Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!frobozz!kevin
From: ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded comparison chart, version 2
References: <930818233207.23008@lambada> < CC2pM1.6Lp@frobozz.sccsi.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 08:09:29 GMT
Organization: Frobozzco International
Message-ID: < CC5Int.Ao5@frobozz.sccsi.com>
Lines: 162
Based on the comments I've received in the mail and on this forum, here's the
second version of the NT versus Linux comparison chart:
For Immediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison
------------------------------------------------------------
Feature NT Linux
------- -- -----
microkernel yes no (monolithic)
kernel size 50k 200k-500k
kernel+necessary
extensions to run ~500k+ 200k-500k
loadable device
drivers yes yes (available)
true dynamic link
libraries (DLL) yes yes (shared)
per-application DLLs yes yes, but unnecessary
due to paging.
integrated GUI no (loadable module) no (X11 executable
add-on)
networked window support no yes (X11)
drag and drop yes depends on GUI and/or
application
IPC support DDE sockets for local
and network IPC, fifos,
pipes
max chars in file name depends on filesystem depends on filesystem.
Most have 255.
max partition size limited, but probably large 64 meg -~2 gig,
(probably 2 gig or more) depending on
filesystem. Most have
~2 gig.
C2 securiy yes (see comments) no (implementable. You
have the source, right?)
multiuser no yes
process memory model flat flat
multiple platforms yes not currently. 680x0
under development
runs unix apps limited (source level, almost all (source
limited POSIX subset level)
only)
runs DOS apps yes some, via emulator
runs Windows apps yes not currently. Under
development.
kernel max addressable mem 2048 Gig 4 Gig
proc max addressable mem 4 Gig (???) 4 Gig
multimedia support DLLs application level only
(via DLLs possible)
QIC-80 support yes yes
minimum CPU 386DX-33 386sx-16
min required mem 12 meg 2 meg (4 meg w/ X)
min required disk space 60 meg 10-20 meg (base system)
40 meg (w/ X)
networking stable (reportedly stable
unstable in March beta)
price $110 (educational) $69 (SLS), free via
~$300 (normal price) ftp or BBS.
source available no yes
source price not applicable free
freely redistributable no yes
bug fix response time several months, minimum immediate. Several
weeks at most.
application availability limited to DOS, Windows DOS, Unix (almost all
source-available
applications)
coexists with other OSes yes yes
Comments:
- I don't think the Linux kernel is set up to address more than 4 gig
internally. You'd have to play with segment registers to access more
than that. Not that it matters at this point. By the time you have
that much memory (core + swap), you're running more than what the
fastest Pentium would be able to comfortably handle in most circumstances,
and you'll probably want a faster bus anyway.
- Linux wasn't designed at the outset to port to every piece of hardware
available. If you want that attribute, then perhaps this comparison should
be between BSD and NT. That Linux is being ported to the 680x0 is evidence
enough that it's at least somewhat portable.
- DDE is presumably higher level than the sockets, pipes, and other things
that you use under Unix. I don't know what this buys you, so I'll wait
for more comments to come in.
- Alan Cox reports that his March beta of NT had unstable networking. I
don't know if it's been fixed. So I've marked it as tentatively stable
until I find out otherwise (thus giving NT the benefit of the doubt).
- In general, I've been conservative about the NT entries since I've never
messed with it myself. I've preserved the original values where there
hasn't been comment.
- Linux partition sizes are not limited to the maximum size of a partition in
the partition table. A filesystem may reside on a device directly, thus
bypassing the partition mechanism. However, if you wish to partition a
device, you're going to be limited by the DOS partition table mechanism. I
don't know if NT has its own partitioning mechanism.
- If NT doesn't have networked window support (i.e., client/server model
windowing), then I don't see what the big hubbub about networking in NT
is all about. NFS, FTP, telnet, etc., are all nice and everything, but
it's old technology. So's client/server windowing, for that matter, but
that kind of windowing technology is a huge win in a windowed networking
environment, e.g. where you're running a bunch of workstations or, better
yet, a fast machine with lots of X terminals hanging off it. Of course,
someone might be able to implement the X protocol for NT. :-)
- NT has C2 security, but probably only because it's a single-user system!
That simplifies security *a lot*. As I don't know what's involved in
implementing C2 security, I removed the "easily implementable" from the
Linux entry. Unless there are requirements that by definition eliminate
multiuser systems, C2 security should be implementable under Linux, but
you might have to do some headstanding.
- Being a microkernel is a performance loss on a single-processor standalone
machine. It's a win if you have multiple processors or if you have a
network of machines that can share execution. Since I don't know the
details of the NT kernel, I don't know if network processor sharing
is something that NT can take advantage of. Networking would have to
happen on a pretty low level to make that possible. Linux was designed
explicitly to run on PC clone hardware, so these considerations weren't, er,
considered. And since most of us happen to be running PC clone hardware,
guess which OS gets the performance win? Hint: it isn't NT.
