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)
So what kind of DRM-shackled kernel-integrated, msn.com centric peer to peer might that be? ;)
Linus doesn't see microsoft as a compepetitor, hes said that numerous times. Linux is for linus thats it. He does't care who uses it, he isn't make a system to rival microsoft... hes making a system that he likes. People really need to seperate the distribututions beliefs from linus's because they are different. Now mandrake or Redhat, yeah maybe they see Microsoft as a rival... but definitly not Linus. I mean think about it. Linus does the kernel... and Kernels really aren't a rivalry thing becaues by themselves they aren't really that big of a deal. They need a full system around them, which linus really has nothing to do with and has said many times.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
you left out one vital little peice of infromation:
1. Redhat doesnt make the databases they disturbute with redhat, therefore theres no alterior motive other than making users life easier
2. Microsoft In my opinion will use this database on everyones desktop business to basically increase teh speed of Sql server (they did it with internet explorer, when you push it so far down in the kernel its bound to make some speed increases (hello Tux webserver (if thats what its name was) written by Redhat that was a Web server directly embedded in the kernel to improve performance)
So as you can see, this is a very diffirent situation
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
To one who doesn't actively use a Microsoft OS, I can't help but wonder how many operating systems they plan to support and host. How long was the active lifespan on ME? I think it seemed less than a year. It makes me wish MS would use version numbers to imply upgrades or changes rather than XP one day and Longhorn the next. The Linux and Apple folk have never really had this problem.
-Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
Um, nothing stops a virus from e-mailing directories right now. Of course, I could point out that nothing stops a Linux virus e-mailing your directories, either.
P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I have no opinion about this news; but I hope it prompts a few more people to make the effort to read through Hans Resiser's brilliant whitepaper. The first time I read that article I was blown away by the amount of thought the guy has put into the design of file systems. The first OS to thoroughly exploits his ideas will revolutionize computing.
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
How does Microsoft see the rest of the software world? By their actions, I believe they see their competitors, including Free Software, as enemies, which they either need to buy or destroy.
Of course, RedHat doesn't have any monopolies in any markets, and Microsoft does. The rules are different for you if you have a monopoly.
I didn't see anything in that article reflecting the alledged new focus on security that billg went to so much trouble to spell out in his public memo.
And not just that the new "features" metioned sound like great new places for bugs to hide, but MS doesn't even mention new security features in it's leaks.
Like many other people have said, if MS is serious about security then the next release of Windows has to be a complete security audit with zero new features.
sigh. and I had such high hopes that they got it this time.
Isn't that called google.com?
like all the work and money MS has been throwing into SDMI like digital copywrite detection and prevention.
From what I understand MS sees an opportunity to vector the DMCA-like drum beating of the music and film industry with it's own "application as services" subscriber model.
don't know when that shoe is going to drop, but when it does well... here is a quote for you: "Piracy is not a technological issue. It's a behavior issue," Apple CEO Steve Jobs
All hail alternative operating systems
Linux is essentially one big hyped community, that happens to have some software on the side. These features are probably dreamed up or at least heavily pushed by linux zealots, with an aim of moving everyone in lockstep on the linux/free/open source only, M$ sucks treadmill.
security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
Last I looked redhat didnt own more then 90% of the OS market. Also redhats database (which is really Postgresql) is not integrated directly into redhat's linux distro, they sell it as a seperate product altogether. What microsoft is doing is integrating the database directly into the OS much like they did with Internet Explorer several years ago. The death of IEs competitor Netscape followed shortly thereafter. So oracle will have a very valid antitrust claim. So your argument really doesn't apply at all. You should probably think these comments through a little more before you post them.
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
I don't know. Don't people like Intel and Motorola have product strategy maps for their next two or three processor revisions. It doesn't seem like a "marketing" thing. Not to defend MS or anything, just saying I don't think this is something that is not done elsewhere in the business world. I guess I think it is kind of a cheap shot.
> So let me get this straight. Just
> because putting a database as the filesystem
> backend will give them an advantage over some of
> their competitors, us desktop Windows users should
> be denied the benefits it would afford us?
What benefits? Most Windows users don't even know what a filesystem is much less a relational filesystem. Users just want to run their stuff.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market in Operating Systems. They are using their power in one market to vie for another market. There are companies out there that would like to compete - they have families to feed, they have dreams and goals too. Shall we deny them the chance to make it by allowing a monopolist to run unchecked?
