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? ;)
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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 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