Re: Switching to Windows NT

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin S. Socha <r.socha(at)control-risks.de>
To: hwg-software(at)hwg.org <hwg-software(at)hwg.org>
Date: dinsdag 4 augustus 1998 18:53
Subject: Re: Switching to Windows NT


>Incorrect. There is a Dos tool called ntfsdos which will mount NFTS disks
>- and Linux can mount them, too.

Interesting. Perhaps something I must keep in mind if I ever switch back to
NT.

>So much for "security", BTW.


Security doesn't come from the fact that no other OS can access NTFS-stores.
It comes from access rights which are password-protected.

>I've already given URLs for detailled discriptions of NT's utter lack
>of stability. But:


I did not follow these links. Their titles dd not inspire me with faith in
the impartiality of the authors.

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no "but still". NT is an
>operating environment that has promised "stability" for
>years. However, it can still be BSOD'ed by applications. Can you not
>see what this means?  An *application* killing the OS? Hello?  Do you
>have a "stop payment" on your reality check? I use Linux, Solaris and
>NetBSD. I have never seen any of these be crashed by an
>application.

Oh, I have. Solaris, more specifically. Crashed by Netscape Navigator.

>In fact, I have one Linux box that was booted before NT4
>hit the market. NT (and since we're talking about the Internet here, I
>presume) has no telnet,

In fact, it does. Telnet and FTP clients ship with Windows NT server and
workstation, as well as with Windows 95/98.

>it has no newsserver, it has no mailserver, it
>has no webserver.

Well, workstation (which is what I've used) doesn't NEED servers. Not meant
to BE a server.

>It doesn't even have a decent DNS.

Which, of course, workstaion doesn't need. As for server, isn't IIS
available for free?

>A bunch of mindless drones aka
>decision-makers have been bribed and brainwashed into believing it can
>come anywhere near any flavour of U*ix. Wrong. Free U*ices like Linux
>or the BSD family outperform NT in any respect you can think of:
>stability, security, scalabilitly, availability, support... you name
>it.

Availablility of the applications people already use. Organized support
services.
Hardware support (even you have to admit that hardware manufacturers support
Windows-OS'es before they support UNIXes, if they ever do).

I wouldn't make that claim about security. You never hear about major bugs
in UNIX'es, but is that because there aren't any, or because nobody is
trying to find them?

>The P100 64MB RAM I'm sitting at now will easily outperform a P200
>NT box.

Doing what? This is a completely meaningless statement.

>It will not be broken into, either.

Neither will my machine. Who would ever want to break into it? Meaningless
statement.

>And
>the software cost me $0.


What a coincidence.

Ben Z. Tels
optimusb(at)stack.nl
http://www.stack.nl/~optimusb/
UIN:2474460

"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle
forever."
                                        --Tsiolkovsky

HWG: hwg-software mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA