Slashdot Mirror


PetrOS - NT alternative?

Anonymous Coward writes "Trumpet Software, the company well known for its Trumpet Winsock package has been quoted in the press as having their own version of a Win32 platform operating system, called PetrOS. They are working out if they can release it without affecting MS's API intellectual property, from the " They claim to have a 100kb microkernel, and run native NT executables. Anyone have more details?

315 comments

  1. Benefits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would the benefits be?

    I remember lots of bugs kept in it due to
    compatibility reasons..

    1. Re:Benefits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this moderated down?

      Because it didn't add to the riot in progress?

  2. Re:People buy that stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, IP Masquerading is a much-touted feature
    of Windows 98 Second Edition. :-) Sad, aint' it?

  3. api by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much of the API they actually implement. I can't imagine they have compatibility for COM+ and what not. I remember the IBM stopped trying to mirror the win32 API with OS2 because Microsoft changed it so often. I wonder if these guys will be able to keep up.

    1. Re:api by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      I find that hard to believe -- that IBM gave up on a windows clone becase MS changed the Win32 API so often.

      Anyone who had a Win32 clone would probably be more than happy to devote however many programmers were necessary to maintain compatibility with MS releases, because the market for a Windows clone is HUGE. If you've already got one, then you're looking at a not-small slice of a multi-billion-dollar market, which can pay for ALOT of programmers verifying every single MS API call for every single MS release ...

  4. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    How do you know the windows kernel is huge?

    Its amazing so many people know so much about the internals of the Microsoft OSes.

    I didnt realize so many of you are ex-MS programmers.

  5. Kerberos security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, does this NT knockoff use Kerberos as it's default security, as is the case with Windows 2000? Are applications vendors running a OS vendor supplied test suite to identify compatability bugs?

    Even Samba can masquerade as an NT Server with a few lines in the smb.conf file.

    1. Re:Kerberos security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerberos != MicroKernel
      Kerberos == Userland code

    2. Re:Kerberos security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, right.

      This is just a kernel. All it's capable of on it's own is wobbling around on the floor, like an engine not connected to anything.

    3. Re:Kerberos security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implementing the SMB protocol and running foreign binaries are two completely different things ...

  6. Re:eat it, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be if you knew Bill. You don't.

  7. Re:WinNT API != Win32 API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a complete POSIX layer available. Interix. It's third party, developed in cooperation with Microsoft. It's more POSIX compliant than Linux. (Linux is still wannabe until somebody ponies up the cash for testing)

  8. Re:WinNT API != Win32 API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that it's not clearly communicated wether it's the WinNT "API" (which is not doccumented publicly by Microsoft in any event) or the Win32 API indicates the amount of cluelessness surrounding this thing.

  9. Re:Commission a gui? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XFRee86 is already ported to the semi-official POSIX layer, Interix.

  10. Re:This is a great Idea!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to point it out, but you have a misspelling. You wrote "babbling", where it should have really been spelled "lunatic ravings of a racist who feels inadequate and must tear others down to feel better about himself".

    Sorry, I know correcting typos is bad form, but it really is a pet peeve of mine. Please get a dictionary before you come back out from under your rock.

  11. Score 1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kudos to /. moderators for giving this post a scrore of 1. Wow, keep up the great work guys.

    In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.

    1. Re:Score 1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The score of 1 was automatically given because the user had logged in. Moderators subsequently rated it down.

      Please become informed before you decide to whine.

    2. Re:Score 1? by matasar · · Score: 1
      The reason he was at one is that he has registered an account. ACs start at 0, and registered users start at 1. So nobody moderated him up.

      But he's down to negative one anyway (and that was a moderating point well spent).

  12. Re:eat it, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't this infantile flamebait moderated down?

  13. don't assume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't assume this means a Linux-NT bridge. Have these guys said anything about open-sourcing their kernel?

  14. Re:Commission a gui? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    need to port a libc first

  15. Re:Why not WINE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they couldn't make much money if they used wine. Go read the GPL.

  16. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty easy to figure it out. Lets see, I was reading a book on NT that my MCSE brother has (he only did it for the money, really! :P), and it specifically states that the NT kernel is approximately 16mb.

    This is why NT will not boot on less than 16mb of RAM, no matter how much you want it to. It cannot physically fit the kernel into memory without it.

    As opposed to my 412kb Linux kernel on my 486 (and my 450kb or so on my p166), which boot fine with 8mb of memory or even 4 if I feel like it. Of course I'd rather keep the 64mb and 96mb they have, but hey, just in case :)

  17. Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry folks, I've just seen wya too many "breakthroughs" that are going to "destroy M$" mentioned here and never heard from again.

    When I can sit down at a computer and run Office 2000 on it, I'll believe it.

    1. Re:Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can already pull my 486DX-2 50 laptop up onto my lap and run Office 2000 on it. But that's because it has Windows 95 installed.

    2. Re:Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell would you _WANT_ to run office 2000?! blech. =P

    3. Re:Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're only productive with office because you are an idiot. All it takes is vi or emacs, latex or troff, and a bit of awk or perl and you're done. people as dumb as you deserve to pay for bill's house.

    4. Re:Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great and all, but could you come train 150+ people for me to use the above mentioned programs??

      The fact you need to face (and almost all of you) is that your acting like 18 year olds. Work in a REAL IS shop and make that same statement. Sure I use Linux, it's great! But I like FreeBSD a little more. At any rate, your mission is to bring Linux to the next level.

      After Linux has the business productivity suites (and it won't be long) then you have a right to act like Linux can cure AIDs, Cancer, Etc.

      Give it up already. Open Source is great but you guys make it sound like you can make your toast as well (no wise ass comments about Linux's X10 support are needed here).

      Thanks for your time,

      The Idiot in all eye's of this site now.

    5. Re:Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) since when did Computer Science turn into "IS"? "IS" is just paper pushers gone electronic.
      2) This is not a Linux forum. You are deceived.

    6. Re:Believe it when you see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote that this comment be moderated down.
      Not because it is a troll or flamebait, although it may be considered as such, but because it pretty much sums up everything that is wrong in the linux community.

    7. Re:Believe it when you see it by phil+reed · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean, "When I can sit down at a computer and do word processing and spreadsheets"?? Why does Office 2000 define the limits of what you can do with a computer?


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    8. Re:Believe it when you see it by sheared · · Score: 1

      I find that I'm quite productive with Office. Much more so than anything I've seen in Linux.

      The Visual Basic macro language increases my productivity quite a bit!

  18. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have one URL for the microkernel nay-sayers:

    http://www.qnx.com/iat

    Download the demo and try it out. It's nifty.

    -- Anonymous Cowardus

  19. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an experiment I once installed Windows NT 3.51 on a 386DX-25 machine with 12 Megs of RAM. It installed properly and crawled along as would be suspected.

    So where did you make up this "minimum 16 MB" stuff. Are you smoking the green with your brother up there in the treefort?

  20. Re:The space shuttle (off-topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They probably use some of each for various things. I remember some astronaut was using a 386 GridPad (notebook with pen rather than keyboard) running DOS on a space walk a while back.

  21. Re:PetrOS - Server OS, not desktop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you'd be surprised at the number of dorks who run Linux on the desktop. It's the equivalent of driving the tractor down to the corner tavern, but hayseeds will be hayseeds.

  22. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When most people refer to an OS, they refer to the CURRENT VERSION by default, and add version info if they need to be more specific. Try putting NT4 onto that box and watch it thrash the hard drive to death. If it will load at all.

  23. What the hell are you talking about?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I see you've taken this opportunity as a high-n-mighty NT fan to trash Linux fans for no particular reason. I'm glad your comment dealt directly with the subject at hat, to wit: microkernels and the implementation of the Win32 API within or not.

    Pot, kettle, black.

  24. Re:Why not WINE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Members of the People's Liberation Army (from the People's Democratic Republic of Linux) should go down there and push them onto the WINE team with their riflebutts.

  25. Re:eat it, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Instead he'll make something similar but much worse, try to pass it off as good, and at the same time make deals with the company that will eventually put them out of business... :-)

  26. Re:The space shuttle (off-topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of the 386 actually has more to do with its inherent resistance to the types of radiation you find outside of Earth's atmosphere than anything else.

  27. Trumpet does it again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they'll do what they did last time with their winsock stack... Give it away for a while, then when most everyone is using it, make it shareware! :-(

    1. Re:Trumpet does it again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare they charge for something that they wrote and supported!

  28. Hey moderators. Lets test the new moderation here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe Rob just modified the moderation system so that when a user is marked down often his score is quite low. Lets test this new moderation system. Lets mark him farther down because a troll or someone who is offtopic is one thing but something offensive and rude is another.

    I believe something racist, sexist or slanderous should be marked down by 2 points rather then 1. This is just my opinion of course but lets moderate him further down and see his score the next time he posts a comment because insulting people is pretty bad on a open discussion computer website.


    lets all make sure /. stays a fun place for discussions.

  29. WINE IS NOT GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wine licence is BSD like

    Thank you for playing.

  30. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Flame suit on)

    It is interesting that you mention the speed of Linux in comparison to NT. Hmmm, was there not a test just a little bit ago that showed otherwise????

  31. ...and Trumpet's software sucks!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their winsock was one of the most horrible pieces of sh*t I was ever forced to use... it was only a success because it filled a void space in the marked.

    Argh. Do we need any new systems software from Trumpet? I would need them to proof their quality ten times before even looking into anything.

  32. Re:eat it, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who doesn't leap right into the gang rape is a Microsoft mole?

    My, that reflects well on us as a community...

  33. But Microsoft Invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we owe our jobs to Microsoft!

    :)

    1. Re:But Microsoft Invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Al Gore did! Dufus.

    2. Re:But Microsoft Invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TROLL

    3. Re:But Microsoft Invented the Internet by SeanNi · · Score: 1

      No, not troll.

      Humour. Sarcasm. Funny.

      Laugh, man! Get a life!
      --
      - Sean

      --
      It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
      - Sean
  34. Re:Um, get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes there was a speed test and that was for networking. But it had nothing to do with applications and the speed that they ran.


    Enjoy...

  35. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    psst!

    You left a little spot of FUD on the corner of your mouth, there.

  36. Re:This is a great Idea!!!! - score this down NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hello, anonymous moderator here.

    Unfortunately, we can only moderate this idiot down to -1, as that's the limit currently set by Rob Malda (a.k.a CmdrTaco. Just to test the theory, I moderated the original comment down anyway, but it stayed at -1.

    Maybe if enough of us complain, Rob will open up the range a little bit (-2 or -3 should suffice).

  37. Because being offensive is different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being offtopic is marked down if your intent is to just distract people because /.ers here want a discussion about current news topics and not hear flames.

    Being offensive and discouraging people from posting for fears of being made fun is a different matter and is far worse for the community and for those who get offended. ALot of women browse through here and may not like all this cussing and swearing anyway.

    1. Re:Because being offensive is different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great sense of irony, could have been slightly more subtle perhaps. nine out of ten.

  38. Re:I wonder if the doj could open win32 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much as some people would like to dream, the Department of Justice is not the equivalent of a fisherman with a sharp knife out in the fish shack. They can't flay Microsoft in whichever fashion they feel would suit their 'recipie' the best.

    The Win32 API is valuable intellectual property, and we haven't yet decided as a country to eliminate property rights. When we do, the GPL will also be invalid. Get ready for all the core forks. Stock up on ammo, etc. also. The neighbor's come for your pentium chip and SIMMs.

  39. I believe the doj only has the power to sell win32 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I highly doubt that ms would allow the doj to just give away its crown jewels that started this whole monopoly that ms spent billions to develop. THe doj could force ms to sell its win32api at the cost it took to make it and to remake all the different versions over the years at billions of dollars.


    Ms could just change the api's again but it would break the current win32 compadibilty if they did so and the old windows apps would run on the clones instead. This might turn the theoritically new win32 api's into the next os/2 version1 where it only ran on proprietary ps/1 and 2 hardware and it failed because of it. :-)

    But seriously only IBM and maybe Sun could afford it. If Sun or IBM bought the win32 apis, then they would have to quickly make a new os based on them before ms changes the win32 api's in windows. RedHat and BE inc. couldnt the win32 apis. I would also assume that ms would just raise the price if redhat could actually afford it for political reasons.

    IT seems to me that no solution will fix the current ms monopoly.

  40. yeah maybe it can lock up when games crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just like linux!
    oh no it doesnt 'lock' you just have to pull out another
    computer and telnet in, or edit / recompile your kernel and use
    magic alt sys req , or make a shell script to kill X 5 minutes after
    any game dies. give me a fucking break.

    1. Re:yeah maybe it can lock up when games crash by SeanNi · · Score: 1

      I've never met an X11 problem that Ctrl-Alt-BkSpc didn't solve :-)

      ...and even those are rare...
      --
      - Sean

      --
      It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
      - Sean
  41. if u wanna be racist on /., gotta be subtle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    remember the whole story about the fiber link
    being buried around africa? that was full
    of racist morons responding. but they never said
    'nigger'. see, you can be as racsit as you want
    you just have to fit the geek slashdot image and
    say the right things. maybe if you said 'attention
    to trumpet software is a waste of money.. they have been
    constantly bickering and fighting within themselves '
    and then somehow later on work in that they are black
    subtly. then you would have a racist post and youd probably get score 5 informative

  42. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > expand wine to run native nt products alongside reqular windoze apps.

    Wine already runs Windows NT software. 'Win32' is a binary standard for software running on either WinNT or Win95, although there are some other small differences. (Wine implements some but not all of the NT specific calls)

  43. Calm down M$ bashers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1/ This is vapor
    2/ NT microkernel is not far from 100Kb
    3/ This is vapor
    4/ There would be legal problems if they want to release it (and M$ will probably win)
    5/ This is vapor
    6/ 'Trumpet PetrOS' ?? God that sucks even more than 'AMD Athlon'
    7/ This is vapor

    I don't know why, but I'm sure as hell that this OS will never see the light of the day ...

    If you want to run NT binaries under Linux, use WINE or VMWare (Personaly I prefer VMW).

    It's funny, each time /. posts an article about something like this, there are hundreds of replies like "HAHAHHA MS (SUXXXX) WILL BE DEAD IN 2 YEARS". Some people here better get back into reality before someone cuts the hard line :)

  44. And another... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Along the same line, I'm running the Borland C++ console
    programs (bcc, tlink, tlib) under Wine, which means I can
    build the whole Win32 port of my project without leaving my
    Linux box.

  45. file permissions from the command line (on NT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use cacls.exe works great, must be running NTFS

    1. Re:file permissions from the command line (on NT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or download Cygwin B20 and VIM 5.3. I've found that NT becomes a lot more usable after it has bash, the GNU Fileutils, and a vi clone. Interix would be perfect, but too expensive.

  46. yup, no UNIX equivalent of WaitForMultipleObjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been a UNIX server developer for ten years but I gotta admit that WaitForMultipleObjects() would be a very useful addition to the UNIX API.
    Don't get me wrong - I hate Windows as much as the next programmer, but I've often cursed at the kludgy code workarounds for situations where you are blocked in a read() yet still want to receive a pthread condition variable signal on the same thread. And yes, I know all the workarounds: timeout polling, sending a disruptive interrupt to make the blocking call return an error) as well as others. Frankly, these workarounds all suck.

    The UNIX-philosophy file descriptor centric select()/poll() functions increasingly do not cut it.

    It would indeed be nice to have a unifying API call to wait for multiple kernel/user-registered events to happen.

  47. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT is specifically set to not install on less than the recommended minimum ram - it's in the code, and is not necessarily the 'minimum you can technically run NT on.'

  48. Re:Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps, but maybe you could help me with this etch-a-sketch... it is so hard to make a straight line.

