Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Lifts Curtain on Indigo Software
daria42 writes "Microsoft has released an early version of Indigo on the Microsoft Developer Network. Indigo is a new communications system intended to let Windows programs more easily connect to other software. Indigo was one of the three original "pillars" of Longhorn, however under the new plan it will be re-tooled to work with Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, in addition to Longhorn."
After Microsoft back ports everything from Longhorn to XP, will the $499 upgrade from XP to Longhorn be like 95 to 98? Just some bug fixes and a free browser?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I've got a great idea. Now that all the DCOM holes have been plugged (either at the OS, or at the firewall, or both), let's pick a new port number that'll be open and listening to the world by default, and on which all the OS components will have to rely.
For bonus points, I'll justify this by saying that it makes something that sounds really cool on paper if you're a CTO, but is actually the first line from the functional spec for "A platform for writing remote exploits" to anybody with even a millineuron of cynicism left in their brain.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
They are not going to give these away for free. You will have to pay to get these products for XP. Either way. I think Longhorn will be much better in the sense that you will finally have an OS that is both awesome looking yet more functional. The whole deal with using CSS type files to control interfaces for example is the most attractive thing for me from longhorn, besides the fact that I can finally shut up some mac fanatics who take about the mac being "prettier" (although XP came quite a way in making things look better).
"Indigo will replace the five different programming methods that Microsoft has today for sending messages between two programs in a distributed system, said Ari Bixhorn, the lead product manager for Web services strategy at Microsoft." Hmm....Thats going to upset a lot of people who use those methods. There gonna be a lot of porting work to be done....
For ONCE, I want a newer version of Windows to be faster and smaller than the previous version and more stable as well.
Windows 2003 actually satisfies that requirement, by a solid margin.
However, Microsoft never decided to release it in a non-server version... And if you've never tried running a server version as a home version, well, you have no idea how many otherwise "free" (as in beer but not speech) programs will refuse to run.
As an aside, you can trick 2003 into identifying itself as XP with only two tweaks to the install CD. I will not disclose them for fear of invoking the Legal Wrath of the Gates, but with a Google search for similar hacks to Win2k, you can probably figure out what to change. And no, the well-known product version switchers out there that worked on 2k will not work, and will actually render your system unbootable if they manage to do anything at all. Really, trust me on this, I tried both of them.
Wouldn't this just be Microsofts (proprietary) implementation of CORBA?
Everything in Longhorn will be based on the .NET framework and sandboxed, with the Win32 API scrapped. Longhorn's ability to run the Win32 API will be through a compatibility layer, similar to the DOS compatibility layer in XP. However, WinXP's ability to run Indigo and Avalon, the two pillars of Longhorn, will be done through a forward compatibility layer.
Fortunately, they're doing everything clean this time with XML and SOAP, with an open API, as opposed to binary-only files, arcane RPC calls, and endless piles of undocumented, insanely messy code dating back until the early 90s. There actually might be some interoperability this time around -- Longhorn SAMBA certainly won't be nearly as hard to code and reverse engineer, especially with Mono in hand.
More details: http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/understanding/p illars/default.aspx
- - - - - Fear not the reaper, but my shiny white teeth.
Linux is actually ahead on two of them, at least:
http://www.cairogrpahics.org/ is bringing avalon-like stuff to linux, and you can download early versions now.
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/storage/ is bringing WinFS/google-desktop -like stuff to [gnome desktop] linux at the user interface level (and Hans Reiser is still saying he's going to do it at the system level, unlike Microsoft's revised WinFS approach), and you can download early versions now.
(Why patents on the areas in question are particularly sickening: not only was there prior art, there was widely publicised Open Source prior art!)
This? Except for the fact Microsoft's Central Soviet will be able to enforce its use, there are already several systems that are likely comparable on windows, linux and, heck, amiga.
I'm going to have to agree with the parent poster. I work at MS, and just recently saw a pretty thorough ppt on Longhorn features, a lot of which didn't depend on the pillars. It took an hour just to talk about all the security revamps in the kernel. Unfortunately, its all 'MS confidential' for now... The first Beta should be out during the summer, lets reserve our judgements of Longhorn until then.
You obviously don't get it. This is WAY better than TCP/IP. For one thing, IT'S WAY BIGGER. For another thing, IT'S WAY MORE COMPLEX. Third, IT BELONGS TO MICROSOFT. Fourth, IT'S NOT STANDARD Fifth, YOU HAVE TO USE WINDOWS FOR IT TO WORK. Sixth, well, you get the point... Just like TCP/IP... What were you thinking???
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
I try to as well, but I'm pretty sure neither of us succeed. Why? Because far too many protocol designers think their protocol is "special" and "more important" so they implement a fallback to tunnelling over HTTP (port 80, even over a proxy).
Unless you have a *very* smart transparent HTTP proxy, there go a lot of your RPC blocks. SOAP seems particularly vile in this respect.
Well you don't need a motor vehicle to go from LA to NY, but it would sure make it easier, right?
although XP came quite a way in making things look better
Hey, I have fond memories of Fisher Price products from my youth as well. But when I sit down at a computer, I don't want flashbacks to using a Speak n Spell (unless I run it as an emulator (Yeah, I know, TI made it, not Fisher Price, but you get the idea).
It really, truly horrifies me that people actually like XP's interface. As the first thing I (and every single competant computer user I know, without exception, N>40) do when setting up an XP box, I disable the themes service. Poof, no more craptastic prettified round window edges taking up valuable screen real-estate.
For centuries, Indigo used to be a very valuable dye; the exclusive looking deep blue color was a sign of wealth. Of course that "exclusivity" went down the toilet when they developed synthetic indigo in 1905 and everyone with a new pair of blue jeans could have some of that exclusivity.
