Heh. I'll be entertained when or if this ever comes out. Remember, if telephone company switches can have cascading failures, I'm sure Microsoft can have even more impressive ones.:)
And yes, it should also be incredibly bloated and overpriced. I'm sure they wouldn't have it any other way...
Open Source == Free Software Free Software == Innovation
With programs like Mosaic and Emacs... Remember, UNIX was free software, and Microsoft still hasn't copied it properly. XENIX died horribly, and NT 5 sounds like it should have at least some of the more vital features of UNIX, like... oh, I don't know, disk quotas?
Also, copy in this day and age implies theft (I don't think it should, but...), so remember that everything that was re-engineered for compatibility was re-implemented, not stolen. That's what Microsoft does too, usually, but in our case it's often necessary for compatibility with non-free software. (and quite legal, too...)
My current favorite examples of innovation are The GIMP, gtk, and GNOME, with lots of features put together which make things very nice. (i.e. pluggable scripting languages for image processing, themable applications, fairly simple and powerful X widgets...) However, remember that while the term 'Open Source' is fairly new, free software is in the same spirit, and has innovated for longer than Microsoft hasn't...
This FUD-dispeller was brought to you by the free software projects C and X, and the number 5.004...
I agree, but have seen this before. On Solaris, IE has a kiosk command-line option that grabs the screen and makes itself hard to kill. Just make X start up with that, and you've got yourself a Browser-OS, as far as the user is concerned.
Of course, first you need the magical properly-patched version of Solaris with the holy hardware configuration that will run IE without crashing every 15 seconds... (IE for UNIX sucks, I wouldn't call it a port. Ports are supposed to run before they crash. Wine runs IE for Windows better...)
Oh, right, that's why I don't use them. (I have used bash and some other ported UNIX utils, the GNU/DJGPP prots, and some other inferior ones) Either everything is slow and big and statically linked, or it's fast, and re-written for DOS, and has new, quirky limitations... *sigh*
Also... what kind of an argument is that? There are millions of insecure machines on the internet that haven't been cracked or crashed because *no one has cracked them*. That doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means that we don't have enough crackers to go around.:) Don't complain, one of them might perk up and notice you...
Heh. If they're running IIS and NT, that's almost like trying to hack your own machine. Have fun keeping it stable. Running a vanilla NT machine and not doing anything with it is easy, but I have a lot of respect for anyone who tries to use NT for heavy work *and* keep it stable. That's much more arcane than UNIX ever was...
Maybe that's the problem, I think Southpark has a point there. Maybe angels *should be* pretty nude women. All of the revolutions in religion have been to more personal religions, and this one sounds like a personal religion I would endorse...;)
Oh, and you'd better make that into *most* 8-10 year olds. (although I'm not convinced that's true either...) Basically, if you have already been exposed to everything in the movie, and have your own values, and find this humor funny, then you can see it. I'm sure some people in the Moral Majority should never see this movie by this standard, and that's fine. They completely missed the humor, which I would consider criminal. Me? Maybe not when I was 10, maybe more like 13. Does that mean it should be PG-13? No, but I don't agree with rating systems anyhow.:P Would my parents care? No, I saw R-rated movies when I was very young, and I think it helped more than anything.
I would call giving every user root access a *big* security hole. (of course that doesn't apply as much with Windows NT, but...) Also, I'm sure BO2000 *is* a better remote administration tool than anything Microsoft has ever offered since XENIX. I would kill for telnet to Windows machines... (but then I'd want a *useful* CLI...:)
Umm. all those "free software people" innovate all the time. And even if they didn't, what do you think Microsoft does? They buy, lie, beg, cheat and steal for their software. If you don't believe me, I could give examples (programs with non-innovative names and designs such as Windows, Money, Explorer, etc., etc.) but I'd rather give the positive examples, like C, or X-Windows, or frickin' *disk quotas*... (I don't know who 'invented' that one, but I know that Microsoft still hasn't implemented it, but won't until at least NT 5.0, when they start corrupting many innovative open standards made by those bothersome 'free software people'...)