    NT=good;
    linux==gooder;

  49. But IBM and Sun would love some windows clones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the world of OS's would change and not just linux. I believe linux will still be primarly be used for unix apps but I picture Caldera and redhat making a windows clones with win32 api's supported and probably be based on linux but be designed for consumers.

    My dream of course is to run be. Be is way supperior to linux as a pc OS but because it lacks many unix utilities it is not an option for me and it can run any programs. If it was win32 compadible I would switch in an instant. If the gnu tools of linux were al ported I would switch to be in an instant as well.

    Be can divide threads into smaller ones and distribute them across processors better then any OS and it is so easy to write threaded apps with Be. Quake2 is going to quick ass. I would not be supprised if it could be 200-300% faster then windows or linux. Linux is a great server OS but if your a gamer those graphics are really cool. As a gamer I wouldn't mind using linux 100% either. :-)

    Just make sure mechwarrior3 runs on it and I am happy.

    1. Re:But IBM and Sun would love some windows clones by psp · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to take away your imaginary image of BE, but if you seriously think that it scales so well that it will run applications twice or three times as fast as windows or linux. John Carmack (of quake fame) recently stated that he expected Quake 3 to run 70% (best case, but I assume you are too talking about that) faster on 2 processors with x MHz than on one. No OS could ever make an application more than 100% faster on 2 processors than on one, and even that seems very unlikely with a single memory bus. Now Carmack's 70% faster is what is actually possible using Linux. Assuming that your fantastic BE actually makes your application use the second processor to the full extent, Q3 would still only run 17% faster on BE than on Linux.

      Think.

  50. Re:GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss HP's NewWave (a graphical interface on top of Windows as marketed, though there may've been a version for HP/UX? and NuTek was using it as the interface for their abortive Mac clones).

    It'd make a nice choice to my mind, especially if they could do Agents.

    William


  51. PetrOS vs ReactOS vs WINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be a lot of projects around lately going about implementing Win32 API, and the NT kernel, or for that matter DOS(Win98/95). I personally, don't think it is trully possible to write a full featured Win32 OS, Microsoft can simply change the API on the next release, and then you have to change yours. It is a constant game of catch-up.

    However, I've been looking into ReactOS, another project to clone Windows NT. It seems to be going along pretty well, they even have a kernel. The advantage of ReactOS is that it is Open Source/Free Software.

    Since people are going to work on the Win32 API for ReactOS, and there is already a project to implement the Win32 API for X that has been going fairly well, I think that PetrOS and ReactOS, will probably end up sharing some code. (If Trumpet is smart...), and soon we will see a viable alternative to Windows, but it will be one always playing catch up.

    1. Re:PetrOS vs ReactOS vs WINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About MS modifying the API -- c'mon, maybe in the days of win 3.11, but these days NT is just too big and sensetive to go changing all the time. I don't think they CAN change it like that. They have too much to risk. They'll try other tactics instead.

  52. Re:Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't seem to realize when they make claims that NT crashes 3 times a day they come accross as liars. Sure you might be advocating Linux but do you really want to advocate Linux by lying?

    Just a thought from a NT user

  53. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has already been pointed out, but I'll reiterate: if a person refers to an OS without a version number, they almost 99.999% of the time mean the CURRENT version. Windows NT 4.0 will not allow you to install without 16mb of RAM. And, as was pointed out, although it will RUN after install on less than 16mb, you have to have 16mb to do the install, and if you reduce the amount post-install, have fun watching it boot for 20 minutes.

    Most, if not all, NT server books for the MCSE classes say that it is not possible to install NT 4.0 on a server with less than 16mb of RAM.

    And no, I don't smoke green stuff, nor do I hang in a tree house. :)

  54. Speaking of NTFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me, don't most NT administrators keep there boot partitions FAT because they can't get to them with a boot floppy? Something about NTFS overhead being too big.

    1. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NTFS is *SLOW*... My brother is a editor of videos and he used NT in the past, he downgraded back to win95 because the NTFS fs was so slow he missed several video frames with each recording... Now he's using FAT (not 32). Come on people built in compression in an FS???! Darn, and thet're saying I'm stupid. Of course my brother should have used FAT instead of NTFS in NT, but at least we all know now that NTFS is slow.

    2. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually (at least on a 486DX2-66 w/36MB RAM), I've found FAT to be slower than NTFS on NT4 (server).

    3. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compression in the file system is a problem? In case you didn't know it's optional by file (which is quite nice and can be very handy when it gets down to a crunch. Especially with NT5 where it searches out unaccessed files and compresses those on command).

      It is ironic that compression in the filesystem is a dream (maybe realized) in the Linux world.

    4. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by _damnit_ · · Score: 1

      On anything other than x86, the boot partition must be FAT, period. On x86, you can boot from NTFS but it is difficult to correct minor problems (ie boot.ini). There are workarounds for this. I lost the site, but there are a few sites with boot floppies that can access NTFS partitions.

      What does bug me is the inability to boot "single user" off a cd. MS has to do something about that.


      _damnit_

      --


      _damnit_

      It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
    5. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2


      I haven't seen it yet, but apparently NT5 has a "single user mode" that's command line only.
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    6. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by Samrobb · · Score: 2

      Using NTFS for video? He deserved what he got. Keep in mind that NTFS was designed for increased reliability, not raw speed.

      The times I've dealt with video capture on NT, I've given the capture software/hardware a raw AV scsi drive to play with... anything less really isn't worth your time unless your just fooling around.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    7. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by Zugot · · Score: 1

      Only if they plan on booting Windows 9x or the like. There is a free program to allow DOS to read NTFS partitions if need be.

      -Willy Bobo

      --
      -- Bryan
    8. Re:Speaking of NTFS... by Sonik · · Score: 1

      Uh, you don't need to use the built in compression... it's off by default.

  55. Re:eat it, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is most assuredly NOT the most powerful corporation in the world.

    It's possibly the most powerful corporation in the geek-world that so many Slashdot readers inhabit.

    It's certainly one of the most visible powerful corporations in the world today. That tends to attract all kinds of luddites and various other antagonists.

    One of the laws of competetive business is that there will always have to be losers. One of the laws of government is that losers will always want a handout.

    Some of us, who might be attacked as "supporters of Microsoft" are really just people who can't stand it when we see the losers trying to take down a successful business because they can't compete in the market.

    Back to the usual banter, I guess...

  56. Re:You think NT is so great? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't imply that we can't use it.

    If you're admitting that you can't use it, say that directly.

  57. Runs Win32 command line apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all this does is run Win32 command line apps it's not very useful. The article says nothing about supporting NT's driver model or drivers. It doesn't even have a GUI. I think it's very unlikely that this will go Open Source. Trumpet really doesn't have any other method of making money off the product other than selling it, and if they're going to continue to stay in business they need to make money.

    At this point it's a nice marketing announcement. Maybe trumpet will attract some investors, or maybe they're preparing for an IPO. It'll be a while before this is real competition for NT or any other OS.

  58. I am refering to graphics subsystems and not smp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Directx is bloated and engineered poorly but the only reason its even close to opengl is because its in the kernel. Linux puts its graphics outside the kernel. Be I believe uses a method similiar to NT where part of the graphics subsystem. Also the kernel was designed from the ground up to handle long graphics threads and the tuning in this is way ahead of anything out there.

    Solaris and be share alot of innovating features not found anywhere and be is the OS of the future. In 10 years from now windows will function alot like Be. Be also has a journaling file system and it supports gcc and telnet.

  59. Re:GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seldom hear anything about HP NewWave these days. It was the co-plaintiff with Microsoft in the Apple look-n-feel lawsuit. Most of us never saw it in use anywhere, but we figured it must have been good if Apple thought well enough of it to try to drive it under.

    Remember, back in the dark days Apple was trying to drive any other GUI environment out of business- they did manage to help Microsoft by driving most of the other x86 competitors out of business. Thank goodness Microsoft stood up to them and took Apple down. Otherwise, you'd either be running an Apple GUI right now, or you'd be sitting at a TTY display.

  60. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are incorrect about the NT API being undocumented. You just have to know where to look. The documentation for the supported NT API routines is in the NT Device Driver Kit (DDK) available from Microsoft with an MSDN subscription. There /are/ some NT calls that are not undocumented, but my experience with these is that they tend to change from release to release and are "unsupported" for this reason.

  61. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pssst!

    The check has been sent through the usual methods.

    -Bill

  62. Re:People buy that stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a friend who loves his Windows 98. He now has three machines running it all linked together. When he got DSL he went out and bought a third-party package to do it. I told him at a minimum to wait and get 2nd Ed. (better yet would be to get a Linux box to do the routing), but he did what he wanted...

    Microsoft has a history of capturing the revenue from add-ins that third party developers pioneer. Like it or not it saves thousands of people money (Stacker/Norton Defrag/PC Tools/etc.) and keeps the integrated features under one roof (easier to integrate)

  63. Dont forget ALLOS (Alliance OS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Remember those losers? Their OS was going to run every application every written for any OS. I just checked their web page. It seems they are making real progress--they are finalizing the design of their web site. Chuckle!

    Note that the one common thread of gradiose vaporware OS projects is the top down genesis. Web design, job titles, grand visions, logos, documentation, and so on, always kick things off. But there is always the empty void of not one piece of code. Contrast that to successful startups like Linux. It was years before Linux had a logo or official web site or official organization. And productive hackers were never known for their copious output of documentation. The quickest way to evaluate a startup OS project is simple: Show me the code.

  64. g++ is not a development environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a compiler. There's a big difference.

    I would pay for a tool on Linux which had similar functionallity to the VC++ IDE. And no, XEmacs doesn't quite cut it.

    In the software development arena, alot of the tools for Linux are not on the same level as NT. I do like DDD, which is a pretty nice frontend to gdb. But so far, I have yet to see a really good development environment. Codewarrior might fit the bill although I haven't tried that myself.

  65. Re:Don't get too excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The second problem with WINE is that it is a single process solution. It makes no attempts to emulate the entire system,
    > just the current process. This means you can?t : debug a process, drag and drop, and other forms of IPC that many programs
    > depend on. I believe this can be fixed, but will require a fairly big change to WINE.

    Do you really believe in what you are stating ? :-)

    In fact the current status of Wine is quite
    the contrary:
    Its processes implementation is quite alive !
    Furthermore we have working threading support
    for nearly every intel Unix system on our planet
    (well, maybe not quite).

    Maybe you confused that with the process space separation that is missing until now ?
    (we're working on that)

    I've successfully run up to 25 Win16 tasks
    simultaneously (I tested that about a year ago).
    I'm pretty sure that it'd be no problem at all
    to use Win32 programs instead, apart from some missing Win32 functions that are fortunately getting relatively rare these days.
    If you're lucky you can even get Explorer to
    start up.

    Andreas Mohr

  66. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when can't a linux kernel on a floppy run the above mentioned software? Floppies are 2megs (raw, 1.44 with the formatting)... a far cry larger than 100k or 900k. Even NT could do the floppy thang if MS was inclined.

    Of course try to fit any apps on after that 900k kernel. :)

  67. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a joke, son...

  68. Wine and Linux are winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    BullSoft accompagne et soutient la création du LinuxMaster Group, initiative constituée pour favoriser le développement d'applications d'administration sur Linux. Association indépendante, créée dans l'esprit du logiciel libre, LinuxMaster Group s'est donné pour mission de développer sur OpenMaster des services d'administration de systèmes, de réseaux et d'applications sous Linux, notamment autour d'Internet. Les services d'OpenMaster sous Linux sont disponibles à des fins d'éducation et de recherche auprès du LinuxMaster Group.

    "Grâce au portage d'OpenMaster sur Linux, de puissantes fonctions d'administration de systèmes et de réseaux sont déjà utilisables sur Linux", a déclaré Maria Legay, Présidente de LinuxMaster Group. "Suite à ces premiers développements, nous allons poursuivre avec nos partenaires le développement de nouvelles fonctions d'administration OpenMaster sur Linux, et multiplier les initiatives. Notre premier partenariat avec l'Ecole Centrale de Paris est très prometteur en ce domaine" "Bull a décidé de s'engager sur Linux pour répondre aux besoins de ses clients désireux de disposer d'un système ouvert à très bas coût et bénéficiant de l'expérience Unix. Notre savoir faire d'intégrateur de Solutions et de Services, parmi les leaders en Europe, devrait nous positionner comme un des acteurs important pour la communauté Linux, en lui offrant un niveau de services équivalent à celui des autres systèmes d'exploitation du marché", déclare Noël Saille, co-Président de Bull Services.

    "Oracle est heureux de voir son partenaire stratégique Bull s'engager sur la voie de Linux" a déclaré Régis Nacfaire, Directeur Business Development & Marketing Alliances, Oracle EMEA. "L'offre de services que Bull propose, les performances et la robustesse de la famille de serveurs Bull sous Linux associées à la base de données de l'Internet Oracle8i offriront aux éditeurs de logiciels sous Linux une infrastructure idéale pour le développement des solutions Internet les plus innovantes."

  69. You messed up the joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It goes: I wouldn't f--- Microsoft with a stolen dick!

  70. DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, stay with windows, dude.

  71. Dummy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The test was conducted for you and yourlikes, stupid.
    How does it feel to get hooked?

  72. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is bullshit.. i have ruined three keyboards already.. and no photo album at all.

  73. commercial servers try to minimize thread use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more threads you have the less stable your app is in general. Commercial servers often poll() or select() on all file descriptors in a single thread and then dispatch the reading to a small pool of worker threads. Simple and effective.

    Java has had many problems regarding blocking read()s in different threads failing in the past from searching Sun's developer bug parade in the past. Has this been corrected?

    Is there a Java equivalent of select()?

  74. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the requirement for NT4 was 12MB... ??
    Maybe it went up by SP5. Heh.

  75. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't that called DOS?

  76. Linux is real POSIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check your system boot messages.
    Unifix paid for POSIX testing.

    1. Re:Linux is real POSIX by stevied · · Score: 1

      Only since 2.2 (well, some point in 2.1.xx) though, I think. Certainly that boot message didn't appear in 2.0.

  77. Re:Virtuous NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, there's a version of IPv6 for NT somewhere on research.microsoft.com. You know, the (probably only major) place where they use TeX for Windows to write their papers.

  78. Re:WinNT API != Win32 API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because the GUI isn't there yet doesn't mean that the windowing stuff isn't implemented at all. For all we know, they'll be releasing the full GUI in three weeks.

  79. Re:yup, no UNIX equivalent of WaitForMultipleObjec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about asynchronous I/O?
    Something like:
    start async i/o call
    while not done
    ________wait on condition variable
    ________if the i/o woke us up, process it
    ________else, if the other thread woke us up, process _it_

    ...

    i/o handler:
    ________set condition variable

  80. Re:PetrOS - Server OS, not desktop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like a jet than a tractor...

    faster, more reliable, more fun, more features, more documentation, and harder to use than a car. Overkill for general usage, but who cares if the both the jet and it's fuel are free, and you can figure out how to use it?

    (Jets have more documentation? )

  81. DOS for games, damnit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DOS is still the ideal gaming platform. Windows is only good because the new games only run on windows.

    But SHADOW WARRIOR (the BUILD engine) blows in windows, no two ways about it. (Well, on a slow enough machine to be able to tell).

    And because of that, win3.1 is still the way to go if you don't play the latest greatest, since you can drop out of the GUI almost as quickly as you can drop out of X.

    1. Re:DOS for games, damnit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot play "games" with a computer. It's just digital masturbation (no surprise that it's mostly teenage boys). If you want a real game, get off your ass, leave the computer, and find some friends.

  82. Re:DAMNIT WTF IS UP WITH THAT AD'S AUDIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want audio, don't use FLASH.

