Article View: comp.sys.next.misc
Article #2225Re: NT: please define vapor.
From: Stephen E. Halpin
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:52
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:52
40 lines
2798 bytes
2798 bytes
In article <dillon.0noj@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes: >>In article <1992Sep13.053045.25655@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> halpin@vsg1.dsg.dec.com (Stephen E. Halpin) writes: >>>In article <jbone.716346951@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes: >> <<stuff deleted>> >>>I don't think that argument is refutable --- it's merely one >>>... >> >>UNIX is hell on wheels for your average user. Would you have your >>secretary writing up printcaps? True UNIX has a pathetic file system >>(fsck? BAHAHAHA!!!), doesnt support a standard uniform model for threads, > > Oh this is really funny... so you would rather use CHKDSK on a PC? <<tons o' stuff deleted>> The topic was Windows NT vs UNIX. Windows NT uses a log based file system, so it can rebuild itself completely after a crash. I recently came across an article indicating the Univel system will be using the same type of file system, so this may be a moot point. As for crashing, Ive had a number of of crashes on DOS, UNIX and VMS. Ive never had a DOS crash Norton couldnt fix. Ive never had a VMS crash where the basic boot process didnt restore the file system correctly. Ive had numerous problems with fsck on UNIX, and my experience indicates that UNIX is far more likely to require operator intervention if the power went down when no users were logged in. One of the neat things about UNIX is that it has no internals (:-) and its externals are easily duplicated. As a microkernel with personality modules (one of which is a POSIX module) you should have youre most important system calls available (though some NASTY \r <-> \n mapping problems) to build your favorite UNIX tools and shells. If someone can merge an X server into the POSIX environment the question becomes "if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, why are we still calling it a Pigeon?" Yes, it has shades of the "MACH as the next UNIX" argument, but Windows NT is in many ways the next MACH. > Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US > 1005 Apollo Way uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon > Incline Village, NV. 89451 ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop) > USA Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000 > -Steve
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep14.205254.17040@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!vsg1.dsg.dec.com!halpinReferences:
<jbone.716346951@splat> <1992Sep13.053045.25655@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <dillon.0noj@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!vsg1.dsg.dec.com!halpin From: halpin@vsg1.dsg.dec.com (Stephen E. Halpin) Subject: Re: NT: please define vapor. Message-ID: <1992Sep14.205254.17040@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> Sender: usenet@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (USENET News System) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation References: <jbone.716346951@splat> <1992Sep13.053045.25655@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <dillon.0noj@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:52:54 GMT Lines: 40