Why it's a good thing FreeBSD isn't as popular as Linux

Why it's a good thing FreeBSD isn't as popular as Linux

Post by Donn Mille » Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:00:00



http://www.veryComputer.com/,4153,1015266,00.html

I'd like to thank Linux for being the sacrificial lamb, and
taking the spotlight away from FreeBSD.  That's the thing about
running a hugely popular OS like Linux -- people start to attack
you from all sides.  Maybe it's good FreeBSD is less popular?

Even though this is Linux and not FreeBSD, this whole thing about
"NT is better" is starting to worry me.  It looks like NT, even
if it is better, is only better in the Networking only
categories.  What about other intangibles like stability, uptime,
and configurability?

Sh*t, even if NT is better, where do you all suppose the
networking code came from?  Maybe the title of the article should
be "NT beats Linux with Networking code they licensed from
Berkeley".  God only knows what other pieces of code MS stole
from other OSes.

FreeBSD might fare better in such tests, but the bottom line is
MS is starting to compare their megabuck software against free
software, especially free UNICES.  Tell me which OS has more bang
for the buck?

BTW, I find it funny that MS's IIs server supposedly "beats"
Apache in a lab test, but yet every web site running this
overrated piece of garbage has given me problems at one time or
another, but yet Apache-run web sites that I visited seemed more
reliable.  IIs may be faster in a short block of time (as in a
lab test), but try measuring performance of the two over a long
block of time, and see which is more reliable.  Again, there has
to be a reason so many web sites run Apache with Linux over
NT/IIs.

Another thing:  the big joke is that NT is supposedly waaay
better, but compare the number of servers MS is using for FTP,
HTTP compared to what WC is running.  If NT is so scalable, then
why does MS use >126 servers to run their "super scalable OS and
web server" on?  In lab tests NT is better, but in the real
world, Microsoft loses.

So why is MS putting this *in front of our faces?  Does it
look I care if NT is better?  NT can be 10,000,000 times better
than any UNIX as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not taking out a
loan so I can buy NT.

--
  Donn

 
 
 

Why it's a good thing FreeBSD isn't as popular as Linux

Post by Gregory LeBar » Sun, 04 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

> Sh*t, even if NT is better, where do you all suppose the
> networking code came from?  Maybe the title of the article should
> be "NT beats Linux with Networking code they licensed from
> Berkeley".  God only knows what other pieces of code MS stole
> from other OSes.

Are you sure about this? I had heard that NT was designed by
Dave Cotler (sp?) who was the lead designer for VAX/VMS. Can
anyone confirm?

I've also heard the story (very likely apocryphal) that someone
pointed out that WNT<<1 == VMS (a la HAL>>1 == IBM) and Dave's
response was "I wondered how long it would take for someone
to notice".

 
 
 

Why it's a good thing FreeBSD isn't as popular as Linux

Post by Pascal Gieng » Sun, 04 Jul 1999 04:00:00




>> Sh*t, even if NT is better, where do you all suppose the
>> networking code came from?  Maybe the title of the article should
>> be "NT beats Linux with Networking code they licensed from
>> Berkeley".  God only knows what other pieces of code MS stole
>> from other OSes.

>Are you sure about this? I had heard that NT was designed by
>Dave Cotler (sp?) who was the lead designer for VAX/VMS. Can
>anyone confirm?

He wrote _networking code_. Do a strings in *TCP*.DLL of your
Windows-System-Directory. Funny strings like "(c) The Regents of ...." will
appear.
TCP/IP of 95/NT is based on BSD 4.3 (!). Now they are at Reno II (BSD 4.4-L).
So they took 5 years (!) to port Reno II tcp-code to Win32.

Pascal
--
Unix,   Pascal Gienger, Moosstr. 7 /\ 7 .rtssooM ,regneiG lacsaP    xinU
Networx            78467 Konstanz /  \ znatsnoK 76487            xrowteN

    T: +49 7531 52709, F: 52739 /      \ 93725 :F ,90725 1357 94+ :T

 
 
 

Why it's a good thing FreeBSD isn't as popular as Linux

Post by jdm » Sun, 04 Jul 1999 04:00:00




says...

>> Sh*t, even if NT is better, where do you all suppose the
>> networking code came from?  Maybe the title of the article should
>> be "NT beats Linux with Networking code they licensed from
>> Berkeley".  God only knows what other pieces of code MS stole
>> from other OSes.

>Are you sure about this? I had heard that NT was designed by
>Dave Cotler (sp?) who was the lead designer for VAX/VMS. Can
>anyone confirm?

>I've also heard the story (very likely apocryphal) that someone
>pointed out that WNT<<1 == VMS (a la HAL>>1 == IBM) and Dave's
>response was "I wondered how long it would take for someone
>to notice".

NT was designed by the same people who created VM/370 for IBM.  Gates
hired them away from Big Blue in the early 80's.

jdm

 
 
 

Why it's a good thing FreeBSD isn't as popular as Linux

Post by Andy Newm » Mon, 05 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:> Are you sure about this? I had heard that NT was designed by
> Dave Cotler (sp?) who was the lead designer for VAX/VMS. Can
> anyone confirm?

Cutler is his name. And they probably had reasonable sense to start
the TCP/IP from the available sources. The core NT developers aren't
stupid (misguided maybe but not stupid). When I had the (mis) fortune
to write a stack I read the BSD code very carefully to ensure it was
doing the things I thought the RFCs stated it should do (and it almost
did). An ex-colleague who has early access to WinNT developments assured
me the NT 2000 stack has the same external ``signature'' as FreeeBSD.
Those tools can be fooled (ref. Turing's ``The Impersonation Game'') but
I wouldn't be surprised. Lots of people have done it (check out half the
embedded systems that have IP). The NT signature stuff was quite a while
ago (before the public releases as far as I'm aware) so take it with a
grain of salt.