  83. Re:X for an Interface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I was thinking. Use XFree (BSD) and port WINE (also BSD) to it. They would also have to add some functionality to WINE, which they could possibly give back to the WINE project...

    But I doubt they'll be usine X. :(

  84. Re:I believe the doj only has the power to sell wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel could buy it and license it right back to Microsoft.. can't have Apple coming back..

  85. Re:eat it, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROFL.. Chairman Gates...
    You're taking this just a BIT too seriously...
    Windows is popular, but if MS tried to do something REALLY f'd up with it people could either use Linux or not upgrade to the latest version. MS participates in illegal practices, but they do not "control the exchange of information" -- they merely participate in it. Companies who make printing presses cannot control information, nor can companies who make reading glasses. What could MS possibly do to censor something like, say, Linux GPL'd source code? If they could do something, they would have...

    Of course you're right about MS needing to stop breaking US laws and moral laws. MS has proved quite capable of "competing in the market" yet is still unable/unwilling to create quality product. The "losers", as Mr MS called them, have a right to take down the successful *business* because of this. Because MS is a *business* and the "losers" are *software developers*.

    Heheh but "Chairman Gates" is a bit much :)

  86. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Unix was designed with multithreading in mind. What are you thinking? It's just called fork and wait. And later select. And don't feed us that M$ drivel about that not being threaded. At least it has memory protection. Threads are wrong for most things M$ makes you use them for, just because they never got a clean process model. And their context switches are still slow. I happen to like the default being not to shoot myself in the foot.

  87. Re:This is a great Idea!!!! - score this down NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? There's not likely to be more than two or three -1 posts per topic. Is it really necessary to remove the racist ones and leave in the flamebait?

    Seriously, do we really need to give a -5 as a symbol of our anti-racism?

    Or I should say, do we really need to demand a lower rating than -1 to show everyone else how modern and anti-racist we are? :)

    Heheh.

  88. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I've actually booted NT Server 3.51 in 8 MB of RAM (slooooooow). NT 4.0 refused to boot in 8 MB, and I don't remember with 12 MB. It did, however, work fairly well in 16 MB.

  89. Re:Virtuous NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MsgWaitForMultipleObjects is a very long name for select() or poll(). It's also horrendously spelled.

  90. Re:Virtuous NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "cheap development environments"? Huh? What do you think Unix *is*?

  91. Re:Wake up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real programmers don't need pansy-ass IDE crapware. Unix is our IDE. You have no earthly idea.

  92. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is merely another flavour of Unix, foolish propaganda aside.

  93. you are a moron (and a racist) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people making comments about how African governments didn't "deserve" the fiber link were ignorant about political conditions in Africa, but there was no racism there. The fact that you saw racism where there was none shows that you're obsessed with race - and are therefore a racist. If you were really anti-racist you'd be out there today protesting the truly racist World Church of the Creator. Moron. Racist.

  94. Events vs Threads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.scriptics.com/people/john.ousterhout/th reads.ps

  95. Re:Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had something that crashed three times in as many months I would be ripping the salesmen a new asshole! How can you accept such crap?! M$ and @pple have conditioned you to expect it. I have three different flavours of Unix servers, and they SIMPLE NEVER CRASH - EVER. You have no idea what 24x7x365 is like, or what to do when it's required. Yeah, I know, the leap day will get you.

  96. Re:DAMNIT WTF IS UP WITH THAT AD'S AUDIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're still being abused by spamverts, your web browser is broken. See Junkbusters.

  97. Re:X for an Interface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah! The hordes are waiting for a chance to run xclock, xeyes, xterm and other *fine* x-apps!

    NOT!

  98. Re:X for an Interface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We do not WANT the morons to run Unix! Let them suffer.

  99. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    % ls -l /bsd
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2130395 Jan 4 1999 /bsd

  100. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont read pr0n at the keyboard and you wont ruin it!

  101. Re:NT Graphics before NT4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, that one's simple.
    NT 3.51 didn't run the graphics subsystem in kernel mode. Meant it was slower, and all your DirectX 6 games didn't stand a chance, but it was more stable: video drivers couldn't BSOD you.

  102. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're trying to figure the size of the NT
    'kernel', probably the best thing to do would
    be to add up all the kernel mode code, which
    would be (at a minimum):

    ntoskrnl.exe the executive
    hal.dll the hardware abstraction layer
    win32k.sys the kernel mode side of the GDI

    Rex.

    check out ReactOS, an open source NT knock off.

    http://www.reactos.com


  103. Re:AC post == 0 by default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So just because you want to be anonymous, your
    words are worth less ?

    So much for free speech !

  104. Re:yup, no UNIX equivalent of WaitForMultipleObjec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    async IO spawns a thread with each call and as result is not very efficient.

    anyways, I was talking about a blocking read that only returns when it has data to be read or some other event occurs.

  105. If you ain't reading comments at threshold=-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you STILL just ain't readin' comments.

    It's funny: the dabblers who only want to read comments from ByToR and L00k SkYwAlKeR want all ACs killed. I increase my income by more per year than many of you hope to someday make in salary... by lurking here and there and reading EVERYTHING. And I happen to know I'm not alone.

  106. Re:I wish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that NT is the best general purpose workstation out there. The perfect workstation OS would:

    * Be Easy To Use
    * Have Lots of Cool Applications
    * Be Truly Multiuser
    * Be Hella Stable
    * Have Preemptive Multitasking
    * Run on cheap hardware

    So, how do the operating systems of today rate on my checklist?

    Free Unices (Linux/FreeBSD) :
    * Not easy to use in the sense of being difficult to set up and having a steep learning curve, but very easy to use in the sense that I can configure it exactly the way I want it
    * Has some cool applications, many free both in the speech sense and the beer sense
    * Multiuser - file-level security, multiple users can be logged on simultaneously, almost all user settings (file associations, screen colors, app configuration, &c.) being per-user
    * Is hella stable, if you don't count X server crashes as crashes; installing anything, including alpha software or CVS snapshots, very very rarely breaks the OS or other applications
    * Is preemptively multitasking
    * Runs on cheap hardware

    MacOS :
    * Way easy to use, but not terribly flexible
    * Lots of cool applications
    * Completely single-user
    * Sorta vaguely stable after you spend lots of time cleaning up your extensions; app installs are less likely to hose your whole system to the extent that they do on Windows
    * Multitasks cooperatively, meaning that the application in the foreground which is thinking really hard right now will let you use your computer only when it is good and ready
    * Runs on hardware produced by one company, which for now is not as expensive compared to PCs as it used to be

    Windows 95/98 :
    * Somewhat easy to use, but just as inflexible as a Mac
    * A big-ass buttload of cool applications
    * Emulates being multiuser, but with no file-level security, no ability for multiple users to log on simultaneously, lots of user settings being global and not per user
    * Not terribly stable, but better after you spend lots of time cleaning up your drivers, startup group, win.ini, Run keys in the registry. Installing an app can hose your entire system very easily.
    * 16-bit apps multitask cooperatively, 32-bit apps multitask preemptively, and large chunks of the OS are still 16-bit. So it *sorta* multitasks preemptively.
    * Runs on cheap hardware

    Windows NT :
    * Vaguely easy to use, but with a learning curve of its own and only slightly more flexible than Win 9x or MacOS
    * A big-ass buttload of cool applications
    * Vaguely multiuser - file-level security, password logons, but multiple users cannot be logged on simultaneously and many user settings that should be per user (file associations, lots of preferences for individual apps) are global instead
    * Hella stable as a desktop, if you don't count the perverse ability of apps to completely hose your system on installation as a measure of instability, and if your hardware is on the HCL
    * Preemptive multitasking
    * Runs on cheap hardware, but needs more power than linux or Win 9x

    So NT barely meets every one of my bullet points. Of course, like every other computer user on the planet, I didn't use a set of bullet points to determine which OS to use. Every OS has its advantages and its disadvantages, and the disadvantages of NT are, for now, easier for me to live with than the disadvantages of the other operating systems out there. I like Macs, and I like linux (I'm dual-booting with linux), and so I won't try to convince you that NT is better in some absolute sense than a free Unix or a Mac.

    But, for god's sake, if you're using Windows 9x for ANYTHING except games, get a real OS.

  107. Re:NT's design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Dude, nice comment, I agree entirley... NT's kernel is a finely engineered piece of code (if you ignore the problems with Vid drivers being given kernel privalidges, fixed in W2k) and beats Linux by a mile... To implement a whole Win32 emulation layer would take way way way more than 100k, even if it was programmed in pure binary (010000101010010 e.t.c.) I think we may have a piece of bullshit marketing on our hands.

  108. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yah, roger that... Got my hands on an old 486DX-66 with a 1 gig HDD. Thought I would have some fun trying modern OS/es on it. Installed NT Server 4 just dandy. runs very well... tried heavy duty networking.... no problems! Really! speed only hampered by the ancient ISA IDE controller. Now, I installed Linux... well, booting into a command prompt was OK, if a little slow... god bootups take forever! Now I tried X. Bad Idea... slower than trying to cut steel with a piece of wood. Networking was bad bad bad... NT has now been given the whole HDD and runs as my intranet server.

  109. Re:The market votes with their wallets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gah! I hate stupid stupid stupid people! You hate Microsoft - and that is why you hate NT. NT is a very stable, very usable and incredibly versatile OS. I can do things through one dialog box in NTthat would take months of concentrated effort and custom programming to set up in Linux. NT has never crashed on my systems (except when a kernel driver I have been writing has pushed bugs out) but linux is so unstable when pushed it is unusable. Its programming environment is achronistic _AND_ its performance has been proven _3_ times to be slower than NT. I would have thought that would stop you bashing NT for a while, but you little ego filled minds can accept that big bad microsoft can possibly have produced a product which is versatile, hight performance and simply better that Linux. Perhaps you should widen you horizons. If linux becomes powerful and stable enough for my needs as a systems engineer, then I might consider it but until then, no way..

  110. Who says it is NT compatible ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could not see anything of this in the press release.

    1. Re:Who says it is NT compatible ? by PTrumpet · · Score: 1

      The claim has not been made. I have a small subset of Win32 available to interface things. It uses COFF executable format, and there is not resemblance to NT driver structure whatsoever.

      The rest has really been the result of the press. All I have said is that it could be likened unto an NT lite. It is a 32 bit OS that does away with the DOS layer, but has the potential to have similar characteristics to NT.

      The only similarities to NT are...

      1) the kernel and drivers are COFF executables.
      2) there is a Win32 layer using DLLs.

      Apart from that, there's nothing that can indicate that it is a rip off of NT. Indeed I adopt a completely different driver architecture to NT or Windows 3.x, Windows 4.x. (Windows 9x)

      This is a downside in that NT drivers won't work as some people were curiously postulating.

      As the OS has been designed from first principles, there are a multitude of API's that it could run, and this is its true potential.

      One possible API that has been given serious thought to within the company is to have a native Java API built into it as close to the kernel as possible. The Win32 layer could then interface or coexist with this Java layer.

      There are however some concerns about Java as a framework. The first one is that the Java architecture cannot fully represent the complete set of solutions to a given programming problem, and the second is that considerable resources need to be expended to get equivalent Java code executing at roughly the same speed as native C++ or Pascal code. Another concern I have is that I believe the garbage collection (GC) model used by Java will interact badly with the virtual paging mechanism. There are flaws in the GC model of Java that make it a challenge to write a truly well defined Java Virtual Machine (JVM). This may however be only be a feature of some of the earlier implementations of Java virtual machines.

      Regardless, I have done some preliminary work on a just-in-time JVM for PetrOS. I am aware of the work of the ElectricalFire project, and this may be a short term solution to getting a working GUI operational if we can provide just enough framework for a Java GUI to operate.

      But certainly, I want to reiterate that we are not wanting to supplant NT or whatever, but rather our strategy is to coexist in the marketplace with all other operating systems, and neither are we making claims that we are or will be NT compatible.

  111. People buy that stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looking at Trumpet's selection of software, I see they sell a TCP/IP stack and a gateway/masquerading program. I can't believe people actually pay for that stuff when you've got Linux and FreeBSD which will do that for free.

    The masquerading program for Windows is $160 for 20 client boxes. My lord. I could throw together an old 486 for hardly a penny more and have it performing the same task with a _real_ OS.

    1. Re:People buy that stuff? by tjansen · · Score: 1

      There are still lots of companies who havent upgraded to Windows95 or Win98. And even if only 1% of the Windows computers are running 3.x then there are still million of them that need a decent TCP/IP stack.

    2. Re:People buy that stuff? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2


      Much less troublesome than the Trumpet Winsock was the Microsoft 32-bit winsock built in to Windows for Workgroups. (It's essentially the same 32-bit networking that's built in to W95).
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    3. Re:People buy that stuff? by mwr · · Score: 1
      Looking at Trumpet's selection of software, I see they sell a TCP/IP stack and a gateway/masquerading program. I can't believe people actually pay for that stuff when you've got Linux and FreeBSD which will do that for free.

      Back in the old days (before 1995), Trumpet's Windows 3.1 stack was the best thing going in the market. Even if it's been surpassed since then, it was good stuff, it fit on a floppy, and it did the job. Most, if not all of the other Win31 stacks were serious payware, less flexible, etc.

    4. Re:People buy that stuff? by B-Rad · · Score: 1

      You mean there -were- other stacks? Trumpet WinSock was the one that virtually everybody had, and for all the right reasons. A shame, really, because with the bloatware that seems to be standard amongst Winxx software, nobody seems to remember what made these programs good. It's not a bundle of features, it's that they worked, they worked right, and they worked well.

    5. Re:People buy that stuff? by jmoo · · Score: 1

      I agree, it seems hard to believe that they could make such an OS. But if they can it really show that M$ dosen't have a clue as how to write a program.

      --
      The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
    6. Re:People buy that stuff? by Ded+Bob · · Score: 1

      What is sad (or maybe even scary) is someone running a Win9x system as a gateway? Why else would IP Masq be in an OS?

  112. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On a currently running WinNT 4.0 SP 5 machine, task manager reports the following kernel memory usage:

    Total: 22,392K
    Paged: 14,624K
    Nonpaged: 7,768K

    On a WinNT server in the next room, SP4:

    Total: 18,556K
    Paged: 14,556K
    Nonpaged: 4,000K

    I suspect that these numbers vary a bit from machine to machine, and the numbers on the server were changing as I was trying to get them.

    Michael Koehn

    -- I'm working on my boss. Already got permission to set up one Linux box as a print server (Yay!)

  113. NT clone: Already been done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pharlap released an embedded NT clone OS over a year ago. see http://www.pharlap.com/ It called Pharlap ETS, not the TNT system! Implements a subset of the Win32 API (no GUI related calls). It's so compatible with NT/Win32 that you use the regular Visual C++ tools to compile the object code and do the final link step using their linker against their libraries. It produces a single monolithic executable containing both OS and application that you transfer to the target hardware.

    Linux is still a better choice even for this kind of application for many reasons. I've worked with both and I'd choose Linux in a heartbeat.

  114. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Be careful with your voice and gestures, sir. You will stir up the natives."

  115. NT's design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NT was designed to be able to support multiple operating system personalities. It's a lot like Mach.

    NT's kernel is ntoskrnl.exe. The microkernel itself is just a small portion of ntoskrnl.exe. (I think it's about 60k.)

