Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn in 2006
worm eater writes "Microsoft Watch reports that Microsoft officials are now aiming for a 2006 release date for Longhorn, the follow up to Windows XP. Microsoft has been hyping aspects of this OS to its partners since 2001. I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line."
The way things are going, the next version of Microsoft's OS will have many more security holes and even more "Palladium" evilness and DRM restrictions on what I can co with my own content on my own machine. Hold of on this as long as possible, Bill. Get the current one working first.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
...who thinks Microsoft could have this OS ready sooner, but are waiting for user-hostile hardware (aka DRM) to take off?
Actually, this is good news. ;-)
I'm crying trying to use XP on my newest system.
Where has the speed of Win98 gone ?
Arguably, windows2000 was better than 98, which was better than win95, dos, and so on.. Now MS is going downhill, and.... oh, you're right
"Where do you want to go today..oops, in 2006?"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Why should Microsoft be capable of implementing secure DRM when normal security has thus far eluded them?
The screenshots of the latest build of Longhorn can be found here.
Enjoy!
Every Super Villan uses Linux.
I'm beginning to wonder if the industry will be in a far different place than Microsoft envisions 3 years down the line.
No, I doubt that... Longhorn will be what Windows 95 was. 95 crushed OS/2 Warp, and Longhorn will crush whatever other OS crawls into its space while MS is developing it. Besides, with all the 'amazing new technology and breathtaking new UI' B.S., the media will have a field day with it for at least 3 months before launch... Mass hysteria will ensue, people will line up outside stores to get the first copy as it becomes available at midnight, Microsoft lines their pockets with a few more billions, and 2 weeks down the road, some major flaw in the OS will be exploited, bringing business and the internet to their knees... then the media will resume the Microsoft bashing, and Joe Q. Public will want to re-install whatever OS he had before, only to find out that the company has folded, and now he's stuck with this peice of shit... oh, but wait, now Microsoft is promising a new version that will have no flaws!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Everything old is new again. Remember a few years back, when OS/2 was still considered a semi-legitimate contender, Apple's market share was greater than a single digit, and most IT hands were pretty unconvinced that migrating from Netware to NT was worth the time, money or aggravation? Against what should have been an overwhelming competitive landscape, and armed only with what was in retrospect a dismal product (NT4), MS managed to convince IT managers everywhere that they were the Future of Computing as We Know It. Why? Well, there was this thing called "Cairo", and it was gonna ship Real Soon Now, and it was going to be an all-object-oriented thingamabob that would shine your shoes and make your teeth whiter. The industry bought it, hook line and sinker, and after NT4 had trounced OS/2 and Netware soundly, Cairo evaporated into the same neverland that Apple's Copland project did.
Flash forward to now: Apple is regaining a bit of strength on the desktop, Linux is seriously eating into their server revenue, and while Windows Server 2003 is itself a solid (if unexciting) product, the greater gestalt of the Windows Infrastructure is looking more and more like a bug-ridden, unmaintainable mess. But wait, we've got this really cool technology just around the corner, it's called Longhorn and it'll get your whites whiter, you're gonna love it!
The more things change...
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I'm debating what exactly the ups and downs of the next release will be. If my office uses Longhorn, there will be hell with DRM. And I'd hate to lose control of my own machine.
On the other hand, I will only have to wait a week to find a root expoit and regain access to my own computer.
Sort of strange isn't it? Everyone can gain access to your computer (1200 inevitable bugs)... except you (DRM).
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Oh, oh! Can I be the first to call bullshit?
I think the funniest part of all this is how MS sales reps used the new Licensing programs to browbeat people into signing up to "subscribe" to Microsoft software - where you'd pay them a yearly subscription fee and get whatever OS they released, if they released one. If you didn't, well, you'd still pay, and you'd maybe get one next year.
Not surprising that as soon as a ton of people are on this licensing scam^H^Hscheme, they can now make everyone wait 3 years for anything new.
# Erik
Does MS really think people are going to be willing to run 5 year old technology on their work systems, when a cheaper and more current alternative is readily available?
I just hope Sun will be able to push madhatter well enough for companies to let go of their grip of Microsoft products and open the future of corporate desktops to any player with a plan; be it Sun or whoever. It's just that currently, Sun is the other company that can do it. Who knows what the corporate desktop will look like in two years.