As for audio and video, there isn't a whole lot of community knowledge about this. Actually, with mp3's, there's getting to be more people programming encoders and decoders for that, which is promising. But there has already been much time and money spent by corporations with deep pockets and many software patents in this field, and that makes things difficult.
So, I agree that there hasn't been a whole lot of free software audio/video innovation, per se, but we already have three major formats, with many versions and codecs, and some of them are open. But please don't say that because of this, free software isn't innovative, because that's simply wrong. It has to reimplement proprietary 'standards', but that should not be confused with always copying other people's implementations. Rather, it is providing open support for someone else's brain-dead protocols and formats, when they didn't have the courtesy to do it themselves. Got that?
Pretty. I figured that if they were considering that for the Amiga, maybe they'd port that too, but oh well.
I haven't used QNX, but I've heard some impressive things about it, and the GUI looks nice. I guess if I ever have reason to need it, I'll check it out. Until then, I can keep making boot disks that load DOS, Win 3.1, Linux, nintendo games, or whatever else I can fit on them.:)
Um. I would have to partially disagree with you here. It was pretty clear from the announcement that they were just using the kernel for driver support, but the kernel still makes the OS.
With both, say, MacOS X and Nextstep using the Mach kernel, it'd be much easier for the two OSes to coexist than, say, if you were implementing UNIX on top of NT (you can do that too, but it's messy).
With a core Linux (and thus UNIX-ish, and POSIX-compliant) kernel, you can bet that a lot of UNIX stuff will compile and run out of the box, or with less porting than it would with a completely different kernel. (and I'm sure that the Amiga development will help the Linux side, and there will be porting, better compatibility, and much rejoicing)
A good kernel design will work for the user, but a bad one will be worked around, and the last thing we need is yet another layer of emulation above the kernel to look like a different kernel. Please.
From the little I've read, it looks like the Linux kernel will be used because of it's driver support.
The GUI on top of QNX looks really neat, but it sounds like if we ever see that, it'll be a separate project (or run on top of the Linux kernel... I hope).
The BeOS idea sounds like vaporware, like Taligent (and like the new Amiga too, if they don't stop yapping and start shipping).
Anyhow, I hope they add on to an existing OS, or make things very compatible. I need a new 'standard' like I need a hole in the head. (Pop quiz: what's the character(s) for the end of a line in a text file? How about the end of the file?)
Heh. I've used libio before, it's another reason to use iostream. Unless you really need all the nifty operator-overriding functions of C++, or are working with templates, and for some reason functions and macros aren't good enough for you... All libio has ever done for me is slow my code down.
For those who don't want to see free software become tainted, this is another reason to use the GPL.
However, a decent answer to this question would involve trying to look for a solution, maybe something like SSLrdist would be appropriate. It's based on SSLeay, USC rdist, and stuff from NetBSD. So it looks free to me, and that's a good place to start. Comments?
I agree with you that the original code has been around forever, and that that might make it more stable... But this argument doesn't necessarily hold. Sendmail has been around forever too, but it's never been stable. Linux hasn't been around forever, but I've never had a problem with any kernel TCP/IP code.
In fact, the only kernel code I have a problem with is any new, contributed, unimportant features. I don't care if my cheap TV card doesn't work properly with my cheap video card as long as I have a working ethernet connection over my cheap ethernet card...:)
I don't think the Linux TCP/IP stack is a new, experimental, or partially working feature. Even if someone changed a few lines of code, that's why the development model works the way it does. Maybe if it had a problem in 2.1.1xx, it got fixed by 2.2.1, eh? That's what code freeze and stable version means.
