsoft sucks.. as usual!

--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:23:47 2000), 站内信件

【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: no. my point is that to support some dos convention, just like the driver letter
: NT has to make some compromise. this certainly will hurt NT.

every OS makes compromises of some kind here and there. That by itself doesn't
the particular OS bad.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:28:18 2000), 转信

Nothing wrong with the drive letter. You are not getting the point.
Drive letter can be easily mapped to, say Devices (/dev/hda) in Linux. It is wrong
that they are set to be global resources that everyone, not only administrator
can access. It is a security design flaw.
【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: no. my point is that to support some dos convention, just like the driver letter
: NT has to make some compromise. this certainly will hurt NT.
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : that was clearly a mistake.
: : NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
: : It is designed from scratch, a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system
: : (or as it claims. xixi, never give up any chance of bashing NT^^) The MSDOS
: : ability is provided from VDM, Virtual DOs Machine, and it is just like other
: : user-mode process, getting paged and dispatched like all other threads.  It is
: : basically a DOS emulator under NT.
: : I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
: : bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
: : way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:31:17 2000), 站内信件

【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: No, NT still sucks. Its kernel doesn't.
: and Microsoft sucks.. as usual!

OK. we are making progress here. so the kernel is
fine.

is it fair to say that Unix is more comparable to
NT kernel than NT itself? or NT is closer to
Unix kernel + GUI?

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: trajan (笨), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:32:48 2000), 站内信件

【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: that was clearly a mistake.
: NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
: It is designed from scratch, a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system
: (or as it claims. xixi, never give up any chance of bashing NT^^) The MSDOS
: ability is provided from VDM, Virtual DOs Machine, and it is just like other
: user-mode process, getting paged and dispatched like all other threads.  It is
: basically a DOS emulator under NT.

If you have the NT DDK, you can see a lot of code from 1980s, taken out of
Windows 1.0/2.0, I presume.

--
  天地不仁               诸行无常

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 156.153.255.170]
发信人: trajan (笨), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:34:32 2000), 站内信件

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : No, NT still sucks. Its kernel doesn't.
: : and Microsoft sucks.. as usual!
: OK. we are making progress here. so the kernel is
: fine.
: is it fair to say that Unix is more comparable to
: NT kernel than NT itself? or NT is closer to
: Unix kernel + GUI?

I would say it is closer to CP/M kernel + GUI.

--
  天地不仁               诸行无常

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 156.153.255.170]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:39:26 2000), 转信

hmm?
All OS kernels are alike. they all have some kind of process scheduling
management system, file system, memory management, and IO management.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : No, NT still sucks. Its kernel doesn't.
: : and Microsoft sucks.. as usual!
: OK. we are making progress here. so the kernel is
: fine.
: is it fair to say that Unix is more comparable to
: NT kernel than NT itself? or NT is closer to
: Unix kernel + GUI?


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:44:18 2000), 站内信件

【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: hmm?
: All OS kernels are alike. they all have some kind of process scheduling
: management system, file system, memory management, and IO management.

sorry, I wasn't clear. Is it your opinion, after reading the NT
book, that the NT kernel is comparable, in terms of architecture,
stability, performance measures, etc., to modern Unix ?

Keep in your mind that we are NOT talking about GUI, or anything like that.


: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : OK. we are making progress here. so the kernel is
: : fine.
: : is it fair to say that Unix is more comparable to
: : NT kernel than NT itself? or NT is closer to
: : Unix kernel + GUI?


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: yunli (千里快哉风★心如★紫薇), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:44:45 2000) WWW-POST

Wow! This is the most reasonable post so far from you, not
much emotional words. I (or all other listeners) really
thank you for that. magicfat would be pleased too, I think.

Yun



【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: that was clearly a mistake.
: NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
: It is designed from scratch, a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system
: (or as it claims. xixi, never give up any chance of bashing NT^^) The MSDOS
: ability is provided from VDM, Virtual DOs Machine, and it is just like other
: user-mode process, getting paged and dispatched like all other threads.  It is
: basically a DOS emulator under NT.
: I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
: bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
: way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.
:
: 【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: : someone is always talking about NT's more advanced architecture.
: : but we all know that from the begining, M$FT want its NT somewhat compatible
: : with DOS, (such as the driver letter, etc), which is definitely not a advanced
: : one.
: : so after such comprimise, can it still be as advanced as it claims?
: : fortunely, unix did not have such a poor-tech burden from its begining.
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: edocs.com]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:45:52 2000), 转信

Should I be happy or sad? -_-;;