    Some other stuff that's not actually part of the microkernel is bound into the same file, for example the namespace manager, and the security manager.

    hal.dll contains the Hardware Abstraction Layer. This contains most of the processor specific code in the system. The NT kernel sits on top of this.

    ntdll.dll is a user mode DLL that contains the syscall interface for user mode programs to invoke the NT native interface. It's mainly a bunch of wrappers that do an int2e, which invokes NT's syscall handler. Parts of Win32 sits on top of this DLL. This DLL is not part of the kernel.

    kernel32.dll, user32.dll, and gdi32.dll are the user-mode client side DLLs that implement Win32 itself. They're not part of the kernel at all, and kernel32.dll sits on top of ntdll.dll.

    csrss.exe is the user-mode server-side process that implements the Win32 subsystem and parts of GDI. This is not part of the kernel either.

    win32k.sys is the kernel-mode part of csrss.exe that implements the GDI graphics engine and some other stuff. This is not part of the kernel, though it does execute in kernel mode.

    NT's design is not all that bad in my opinion.

  116. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The NT Kernel doesn't implement the Win32 API. That is implemented by another layer, a client layer that talks directly to the NT API (which is undocumented). The client layer is the Win32 API and runs alongside various other client APIs.

    Putting the Win32 API directly into the kernel is short sighted, and implies that Win32 API is all that this kernel is capable of running. That means it's already nearly obsolete before it's even out the door.

    In a sense, it's the equivalent of calling a kernel which has the BASH shell (and almost nothing more) directly into a lightweight kernel and claiming that it is a new lean-mean Linux.

  117. I wonder if the doj could open win32 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Since the doj recognizes that spliting up ms would be worse to the IT industry, I wonder how serious they were with opening code. I read on zd that the doj was considering it as a more radical alternative if nothing else would work. We would have now 3 monopolies all shoving proprietary code down our throats instead of 1 and suns Scott McNeally acknowledges this if ms is split up. ATAT became more powerfull after it was split. I believe all the ms executives are behind this corporate screw up in the trial. This was just my opinion of course. Wouldnt it be great if win32 api's were freely available to all and we would have beos win32 for games and redhat win32 clone for workstations and servers and caldera and suse for win32 compadible bussiness desktops. Perhaps this new OS could also come into the picture.

    After this the win32 will be everwhere though and be bad for possix. :-(

    But we would have choices and if all these different distros of windows (linux, be, ect)and if posix is included perhaps win32 would die.


    Another great thing could happen with apple. Apple would relise that win32 is the thing after this new wave of windows clones and would add win32 api support into mac osx so non computer people could have access to a stable OS thats way easier and supperior to use then windows.

    I truly hope that the doj will force ms to release the win32 api.

    1. Re:I wonder if the doj could open win32 by AArthur · · Score: 1

      It's not that easy just to open the win32 API. It might be to the benifit of Linux x86, but it wouldn't go much farther.

      Even with Win32 APIs out there, it would be a major challenge to develop a OS from scratch. Since the Win32 APIs don't make any programs up, you would have to write a whole new desktop enviroment from sratch.

      For one, it would be usless in Mac OS X, since Mac OS X is big endian PowerPC OS [mainly], while the win32 API is are mainly oriented to little endian x86. (Yes there was a Windows NT 3.5.1 port to CHRP PowerPC [running in little endian mode] a few years back, but it failed in general, because x86 binary programs could not run on the PowerPC.

      Would it kill posix?:

      OF Course NOT. Posix is a set of APIs for *nix-like systems, designed for scalblity, power, and stablity. Win32 APIs are designed to bring Windows a stable set of 32-bit APIs. Most *nix-like OSs rely heavly on posix APIs, so they will be in use for year and years and years.

      At any rate, the main benfit of releasing win32 APIs, Windows would be more stable, faster (since everybody knew about the APIs). Also it would greatly help out projects like WINE.

  118. WinNT API != Win32 API by stevied · · Score: 1

    The WinNT API is the one the NT kernel actually implements. IIRC, it's pretty small.

    On top of this there are various drivers which allow executables with different `personalities' (not sure if that is the correct terminology). Win32 is one of these personalities, POSIX is another - or would be if the driver was complete and correct. Presumably the Win16/WindowsOnWin32 stuff is another.

    So have these people implemented the WinNT API (probably a realistically small task), or the Win32 API -- which is huge and constantly expanding?

    1. Re:WinNT API != Win32 API by nick+this · · Score: 1

      According to the article, it's Win32. Also, the article states that it is command line only. No GUI. Which means that realistically, only a subset has been done. No window handling stuff has probably been implemented.

      This really isn't a huge feat. There have been several embedded OSes that were Win32 compatible. Some were not only source compatable but binary compatible, as I understand. I believe Phar-Lap had one that could be developed with Visual Studio on NT, and the same binary would run on both platforms.

      Correct me if I'm wrong.

  119. Re:Why not WINE? by abischof · · Score: 1
    >But they couldn't make much money if they used wine.

    They could still sell support, a la Red Hat...

    Alex Bischoff
    ---

    --

    Alex Bischoff
    HTML/CSS coder for hire

  120. Re:WINE works for me... by Steven+Borrelli · · Score: 1

    WINE is certainly not useless. I've been running Quicken 6.0 for the past four months via Wine for all of our home finances. Sure, there are rough spots and some missing functionality, but it works fine for us.

    Anyway, I just wanted to thank the Wine team for their great work. I do agree with you about the suckitude of Windows command line apps.

  121. Re:quicken and wine by Steven+Borrelli · · Score: 1

    Well, I am running 16 bit Quicken with a version of Wine from March 1999. I have found that newer vesions made 16 bit support worse but 32 bit support better. Versions of wine after March 1999 tended to crash and burn upon Quicken startup, but this might have changed in the past month with all the progress the Wine team has been making.



    Using -managed and -winver win31, I am able to run all the basics and create charts and graphs. Loans and auto-completion work correctly, if slowly. I have not tried the net functionality (don't need it), and I haven't configured wine for printing yet so I don't know if it works.



    Of course, I back up every time, but I have not had corrupted data yet, and I use Quicken/Wine several times per week. I even have a Windomaker dock app configured so that my wife can run it easily.

  122. PetrOS... for games? by Scott+Wunsch · · Score: 2

    If they could get a current DirectX running on this (without the GUI), wouldn't this make a nice fast low-overhead environment in which to run my games ? (The only reason for Windows, after all.)

    --
    \\'
    1. Re:PetrOS... for games? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I must say, I doubted Microsoft a few years ago when they said that DirectX would allow Windows to become the gaming platform of the future. They were right ... DirectX is the only reason for Windows ... a driver platform for DOS basically ;). Oh, and multitasking that you shouldn't use unless you want to crash. I only use Windows to play heat.net these days ;)

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  123. Re:eat it, Bill by J4 · · Score: 1

    Gang rape? I wouldn't stick _your_ dick in Micros~1... ;-D

  124. Re:This is a great Idea!!!! by gavinhall · · Score: 0

    Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:

    Let me guess, either you just lost your girlfriend or your mother just ran off with a black jewish italiam man with a much bigger pecker than you or your dad have.

    Am I right?

    LK

  125. Re:eat it, Bill by gavinhall · · Score: 1

    Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:

    Why is it that you M$ moles are so easy to spot?

    LK

  126. Re:eat it, Bill by gavinhall · · Score: 1

    Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:

    >Anybody who doesn't leap right into the gang rape is a Microsoft mole?

    The attitude is what gives it all away. Characterizing this as a gang rape bolsters my position that M$ moles are usually easy to spot.

    M$ is the most powerful corporation in the world. Pointing out their anti-competitive and often illegal practices is NOT a gang rape.

    LK

  127. It fits in the cache! by gavinhall · · Score: 1

    Posted by 2B||!2B:

    In my experience, the fastest code can be the biggest code, at least in independent testing. Code that requires looping can often be sped up by unrolling the loop when there is a fixed small number of iterations.

    But this leaves out what may be the most important part: the cache. If your kernel is big, then regardless of how optimized it is, it will waste clock cycles getting into the CPU to do its stuff. Any OS that takes several MB between kernel and needed services will always take a huge penalty. The whole point of a 100K kernel is that even on the most pathetic systems it will remain continuously in the cache. It would almost be like having the kernel embeded in the CPU. If the services (disk, net, etc.) don't take much room, then you get another huge boost. It's really cool that memory is cheap now, but even a gig of ram will never make up for a small cache. That's why Xeon processors cost so much.

    (of course if your machine is doing any disk swapping to make up for not enough memory, then you're dead meat ;-)

    Yes, the versions of Unix that have huge kernels can still get fantastic performance, but at what cost: they don't have 512K caches, they have several MB. Ouch!!! I'll take a small kernel and small services (thus a _much_ cheaper machine with the same performance) any day.

    Three cheers for Trumpet Software! (assuming it works and they can get past Microsloth)

  128. Re:eat it, Bill by gavinhall · · Score: 1

    Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:

    >Microsoft is most assuredly NOT the most powerful corporation in the world.

    It's possibly the most powerful corporation in the geek-world that so many Slashdot readers inhabit.

    M$ controls the OS of approx 90% of the world's personal computers. M$ makes over 33 million dollars per day. M$ is in a position where they could control the way most people access the internet. To control the exchange of information is power. You know it, I know it, and Chairman Gates knows it.

    >Some of us, who might be attacked as "supporters of Microsoft" are really just people who can't stand it when we see the losers trying to take down a successful business because they can't compete in the market.

    M$ needs to play by the rules, just like everyone else. You can't do certain things which M$ is accused of doing. It's dishonest to steal someone else's idea and pretend that it was yours all along. You can't steal the source code for someone else's compression program and pass it off as your own. You can't use your position in the market to force people to not use your competition's products. It would be like GM designing their cars to break if you attempt to install after market products on them from a certain manufacturer.

    We don't want to destroy M$, but we do want them to play by the rules.

    LK

  129. Re:eat it, Bill by gavinhall · · Score: 1

    Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangst:

    >You're taking this just a BIT too seriously...

    Not at all, this is a serious issue. Whoever controls the way we exchange information, coltrols everything.

    >Windows is popular, but if MS tried to do something REALLY f'd up with it people could either use Linux or not upgrade to the latest version.

    Like intentionally holding back bug fixes to their old OS so that people are pressured to buy the new one?

    The average computer buyer today doesn't even know that linux is. They know what windows is. I've had people who were thinking about buying a Macintosh come up to me and ask "So, does this run Windows 95 or what?". The average consumer is buying a computer to keep up with the Jones', not because they want a new tool or toy to use.

    If M$ decided that to use windows you were going to have to pay them a $100 per year renewal fee for your software license, most people would have no choice but to pay it.

    There are morons out there who would pay anything as long as they got to use AOL and M$ Office.

    LK

  130. You think NT is so great? by emil · · Score: 1

    You think NT is so great?

    Just try changing the permissions on a file from the command line.

    The greatest OS in the world is worthless if it is built in such a way that you can't use it.

  131. Re:100kb Microkernel? by echo · · Score: 2

    I did an experiment also.

    Using VMWARE, I tried installing Windows NT Workstation 4.0 with varying memory settings. Here's the results.

    8 MB = Refused to Install
    12 MB = Refused to Install
    16 MB = Installed, ran slowly
    32 MB = Installed, ran much better than 16MB.

    Then after I installed with 32MB, I started reducing the RAM on the already installed NT.

    32 MB = Booted fine, as expected.
    16 MB = Booted fine, but slower.
    12 MB = Booted fine, but really really slow.
    8 MB = Blue Screen of Death on bootup.

    I thought it was interested that the installation program wouldn't let you install with 12MB, but that NT would boot with 12MB.

  132. An interesting approach... by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 3

    It sounds like he's concentrated on getting the command line programs working and doesn't have a GUI yet. Since (I'm guessing) the GUI is the bulk of the work, this hardly counts as a Windows clone.

    But, I actually like the approach. I wonder if the Wine folks wouldn't have made faster progress by following the same strategy. As it is now, there are lots of programs that "sort of do something" under Wine, but few useful ones that really work 100%. If the command line stuff worked WELL it might draw more developers to finish the job.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    1. Re:An interesting approach... by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 1

      You mean like gcc -E?

      --
      -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
    2. Re:An interesting approach... by Thomas+Charron · · Score: 1

      GUI is easy compared to everything else.. That's like saying X Windows is the Bulk of a Unix system..

      --
      -- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
    3. Re:An interesting approach... by Matts · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. How would getting command line apps working on Wine encourage developers to work on Wine? There's not a single command line app that I can think of that there isn't a better Linux version of. Can you?

      Although I'd love to see _anything_ that got Wine working better than it does now - right now it's completely useless. VMWare is going to kick it's butt all over the shop.

      Matt.

      perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

      --

      Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
    4. Re:An interesting approach... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2


      My understanding is that this is a different approach than wine is taking. wine is trying to emulate the entire sprawling Win32 API, whereas this thing only emulates the "Native" WinNT kernel API.

      One can imagine a project that translates native WinNT kernel calls to POSIX/Linux API calls. (Another Poster mentioned that there are only 40 or so native API calls, so this is probably several orders of magnitude easier than emulating Win32.) Then you just get all the DLLs, etc from your "licenced" version of WinNT, and bam - Windows programs are running on Linux. The only problem I see is that the graphics wouldn't be over X, but that maybe could be solved with a Win Teminal server client approach.
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    5. Re:An interesting approach... by Natty · · Score: 1

      >There's not a single command line app that I can think of that there isn't a better Linux version of. Can you?

      Ohh, I can, I can! There's a small program called preqcc made by the people who created the Team Fortress quake modification. It adds #define and #ifdef to the quakec language and is needed to compile team fortress. Unfortunately this is a win32 console program but I was able to succesfully run it in wine. So thanks to wine I have a really cool quakeworld server now. Mmmm Quake, I haven't played it for like 10 minutes!

  133. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Joe+Mucchiello · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you launch task manager in NT, it says the process "System" with a PID of 2 is using 200K. That is probably the "kernel".

  134. Re:Don't get too excited by demon · · Score: 1

    FX!32 doesn't do any thunking. Why? Because WinNT on an Alpha runs in a 32-bit mode (yes, I said NT on AXP runs in 32-bit mode). The individual instructions are simply translated from ix86 assembly to AXP 32-bit assembly.

    --

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
    Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  135. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Mouse · · Score: 1

    FYI, the term microkernel does not neccessarily mean that a "small" kernel. It means that the kernel provides a base set of services that operating systems built atop it can suppliment. Therefore, a microkernel is meant to a reusable core for many operating systems.

    For example, the Mach microkernel is not an operating system in and of itself. It provides services such as network and disk access. Operating systems such as BSD, Linux, and NeXT were built to utilize its services. There is one thing one can not say about the Mach microkernel -- it is small.

    Neither PetrOS nor NT are microkernels, although, they may utilize a microkernel-like architecture by creating Ring O level services. In this case, the folks at Trumphet have usurped a computer science concept for marketing purposes.

  136. X for an Interface? by Thomas+Charron · · Score: 1

    How's about it? That would also give it nearly instant access to all of the X windows applications in existence..

    --
    -- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
  137. Re:I thought the Win32 API had GUI in it by Thomas+Charron · · Score: 1

    The Win32 API does, but I'm not sure how MUCH of the API they've completed.. I'm puzzled by the whole thing, as they claim to be able to run NT native exe's, but none of them graphically, apperently?

    --
    -- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
  138. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Matts · · Score: 3

    Those aren't part of the kernel though. They just provide API's to developers, that happen to implement some basic OS services (or what NT considers basic). The _real_ kernel is NTOSKRNL.EXE which on my work system (which I think is SP4) is 927,552 bytes (the bit that provides core system services like threading, process control, etc). Big compared to 100k, and huge compared to QNX Neutrino's 20k. I didn't want to refute your point - just provide a bit of accuracy.

    Matt.


    perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

    --

    Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
  139. Re:Kernel size has nothing to do with being slow. by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    On my HPUX machine, the kernel file is 7M. However, that is a risc architecture which does tend to produce larger code files, but still!!!