--
Kevin Brown ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
Any questions?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!
uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: NT versus Linux
Message-ID: <1993Aug21.152742.20951@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <1993Aug19.224831.30686@kf8nh.wariat.org> <930819201354.23155@world>
<252bq8$s5u@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 15:27:42 GMT
Lines: 16
The whole NT v Linux thing is silly. Firstly they are very different
products. NT is an expensive corporate system with (I'm told reliably)
very good paid for support. Linux is a free system for the masses.
I did find the reliability issue funny. On our NT march BETA (now destroyed)
setting the terminal program to telnet mode, and typing ^J (control J then
return) crashed NT. Granted it's a beta - but so is Linux.
I don't like microkernels and after comparing Linux v NT speeds I was even
more convinced of this. When the development tools exist that allow you
to write and compile a microkernel based system and get the same output
assembly code as compiling its macrokernel equivalent, then the microkernel
will be a good general idea.
ALan
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!cf-cm!
cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded comparison chart
Message-ID: <1993Aug21.155607.21462@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <930818233207.23008@lambada> < CC2pM1.6Lp@frobozz.sccsi.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 15:56:07 GMT
Lines: 111
In article < CC2pM1....@frobozz.sccsi.com> ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
writes:
>For Immediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison
>------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no here we go again. This is fun
>
>Feature NT Linux
>------- -- -----
>
>microkernel yes no (monolithic)
^-- Microkernels are a performance misfeature.
>kernel size 50k 350k-500k
^-- + about 0.5Mb on our March beta to get up and going. ^- 230K my home kernel
>loadable device
>drivers yes yes (available)
The NT ones go further than Linux in what can be loaded/not loaded
>true dynamic link
>libraries (DLL) yes yes (shared)
>
>per-application DLLs yes yes, if you're root :-)
No you don't need to be root these days. Anyone can build per application
shared libraries. However you don't need to. The Linux memory manager does it
all correctly anyway.
>integrated GUI yes no (add-on, X)
^-- the NT GUI aint integrated - its just an optional loadable
module that everyone uses.
>
>drag and drop yes depends on GUI and/or
> application
>
>DDE support yes sockets, local and
network interprocess
communications
>
>max chars in file name unlimited 14-255, depending on
> filesystem. Most have
> 255.
I can't see anything in
the code giving a 255
limit just the current FS
>max partition size unlimited 64 meg -~2 gig,
This is wrong: The NT structs ^^^
have a max size they can return
off system calls.
> depending on
> filesystem. Most have
> ~2 gig.
>C2 securiy yes no (easily implemented)
^-dunno how easy...
>memory model flat flat
>
>multiple platforms yes not currently. 680x0
> under development
>
>runs unix apps yes (source level, yes (source level)
> limited POSIX subset
> only)
>
>runs DOS apps yes yes, via emulator
>
>runs Windows apps yes not currently. Under
> development.
>
>max addressable mem 2048 Gig 4 Gig
^- But not per process.
>multimedia support yes application level only
^- you are having MAJOR concept problems aren't you
the multimedia support is just DLLs (shared libs).
>QIC-80 support yes yes
>minimum CPU 486 386sx
^-- NT is OK on a 386DX33
>min required mem 12 meg 2 meg (4 meg w/ X)
>
>min required disk space 60 meg 10-20 meg (base system)
> 40 meg (w/ X)
>networking stable stable
^-- our march beta wasn't!
>
>price $110 (educational) $69 (SLS), free via
> ~$300 (normal price) ftp or BBS.
>
>source available no yes
>source price not applicable free
>freely redistributable no yes
>
>bug fix response time several months, minimum immediate. Several
> weeks at most.
>
>application availability limited to DOS, Windows DOS, Unix (almost all
> source-available
> applications)
>
>coexists with other OSes unknown(probably) yes
^- Fairly well
Now how about adding
Networked Window Support no yes (X11)
>A couple of comments: I don't know what DDE is, so I can't say if Linux
>has it or not. Probably not.
DDE is interprocess comms. Linux uses sockets/pipes for the same purpose.
>Multimedia programs for Linux may exist. I haven't heard of them, so I'll
>assume that they don't. But why in the world would you want multimedia
>support in the KERNEL??? If the applications can run efficiently enough,
>you don't need it.
SLS comes with an MPEG player. The berkeley MPEG encoder compiles under
Linux. (Haven't run it yet). It has sound card support.
There is _NO_ multimedia support in the NT kernel, its shared library (DLL)
support.