【 在 yunli (千里快哉风★心如★紫薇) 的大作中提到: 】
: Wow! This is the most reasonable post so far from you, not
: much emotional words. I (or all other listeners) really
: thank you for that. magicfat would be pleased too, I think.
: Yun
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : that was clearly a mistake.
: : NT is nothing like DOS. (though they both suck hahaha ^_^)
: : It is designed from scratch, a 32-bit preemptive multi-tasking operating system
: : (or as it claims. xixi, never give up any chance of bashing NT^^) The MSDOS
: : ability is provided from VDM, Virtual DOs Machine, and it is just like other
: : user-mode process, getting paged and dispatched like all other threads.  It is
: : basically a DOS emulator under NT.
: : I was reading NT's OS design last night, and it really doesn't seem to be a
: : bad kernel at all. If it had gone into the right way, instead of the marketting
: : way Gates wanted it to be, it could have been great. //sigh.


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: microbe (奇妙的微生物), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:47:57 2000), 站内信件


No, I don't think NT was meant for backward compatibility, that's why
it's called NewTech.  MSFT is clever enough that it has multiple product
families that fits different needs.  NT was meant for high end servers.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 moi (最后一个莫西干人) 的大作中提到: 】
: : someone is always talking about NT's more advanced architecture.
: : but we all know that from the begining, M$FT want its NT somewhat compatible
: : with DOS, (such as the driver letter, etc), which is definitely not a advanced
: : one.
: : so after such comprimise, can it still be as advanced as it claims?
: you cannot have it both ways. If NT didn't support DOS, Microsoft is
: intentionally breaking competitors' compatibility; If It does support DOS,
: it is inferior. What would you do?
: : fortunely, unix did not have such a poor-tech burden from its begining.
: Are you saying that Unix isn't burdened by legacy compatability issues?


--
我在门外坐了两天两夜,看着天空在不断的变化。
我才发现,虽然我到这里很久,却从来没有看清楚这片沙漠。

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.59.20.139]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:49:11 2000), 转信

Unlike LInux, NT is not just a kernel. NT (distribution) is consisted of kernel
+ all the sub systems. Strip all the DLLs, you get nothing left. It is more like
in the case of FreeBSD or other BSDs, where the whole distribution counts as
the name.
Linux is different. linux = the kernel. You can add whatever you want on top
of it. IT doesn't matter the performance because most of the functionalities
are done inside that monolithic kernel.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : hmm?
: : All OS kernels are alike. they all have some kind of process scheduling
: : management system, file system, memory management, and IO management.
: sorry, I wasn't clear. Is it your opinion, after reading the NT
: book, that the NT kernel is comparable, in terms of architecture,
: stability, performance measures, etc., to modern Unix ?
: Keep in your mind that we are NOT talking about GUI, or anything like that.


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:52:46 2000), 转信

right.. try any of your favorite dos games, and see if they work on NT.

【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: No, I don't think NT was meant for backward compatibility, that's why
: it's called NewTech.  MSFT is clever enough that it has multiple product
: families that fits different needs.  NT was meant for high end servers.
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : you cannot have it both ways. If NT didn't support DOS, Microsoft is
: : intentionally breaking competitors' compatibility; If It does support DOS,
: : it is inferior. What would you do?
: : Are you saying that Unix isn't burdened by legacy compatability issues?


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:55:48 2000), 站内信件

excellent. It is better than I thought.

So let's not strip NT of its GUI, and a fair comparison should be
NT vs. Linux +GUI?

what is  your opinion, in terms of architecture, stability, performance
measures, etc., of NT vs. Linux + KDE/Gnome (let's pick two most
popular GUIs on Linux)? Whom would you pick as a winner and why?

【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: Unlike LInux, NT is not just a kernel. NT (distribution) is consisted of kernel
: + all the sub systems. Strip all the DLLs, you get nothing left. It is more like
: in the case of FreeBSD or other BSDs, where the whole distribution counts as
: the name.
: Linux is different. linux = the kernel. You can add whatever you want on top
: of it. IT doesn't matter the performance because most of the functionalities
: are done inside that monolithic kernel.
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : sorry, I wasn't clear. Is it your opinion, after reading the NT
: : book, that the NT kernel is comparable, in terms of architecture,
: : stability, performance measures, etc., to modern Unix ?
: : Keep in your mind that we are NOT talking about GUI, or anything like that.