Anyhow, if you're all gung-ho about using a "stable version", use a distribution based off of 1.2.13, or 2.0.36 or something. Or use XENIX, a true SYSV derivative.;) But don't talk about stability problems that don't exist because you think a particular branch of code is better, but don't have proof. That's bigotry.
How like the French, they think they invented the "Not Invented Here" Syndrome.
In the meantime, I'd like to declare that the new international date line runs right through Raleigh, NC. Therefore, if I need an extra day to work on something, I can just say I was downtown. That's a good reason, right?
Actually, he goes to *my* school, and he worked on that site all the time. (if you saw him on a machine, some of what he was doing was telnetting somewhere to maintain things, do the requisite surfing to see what the #*(@ is going on, etc, etc.)
He was looking for another place to host his site, because it was so huge. I should have grabbed the humor section when I had a chance, he had a lot of classic stuff archived there.
Oh, and what does he have on his local web site? His pgp keys.:) (he's got some other stuff too, but his real web site was packetstorm)
Poor fellow BOFH, getting shut down by just a regular B...
Well, I really don't know how well it handles support for multiple network cards or multiple CPU's, but remember that we didn't know how Linux would do in such a test until recently.
However, Apache should perform the same as it ever does, the rest is the OS and its drivers. The filesystem should perform about the same as well.
Actually, the performance they list for MacOS X shouldn't be too terribly different, but realize that they were using a different system. (it performed well, considering what it was up against)
Right, SMP support was also lacking, but since that didn't slow down the dynamic pages any in comparison to NT, it isn't really a benchmarking problem here, just something to improve.:)
Although performance didn't scale linearly, and the curve goes down some on both Linux tests, most notably the 4-CPU test, 4 CPUs under Linux still did at least 4 times better than 4 CPUs under NT, and that says a lot.
The best thing about this is showing that the only thing slowing Linux down in the other benchmarks is the *four* network cards they added to serve *static* web pages. With one network card, Linux wins. Linux also does better with dynamic pages (and open standards).
Therefore, we can laugh at all NT advocates that claim superiority in benchmarks due to (a) moving stuff into the kernel (b) superior design. (unless they want to use multiple network cards... hmm.)
I guess the only thing we need to improve is simultaneously using more than one network card, but the static serving of web pages should not be the task that we need to improve it for... (ooo, benchmarking enhancements...)
I'm in favor of this, it sounds like a lot of good things may come of it.
I've always been in favor of free software, and I use and enjoy Project Gutenberg, but mostly we definitely need more hot chicks in Computer Science.:)
A windows-like GUI installation... that should appease some of the columnists who think that text-mode==arcane. But I bet that more than a few of them are going to be confused by the plethora of options. Some of this is just UNIX, but I bet they'd appreciate some autodetection of, say, sync frequencies once you know the monitor type. (I'd of course always want a button for more options)
...and of course the Tetris game is a nice touch. I personally prefer Nibbles, a la FastTracker (was that the one, that used XM's?)...
Well, back when there was Mosaic and Netscape was just coming out, we got the incompatible Netscape extensions. Some of them were good ideas, and the W3C was dragging their feet (the CENTER tag) while others should have been destroyed from day one (the BLINK tag).
However, I've tried browsing with Amaya, and I like standards-conformance. I like it when a browser doesn't read past the/HTML in a page. It foils many stupid disclaimers, and forces people to write correct HTML. (you can't write bad C and have it compile, why should you write bad HTML and expect your web page to display?:)
It's a shame that people can't implement the agreed-upon specs. This works for languages, mostly, and good extensions sometimes get folded into the next version of the spec. I'd even be happy if there was a box to check in your browser that enabled standards compliance with a particular HTML spec... I've seen web page filters that do this, so it can't be that difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. I'll be entertained when or if this ever comes out. Remember, if telephone company switches can have cascading failures, I'm sure Microsoft can have even more impressive ones. :)
And yes, it should also be incredibly bloated and overpriced. I'm sure they wouldn't have it any other way...
