NT Kernel vs UNIX Kernel?

[ACTIONpack]

I was reading some articles online about NT and UNIX in the kernel level. They always say that UNIX kernel is better than NT Kernel but then why did Microsoft made NT to address that problems that UNIX had and it's not better than UNIX. If this is true then why doesn't Microsoft develop a new kernel for the 21st Century and not the 20th Century. Almost all the OS that are out there are using UNIX because it's open source as in Linux. (I know UNIX is not open source just the spin off like Linux and BSD) Would like to get a better understand on this matter.

Thanks!!

[08993]

  On 07/02/2010 at 04:52, ACTIONpack said:

I was reading some articles online about NT and UNIX in the kernel level. They always say that UNIX kernel is better than NT Kernel but then why did Microsoft made NT to address that problems that UNIX had and it's not better than UNIX. If this is true then why doesn't Microsoft develop a new kernel for the 21st Century and not the 20th Century. Almost all the OS that are out there are using UNIX because it's open source as in Linux. (I know UNIX is not open source just the spin off like Linux and BSD) Would like to get a better understand on this matter.

Thanks!!

$$$$

or

????

Closed source generates it.

[ehlo]

There is no single UNIX kernel. Each type of UNIX (Linux, Darwin, AIX) has their own kernels which are continually improving just like the NT kernel.

Because of Linux's open development model I know a lot more about its development than the NT kernel. It is also worth noting that being closed source does not necessarily mean better. Linux is open but most of the contributors are still paid for their work (by IBM/Redhat/Novell/HP etc)

[Subject Delta]

This is a flamebait topic if ever I saw it.

The Unix/Linux kernel is more scalable, because of being open source it can be used on practically any device that has a CPU, but the NT kernel practically drives the consumer computing world and is still a pretty powerful and robust kernel. I use devices powered by both, and would probably say that neither is really better than the other.

[hdood]

There is some confusion here. Unix is two things, an operating system from the late 1960s, and a certification.

People are treating wildly different operating systems as one and the same here. You cannot write Linux/Unix, as these are very different operating systems that have nothing to do with each other. Linux is not a "spinoff" of Unix, it is a completely separate OS written from scratch with some indirect inspiration from Unix. BSD, on the other hand, is a direct descendant of Unix. If you want to discuss Linux, you have to discuss Linux. If you want to discuss FreeBSD, you have to discuss FreeBSD. If you want to discuss the original Unix, you have to discuss the original Unix. There is no way they can be treated as one in this context.

Regarding your question, you'll have to be more specific. What are the specific complaints about the NT "kernel" (what constitutes the kernel in NT terminology is probably not what you mean by the kernel, but anyway), and which specific other kernel are we comparing it to? Speaking in general, the open source operating systems are more flexible as they can be adopted to specific uses, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the technical side of things.

[markwolfe Veteran]

  On 07/02/2010 at 12:27, Frank Fontaine said:

This is a flamebait topic if ever I saw it.

I whole-heartedly agree.

As for the original poster, I think you might need to read up a bit more. You talk about open source versus closed source, yet this has nothing to do with the technical merits. Software is software. You also have some confusion regarding Unix and Unix-like OSes. As has been pointed out, there are many Unixes. Also many Unix-like derivatives. Some are open source, and some are not. Here is a link that might be helpful. I skimmed through the first page, and it seems to cover this topic for you. http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/history.html

I would also not state in any absolute terms that one kernel was "better" than the other. While I am not well-versed on the detailed technical merits, I do know that both are capable. Yet both have differing approaches and philosophies. In some cases, a Windows NT kernel will have advantages over a Unix type, and vice-versa.

[dmd3x]

Apples and Oranges.

[Asharae]

  On 09/02/2010 at 19:56, dmd3x said:

Apples and Oranges.

I dont know why, but when I read this, I could not get the old kiddie song "Oranges and Lemons" out of my head.

Damn you alcohol!! :)

[Growled Member]

  Quote

NT Kernel vs UNIX Kernel?

Why does it have to a "vs?" Just use the one appropriate for the job at hand.

[dmd3x]

Let me rephrase,

Apples vs Oranges :p