  140. Re:Why not WINE? by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    Or they could sell the product and make money off that and make money off selling support contracts.

  141. Re:They obviously misspelled the name... by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    Funny thing is - That's how I read it :)

  142. quicken by mattdm · · Score: 1
    A little off topic but - I've been reluctant to try quicken under wine, because I'm not sure I trust it with my finances. What are the "rough spots and missing functionality" you've come across?

    --

  143. Re:VMWare vs Wine. by Sneakums · · Score: 1

    1) Legality: I happened to have a copy of NT left over, but there are those who would argue that ownership of software is immoral in any case.

    2) Resources: the only real hogging that VMWare does is memory, and most of that is the memory given to the guest OS; it's a simple tunable trade-off. It only hogs CPU when it's actually doing something.

    3) Second box: I can't afford to do that. What I *will* do is add another 128M to my existing box and give NT 96M insted of 64.

    I have yet to try WINE, so I will not comment, except to say that I think it's a wonderful project and exactly the kind of thing that shows that there is no great mystery to Windows.

    Best of luck.

    Paul.

  144. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by substrate · · Score: 2

    Well, its a microkernel so that 100kB comparision to NT isn't really accurate. What the microkernel represents is the smallest amount of code that allows it to schedule processes, manipulate memory and load in other modules. As soon as a user does something silly like try to use it the microkernel will have to load in code that handles ethernet, graphics, input/output devices etc.

    A more accurate comparision would be from a fresh boot what is the graph of memory consumption of each OS while running this script in SuperWizzyWorks 2000?

  145. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by tjansen · · Score: 1

    But is it a good thing to have dozens of API calls for special cases when a Unix system can do the same things with a slim elegant API, with less than 100 API calls, and still be as fast as an NT system (or even faster)?
    I think that this is embarrassing for NT...

  146. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by tjansen · · Score: 1

    Note that I said Unix, not Linux. (And BTW, there are plenty of tests that show the opposite)

  147. Re:yup, no UNIX equivalent of WaitForMultipleObjec by tjansen · · Score: 1

    IMHO using Multithreading and a single thread for each call that might block is an elegant solution and results in very readable code - better code than using a single thread that has to react to a number of events. I have never missed the possiblility to wait for several events in a single thread.
    But maybe I use threads threads more easily because I mainly work in Java, and Java makes it very comfortable to work with threads...

  148. Re:yup, no UNIX equivalent of WaitForMultipleObjec by tjansen · · Score: 1

    But to get a free worker thread you can use a condition variable and a mutex (when using pthreads). And when waiting for several threads to join a loop that joins each thread is an easy solution.

  149. Actually... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    There's several layers to the Win32 API. There's the baseline/command shell API (Memory allocation, file access, etc...), then there's the networking layer (Winsock2...), then there's the baseline GUI layer (GDI...), and so on and so forth. It sounds like he's done the baseline and at least some of the other server/embeddable layers like the Winsock layer, but doesn't have the windowing engine, etc.

    The Win32 API is a patchwork quilt of conflicting, broken APIs strung together by one OS implementation- it's why Wine's not quite as far as it could be and TWIN got open sourced... It's far, far better to start writing apps using something other than the Win32 API.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  150. Re:GUI by AMK · · Score: 1

    Pad++ was a zoomable user interface written in Tcl/Tk. It grew and grew and got unmaintainable, so its successor is a Java library called Jazz, which looks very promising. It's alpha work at the moment, though, requires Java 2, and still needs more optimization work.

  151. Re:This is a great Idea!!!! - score this down NOW by bpdlr · · Score: 1

    Jeez, this guy is an argument for censorship all unto himself. Moderators, do you job! Maybe if you all give him -1 he'll be the first to end up with a -50 score. Is there any was the system could automatically ban someone if they receive a huge markdown? I would prefer never to see this sort of racist, bigoted hate speech at all, even though I sometimes look at the -1's just for a laugh sometimes.
    --

    Barry de la Rosa,
    Senior Reporter, PC Week (UK)
    Work: barry_delarosa[at]vnu.co.uk,
    tel. +44 (0)171 316 9364

    --

    --
    Barry de la Rosa,
    public[at]bpdlr.org
    My /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!

  152. Clueless about everything as usual. by the+red+pen · · Score: 1
    • Try implementing some applications using some of the extensive multithread APIs in the NT OS

      [API's listed]

      the core of the OS is amazingly well thoughtout and designed by experienced software engineers.

    Yes, and those engineers work at IBM where they developed OS/2. Not only was that threading capability stolen from OS/2, but it was stolen badly. OS/2's threading is much faster and doesn't crash constantly.

    • ...and then come back and feel embarrassed...
    I wouldn't think of it! Please, the embarassment is all yours.
  153. Kook of the year by the+red+pen · · Score: 1
    • The threading system crashes constantly does it?
    No, the whole OS does. The threading is just slow as dirt.
    • So if OS/2 was (not the preterite) so good, how come you can't admit NT OS is is the dogs bollocks!?
    1. NT has a crappy GUI compared to OS/2
    2. NT is slower than OS/2
    3. NT is more bloated than OS/2 (perhaps its most notable accomplishment)
    4. NT is less stable than OS/2 (and everytime is gets nearly as stable, they release new brokenware)
    5. NT has at least four Java systems that run on it, none of which run as fast as IBM's for OS/2.
    The list goes on...
    • OS/2 completely lacked a security subsystem, unfortunately.
    OS/2 has a security API which allows you to add a security subsystem appropriate for the risk level of the system. If you have a low-risk system, it is not encumbered by a bloated and slow security system. If you have a high-security system, you can install a high-security security manager. This is called scalability, something OS/2 also does better than NT.

    Too bad you don't have a clue subsystem in which to install a clue.

  154. Re:The market votes with their wallets. by the+red+pen · · Score: 1
    • Some people's Linux boxes crash, some people's NT boxes crash. ...

      So what is your point exactly?

    My point is that seeing is believing.

    I've seen an NT box crash. I've never seen a Linux box crash. I've seen OS/2's GUI lock up (face it, who hasn't?) but I've never seen the machine actually go down. My point? NT sucks.

    • You claim this property of an OS is a demonstration of lack of scalability. "UNIX == not scalable" if you follow your logical argument.
    I strongly doubt you could follow anyone's logical argument, or for that matter, identify a logical argument were it presented to you by a team consiting of Socrates, Descartes and Lt. Data.

    You said OS/2 didn't have a security subsystem. It does and it's flexible. That's the argument. OS/2 is more scalable than NT in a variety of ways as is UNIX. In terms of security, they are less flexible architecturally. That may or may not be a problem.

    NT does suck, though.

  155. sphincter? by QueenFrag · · Score: 1

    i'm sure he'll hear about it from his already- "excited" lawyers.

    --

    Somebody get our flag back!

  156. Trumpet Software by Booker · · Score: 3

    Whatever this PetrOS thing is, I've got to hand it to Trumpet Software - they *really* made a difference 6 or 7 years ago with their Trumpet Winsock stack. Way before Microsoft acknowledged the Net's existence, Trumpet was there to help us poor non-Unix folks get on the web. One of the few shareware programs I actually paid for. :-) I wondered what they were doing these days... I'm not sure there's much of a market for a TCP/IP stack under Windows anymore.

  157. ANd the obvious joke would be... by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    You mean there's a multiuser mode?

    --Joe

    --
    1. Re:ANd the obvious joke would be... by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's called BackOrifice! :-)

      --
      // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  158. I wish! by psp · · Score: 1

    As much as I respect your opinions on NT as a workstation, I beg you differ. I'm actually using NT daily (NT4SP4, at work), and it has to be rebooted at least 3 or 4 times a week. Not because of crashes mind you, I find NT as stable as my Linux 2.2 system, but because of the amount of memory the kernel taks.
    I'm not using any extravaganza funky applications, but rather mostly MS office suite and Visual Studio, but after two 8h days of usage, the kernel takes almost 100M of my 128M memory, which is almost unusable.
    This problem has nothing to with bloat in the applications, but rather somewhere deep inside the kernel.

    1. Re:I wish! by cme · · Score: 1

      Yep, I don't reboot this often, but DevStudio apparently exacerbates some sort of memory leak in the OS. Someday MS is gonna fix this and advertise it as a feature.
      Then again, memory is cheap.

    2. Re:I wish! by Zoltar · · Score: 1

      I would agree wit you completely. I am stuck at work with only 40 meg of RAM running NT4 and it its pretty stable, but I still have to reboot because soemtimes it just slows to a snails pace. It won't lock up but it becomes unusable and can't seem to recover. I can't imaginge anyone trying to run on less that 40 meg of ram.

      At least I've been spared the BSOD, several of my coworkers (who perform backups like madmen) have met the BSOD with all data lost...poof...bye bye...

      I don't really have to much bad to say about NT, given my choice I prefer Linux and Solaris.(Which I run at home and LOVE)

  159. Re:The space shuttle (off-topic) by rhinoX · · Score: 1


    I was under the impression that the shuttle uses 6502's (well, later models) because they were the only CPU's that are currently manufactured to withstand the heat generated by reentry.

    But it's been a while, and I could be wrong.

    --
    The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
  160. Yeah, that's a lot worse than windows by rhinoX · · Score: 1


    which won't let you do any of the above when a game crashes and takes the keyboard/screen with it.
    you get real warm and fuzzy with the reset button. If your POS brand-name machine even has one anymore.

    But that was a design feature, right?

    --
    The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
  161. Re:The obstacle to Microkernels by rhinoX · · Score: 1

    The graphics subsystem in NT prior to version 4 was just awful. It was SLOOOOOOOOW, and kind of incapable. 4 made it a lot faster, but also introduced blue screens for video drivers, which I had not previously seen.

    --
    The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
  162. Goodness gracious by The+G · · Score: 3

    I wonder if these folks even realize the implications... forget embedded (win32 is a bad idea for the embedded market anyway), think emulation -- win32 drivers and applications running with no overhead under any OS you like.

    If this is legal (and you can bet MS will be trying hard to prevent it from being) then we may just have hit the point where even OS-specific software and drivers aren't OS-specific any more.

    Of course the obvious MS response is to immediately make some incompatible API changes that break this new micro-OS, and patent them so far up their asses that a programmer couldn't extract them without reaching down their mouths with a plumber's snake. We'll have to see how the legal side of this evolves.

    1. Re:Goodness gracious by vr · · Score: 1

      Considering the current legal difficulties Microsoft are in, I doubt (well.. it would be really stupid of them) that they would actually do what you say. It would just be another log on the fire (.. or another brick in the wall.. whatever).

  163. Re:100kb Microkernel? by scrytch · · Score: 1

    Hey man, what kind of slashdotter are you? You're supposed to latch onto one OS and one intellectual property philosophy, march lockstep with its dogma, and stridently pontificate on its virtues to the exclusion of all others to anyone who will listen.

    Now get in line. :)

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  164. Re:100kb Microkernel? by scrytch · · Score: 1

    [/usr/src/linux]# make vmlinux
    ... spammage ...
    [/usr/src/linux]# ls -al vmlinux
    -rwxrwxr-x 1 root root 1278562 Jul 8 17:11 vmlinux

    That's a very much modular kernel too without any extra gunk my hardware doesn't support, or things I don't use, like routers. That aint tiny either.

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  165. They obviously misspelled the name... by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be PitrOS?

    mark "sorry, too much userfriendly, I s'pose..."

    1. Re:They obviously misspelled the name... by Samrobb · · Score: 1

      Heh. Just realized the completely abbreviated version of the name is POS... which I can't help but think says something about their feelings for NT.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  166. VMWare vs Wine. by landley · · Score: 2
    My understaing of VMWare is:

    1) You need a copy of windows to run. To do it legally costs $$$, especially NT.

    2) Running a whole second OS is a serious resource hog.

    3) It's effectively running on a second (virtual) computer, in its own little sealed box. Why not just get a second computer and a monitor/keyboard/rat switch?

    Wine provides the Win32 system calls to a Linux process, allowing things like a windows CGI program to do credit card validation to be spawned from Linux' Apache. It may never run every windows program in existence, but:

    1) Neither does any one version of Windows.

    2) I don't own every windows program in existence. I only care about the ones I have (which these days, are mostly games, half of which actually run under DOS.)

    3) This is legacy support. 50% of the legacy windows programs out there aren't Y2K compliant anyway, and an amazing number of people are limping along with "good enough for now" 3.1 installs left over from the 1980's for their daily word processing and checkbook balancing/payroll. (Sheesh, last year I helped a friend of a friend copy his comic book store inventory system from an old 386 SX with a 100 meg hard drive to an old 386 DX with a 200 meg drive. Only reason he left the old system was he'd tried Dos 6 doublespace and the drive started to eat itself.)

    We don't HAVE to support the latest and greatest Windows apps, those companies are still around and we can lobby for a native version as we penetrate farther and farther into "grandma" land and our usage numbers go up with drool-proof interfaces like Gnome and automatic install/configuration and pre-installs. And we ALREADY support a lot of the old stuff, and creep farther every day.

    The Wine people are adding new APIs faster than Microsoft is. They're better at it. Someday, they'll catch up.

    Rob

  167. Re:100kb Microkernel? by psaltes · · Score: 1

    I bet thats compressed, too.

  168. Re:PetrOS - Server OS, not desktop. by DavidTC · · Score: 1
    Flamebait, flamebait...while I may drive a tractor, it doesn't randomly explode and kill everyone. And, as it's faster then windows, your analogy doesn't hold water.

    (Don't even think of mentioning that web server test...my desktop machine is not a webserver. And I don't have multiple T1s to handle that bandwidth anyway. Or four network cards. I knew which is faster, I used to run Windows on this overclock PPro with 32 megs of RAM.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  169. Re:Hey moderators. Lets test the new moderation he by Croaker · · Score: 1

    Hmm... I just hit this dweeb with another negative moderation point, but for some reason he's not -2 now. Perhaps it's because I didn't choose "flamebait" as the original moderator did, but instead chose "Troll."

    My last moderation point was gobbled up. so it should have docked him another point...

    (I'm posting as AC because, of course, I can't post to a topic I've moderated...)

  170. Re:Hey moderators. Lets test the new moderation he by Croaker · · Score: 1

    Oops. Well, it looks like I managed to undo my moderations by somehow posting as myself... D'oh! It did say it was undoing the moderations, though... which meant it recorded them. But it didn't reflect it in teh moderation score. Weird.

  171. Wake up... by Axe · · Score: 1

    ...try SNIFF+, Source Navigator, Code Warrior, CVS for code management.
    VC sucks in comparison. Linux IS a better code development enviroment I have to admit. I hate UNIX, but I had to leave NT for sane developement.. Give it a try. Your code will be better (partly because egcs 1.1.2 is a better standard C++).

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  172. You obviously.. by Axe · · Score: 1

    ...never worked on a project with more than 10
    functions in it ;)

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  173. hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by saturated · · Score: 1

    i'll definetly sign up for that dev program. i wonder what the minimum requirements for the system are? if the kernel is only 100kb what the hell has mikeysoft put in thiers?

    now if we all can convince them to open up the dev project this would be damn cool.. expand wine to run native nt products alongside reqular windoze apps.




    -lordvdr
    "Linux is not portable" - Linus Torvalds

    --
    ' god damn this is one wacky game show ' ~ jay in mallrats
    1. Re:hmm.. i wonder if it will be open source? by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 4
      if the kernel is only 100kb what the hell has mikeysoft put in thiers?

      Easter eggs. If you hold down QCKRTISO whilst saying the Lord's Prayer backwards and tipping milk into your keyboard, it displays random pictures from Bill's family photo album. This is why stuff like GIF decoders have to be in kernel space under Windows NT; the "photo album" Easter egg requires them to work.