Open Source == Free Software
Free Software == Innovation
With programs like Mosaic and Emacs... Remember, UNIX was free software, and Microsoft still hasn't copied it properly. XENIX died horribly, and NT 5 sounds like it should have at least some of the more vital features of UNIX, like... oh, I don't know, disk quotas?
Also, copy in this day and age implies theft (I don't think it should, but...), so remember that everything that was re-engineered for compatibility was re-implemented, not stolen. That's what Microsoft does too, usually, but in our case it's often necessary for compatibility with non-free software. (and quite legal, too...)
My current favorite examples of innovation are The GIMP, gtk, and GNOME, with lots of features put together which make things very nice. (i.e. pluggable scripting languages for image processing, themable applications, fairly simple and powerful X widgets...) However, remember that while the term 'Open Source' is fairly new, free software is in the same spirit, and has innovated for longer than Microsoft hasn't...
This FUD-dispeller was brought to you by the free software projects C and X, and the number 5.004...
I agree, but have seen this before. On Solaris, IE has a kiosk command-line option that grabs the screen and makes itself hard to kill. Just make X start up with that, and you've got yourself a Browser-OS, as far as the user is concerned.
Of course, first you need the magical properly-patched version of Solaris with the holy hardware configuration that will run IE without crashing every 15 seconds... (IE for UNIX sucks, I wouldn't call it a port. Ports are supposed to run before they crash. Wine runs IE for Windows better...)
Yay, more ports to scan! ;)
But seriously, I've seen W2000 Beta 3, and I'm not impressed. It's bloated, and it crashes more than NT ever should have. And that's saying something.
Oh, right, that's why I don't use them. (I have used bash and some other ported UNIX utils, the GNU/DJGPP prots, and some other inferior ones) Either everything is slow and big and statically linked, or it's fast, and re-written for DOS, and has new, quirky limitations... *sigh*
:) Don't complain, one of them might perk up and notice you...
Also... what kind of an argument is that? There are millions of insecure machines on the internet that haven't been cracked or crashed because *no one has cracked them*. That doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means that we don't have enough crackers to go around.
Heh. If they're running IIS and NT, that's almost like trying to hack your own machine. Have fun keeping it stable. Running a vanilla NT machine and not doing anything with it is easy, but I have a lot of respect for anyone who tries to use NT for heavy work *and* keep it stable. That's much more arcane than UNIX ever was...
Maybe that's the problem, I think Southpark has a point there. Maybe angels *should be* pretty nude women. All of the revolutions in religion have been to more personal religions, and this one sounds like a personal religion I would endorse... ;)
:P Would my parents care? No, I saw R-rated movies when I was very young, and I think it helped more than anything.
Oh, and you'd better make that into *most* 8-10 year olds. (although I'm not convinced that's true either...) Basically, if you have already been exposed to everything in the movie, and have your own values, and find this humor funny, then you can see it. I'm sure some people in the Moral Majority should never see this movie by this standard, and that's fine. They completely missed the humor, which I would consider criminal. Me? Maybe not when I was 10, maybe more like 13. Does that mean it should be PG-13? No, but I don't agree with rating systems anyhow.
I would call giving every user root access a *big* security hole. (of course that doesn't apply as much with Windows NT, but...) Also, I'm sure BO2000 *is* a better remote administration tool than anything Microsoft has ever offered since XENIX. I would kill for telnet to Windows machines... (but then I'd want a *useful* CLI... :)
Umm. all those "free software people" innovate all the time. And even if they didn't, what do you think Microsoft does? They buy, lie, beg, cheat and steal for their software. If you don't believe me, I could give examples (programs with non-innovative names and designs such as Windows, Money, Explorer, etc., etc.) but I'd rather give the positive examples, like C, or X-Windows, or frickin' *disk quotas*... (I don't know who 'invented' that one, but I know that Microsoft still hasn't implemented it, but won't until at least NT 5.0, when they start corrupting many innovative open standards made by those bothersome 'free software people'...)