It sounds like a good name for a Microsoft product.
I agree with you that XP came a long way in terms of a functional UI, but there's still some pretty bad problems. Namely, there's a lot of examples of what Kai Krauss calls "Boeing Cockpit Syndrome" where you have a window with just too much stuff in it (preference windows, etc).
Those first leaked screenshots of longhorn (the only ones I've seen) seem to take it to the next level with more buttons along the top of the explorer windows, more widgets in the start bar and hella more crap on that sidebar thingie. Longhorn, seems to me, is going to be a UI nightmare.
Also, using CSS for a userinterface is good, but I don't think it's THAT good for a whole system. It'd be fine for designing WinAmp skins, or the like, though. Hell, I think it'd be best for that.
I'd be willing to bet that M$'s CSS has some micro$pecific enhancements that aren't supported in anything except M$ products.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
but I was always under the impression that Server 2003 and XP were akin to Windows 2000 and 2000 Advanced Server?
Yes and no...
From a high-level view, 2003 roughly corresponds to the "server" version of XP, which itself equates to 2000 Pro.
For Win2k, however, every version used the same underlying OS, with only the list of installed products (and a few config details) changing with the server-ness of the product you installed.
Windows 2003, however, Microsoft actually released as NT 5.2 (compared to XP as NT 5.1, and Win2k as NT 5.0). Now, version numbers don't mean a whole lot, but with Win2k3, Microsoft actually did optimize it both in terms of memory footprint and CPU efficiency. As an example, you can just barely fit a hand-trimmed XP installation into a 96MB RAM footprint. Win2k3 you can do in half that, under 48MB (without running server-specific services and applications, of course), comparable to the footprint of a baseline NT4 Workstation installation.
And don't think you give up speed for that - Not even close. 2003 not only "feels" quite a lot more responsive, it actually does run arbitrary code faster... I don't know how (perhaps XP has that much bloat?), and I had to write a dozen or so small test apps to prove it to myself, but you'll easily see a 10% gain even on mostly CPU-bound tasks, and I frequently notice that multiple I/O bound tasks that on XP would take time 2X, take around 1.1X on win2k3.
And for stability... Wow. I thought Win2k took a huge leap forward, and XP a big-but-not-so-big leap back, until I started playing with 2k3... You just can't crash those things! On one of my servers at work, I have an uptime over a year, and it hasn't even started getting flakey! Almost as good as a BSD box!
And no, I don't work for Microsoft... I even prefer Linux, myself. But, finding myself more-or-less forced to use Windows, I REALLY wish MS would release a pro or WS version of Win2k3 (my particular hack works for now, but I kinda wonder how Win2k3 SP1 will react to my trying to install it on a nonexistant product line... With luck it'll work just fine, but I expect I'll need to slipstream it in and do a clean install, sigh).
"Is it me or nothing MS is pitching in Longhorn sounds that exciting? "
That depends: Whenever Microsoft announces something, everybody on Slashdot is suddenly a minimalist. "Oh, I don't REALLY need a scrollwheel."
Whatever.
I'm personally excited about their vector based UI. There's a couple of reasons I'm digging it:
1.) Some of the UI (the most important part for a good deal of computing) will be offloaded from the main processor to the GPU. Reality may tell a different tale, but I'm happy about the idea of Windows being more responsive as a result. Heck, just going to a dual processor machine has made my computing time much more responsive.
2.) The nice thing about vector based graphics is that the difference between 1024 by 768 and 1600 by 1200 is simply clarity. We'll be buying monitors based on DPI instead of what their max resolution is. I dig the idea, for example, of being able to just scale a window up or down. (Anybody who has used Opera knows what I'm talking about.) It could mean a real significant change in how monitors are used, and it could potentially mean LCDs capable of much higher resolutions.
But, like I said, it's Microsoft's idea so we're all minimalists who are happy with what we've got or have desires to return to the stone-age. But if Apple or the OSS Community talks about it...
"Derp de derp."
"C:\WINNT> copy firefox.exe explorer.exe"
This doesn't work on XP. Explorer.exe is automatically restored when you mess with it. Of course, it'll be assumed that this is because Microsoft is enforcing a monopoly instead of it simply being a security feature.
"Derp de derp."
In theory you're right, in actual reality you're completely wrong. A massive portion of the .NET Framework is actual a thin veneer over Win32 calls (ildasm - this isn't rocket science). The .NET Framework pulled it into a much easier, and more organized structure, but the bulk of the code is actually Win32.
.NET interface, as will some of the new higher level services like Avalon and Indigo.
The post several generations before was actually talking the standard smoke and mirrors of distance "it's all gonna change!" bullshit. Longhorn is basically taking Windows XP, with largely the same kernel and underlying subsystems, and of course all of the Win32 API, and adding a new managed shell. Let's remember that explorer.exe is just an application. This new shell will have a first-class
... who hears the voice of a pseudo-scientific Monty Python narrator as I read this? "Indigo was one of the three original "pillars" of Longhorn, however under the new plan it will be re-tooled to work with Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, in addition to Longhorn, which will, in fact, never ship."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Now get (guessing) 95% of the application developers to write their files (game saves, config files if they don't use registry) to the user's home directory and not some sub folder of whatever folder the program was installed on. That way you don't need to muck with ntfs permissions to get the thing to run as non-admin.
There seems to be a large number of windows developers who came from the land of dos and never set foot on unix, thus have no clue about basic multi user system security and how to code for it. (FYI the desert combat mod for battlefield 1942 does it correctly)