  174. Playing it straight by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2


    Actually, there is (WTS).
    --

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  175. Why not WINE? by Stiletto · · Score: 1

    These guys ought to put their exceptional talents to use on the WINE project, rather than re-inventing the wheel yet again. There's already an alternate Win32 implementation out there, and it's already open-source.

  176. I dunno... by Stiletto · · Score: 1

    This is off-topic, but I kind of have a problem with your argument. Is what _you personally_ call "bigoted hate speech" any more of a flaim-bait than any other trolls we get here? Why does "bigoted hate speech" deserve a -50 where "Linux Sucks" deserves a -1? The moderation is here to clean up the trash a bit, but there is no section in the guidelines that specifies a larger penalty for political incorrectness...

  177. NT Native API by Samrobb · · Score: 3
    For those interested, a couple of articles on the native NT API by Mark Russinovich:

    Inside the Native API

    Inside Native Applications

    Just out of curiosity, I took a look at native.exe (from the applications article) - the only dependency is on NTDLL.DLL, which weighs in at 347kb on my NT4 SP4 machine. Keep in mind that ntdetect.com, ntldr, hal.dll Though I have to admit the exports for it look a little weird... it looks like it implements a good chunk of the standard C library, and I want to know who thought exporting functions like "PropertyLengthAsVariant" were absolutely vital to the kernel...

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  178. Re:100kb Microkernel? by jabber · · Score: 2

    It may be true, but it certainly can't be running an NT compatible Win32 system. The NT microkernel is but a tiny pary of the NT kernel. The microkernel is responsible for thread scheduling, multiprocessor sync, interrupt handling and little else. The mukernel needs the other kernel mode services (large) of NT to even begin to provide a Win32 system.

    This sounds a lot like saying that Linux is capable of running a web server, X windows, Netscape, Emacs, yadda-yadda, and it can fit on a floppy too. Note, not at the same time, but it can. The floppy sized piece is a small part of the whole that can do wonderful things. I'm sure that the Trumpet people rely on other kernel mode services to provide a system that can run anything at all.

    To their credit though, the Trumpet people couldn't take functionality OUT of the mukernel to reduce it's size to ~100K, so that size is a result of tweaks. But then again, we don't know how large that functionally comparable piece of M$-NT is per their distribution of it.

    --

    -- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
  179. Re:100kb Microkernel? by jabber · · Score: 2

    Microkernels are a great way to do things.
    I've used/developed for QNX in a real-time environment, and I was very impressed.

    But, the thing to remember is that small size comes at the cost of functionality and performance. After reading your link and some of the ones from there on, I'm under the impression that beyond a bootable POSIX, browser and web server, there's not much there on that floppy. And I noticed that it uses a two stage boot process to get going. Step one bootstraps a decompressor, and step two loads the decompressed system into memory. That OS, off the floppy, is probably on the order of 4MB+...

    The QNX installation I worked with included a full OS (complete with those bells and whistles like grep, awk and vi), the full Photon windowing system (not just the GUI support for the browser) the developer support for TCP/IP, and Photon, and a nuts-to-the-wall C/C++ compiler from Watcom.

    The install was about 100MB+, and still wouldn't run Quake.:) It's nice to have a 45K mukernel, but it is more important to have the code for the whole system efficient and fast. Even if the mukernel is half a meg, it must be fast before anything else - except where size trully matters, like on a satellite. :)

    --

    -- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
  180. Re:100kb Microkernel? by dirty · · Score: 1

    By that same logic, the linux kernel is equal to the size of /vmlinuz + `find / -follow -name "*.so"`. I'm not even going to attempt to figure out how huge that would be. The nt kernel itself is quite small I think. It should be atleast as it's a microkernel. Also, small is not always equal to good. The MS-DOS "kernel" is something like 10k. It's a peice of crap though.

    --

    -matt
  181. PetrOS by generic · · Score: 1

    This would be great, another Desktop OS. If I were them I would keep it as different from BeOS
    System X and windows as possible. Maybe create a 3D desktop as the standard? that would be neato.

    --
    Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
  182. Re:GUI by generic · · Score: 1

    A ZUI? cool got any links?

    --
    Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
  183. I work down the road from Trumpet... by semis · · Score: 1

    .. and MAN do they have no clue!

    They are also an ISP and they charge AU$5/hr (US$3) !!!

    All their products have crappy win3.1 interfaces, and sure they might have been good a while back, but these guys don't have what it takes to make this OS work...

    my 2c.

  184. Re:100kb Microkernel? by JamesHenstridge · · Score: 1

    What you have just described is a GUI program going down -- not the GUI. If you can get to the task manager or some other GUI application, the GUI is most certainly not dead.

    When NT locks up, but you can still reach the machine via the network, you will know what the person was talking about.

    When this happens, you will need a reboot.

    Most of the times I have seen this occur have been due to bad video drivers. If you are setting up an NT server, spend the extra money to get a good name brand video card (and probably avoid Hercules) that is not too recent (so the drivers have had time to mature).

    Of course, I am sure there are other things that will cause the GUI to freeze, but this will prevent a lot of those cases.

  185. Re:100kb Microkernel? MS kernel size numbers. by Gary+Gnu · · Score: 2

    That probably includes debugging code since it's a beta release.

    If anyone is interested in learning about the NT kernel go to www.sysinternals.com. Learn more about our enemy....

  186. Commission a gui? by dar · · Score: 1

    Xfree86 should be easy to paste on.

    --
    My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
  187. Re:100kb Microkernel? MS kernel size numbers. by Shoeboy · · Score: 1

    Kernel32.dll is ~ 700Kb in size. Hal.dll for x86 is ~90Kb. On W2K beta 3 at any rate.
    --Shoeboy

  188. Close, but no cigar.. by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't be a true NT clone unless it crashed 3 times a day, and cost more than a typical family car to keep running.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  189. Re:Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by kijiki · · Score: 1

    This whole, "NT crashes 3 times a day" vs "my NT box hasn't crashed in 60 years" debate is quite silly. Obviously NT is going to be reasonably stable if all you do is use it to browse the web. Try running a dynamic site with IIS and SQLserver and see how often you need to reboot (and I mean a loaded server, not one on your own personal network to organize your cd collection). Of course, some rabit NT fan will dispute this, but there are rabid linux fans too, and rabid amiga fans, and mac fans, ad nausuem.

  190. For Bill's lawyers by bunyip · · Score: 1

    Let's send his "excited" lawyers off to Tasmania, it was the worst of the penal colonies.

    Also, a few years back it was the only state in Australia where machine guns were legal. Dunno if this this still the case, but I'm sure there's still a few around in case some errant, excited lawyers turn up...

  191. The obstacle to Microkernels by bunyip · · Score: 1

    OK, we all agree that microkernels make for simple, robust, flexible systems but you can't measure that objectively. So, magazines and reviewers measure speed (or feature lists - hence bloat).

    W95 was faster the NT3.5, particularly the GUI, so all the GUI stuff migrates to the kernel. So does all the other junk.

    Another example is the web. If we put HTTP in the kernel, such as a loadable driver, it'll run faster, IBM's doing that on AIX with a couple of GB of kernel-based cache to serve up static pages faster.

    So, would consumers buy or even download and install this new OS if all it did was run Windows programs 5% slower w/o crashing?

    1. Re:The obstacle to Microkernels by bunyip · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not my observation, it was something I saw in the press a few years back. I think the graphics (ie games, scrolling in Word, etc) were faster on W95, but databases (like Access) ran better on NT due to smarter memory use and I/O caching.

      I have never used W95.

    2. Re:The obstacle to Microkernels by styopa · · Score: 1

      Your observation about W95 being faster than NT3.51 is true under most cases. I found that on a 486SX25 with 8 Megs of ram that NT3.51 was actually faster than W95, and very compariable to W3.11 in speed. Hopefully no one else will be as unfortunate to make this discovery, but it is true.

      --
      Disclamer - Opinion of Person
    3. Re:The obstacle to Microkernels by mong · · Score: 1

      Running stuff at a 5% speed disadvantage with a big stability advantage is actually a fairly attractive proposition - on the basis of notable recent (fair?) tests this is exactly what Linux does already...

      The Space Shuttle uses late 386s or something like that, purely because the last 386s had all the bugs sorted out. Slow, but stable. See? There's many situations where stabilty is far more important.

      Besides, with computers running at ridiculous speeds now, would 5% really put you at a major disadvantage to your competitors? Or would the speed of the actual box mean that the 5% becomes irrelevant?

      Mong. (Developing a penchant for writing lots, and saying little).
      * Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

      --

      *...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
      Remember: Nothing is Cool.
  192. Re:100kb Microkernel? by SeanNi · · Score: 1

    According to the "conventional wisdom" (aka: manuals published by MS), the NT Kernel consists of:

    kernel32.dll
    gdi32.dll
    user32.dll

    Exactly how far you trust that is up to you. On my (NT4) machine, those files add up to 852k.

    (Just my random $.02)
    --
    - Sean

    --
    It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
    - Sean
  193. Who said they had any interest in Open-Source? by SeanNi · · Score: 1

    Ummm... excuse me, but who ever said they had any interest at all in Open-Source?

    It's quite possible they have their own interests in making this proprietary, and selling it... I seem to recall the article saying something about embedded systems... maybe that's the market they're going after for the $$...

    Then again, maybe not, but don't assume that just because the article is posted here on /. that they have any interest in open sourcing / giving out their programs, or in helping the Free Un*x community...

    After all, Trumpet Winsock was shareware, and definitely proprietary...
    --
    - Sean

    --
    It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
    - Sean
  194. Close, but not quite. by SeanNi · · Score: 1

    IBM did have a "copy" of the Windows (16 bit), and later Win32s API set in Win-OS/2. But not because they were mirroring the MS API.

    Rather, the reason was that originally, IBM and Microsoft developed OS/2 jointly. Win-OS/2 is and was in fact a fully-functional direct copy of Windows itself.

    When MS quit the partnership, part of the remaining agreements were that IBM had the rights to the Windows source code for a couple of more years. This allowed them to implement the Win32s API in successive versions of Win-OS/2.

    But, by the time Win95 rolled around, that agreement had expired, and IBM no longer had any access to the Windows source. They did not, and never did have any interest in emulating the API, so without the source, they simply didn't include it.

    It was not that they couldn't keep up with the pace, but rather that it wasn't their intention to try.
    --
    - Sean

    --
    It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
    - Sean
  195. Suggestions for ratings by SeanNi · · Score: 1

    That's sort-of implemented already.

    That is, I think that's what CmdrTaco had in mind with the qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) ratings (aka: "Flamebait", "Offtopic", "Troll", etc...)

    There are 2 things that should be done to improve this, however.

    1. There should be more categories. The fact that this was marked as "Troll" indicates that there is no category such as "offensive". Perhaps (probably), posts should be able to have more than one descriptive rating applied to them (ie: this one was both offtopic and offensive).

    2. You should be able to set your filter by these categories, instead of only by number. Currently, all you can do is set a numeric threshold (which is obviously set at -1). But if you could set /. to filter everything out that is marked as "offensive", that would allow you greater control, rather than the current 2 options of setting it to -1 and seeing everything, including this garbage, or setting to 0 (or higher) and missing out on stuff that is perhaps offtopic, but not distasteful...

    (Of course, then we just have to trust then moderators to categorize the posts adequately... :-)
    --
    - Sean

    --
    It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
    - Sean
  196. Office 2000 by cpeterso · · Score: 1

    Office 2000 defines the limits of Win32 compatibility, not necessarily office applications.

  197. Re:100kb Microkernel? by magic · · Score: 2
    I wonder how much is in their distro, though. The Windows kernel is way huge, but that is only a small part of the OS. The file system, GDI, UI (which includes IE now), device drivers, etc. make up the bulk.

    The coolest thing about this is that with a 200kb NT, it would be possible to use it as an NT emulator, making it possible to load NT device drivers under other OS's. A little linux-NT bridge could easily be built, where the drivers would get all of the NT services they expect.

    This would be very helpful for getting "alternative" OS's like BeOS, Linux, MacOS, OS/2, (and now, PetrOS) etc. running on currently unsupported hardware.

    -m

  198. Re:Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by the_tsi · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree. My NT box can get quite moody and crash up to three times a day. I know exactly why, but I just deal with it. The problem is sketchy hardware with even more sketchy drivers. If you want to see a BSOD every few hours, get the most generic A3D Vortex soundcard you can find. Then, get a G200 and Rainbow Runner and install the latest drivers that support the Rainbow Runner. And maybe throw in a realtek 8139-based NIC. You're dead in the water.
    I'll start up winquake and crash somewhere between three and fifteen minutes in to a game. Reboot into Linux and play for hours.

    Sure, a brand new Dell Precision or Poweredge may be rock solid under NT, but "real world" PCs aren't.

    -Chris

  199. Kernel size has nothing to do with being slow. by zak · · Score: 2

    Check out some _commercial_ unices, which _don't_ keep their kernels compressed like Linux - you'll be in about the same ballpark as NT's kernel booted - between 1.5MB and 3.5MB. Are _these_ slow and bloated? Kernel size measures _nothing_ (except maybe how small a system you could comfortably use on a stripped-down system).

  200. Re:Virtuous NT by briam · · Score: 1
    I think Windows strength, in comparison to UNIX, is that a lot of old UNIX programmers are still using malloc() and free(), fixed buffer sizes, and various programming idioms of C. I think that this is encouraged by the lack of free/cheap C++ dev environments

    What rock have you been living under? Gnu C++ has been around for quite a while now. Not only is there g++ 2.8 which supports all the latest ansi stuff like templates and exceptions but there is even egcs - the competing derivative version.

    There is no reason that you can't do OO on unix. Perhaps many of the commercial vendors are stuck with C and procedural programming but that's because they're dinosaurs and slowly dying. Here in the Free World we have a plethora of OO development environments to choose from. True, many projects are still written in C, but that's a matter of personal choice as many people simply don't like C++ and none of the alternatives (objC, Java, perl/python) seem applicable so they use C. A good example is gtk+. It's design is very much OO, using an object system hacked together from macros and typecasts. But that base has allowed other people to implement language bindings for many truly OO languages.

    If you want exposure to the cutting edge, I suggest you check out languages like Perl, Python, and Java. Python and Java enforce a strict OO methodology and employ many of the latest language features and ideas in a cross platform manner.

    If you've found the cutting edge within the microsoft realm and are happy with that, good for you. Personally I could never stand being tied to windows.

  201. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Fazed · · Score: 1

    Doh ! do they run the same services ? Had IIS pissed memory everywhere. Had they been up the same mount of time HEH not even worth the effort you put in !

  202. Re:Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by davewill · · Score: 1

    Most of these problems are device driver related. I've fixed many an unstable NT system by searching for updated drivers. NIC and Video card drivers especially. I really laugh at so called "servers" that have 3D graphics accelerators in them. Those companies position their drivers to play games quickly, not for stability. The bad part is unfortunately, some of the offending drivers are on the NT CD-ROM, and often even the top drawer companies seem to have trouble with this.

    Of course, with the free software community, a problem like that would be publicized instead of buried. I've yet to see the docs for one of these updated drivers actually admit to the problem.