As for audio and video, there isn't a whole lot of community knowledge about this. Actually, with mp3's, there's getting to be more people programming encoders and decoders for that, which is promising. But there has already been much time and money spent by corporations with deep pockets and many software patents in this field, and that makes things difficult.
So, I agree that there hasn't been a whole lot of free software audio/video innovation, per se, but we already have three major formats, with many versions and codecs, and some of them are open. But please don't say that because of this, free software isn't innovative, because that's simply wrong. It has to reimplement proprietary 'standards', but that should not be confused with always copying other people's implementations. Rather, it is providing open support for someone else's brain-dead protocols and formats, when they didn't have the courtesy to do it themselves. Got that?
Pretty. I figured that if they were considering that for the Amiga, maybe they'd port that too, but oh well.
:)
I haven't used QNX, but I've heard some impressive things about it, and the GUI looks nice. I guess if I ever have reason to need it, I'll check it out. Until then, I can keep making boot disks that load DOS, Win 3.1, Linux, nintendo games, or whatever else I can fit on them.
Um. I would have to partially disagree with you here. It was pretty clear from the announcement that they were just using the kernel for driver support, but the kernel still makes the OS.
With both, say, MacOS X and Nextstep using the Mach kernel, it'd be much easier for the two OSes to coexist than, say, if you were implementing UNIX on top of NT (you can do that too, but it's messy).
With a core Linux (and thus UNIX-ish, and POSIX-compliant) kernel, you can bet that a lot of UNIX stuff will compile and run out of the box, or with less porting than it would with a completely different kernel. (and I'm sure that the Amiga development will help the Linux side, and there will be porting, better compatibility, and much rejoicing)
A good kernel design will work for the user, but a bad one will be worked around, and the last thing we need is yet another layer of emulation above the kernel to look like a different kernel. Please.
From the little I've read, it looks like the Linux kernel will be used because of it's driver support.
The GUI on top of QNX looks really neat, but it sounds like if we ever see that, it'll be a separate project (or run on top of the Linux kernel... I hope).
The BeOS idea sounds like vaporware, like Taligent (and like the new Amiga too, if they don't stop yapping and start shipping).
Anyhow, I hope they add on to an existing OS, or make things very compatible. I need a new 'standard' like I need a hole in the head. (Pop quiz: what's the character(s) for the end of a line in a text file? How about the end of the file?)
Hey, that was completely *on* topic.
...at least if we're still talking about the need for making the web faster for everyone. *sigh*
PEBKAC...
What's wrong with HTTP 0.9? All I really *need* is "GET /" anyhow... :)
Heh. I've used libio before, it's another reason to use iostream. Unless you really need all the nifty operator-overriding functions of C++, or are working with templates, and for some reason functions and macros aren't good enough for you... All libio has ever done for me is slow my code down.
However, a decent answer to this question would involve trying to look for a solution, maybe something like SSLrdist would be appropriate. It's based on SSLeay, USC rdist, and stuff from NetBSD. So it looks free to me, and that's a good place to start. Comments?
Ah, a code bigot.
:)
;) But don't talk about stability problems that don't exist because you think a particular branch of code is better, but don't have proof. That's bigotry.
I agree with you that the original code has been around forever, and that that might make it more stable... But this argument doesn't necessarily hold. Sendmail has been around forever too, but it's never been stable. Linux hasn't been around forever, but I've never had a problem with any kernel TCP/IP code.
In fact, the only kernel code I have a problem with is any new, contributed, unimportant features. I don't care if my cheap TV card doesn't work properly with my cheap video card as long as I have a working ethernet connection over my cheap ethernet card...
I don't think the Linux TCP/IP stack is a new, experimental, or partially working feature. Even if someone changed a few lines of code, that's why the development model works the way it does. Maybe if it had a problem in 2.1.1xx, it got fixed by 2.2.1, eh? That's what code freeze and stable version means.
