Slashdot Mirror
A Quick Peek at Longhorn
Kaypro writes: "The Register
has an interesting article with some minor details regarding Microsoft's next OS.
P2P, filesystem plugins and some thoughts from Hans Reiser, of ReiserFS fame
make for an interesting read."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
"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!
------
Today's Top Deals
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!
95 included a plugin fs, but no one did anyting with it...
So what kind of DRM-shackled kernel-integrated, msn.com centric peer to peer might that be? ;)
I bet they still won't support my PPC proc and mobo! Damn Microsoft bastards!
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
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
- 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!
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."
Naming their new OS 'Longhorn' is an affront to all UT grads everywhere!
Can't they call it 'Aggie' or something?
AngryArmadillo
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. ®
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
For some reason, /. didn't consider a story on future MS operating systems important.
0 738,2802585,00.html
Read it yourself:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,1
Will Longhorn feature the Blue Cheese of Death?
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
No manual entry for
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
-Legion
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
Not so far as I've heard; Ellison probably figures the enemy of his enemy is his friend.
--Charlie
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.
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?
ESE? Why don't they just call it VATO or HOLMES or DOG or what ever else Mexican gangsters call each other ;)
-OFS
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
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
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
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
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
> 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.
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."
Had you read the article more carefully (at all?), you would have seen the following:
.doc format. Now, businesses are practically required to run Word in order to inter-operate with their customers and business partners. The result is that Microsoft can now charge an exorbitant rate for Office and people still have to buy it. CompUSA is selling Office XP Professional for $579 and there is not a non-Microsoft office suite even offered for sale by them. (Don't waste my time telling me about Staroffice, 602 Software, and other packages. If they were viable alternatives, Microsoft couldn't get over $500 for their product.)
It's highly significant, as it signals a much tighter integration between Microsoft's enterprise server products and the client.
and
Microsoft is intent on P2P-style workgroup collaboration [that] looks seamless, with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS.
Note that they are not attempting to provide open standards that would let Lotus, RedHat, and other vendors provide compatible products. They want to force Netmeeting and other MS-proprietary products on everyone, effectively squashing competitors much as they did by integrating IE into Windows.
Microsoft is being the 800lb. gorilla. They are ignoring the RFC process, standards committees, and everything else that made the Internet platform-independent. In fact, their goal is to force their proprietary standards on every business much as they have with the ubiquitous Microsoft Word
is named after brands of Scotch... (Talisker is 4.0)
... likes scotch...
because the head developer
... hi bingo
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.
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.
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?
"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.
Ahh,the state of pre-schooleducation in the US . . .
:)
hawk
> 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.
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;
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.
I parsed that as ....
And if you think XP phones
...and just got a real scary visual.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
> Define an OS as a kernel and set of related code
...and would I be forced to purchase these from
> 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?
>
> 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.
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!
I thought Active Directory was just the API that one implements thier FS under?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
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.
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
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
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.
...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
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
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!)
Does anyone else find it amusing that a Windows codename is a large Cow?
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"...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.
> 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.
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
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!
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."
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.
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
" 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.
The plural of virus is Microsoft.
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.
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.
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.
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