    --
    Dave Williams
  203. Interesting idea, and a known phenomenon by osmac · · Score: 1

    Sounds good, and a little bit like COS, the MacOS 8 alternative by Omega GmbH, Vapourware par excellence.

    see http://www.agemo.de

  204. Re:Virtuous NT by Zoltar · · Score: 1

    sub sarcasm {
    "Yeah...uh...so how's that IPV6 support coming along ? Oh..I know...they are going to come out with their own, slightly different protocol... call it NTip... and talk about how innovative they are...while only allowing other MS boxes to connect to each other..thus promoting the growth of technology ...and of course NTip won't work for crap for the first two years it's out...and just when it becomes to mature and be functional they will change it and go through the whole process all over...sheesh...yeah NT is soooo advanced..that's why it doesn't scale for crap...yeah...can you say Sun Solaris...bah";
    }

    print sarcasm;

  205. c++ development environments by Masker · · Score: 1

    I think that this is encouraged by the lack of free/cheap C++ dev environments Huh? Ever heard of gcc/egcs/g++ and libstdc++? What about c++ development on Win32 Systems? How much does Visual C++ 6.0 cost? (Pro version, which is required to distribute applications, is $250!) How about non-MS compilers? Turbo C++? KAI? They all cost $$$ too! The ONLY free/cheap C++ compiler that I've ever seen is gcc/egcs/g++. And it, frankly, kicks butt! I do agree that (apparently) most (binary) application programming (actually, there may be more Perl scripting done than anything else...) for Linux is in C, but I doubt that lack of C++ development tools is any real contributing factor; after all, these tools come standard with any distribution of Linux I've ever seen. As do IDEs (XEmacs, SNiFF+, etc.) and debuggers (gdb, ddd, etc.). Now, you want to talk about application development in NT? What a pain in the butt! Where is a decent shell? (Well, there's bash - another GNU tool) Where are free IDEs? (there's NTEmacs - another GNU-derived tool) How do you search through code for instances of keywords/functions/variables quickly and easily across source files? (Well, there's grep - yet another gnu tool) What about a decent TEXT EDITOR, for goodness' sake? (Come on, word pad and note pad SUCK! gvim for win32 is the only decent, fast, powerful text editor I've seen for win32. WinNT is such an unfriendly development environment, it really surprises me that C++ programmers even tolerate it. I can expect that people get used to having bad tools and support, but I don't understand why you are DEFENDING M$'s development environment and saying it's cheap/free....

    --

    ---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  206. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

    From the Windows NT Workstation homepage : "Pentium or faster processor 16 MB of memory (RAM); 32 MB recommended"

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
  207. DAMNIT WTF IS UP WITH THAT AD'S AUDIO by delmoi · · Score: 1

    I don't know what kind of ad rotation this page has, but I reloaded the page twice and got the same IBM "a lot of stuff is hagning on your network... blabla" add, with this weird "swosh swosh" sound, then the IBM TV add song.
    I don't know what it is that makes advertizers think that they can pump irritating sound in my face (in addition to taking up my computers only wave out resource). I had to view the source (and then cut and paste it to notepad beacuse it didn't fit on the page)
    god!

    ok now to read the artical...

    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  208. AC post == 0 by default by delmoi · · Score: 1

    unless moderated up
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  209. MSVC++ and the JDK by delmoi · · Score: 1

    I take it you've never used Visual C++, it can do all the things you talk about and a *lot* more, sure it costs $250, but that isn't *really* that much, and a student edition only costs $99. if your going to be distributing your apps in a big way, an extra $150 isn't going to seem like much.

    C++ coding is a joy in vc++ (well as much of a joy as C++ can be compared to java)

    as for not using the IDE, I did some work with java, including writing an ICR client with the strait JDK, I used a shareware program called 'text pad', and the good old MS-DOS edit. both worked pretty well, and had 'search and replace' cpabilitys.

    Iv'e only done strait C a few times in my life, and I never plan to again. I'm sure i *could* do it... but i would probably end up shooting myself in the head first...
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  210. win32 api by delmoi · · Score: 1

    um, I don't know what planet your from, but here on earth the win32 api has been published... how do you think people write windows programs?
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  211. actualy there is by delmoi · · Score: 1

    One time I was looking through these posts and I saw a post that was -5, it was bold and said "hate speach, racism, etc" although I've never seen an option to set that in any moderator setings.
    I guess only one of the ops can change that....
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

    --

    ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
    1. Re:actualy there is by BigDaddyJ · · Score: 1
      In the very beginning of Slashdot moderation, CmdrTaco set the minimum to something like -10, but changed it to be only -1 to prevent excessive filtration, IIRC (if you're curious, search for Slashdot moderation articles).

      --bdj

  212. Re:PetrOS - Server OS, not desktop. by goomba · · Score: 1

    There is a difference. People don't use Nt Server and Linux for playing games and word processing, they use desktop OS's like Windows 95/98, BeOS, and MacOS.

  213. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by swingerman · · Score: 1

    Interesting you mention man aio.

    I have been trying to test this under Linux to no avail. I have a simple C proggy:

    #include
    #include
    #include
    #include
    #include

    int ok = 0;

    void io_handler(int signum)

    ok = 1;


    void main()

    struct aiocb cb;
    int fd, retval;
    char buf[50];
    struct sigevent sigev;

    signal(SIGIO, io_handler);

    fd = open("test", O_RDONLY);

    sigev.sigev_notify = SIGEV_SIGNAL;
    sigev.sigev_signo = SIGIO;

    cb.aio_fildes = fd;
    cb.aio_buf = buf;
    cb.aio_nbytes = 15;
    cb.aio_sigevent.sigev_notify = SIGEV_SIGNAL;
    cb.aio_sigevent.sigev_signo = SIGIO;

    fprintf(stderr, "here\n");

    aio_read(&cb);

    fprintf(stderr, "here\n");

    while (!ok) {
    fprintf(stderr, "waiting...\n");
    sleep(5);
    }

    fprintf(stderr, "retreived data: %s\n", buf);
    }

    Works fine under Slowlaris and Irix, but Linux doesn't get the signal. Any ideas? I'd love to believe that Linux supports Async I/O, but I need to prove it to myself first.

    Cheers!

  214. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by swingerman · · Score: 1

    DAMN HTML interpreting ' and '>'. Here is the insides of the include brackets:

    stdio.h
    sys/types.h
    fcntl.h
    aio.h
    signal.h

    In that order.

  215. Re:Don't get too excited by jonathanclark · · Score: 1

    I am refering to functions like :

    DebugActiveProcess(), WaitForDebugEvent(), CreateProcess(... DEBUG_PROCESS ...)

    and also functions that manipulate other processes like:
    VirtualAllocEx(), VirtualProctectEx()

    Even stuff for your own process is missing, like GetThreadContext, and SetThreadContext.

    All of these functions were missing last time I checked.

  216. Don't get too excited by jonathanclark · · Score: 2

    While I think they are heading in the right direction, it doesn't sound like they have gotten very far according to the article. Thus far they have only run a command-line program that uses very few system calls (the Borland compiler). Consider what is needed by a compiler:

    CreateFile, CloseHandle, etc. - Minimal file operations
    VirtualAlloc, GlobalAlloc, etc - Minimal memory management

    Plus a half a dozen misc functions. They state in the article that they haven't even started on the GUI, perhaps the hardest part. You can't just clone a few bits kernel32.dll and winnt.dll and say you have a windows clone. They also make no mention of how they plan to implement DDK which, IMO, would be the whole point of making a windows clone. Without device drivers what good is an OS?

    The WINE project is *way* beyond this. Also WINE benefits tremendously by having a linux core and thus a solid device driver base behind it. Having said that, there are 2 problems with Wine. The first will probably never be surmounted, and that it will never be able support hardware that has win32 only drivers, and many of the APIs Microsoft has developed don't exist under linux so even if someone was willing and able to port, they couldn't. Take Direct3d for example. The best you could hope is to make a D3D->GL layer inside WINE, but it's not a very good mapping. Then there are weirder things like : CryptoAPI, Telephony API, etc.. where there is nothing at all like it under linux.

    The second problem with WINE is that it is a single process solution. It makes no attempts to emulate the entire system, just the current process. This means you can't : debug a process, drag and drop, and other forms of IPC that many programs depend on. I believe this can be fixed, but will require a fairly big change to WINE.

    Another project to look at that is very interesting is the FX!32 system by DEC. This system actually runs under NT, so they didn't have to write APIs except to thunk from 64->32->64. But it can run native intel binaries with very little slow down by doing dynamic code translation.

    (wow, I just noticed "Linux" is not the Microsoft Spell Checker)

    1. Re:Don't get too excited by PTrumpet · · Score: 1

      Finally, I have had time to reply to this topic after the interest that it's cooked up.

      The most common feedback is that I should use OSS techniques to distribute the product. I however am yet to be convinced that this would be commercially practical to our company, since for the project to be successful, it will need to fund itself. OSS would work against us in that regard in my opinion.

      From the point of view of making OSS provide resources for us, I have reviewed over the past year several of the OSS projects related to Win32. WINE has certainly caught my eye, but my concern is that the development has maybe progressed too far for me to make effective use of it in our project. If we can marry the two successfully and deal with any contentious commercial issues, it might be a goer. Of primary importance is however size. The primary goal of PetrOS is to keep the size of a working system to the minimum possible, as evidenced by our small kernel size.

      Some technicalities of PetrOS.

      The size is indeed *around* 100K. The last time I looked last week, the kernel was at around 120K.
      Although this is certainly likely to grow, I'm currently using my own pascal compiler which produces manageable code, not optimal code. If & when I am able to get the kernel to compile with the Delphi command line compiler, I am likely to reduce the size down to almost 50% of its current size.

      The kernel at the moment has built in support for FAT16, FAT32 IDE drives (no floppy support yet), standard AT keyboard, CGA monitor, COM1-4 ports, virtual paged memory, COFF executables and sockets. It's been built using object oriented Pascal throughout which has added significantly to its stability. It also supprots a loadable driver model so that the kernel itself should not require significant redevelopment over time. The sockets api is extendible allowing us to have the tcp/ip and network drivers as individual kernel modules loaded as necessary. In all this, I have no intention to become another Unix clone - indeed the Unix model possibly works against trying to create a framework that has the potential to provide any kind of alternative to a particular well known OS. Just to clear up any misconceptions, my work to date in no way emulates any of the NT kernel at all since I have no desire to be seen as an NT clone either. My only desire is to create a small & stable kernel that can run equally comfortably on legacy 486 machines to the latest & greatest Intel machines. As it is also written in high level language, porting to other platforms while not trivial should be relatively painless.

      Also important in my design is to get the hardware as close as possible to the application layer without losing system integrity. I believe this is possible with prudent design, but does remain to be realized. Don't forget that one is using the same CPU cycles in kernel mode as you are using in User mode. The real bottleneck in OS design is user kernel transitions so if a lot of the grunt work can be done at the application layer, one *may* be able to write a fairly fast and robust GUI at that level.

      As far as my background goes, I have some qualification to do what I am doing. I have been writing compilers since the late 70's and have spent at least 10 years of my working life writing and maintaining a variety of real time operating systems over diverse platforms. This all before I actually got involved in the internet and writing Trumpet Winsock for which you all know me.

      Well, that's enough for now. I could talk heaps more about it, but the more CPU cycles I burn here, the less I have to work on the OS.

      I just hope that you all can catch the vision of what the PetrOS project is all about, that I'm not trying to tear down Linux or FreeBSD or Windows NT or whatever. It's just that there's a need for something a little different to the mainstream out there, and PetrOS may have a chance of fulfilling that something.

  217. Re:100kb Microkernel? by xcene · · Score: 1

    Red Hat Linux, i think I tried with 5.2 some time ago, won't let you install with less than 5mb ram either, but if you've got the software on the system in some way or another, it will run (although very slowly) with 4mb or even less.

    --
    -- close but no sig
  218. Re:100kb Microkernel? by dbullock · · Score: 1

    Er, that's showing that the COMMUTATIVE property doesn't always apply, not the additive property.

    (sigh)

    --
    http://www.bullnet.com
  219. Re:The space shuttle (off-topic) by dbullock · · Score: 1

    CPU's aren't exposed to heat any more than the astronauts themselves are.

    The heat generated by atmospheric friction during a Mach 25 reentry would slag ANY CPU if it were explosed to it.

    Older CPU's are used because the circuits are larger and less susceptible to damage by cosmic rays. As the build sizes go down (.25 .18 microns) the CPU's are more fragile and susceptible to all kinds of failures.

    --
    http://www.bullnet.com
  220. This is sad by Salamander · · Score: 1
    Seems like people are talking about several different things, with zero regard for the distinctions between them:
    • On-disk size of the NT kernel itself.
    • On-disk size of the minimal set of NT object files needed to boot the kernel.
    • On-disk size of the typical set of NT object files loaded when NT boots.
    • Memory requirements for the NT kernel to boot successfully.

    Please, let's can the slashdot FUD, and compare apples to apples.
    --
    Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
  221. I thought the Win32 API had GUI in it by Rocket+Boy · · Score: 1

    Not being a serious Win32 programmer, I thought it had functions for creating a gui and components? If so, then PetrOS might have it already.

    RB

  222. Re:PetrOS - Server OS, not desktop. by MadChicken · · Score: 1

    Personally the FREE part really matters **a lot** to me. You may have thousands of bucks to drop on software, but I don't. Do without or use Linux. Turns out Linux is also way more fun, and way more capable.

    Or am I wrong? A hayseed, perhaps? Cheap, for certain...

    --
    SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
  223. Not to defend NT unnecessarily, but... by Inhume · · Score: 1

    Anyone who can't get a simple NT box working with a relative degree of stability probably should probably keep to Sega or Etch-A-Sketch something, because they have no clue. I've worked with a number of OS'es (Win32, Linux, Mac, etc.) for the last five years now, and NT is really no more crash-prone than the rest (save AIX and Solaris). Indeed, I'd rate it well above MacOS and some others. If it's crashing thrice daily for you, it's probably time to get off your ass and install a Service Pack (psst, don't tell anyone, but they're up to 5 now) or upgrade beyond 24MB of memory. I ran NT Server 4.0 on a Dell OptiPlex GXpro 200 for well over two years, and it crashed maybe four times during that period, two of them because of a crappy Jaz drive. One crash per six months hardly seems cataclysmic. As for cost of operation, aside from an old Voodoo Graphics board I got for free, I don't think I put any parts or special effort into that box.

    I'm all for a little harmless overstatement while trying to make a point, but this is just dumb.

  224. Attention world! by Natty · · Score: 1

    Hello people of the world! Today, in my basement me and my company Vapor inc. have created a fully modern operating system called cos. It runs all the application that have ever existed at twice their original speed. It never crashes and I'm going to realease an alpha copy next month. Until then however fell free to jack up my stock price into the hundreds of dollars per share range so I can make off a rich bastard . . .

  225. Re:PetrOS - Server OS, not desktop. by LostOne · · Score: 1

    Is there any particular reason running Linux on the desktop makes one a dork? If it does everything you want it to do and does it well, there is no particular reason one shouldn't run Linux. The same argument would apply to PetrOS for that matter.

    Not everyone wants/needs a fancy GUI on their desktop.

    --

    If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
  226. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Microlith · · Score: 1

    lesse, the NT kernel consists of a bunch of files: kernel32.dll (9X has that and krnl386.exe) shell32.dll wsock32.dll and don't forget the GUI subsystem, as it's part of it... commdlg32.dll comctl32.dll and we still have to boot: ntldr, ntdetect.. the file sizes do add up, compared to linux...

  227. 100kb Microkernel? by Microlith · · Score: 2

    If this is true, and is running an NT compatible Win32 system, this shows how really inefficient the coders @ Microsoft really are (or are pushed to be)...

    1. Re:100kb Microkernel? by dr00p · · Score: 2

      NT 3.51 client or server ? because client works even on 8Mb RAM ... server ... with 12Mb RAM, told me it needs 16Mb Ram to start ... I don't know about NT4.0 ... spX ... etc etc ...

    2. Re:100kb Microkernel? by aibrahim · · Score: 2

      NT's Kernel is fine...there are no problems there. The bloat comes in at the interface and application levels, for the most part.

