> NT is rather a memory hog, granted, but is it any more of a hog than Solaris
> or other commercial Unix implementations?
There's quite a bit of resistence on this list to running firewalls on Solaris
as well. But... yes, NT is that much of a hog. We have an NT box with a Pentium
and 64M of RAM and it's barely usable with 3 or 4 remote users under WinDD.
Plus, bloat has other problems. Complexity, for one. If you don't run X
under Solaris (and why does a firewall need to run windowing?) you avoid a
whole plethora of possible failure modes, as well as saving memory.
> Perhaps, but it's also possible to make quite different arguments. NT's
> security model is, frankly, rather more sophisticated than that which comes
> standard on most Unix systems.
It's a lot more confusing, too. I'm always having to go in and straighten
up user's files for them. And it's installed with Everyone(RWED) just about
everywhere!
> As a matter of fact, NT is *not* that great of a file server -- adequate, but
> certainly not outstanding. It's strengths really *are* as an application
> server.
I agree. NT is a decent desktop operating system. I don't like it as a shared
resource at all. It's got all this desktop crud in it that you *can't* strip
out.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