Anyhow, if you're all gung-ho about using a "stable version", use a distribution based off of 1.2.13, or 2.0.36 or something. Or use XENIX, a true SYSV derivative.
How like the French, they think they invented the "Not Invented Here" Syndrome.
In the meantime, I'd like to declare that the new international date line runs right through Raleigh, NC. Therefore, if I need an extra day to work on something, I can just say I was downtown. That's a good reason, right?
Actually, he goes to *my* school, and he worked on that site all the time. (if you saw him on a machine, some of what he was doing was telnetting somewhere to maintain things, do the requisite surfing to see what the #*(@ is going on, etc, etc.)
:) (he's got some other stuff too, but his real web site was packetstorm)
He was looking for another place to host his site, because it was so huge. I should have grabbed the humor section when I had a chance, he had a lot of classic stuff archived there.
Oh, and what does he have on his local web site? His pgp keys.
Poor fellow BOFH, getting shut down by just a regular B...
Well, I really don't know how well it handles support for multiple network cards or multiple CPU's, but remember that we didn't know how Linux would do in such a test until recently.
However, Apache should perform the same as it ever does, the rest is the OS and its drivers. The filesystem should perform about the same as well.
Actually, the performance they list for MacOS X shouldn't be too terribly different, but realize that they were using a different system. (it performed well, considering what it was up against)
Right, SMP support was also lacking, but since that didn't slow down the dynamic pages any in comparison to NT, it isn't really a benchmarking problem here, just something to improve. :)
Although performance didn't scale linearly, and the curve goes down some on both Linux tests, most notably the 4-CPU test, 4 CPUs under Linux still did at least 4 times better than 4 CPUs under NT, and that says a lot.
The best thing about this is showing that the only thing slowing Linux down in the other benchmarks is the *four* network cards they added to serve *static* web pages. With one network card, Linux wins. Linux also does better with dynamic pages (and open standards).
Therefore, we can laugh at all NT advocates that claim superiority in benchmarks due to (a) moving stuff into the kernel (b) superior design. (unless they want to use multiple network cards... hmm.)
I guess the only thing we need to improve is simultaneously using more than one network card, but the static serving of web pages should not be the task that we need to improve it for... (ooo, benchmarking enhancements...)
I'm in favor of this, it sounds like a lot of good things may come of it.
:)
I've always been in favor of free software, and I use and enjoy Project Gutenberg, but mostly we definitely need more hot chicks in Computer Science.
Heh. No, arcane was typing 'win' to crash your computer.
:)
(cheap shot, but who can resist? It's so easy.
A windows-like GUI installation... that should appease some of the columnists who think that text-mode==arcane. But I bet that more than a few of them are going to be confused by the plethora of options. Some of this is just UNIX, but I bet they'd appreciate some autodetection of, say, sync frequencies once you know the monitor type. (I'd of course always want a button for more options)
...and of course the Tetris game is a nice touch. I personally prefer Nibbles, a la FastTracker (was that the one, that used XM's?)...
Well, back when there was Mosaic and Netscape was just coming out, we got the incompatible Netscape extensions. Some of them were good ideas, and the W3C was dragging their feet (the CENTER tag) while others should have been destroyed from day one (the BLINK tag).
/HTML in a page. It foils many stupid disclaimers, and forces people to write correct HTML. (you can't write bad C and have it compile, why should you write bad HTML and expect your web page to display? :)
However, I've tried browsing with Amaya, and I like standards-conformance. I like it when a browser doesn't read past the
It's a shame that people can't implement the agreed-upon specs. This works for languages, mostly, and good extensions sometimes get folded into the next version of the spec. I'd even be happy if there was a box to check in your browser that enabled standards compliance with a particular HTML spec... I've seen web page filters that do this, so it can't be that difficult.