      That is why NT fared so well in those benchmarks against Linux...they didn't install crap like MS Office on those boxes, it really was OS vs. OS.

      As to the size of the Kernel 2MB is about right.

      As to what you can install it on ?

      I installed Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1 on a 486/33 w 8MB!!! I had to turn off networking during install, and then install networking after I had NT running...but it ran.

      I installed NT Workstation 4.0 on a Compaq P90 with 8MB. It was unusable but ran. I later upgraded that machine to a second HD which I used solely for the swap file...it was usable barely with MSoffice 95. Things were much better when I moved the machine to 24 MB and upgraded to 2MB video memory.

      I find the NT 3.5x OS to be VERY stable, much more so than pre 2.0.x Linux. NT 4 is as stable or more stable than Linux as a workstation. When something goes bad you can kill services and restart them. Just like any reasonable OS

      If the GUI goes though...you have to reboot. That said the GUI is much more stable than X/KDE or X/Gnome.

      NT is NOT as bad as Linux folk think. NT is MUCH worse than MS thinks. NT bears NO RELATION to what MS marketing says.

      NT is the best general purpose workstation available right now. I have great expectations for MacOS X. [See Mac OS Rumors for why. if you don't already know.]

      Linux is really coming along here, way ahead of even a year ago. It'll be a while yet. I think MacOS X will give a good example of what to aim for/above in the future of Linux interfaces.

      Sun is the best enterprise server solution.

      I use Linux for small and medium business sized servers and light database applications. The availability of Oracle and IBMDB2 is making me think of using it for larger databases, maybe I'll ask the next client to try it out.

      I use Sun and Linux for special purpose workstations. I always prefer Linux for this if the application is available. (Sometimes they really want Autocad OK ?)

      I ran into a bank that needs a supercomputer, I still don't really understand thier application. I am going to try to fit the app to Beowulf.

      I know this went a bit off topic, nonetheless I hope it was thoughtful, if not neccessarily useful.

      --

      Don't post innacurate information
      If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
    3. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      What about NTOSKRNL.EXE which I believe is the "main" kernal program before linking.. 907K on my machine

    4. Re:100kb Microkernel? by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

      if your GUI goes in NT you do not need a reboot...

      ctrl-alt-del will get you to taskmanager
      file | run to get a windowized command line
      type "explorer"
      this will execute explorer.exe which is your default graphical shell.. all your stuff comes back.
      OR, alternatively, end-task explorer on purpose and use an alternative shell (like litestep for intance)

    5. Re:100kb Microkernel? by mong · · Score: 1

      > Did you wake up this morning and say to
      > yourself "I could log onto Slashdot and show
      > my ignorance in much the same fashion that
      > a baboon shows it's rear end" ? Or was this a
      > spontaneous demonstration?

      Hey! Not nice dude!

      Oh sorry, you were beating yourself, for being not putting your name to a mindless insult.

      Mong.

      * Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

      --

      *...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
      Remember: Nothing is Cool.
    6. Re:100kb Microkernel? by mong · · Score: 1

      True, but by applying a strict backward chaining methodology.....

      Bah! Never mind :)

      Mong.

      * Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

      --

      *...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
      Remember: Nothing is Cool.
    7. Re:100kb Microkernel? by mong · · Score: 2

      It's common knowledge that MS is bad, and we all know that a big kernel is a bad thing. QED - simple as that.

      That said;
      "She's a witch - throw her in the river, if she floats she's a witch, if she drows, she's not!
      Well, Ducks float...
      So? So do other things... wood
      So, witches are made of wood?"

      - A summation of a Python sketch. Proving that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. On this logic, we could say (using simple chaining methodology...) that if a: In order to know something, you must experience it (Win kernel, big), otherwise, no matter how valid the source, it is only assumed/presumed. Therefore, people are just assuming that NT has a hideous, huge kernel - when in fact it may be gorgeous and petite, with the "bloat" being caused by all the other stuff...

      Long winded I know, but I'm simple...

      Mong.

      * Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

      --

      *...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
      Remember: Nothing is Cool.
    8. Re:100kb Microkernel? by moitz · · Score: 2

      Since I happen to have (unfortunately) to work on an NT box at work, I decided to look up the exact file sizes of kernel32.dll, wsock.dll, ntldr, ntdetect, and a few others that are part of the kernel. All told, the size of the Windows NT kernel is nearly 2 megs (1730KB). Now that's huge. And slow.

      moitz: i used to be somebody

      --
      Screw 'em...who cares what anyone thinks.
  228. Re:Virtuous NT by Procyon101 · · Score: 1

    You use CString and call yourself an OO dev?

    MFC is the peice of crap that is responsible for the majority of bloat in the Win32 world... use a std::string for gods sake.

    I hate it when someone does a #include when all they want is a string class and ends up adding 6 dll linkages at runtime... if win32 programmers knew what they were doing we wouldn't need splashscreens!

  229. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by rugger · · Score: 1

    Unfortunatly, linux doesn't support async IO on files :(. It works fine for network sockets, but files, not yet. I hope someone fixes this soon

  230. No! It's StefOS... by \u@\h · · Score: 1

    Now that he has become a slick Penguin, he should finally be awarded with his own OS...

    I wonder what will happen in the closet

  231. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by \u@\h · · Score: 2

    WaitForMultipleObjects

    Afaik that doesn't do more than waiting for multiple objects to finish. In Unix, you could simply wait for each single one to terminate without much overhead (pthread_join).

    MsgWaitForMultipleObjects

    A design mistake (of Win32)

    ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx

    man aio

    PulseEvent

    You do know how to use message passing or other forms of IPC? The event functions could be easily replaced by pipes, for example.

    Yes, I admit that Unix wasn't designed with multithreading in mind. In contrast, if you look at the recent standards formulated by POSIX and implemented by many vendors, you will notice that developing your application will not be limited by the API. In practice, being used to work with Microsoft "solutions" becomes a limiting factor.

  232. GUI by Tincan · · Score: 1

    The article claims that they have yet to decide
    on a GUI for PetrOS. If they are having such a
    hard time walking the line of copying Mickeysoft
    then why don't they do something in a completely
    new paradigm? How about a ZUI (zoomable user
    interface) perhaps like Pad++? Mickeysoft has nothing like it and I think it has a niche with great potential. This would enable it to be
    attractive not only to the "fringe," but also for those who need to see something new to remind them that all of computing is not shrink-wrapped in their desk drawer.

  233. Virtuous NT by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say MsgWaitForMultipleObjects is a design "mistake". It is rather an enhancement to make more functionality available to single threaded GUI applications. This extension was inserted into the API because multithreaded OLE was not available at the time, and OLE uses the message pump (well it used to, it's been a while since I examined OLE internals... :-) But don't you think that the extensive object oriented exposure and programming talent of the NT userbase is admirable? I started working on Ada systems about 1991, with serious UNIX/VAX hardware and software engineers, and moved into the Windows arena afterward (to chase a buck.) I think Windows strength, in comparison to UNIX, is that a lot of old UNIX programmers are still using malloc() and free(), fixed buffer sizes, and various programming idioms of C. I think that this is encouraged by the lack of free/cheap C++ dev environments (e.g. platform costs for Sun C++ workshop), and the fact that most free source is written in C for portability. This inevitably means that O.O. skills are less than they could be. OLE/DCOM may suck in some ways, for instance being platform specific, however the developers that have learnt and absorbed the knowledge space of DCOM have had exposure to the cutting edge of programming methodology. UNIX's main downfall is that it is a C centric culture. It is much quicker to reuse CString than to hunt down than to write C malloc() allocation/deallocation, and expose yourself to the risk of introduced bugs. This is expensive. New paradigms are needed, not just new implementations of the same old stuff.

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
    1. Re:Virtuous NT by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

      Hey, I don't defend MFC. But if you want to put together in 5 mins flat, then it's easy to do under the MFC platform. Considering the going rate for a C++ dev where I work is about $100/hr, time is money.

      You are clueless if you believe that what platform you use, what class library defines your OO "credentials." It's elitist, and more to the point it looks at the surface of the matter, rather than the substance. CString is a (near) ideal OO implementation. (The imperfection is that you can mangle the string inside through GetBuffer).

      I use STL for my storage algorithms because I want Order(log n) retrieval from them, and Order(n log n) sorting. It aint OO, but it's the cheapest and quickest way of doing this stuff, 3 to 4 lines and I have an optimal performance sorted vector implemented, for a CString, or basic_string for that matter.

      Dynamic linkage of MFC at initialisation is not a serious performance hit, give me a break. Compile a release build "Hello World" under MFC and run it. Before you purse your lips to say "ONE" it will have fired up. I've traced and optimised app startup before, and this is not significant. OLE object initialisation usually does take time, but there are sacrifices to be made if you want to use non-static linked code. (And the reasons can be many, irrespective of your particular platform.)

      Are you seriously claiming that dynamic linkage is the reason for slow application start up. This is a foolish argument, we all know that I can make a cup of tea waiting for Emacs to fire up, this argument will go around in circles and counterpoints, as you claim app X, and I say app Y, so lets not even start.

      I would really say that bloat comes from static linked code actually. When every C application has it's own custom string library written for it, which is non-reused. The byte codes for CString are in MFC DLLs and used by 80% of MS programs, so in reality there is a lot of space saved on the HDD.

      I think MS have screwed up in their versioning of these DLLs, things aren't perfect, and I sometimes I static link when I can't control the configured environment, and I know that I'm only going to pull in only a small amount of the MFC runtime into the executable.

      --
      // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
    2. Re:Virtuous NT by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

      It's OS/2-styled naming.

      I guess it's IBM's fault.

      No, I have a good idea, let's blame MS anyway!

      Cheers!

      --
      // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  234. Re:yup, no UNIX equivalent of WaitForMultipleObjec by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

    Yes, I agree, however when writing services, this is can be too expensive.

    The time when waiting for multiple events is most useful is from the master thread, when it waits for all threads to terminate, when requested, or for the next free work thread. A thread per waiting object then sort of defeats the purpose of this master "allocator" thread in the first place.

    All very easy to do in Win32 too.

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  235. UNIX && C++ by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

    I know C++ on UNIX possible.

    I know G++ exists, it's a compiler not an environment.

    My Microsoft compiler has shipped with STL since 1997 or so.

    My Sun STILL DOES NOT HAVE IT out of the box!?

    My Microsoft IDE makes runtime debugging laughably easy and quick.

    $299 for the compiler is about 3 hrs salary.

    I have a copy of Python running on my NT box, but I can do the same thing in VB, and it looks about 1000% better.

    NT is the biggest (most number of seats) Java development platform. Furthermore, the OO skills of MS developers make it far more easy for them to migrate to Java, as opposed to crufty UNIX programmers, still free()ing that buffer string.

    Just FYI, I don't defend C++ either.

    I just like the quickest most efficient tool. Think of me as a commando. I'll hotwire the closest tank, because I know vehicles, heavy and small. I tell you now NT/C++/VB/MFC/(D)COM as a development environment is damn efficient and exposes the developer to high levels of radiation... oops!!! .... I means object oriented abstraction.

    When I have my nightscope on, and a target appears, and I need a RAD GUI development, a quick multithreaded server development, line by line debugging into my SQL Server.... I don't reach for my K&R C programming book, I type msdev.exe with ruthless efficiency.

    My big question is, why do all the UNIX programmers I meet write such crud C++?

    A: Because the environment is conducive to C programming.

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  236. The threading system crashes constantly does it? by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

    I nominate you for slashdot kook of the month!

    So if OS/2 was (not the preterite) so good, how come you can't admit NT OS is is the dogs bollocks!?

    Too hard to swallow?

    OS/2 completely lacked a security subsystem, unfortunately.

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  237. Note the use of the word "fan"! by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

    Yes, I swoon whenever I lay eyes on Linux, he's so masculine!

    If you look at my response, it was to a person claiming that the NT kernel and O.S. was crap and I was just informing them that this is not the case, that it has many of the best features of OS/2 (which have been ripped off admittedly), but make it a wet dream to program sophisticated multithreaded apps in, and develop client and server apps in general.

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  238. The market votes with their wallets. by ronaldinho · · Score: 1

    Listen OS/2 should have won.

    But IBM weren't good business managers for the product.

    It's a pity.

    Some people's Linux boxes crash, some people's NT boxes crash. My machine here, I haven't seen it blue screen or hang for the nine months I've been at this site.

    So what is your point exactly?

    You claim that Microsoft release certain things which destabilise the system. Doesn't this happen with Linux as well, for instance the latest version of the kernel? So do we all say linux crashes all the time? No.

    NT crashes all the time does it?

    Bullshit mate. Talk about FUD, you are a verifiable kook.

    By your wobbly reasoning NT and thus UNIX/LINUX is flawed because the security subsystem on any of these operating systems cannot be uninstalled.

    You claim this property of an OS is a demonstration of lack of scalability. "UNIX == not scalable" if you follow your logical argument.

    I hope they don't have you writing very complicated boolean logic in any of your programs dude. It could be dangerous.

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
  239. Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by ronaldinho · · Score: 2

    Try implementing some applications using some of the extensive multithread APIs in the NT OS, such as

    WaitForMultipleObjects
    MsgWaitForMultipleObjects
    ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx (async i/o)
    PulseEvent (some of the event stuff is really cool)

    and then come back and feel embarrassed for being an ignorant Linux would be all your life.

    The applications may or may not be poor in your opinion. However the OS is fantastic. Some subsections of it are problematic (I don't like the registry as a device for instance, and it's support for multiple consoles is poor, and networked GUI), however the core of the OS is amazingly well thoughtout and designed by experienced software engineers.

    Cheers

    --
    // Purpose: To bring sanity to rabidity.
    1. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      He didn't say Linux, he said Unix. And I believe that Unix has been proven to be faster and more reliable than NT. It also scales better if I'm not mistaken.

    2. Re:Clueless about NT Operating System as usual. by TummyX · · Score: 1

      I don't see why you're bothering to say that. You're implying more API commands should make an OS faster? It could make applications faster if they utilize the APIs properly (eg. good use of multithreading).
      However, more APIs == easier to program complicated applications.
      You could have an OS that had almost none and do everything yourself - and then claim that it's better cause it has like 5 API calls, and the rest is up to you to do manually.

  240. Re:100kb Microkernel? MS kernel size numbers. by mong · · Score: 1

    On this NT4(sp3) machine, Kernel32 is 363kb - easily floppy sized eh? winnt/system32/ is 101mb though. Much of this is unused/out of date junk... but it's still a hell of a lot more than 363kb.

    You cannot even get close to being as functional as a full NT system on a 100kb kernel. Not that I'm saying NT is particularly functional or anything ;)

    Mong.

    * Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

    --

    *...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
    Remember: Nothing is Cool.
  241. Re:eat it, Bill by kizersosay · · Score: 1

    knowing bill, he'll find a way to buy it, and then try to pass it off as windows 2000.

  242. ReactOS (was: Re:WinNT API != Win32 API) by Kant · · Score: 2

    There are more than 1000 functions in the native API (ntoskrnl.exe + hal.dll are the modified microkernel). A minimum part is available to user mode via ntdll.dll. Unfortunately less than 10 per cent are documented by MS.

    There is also a GPL'ed implementation of that microkernel: its name is ReactOS. It is planned a Win32 server on top of it and probably a POSIX+ one in the future. This project borrows some code from Wine. You can download the pre-alpha code (no GUI yet!) from www.reactos.com.

  243. Other Open Source NT Clones by Teancum · · Score: 1

    If you are looking for a good start on an NT Clone which is open source, look at ReactOS:

    www.reactos.com

    It sounds like they are about as far along as the folks at Trumpet doing with PetrOS, and is 100% open source and GPL. ReactOS is also borrowing quite a bit from WINE, but trying to make a full operating system rather than just a LINUX shell.