Are you a monopolist?
Microsoft is attempting to coopt the Applications into the Operating System i.e. tie their applications to the Windows OS so that competition is stiffled. We need firm definitions of what an Operating System and Application IS so that competition can occur and therby stimulate real innovation.
Here is what I think would be a good start on an idea that would provide for both competition and innovation for consumers of Operating Systems:
Define an Operating System as a kernel i.e. that single piece of code that has ultimate programmatic control over the machine and is not preemptable by any other piece of code. The running level of the kernel is to be deemed kernelspace.
Define an Application as a client of the kernel and as receiving services provided by the kernel and that operating environment that is preemptable by the kernel and doesn't run in kernelspace is to be deemed userspace. Require interfaces between clients of the kernel and between clients and the kernel to be documented and published 6 months prior to the Operating System Producers version of same interfaces and any derivatives therof.
Define a module or driver as a pseudo-client of the kernel OS and it's interfaces shall be documented in the same spirit as any code that runs in a particular space. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is present in the kernel i.e. loaded and running in kernelspace, it is to be considered as part of the running kernel and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is running in userspace it is to be considered an application and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities.
Whatever a competitor wants to do inside the black box of the kernel/OS, Application/client or pseudo-client/driver/module can be deemed proprietary insofar as the black-box doesn't try to communicate such proprietary data, information or interfaces between components, interfaces or running levels i.e. kernelspace and userspace.
IANAL and I'm sure others may have better or more concise definitions but.... the definitions should be made and separation of the various pieces should be enforced as well as the publicly available documentation of their interfaces in a timely and competitive manner.
Sorry... forgot to turn RANT on.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Had you read the article more carefully (at all?), you would have seen the following:
.doc format. Now, businesses are practically required to run Word in order to inter-operate with their customers and business partners. The result is that Microsoft can now charge an exorbitant rate for Office and people still have to buy it. CompUSA is selling Office XP Professional for $579 and there is not a non-Microsoft office suite even offered for sale by them. (Don't waste my time telling me about Staroffice, 602 Software, and other packages. If they were viable alternatives, Microsoft couldn't get over $500 for their product.)
It's highly significant, as it signals a much tighter integration between Microsoft's enterprise server products and the client.
and
Microsoft is intent on P2P-style workgroup collaboration [that] looks seamless, with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS.
Note that they are not attempting to provide open standards that would let Lotus, RedHat, and other vendors provide compatible products. They want to force Netmeeting and other MS-proprietary products on everyone, effectively squashing competitors much as they did by integrating IE into Windows.
Microsoft is being the 800lb. gorilla. They are ignoring the RFC process, standards committees, and everything else that made the Internet platform-independent. In fact, their goal is to force their proprietary standards on every business much as they have with the ubiquitous Microsoft Word
Define an Operating System as a kernel i.e. that single piece of code that has ultimate programmatic control over the machine and is not preemptable by any other piece of code. The running level of the kernel is to be deemed kernelspace
My definition of an OS is slightly different:
Define an OS as a kernel and set of related code that provides a set of base level services which application developers can leverage as they need.
For example; web serving; RDBMS; SMTP service; HTML rendering engine. (note; not nessaseraly a web browser; just a set of DLLS that provide standards based HTML rendering; a third party application that leverage this rendering engine to make a complete browser; like Quatz is for Mac OSx)
By your definition, to get the same features that I get out of my $300 copy of WIn2k Server, I would have to purchase; A Kernel (os); a window manager; a dhcp server; a wins server; a web server; a mac server; a file sharing server; a print server; a web browser... and the list goes on!
...and would I be forced to purchase these from seperate companies? How does this affect distributions liek RedHat?
Actually, that one's pretty easy. Intel wants p2p to be big, too. Why? Because they want people to buy bigger and badder PCs. You'll need all that OS/hard drive/Processor to do p2p computing.
At some point someone might just make an actual "thin client" because traditional Interent applications (email, browsing, etc.) and many business functions can be light client/heavy server apps. These apps don't need big Pentium 6's running at 10 ghz. They also don't need a 2 GB OS. So P2P is a PC "killer app". The sooner client/server computing is moved towards p2p in terms of horsepower, the better for the Duopoly.
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"