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: ayanami (丑丑的甲亢), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 12:59:50 2000), 转信

Wo Faint
I didn't say NT is the kernel + "GUI", I said NT is the kernel + subsystems.
Mind you, the subsystems consist of lots of branches, rather than GUI which
is a minor point.
Let's compare NT with all its subsystems and Linux + all the GNU tools. Then
let's compare who is better. now that is fair. oR better yet, compare
NT and BSDs if you think compare a monster size OS with a kernel size OS + tools
isn't fair.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: excellent. It is better than I thought.
: So let's not strip NT of its GUI, and a fair comparison should be
: NT vs. Linux +GUI?
: what is  your opinion, in terms of architecture, stability, performance
: measures, etc., of NT vs. Linux + KDE/Gnome (let's pick two most
: popular GUIs on Linux)? Whom would you pick as a winner and why?
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Unlike LInux, NT is not just a kernel. NT (distribution) is consisted of kernel
: : + all the sub systems. Strip all the DLLs, you get nothing left. It is more like
: : in the case of FreeBSD or other BSDs, where the whole distribution counts as
: : the name.
: : Linux is different. linux = the kernel. You can add whatever you want on top
: : of it. IT doesn't matter the performance because most of the functionalities
: : are done inside that monolithic kernel.


--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 64.252.67.138]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 13:03:29 2000), 站内信件

【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: Wo Faint
: I didn't say NT is the kernel + "GUI", I said NT is the kernel + subsystems.
: Mind you, the subsystems consist of lots of branches, rather than GUI which
: is a minor point.
: Let's compare NT with all its subsystems and Linux + all the GNU tools. Then
: let's compare who is better. now that is fair. oR better yet, compare
: NT and BSDs if you think compare a monster size OS with a kernel size OS + tools
: isn't fair.

that's is fine with me as well. so which would you pick as a winner
and why?

: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : excellent. It is better than I thought.
: : So let's not strip NT of its GUI, and a fair comparison should be
: : NT vs. Linux +GUI?
: : what is  your opinion, in terms of architecture, stability, performance
: : measures, etc., of NT vs. Linux + KDE/Gnome (let's pick two most
: : popular GUIs on Linux)? Whom would you pick as a winner and why?


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.7]
发信人: microbe (奇妙的微生物), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 14:15:34 2000), 站内信件

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: excellent. It is better than I thought.
: So let's not strip NT of its GUI, and a fair comparison should be
: NT vs. Linux +GUI?

No, it's not, unless you can run NT as a server without GUI.

: what is  your opinion, in terms of architecture, stability, performance
: measures, etc., of NT vs. Linux + KDE/Gnome (let's pick two most
: popular GUIs on Linux)? Whom would you pick as a winner and why?
: 【 在 ayanami (丑丑的甲亢) 的大作中提到: 】
: : Unlike LInux, NT is not just a kernel. NT (distribution) is consisted of kernel
: : + all the sub systems. Strip all the DLLs, you get nothing left. It is more like
: : in the case of FreeBSD or other BSDs, where the whole distribution counts as
: : the name.
: : Linux is different. linux = the kernel. You can add whatever you want on top
: : of it. IT doesn't matter the performance because most of the functionalities
: : are done inside that monolithic kernel.


--
我在门外坐了两天两夜,看着天空在不断的变化。
我才发现,虽然我到这里很久,却从来没有看清楚这片沙漠。

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.59.20.139]
发信人: qili (qili), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 14:27:13 2000), 站内信件

【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : excellent. It is better than I thought.
: : So let's not strip NT of its GUI, and a fair comparison should be
: : NT vs. Linux +GUI?
: No, it's not, unless you can run NT as a server without GUI.

I don't quite understand this. Because Linux kernel itself
lacks a built-in GUI, we have two alternatives:
a) strip NT of its GUI: not possible now, but Microsoft does have
plans to introduce a embeded version of NT that will not have GUI.
b) lay a GUI on top of Linux: feasible right now, and that is
why my proposal.

I do agree with you that it wouldn't faire to compare Linux
against NT.

--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 206.189.24.10]
发信人: microbe (奇妙的微生物), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 14:33:49 2000), 站内信件


The question is, do we need *integrated* GUI for servers?

For desktops, I agree with you; but for servers, I suspect.

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: : No, it's not, unless you can run NT as a server without GUI.
: I don't quite understand this. Because Linux kernel itself
: lacks a built-in GUI, we have two alternatives:
: a) strip NT of its GUI: not possible now, but Microsoft does have
: plans to introduce a embeded version of NT that will not have GUI.
: b) lay a GUI on top of Linux: feasible right now, and that is
: why my proposal.
: I do agree with you that it wouldn't faire to compare Linux
: against NT.