Please write an entirely new OS!!!
We don't need compatibility any longer. We're used to upgrading everything every 30 days anyway. We can dual boot the way Apple users continue to do between OSX and MacOS9.
Write the OS so that only the OS runs at ring 0. Write the OS so that it fixes the problems associated with the message queue. Write the OS so that user level restrictions are STRICTLY enforced so that even if there is a bug found, the damage it can cause is severely limited. (Meaning that an SQL bug doesn't result in email viruses being distributed across the internet.)
Please forget about tremendous levels of programability!! We don't need a word processor that knows how to format my hard drive or copy files into my system directory!! We just want it to process words. So far, the only people who really know how to use these "features" are the freaking virus authors!!!
It's not like you have to do a lot of thinking about it. Apple saw the light and went with an advanced yet tested kernel. It has ALL of the appropriate features built-in with a license compatible with their purposes. Write your own *NIX core if you want to.
Want to shut down Linux users? Write your next OS on a BSD kernel, make the old Windows apps work the way people want them to (it can be done... it's BEING done) and sell it to people. They will buy it because there are people out there who still trust you for some reason. Once you out out something with a *NIX kernel, you will see an amazing amount of curiosity and popularity.
And did I mention that trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security? If I hadn't, then I will say it now. Trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security!!!!
But then I would return the questions back to the CEO: Once you master the markets, why are you abandoning them? Why does IE still have linear browsing, linear back and forward buttons? Why does IE have so many unfixed bugs, and why isn't it fully W3C compliant? Why do all the Office apps change format with every edition, into something that prior editions cannot read? Why do my new Access databases not work with my old databases, and why does it ask to convert them when opened with the newer versions? Why don't any of the Office apps generate good HTML or XHTML or XML code? Why can't you copy certain complex pages from IE and paste them into Word without Word crashing?
The answer: Once you've made the other systems irrelevent, such as the comment about developers saying "How do we port it to that other operating system -- what was it -- Linux?" when Microsoft gets there, they abandon innovation.
And that, Mr. Balmer, is Microsoft's biggest problem.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
This is rather amusing, because it points out an odd trend amongst "technophiles" in computing today. Somehow or other, *NIX kernels have become synonymous with "software excellence." When this trend started is not entirely clear to me, but I'd say post-1995 for sure. If it is indeed a FUD campaign, it seems to be succeeding, because 10 years ago if anyone had mentioned that *NIX kernels were superior to modern OS multi-threaded microkernels they would have been laughed into submission.
BSD-style *NIX kernels are NOT, contrary to what you may have heard, the end-all be-all of OS kernel design. In fact, most people who architect operating systems for a living will tell you that most of the concepts contained therein are good ideas, but they're somewhat stale and in need of some serious revision.
I don't have the time or the inclination to go through a feature-by-feature comparison between a modern *NIX kernel and NT, but I'll point out a few examples. The NT kernel's native support for threads and access control list kernel object security are superior to what the *BSD kernels offer. Other newer features like microarchitecture to support several different system call APIs are virtually on par feature for feature with *BSD.
So why would switching the kernel make the OS any better? If a kernel has the necessary features it requires, performs well, and provides remarkable stability, that's just about all that a kernel can do.
I think you're confusing the recent security problems discovered in the Windows system with problems in the kernel itself, which are few and far between. Holes in IIS, or SQL Server, or even the "RPC System Service" are NOT problems with the NT kernel, and they should not be confused with them.
Don't misunderstand me: I think the number of features that have been integrated into the Unix framework over the years (by the Linux and *BSD projects) is astounding and a telling tribute to what the research communities can accomplish when they work together. But that doesn't mean they're superior to what alternative OS kernels can do.
And did I mention that trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security? If I hadn't, then I will say it now. Trivial bugs needn't be fatal flaws if the kernel enforces proper user level security!!!!
I don't even know how to address this one. The NT kernel does MUCH more for security than any *NIX kernel. The trick is, people writing software that runs on the kernel have to make USE of these features properly. NT offers complete Access Control Lists and security descriptors for every possible kernel object. This is just about as granular as you can get, and better than the simple "rwx" permissions on file descriptors available in *NIX kernels.
Now, why everyone logs into the Windows Shell with a superuser security account is an entirely different matter, but it is NOT the kernel's fault!