Slashdot Mirror
A Quick Peek at Longhorn
Kaypro writes: "The Register
has an interesting article with some minor details regarding Microsoft's next OS.
P2P, filesystem plugins and some thoughts from Hans Reiser, of ReiserFS fame
make for an interesting read."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
95 included a plugin fs, but no one did anyting with it...
For some reason, /. didn't consider a story on future MS operating systems important.
0 738,2802585,00.html
Read it yourself:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,1
Virus is not a Latin word, it's an English word, and therefore follows English conventions: one virus, many viruses. It is based on the Latin 'vir' but is as English as all get out.
It's so goddamn easy, yet stupid, stuck-up computer geeks try to make themselves sound important by going around saying "virii" as if it were a Latin word.
People who use the term "virii" are no better than the idiots who say "irregardless," and are therefore worth ignoring completely.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The plural of "virus" is "viruses". "virii" is just an incorrect extension of the -us -> -ii plural marking you see in words like "cactus".
Learn to Play Go
Incidentally, the code names are taken from a Canadian ski resort about 4-5 hours drive north of the MS campus. So if you ever go to Whistler mountain, look out for the blackcomb resort and longhorn saloon.
Every version of Windows has a version number, and a build number (ie. Windows 2000 is NT Version 5.0 build 2195). Microsoft has just decided they're easier to market with all these other names. "Windows XP" is something new, "Windows 5.1" is just another minor upgrade.
Names like Longhorn are just internal codenames, just like, say, Debian Potato.
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 4.0 = Windows 95
Windows 4.1 = Windows 98
Windows 4.9 = Windows Me
Windows 98 SE was version 4.1 with a higher build number than Windows 98
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 5.0 = Windows 2000
Windows NT 5.1 = Windows XP
- There will probably be an XP Second Edition, which'll be version 5.1 with a higher build number
- Longhorn will probably be version 5.2. Who knows what'll actually be called - XP wasn't decided on till last spring.
- Blackcomb will probably be version 6.0
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
aaargh
read this:
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
The. Last. Word.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Yawn... Microsoft makes an inexpensive database. According to the price/performance table, it seems to be really great. On the other hand, if you look at JUST performance numbers, the difference becomes clear. SQL server doesn't even make the list Oh well, I guess you get what you pay for.
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure red Hat doesn't make the Database the Files System. On Windows, and most computers, the Database (SQL-Server, Oracle, et. al.) stores it data via the file system in some arrangement of files.
If I understood the article correctly Microsoft is going to flip that relationship. The file system would be Front end to the Database. This would mean if Oracle did, or could, produce a database it would have to do one of two things. First it could run on top of the File System which would make the file system a go-between between Oracle and the RDBMS (probalble a SQL-Server derivative). The other possiblity would be to Have Oracle interact directly with the RDBMS. Either way, what's the point of having a Database run on top of a database? I think that would be one the reasons Oracle file a lawsuit against Microsoft. It isn't that much different than what they did to Netscape and AOL (with the tie in of MSN).
The article referenced another article that went into more detail.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
There's a sad vehemence here against all things Microsoft, without even evaluating them. A database-based filesystem is a Good Thing, whether Microsoft does it or not, in the same way that GUIs (using windows etc.) is a good thing, whether Microsoft does it or not. Microsoft's involvement is beside the point.
Regarding relational databases as filesystems: maybe better to look at it as a relational directory structure. It's a much more flexible and useful way to organize a file system, as pointed out in the Reiser paper mentioned in the article.
For example, I was working on projects involving multiple languages, so I wanted a logical directory structure for source code. Do I make a hierarchy based on project first (e.g. proj_a/java, proj_a/sql), or language first (sql/proj_a, sql/test)? I experimented with a variety of symbolic links but that was only fun for a little while - maintaining something like that is annoying. The logical way to organize would be to select by either project, language, or both (e.g. "proj_a and java", "sql and anything" - syntax to be determined).
There are other uses, such as BeOS's integration of mail handling with the OS. The idea is so good (as the article says) it's been used in AS/400. Remember, most databases used to be hierarchical too, before relational database theory.
This may be a case of Microsoft "innovating by copying" again, but they are doing it (they've managed to do it ahead of their competition by virtue of no longer having any competition, except for Apple, which is concentrating OS development on usability issues instead).
Regarding peer-to-peer capabilities: This is the logical extension of Microsoft instant messager. Microsoft has been ahead of AOL in expanding the idea of instant messaging to new media, such as still or moving video, sound clips, etc. It's logical to make this a more general peer-to-peer system.
Regarding Microsoft as a whole: IBM used to be the Evil Empire, delivering inferior products late while unfairly using their monopoly power. However, they did invest their money in product development and research, and it eventually trickled out into good products.
I think it will be a while before this happens to Microsoft, but I do think it is beginning - they do invest in actual research and development - and the database filesystem is an example where they are applying established theory to produce a genuine improvement in their products (or trying to - they tried with NT, with purchased brainpower (from DEC), with mixed results). There may come a time twenty years from now where "Microsoft" is not a perjorative, as has happened with IBM.
I don't know if anyone put a link down the WinSuperSite so there it is. It has screenshots, some fake, some real, and a long description of the operating system. Worth a look.
--Metrollica