--
我在门外坐了两天两夜,看着天空在不断的变化。
我才发现,虽然我到这里很久,却从来没有看清楚这片沙漠。

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 128.59.20.139]
发信人: loggie (四真大螺 饭吃三碗 倒头能着), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 16:00:11 2000), 站内信件

I guess the new win2k datacenter is designed to run as a server with little
help from its powerful GUI, and it is basically NT 5.

【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : excellent. It is better than I thought.
: : So let's not strip NT of its GUI, and a fair comparison should be
: : NT vs. Linux +GUI?
: No, it's not, unless you can run NT as a server without GUI.
: : what is  your opinion, in terms of architecture, stability, performance
: : measures, etc., of NT vs. Linux + KDE/Gnome (let's pick two most
: : popular GUIs on Linux)? Whom would you pick as a winner and why?


--
厚积薄发, 秉诚度世

※ 修改:.loggie 于 Sep  8 16:22:40 修改本文.[FROM: 171.71.138.217]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 171.71.138.217]
发信人: loggie (四真大螺 饭吃三碗 倒头能着), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 16:12:41 2000), 站内信件

as some additional info, NT has an embedded version called NT for Embedded
Systems, it was released last summer. but its sale was a disaster, MSFT was
originally planning to sell it for highend wince devices, one of the potential
customer was sony, sony broke up the negotiation and now NT embeded is nothing
but a hack of codes sleeping there. :) some small firms were trying to make
NT embedded as their os to develop industrial automation applcation when i
heard the release last summer, from then on, no big news from them.

as shown on MSFT's webpage, Nortel used NT embedded to develop IP telephony
manager platform, i guess it is more like GUI extensive application. :)

【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: 【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: : No, it's not, unless you can run NT as a server without GUI.
: I don't quite understand this. Because Linux kernel itself
: lacks a built-in GUI, we have two alternatives:
: a) strip NT of its GUI: not possible now, but Microsoft does have
: plans to introduce a embeded version of NT that will not have GUI.
: b) lay a GUI on top of Linux: feasible right now, and that is
: why my proposal.
: I do agree with you that it wouldn't faire to compare Linux
: against NT.


--
厚积薄发, 秉诚度世

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 171.71.138.217]
发信人: loggie (四真大螺 饭吃三碗 倒头能着), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 16:19:57 2000), 站内信件

but now, in order to compete with windows as many people would like to see
and would like to bet, you have to make linux compete with windows at desktop
level. meanwhile, MSFT is pushing harder into high-end market. NT is as
powerful as existing *nix systems, the only problem is that it has to evolute
and makes all existing minor bugs eliminated.

so, if linux community is still thinking in those "elite" ways and advocates
with harshing and hatred, well, it would be doomed to be a failure imho.
serious efforts should be taken so that plain user interests can be reflected
and application depository should be enriched. otherwises, it is really hard
to fight back with the "death-star". :)))

【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: The question is, do we need *integrated* GUI for servers?
: For desktops, I agree with you; but for servers, I suspect.
: 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : I don't quite understand this. Because Linux kernel itself
: : lacks a built-in GUI, we have two alternatives:
: : a) strip NT of its GUI: not possible now, but Microsoft does have
: : plans to introduce a embeded version of NT that will not have GUI.
: : b) lay a GUI on top of Linux: feasible right now, and that is
: : why my proposal.
: : I do agree with you that it wouldn't faire to compare Linux
: : against NT.


--
厚积薄发, 秉诚度世

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: 171.71.138.217]
发信人: dbint (dbint), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Fri Sep  8 21:35:26 2000) WWW-POST

what do you think those linux guys working for other than
hatred?
if they really want to "contribute" to industry, they'll
stop bashing m$ and focus on their work. hehe, we need to
make money from software. can't believe any idiot saying
linux is superior to NT in Architecture, he must be a nuts.

【 在 loggie (四真大螺 饭吃三碗 倒头能着) 的大作中提到: 】
: but now, in order to compete with windows as many people would like to see
: and would like to bet, you have to make linux compete with windows at desktop
: level. meanwhile, MSFT is pushing harder into high-end market. NT is as
: powerful as existing *nix systems, the only problem is that it has to evolute
: and makes all existing minor bugs eliminated.
:
: so, if linux community is still thinking in those "elite" ways and advocates
: with harshing and hatred, well, it would be doomed to be a failure imho.
: serious efforts should be taken so that plain user interests can be reflected
: and application depository should be enriched. otherwises, it is really hard
: to fight back with the "death-star". :)))
:
: 【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
: : The question is, do we need *integrated* GUI for servers?
: : For desktops, I agree with you; but for servers, I suspect.
: : 【 在 qili (qili) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : I don't quite understand this. Because Linux kernel itself
: : : lacks a built-in GUI, we have two alternatives:
: : : a) strip NT of its GUI: not possible now, but Microsoft does have
: : : plans to introduce a embeded version of NT that will not have GUI.
: : : b) lay a GUI on top of Linux: feasible right now, and that is
: : : why my proposal.
: : : I do agree with you that it wouldn't faire to compare Linux
: : : against NT.
:
:


--
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: tide88.microsof]
发信人: magicfat (魔法胖子~痛扁Jungle的基地), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Sep 10 01:35:14 2000) WWW-POST

【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: No, I don't think NT was meant for backward compatibility, that's why
: it's called NewTech.  MSFT is clever enough that it has multiple product
: families that fits different needs.  NT was meant for high end servers.

NT were definitely meant less for backward compatibility than the 9x
line.  Yet I believe there are still some compromise between
compatibility and other issues.  For example, NT still supports
FAT.

NT 4 actually tried to make itself more backward compatible(and faster),
by allowing some subsystems to access hardward directly.  That
was probably part of MS' effort to merge the NT and 98 lines.  I always
thought that was not a wise decision because it did bring up certain
reliability and security issues, while the goal of mergine code base
wasn't achieved either.

--
他号令便号令好了,又何必安静?

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: ]
发信人: magicfat (魔法胖子~痛扁Jungle的基地), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Sep 10 01:39:59 2000) WWW-POST

【 在 yunli (千里快哉风★心如★紫薇) 的大作中提到: 】
: Wow! This is the most reasonable post so far from you, not
: much emotional words. I (or all other listeners) really
: thank you for that. magicfat would be pleased too, I think.

Yes, aya did suprise me.  8-)
But aya is still paranoid.  It's like "well your
mouth looks sexy, but you are still an ugly one overall,
yeah, you are ugly anyway"
(aya, just kidding....  8-)

--
他号令便号令好了,又何必安静?

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: ]
发信人: magicfat (魔法胖子~痛扁Jungle的基地), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Sep 10 01:42:14 2000) WWW-POST

【 在 trajan (笨) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: If you have the NT DDK, you can see a lot of code from 1980s, taken out of
: Windows 1.0/2.0, I presume.

I doubt, considering the total number of lines of code
of NT/W2K today, even if they had taken all the orginal
code from Windows 1.0/2.0(oh yeah CP/M), how much it could
weigh in the whole thing.

--
他号令便号令好了,又何必安静?

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: ]
发信人: magicfat (魔法胖子~痛扁Jungle的基地), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Sep 10 01:50:16 2000) WWW-POST

【 在 microbe (奇妙的微生物) 的大作中提到: 】
:
: The question is, do we need *integrated* GUI for servers?
:
: For desktops, I agree with you; but for servers, I suspect.

You can run NT without GUI.  If you set the registry
properly,
you will go right into the Command Prompt after system boots
up(well it still goes thru the login GUI).

I still agree that NT's GUI is integrated in NT, though.
But I don't think it is integrated into NT's kernel.


--
他号令便号令好了,又何必安静?

※ 修改:·magicfat 於 Sep 10 01:50:16 修改本文·[FROM: ]
※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: ]
发信人: magicfat (魔法胖子~痛扁Jungle的基地), 信区: ITnews
标  题: Re: is NT's architecture really advanced?
发信站: The unknown SPACE (Sun Sep 10 01:57:02 2000) WWW-POST

【 在 dbint (dbint) 的大作中提到: 】
: what do you think those linux guys working for other than
: hatred?
: if they really want to "contribute" to industry, they'll
: stop bashing m$ and focus on their work. hehe, we need to
: make money from software. can't believe any idiot saying
: linux is superior to NT in Architecture, he must be a nuts.

Sigh, that is another way of being emotional -- the other way
around.  We just can't keep ourselves from throwing flames
around, can we?

Well I believe most Linux guys, as well as most Open Source
guys, are working for some of their ideal.  It is just
whether their ideal will become real, tech wise and business
wise.

--
他号令便号令好了,又何必安静?

※ 来源:.The unknown SPACE bbs.mit.edu.[FROM: ]

[返回]
赞助链接
未名交友
将您的链接放在这儿
 

Site Map - Contact Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

版权所有,未名空间(mitbbs.com),since 1996