Sockets are an interprocess communications
mechanism. Now, a 100MB ethernet can transfer
10 megabytes per second. From my reading of
Dr. Bradford's results, that would seem to
support 3 100MB ethernets on a windows OS,
and around 7 under linux. Still, the test
was for interprocess communication. Of course
two thread context switches are needed (at least)
because there are two processes involved.
Please don't compare Apple to SUN in this instance. You can certainly obtain full versions of Solaris for free. From SUN. With no restrictions as to prior ownership.
The only people that this software benefits are those that have Apple hardware. Apple already has your money. This is just software support. I *am* thinking about this. If Apple gave away OSX for Intel, *then* you could compare Apple to SUN. Sun gives away Solaris for Intel. And SUN doesn't make Intel boxen.
Windows 3.1 is *only* six years old (in "end-
of-life" terms). I expect support should still
be forthcoming. You brought up SunOS. Let's
look at that..
Solaris 2.5 (release 1995) is still supported,
by a company that makes HARDWARE. Sun updated
to 2.5.1 in 1996, along with releasing Solaris 6
(the same year). So the "end-of-life" clock
starts ticking in 1996.
The last version of SunOS was released in 1992
(SunOS 4.1.3). That would be 9 (!) SUN operating
system releases ago.
Compare with Microsoft -- Windows 95 superceded
Windows 3.1, and so the clock on end-of-life
starts in 1995. Windows 3.1 is only 3 versions
old. Again, I Microsoft to support it.
(heck, US military is on Solaris 2.5.1 -- these
rollouts take time). ESPECIALLY from a software
company.
I deployed some Windows 3.1 in 1996, purchased
RETAIL. These are only 4 to 5 years old. No,
the applications DON'T work under 95 (but may
run under Windows 2000, I don't know). Sun
offers porting assistance (paid and free service)
-- does Microsoft? Or is Microsoft busy chasing
the next big thing?
As to ease of administration, etc. there are
GUI interfaces to Solaris as well for these
functions. Indeed, as a Unix/Linux/Solaris
user, I find it VERY difficult to get things
done on a Windows machine.
There seem to be Windows "experts" out there,
and this may drive down market value for Windows
administrators. So it may be cheaper to go with
a "Windows" network. But, when your organization
grows, you will have to port all of your stuff
to a bigger box. Pay now, or pay later. Of course
it may be less expensive in future to just
buy more Intel boxes, and more administrators
because changing the underlying IS infrastructure
is such a nightmare. Caveat Emptor.
Or, talk to your local Sun rep. Sun may well
give you support in updating your IS
infrastructure to an open solution.
(Or HP, IBM or Compaq). And when you actually
get support, rethink the Microsoft pricing
policies.
I have been trying to collect some old software
from CP/M-80. A *lot* of it is lost, perhaps
forever. Specifically, there was the Whitesmiths
C compiler (written by PJP), but he hasn't got
it, and the company that currently owns the
copyright may no longer be able to read the
mag-tape backup. This software may now be lost
forever. People and companies should give old
material like this to digital archives, and these
archives should be available on the 'net for
research purposes. *Before* the media disintegrates. Unfortunately, IP ownership makes
it unlikely that sources etc. will be freely
published, and by the time that the IP is
worthless, the company is likely to be gone as
well. When will we see Windows 1.03 and it's
source published? Probably never (but thanks
to Caldera for publishing source and images
for CP/M, GEM, etc. That *is* the right thing
to do).
...invest is a true hardcore Solaris expert...
...reduced learning curve is well worth the
cost of the $800 license...
1) Prove that Windows 2000 has a better learning
curve than Solaris (specifically with reference
to servers).
2) If you have servers, aren't you going to
need a "true hardcore Windows expert"? Isn't
that just a wash?
3) How can starting up be easier with Linux,
and then easier with Windows? Are you just
confused?
4) I submit that it is easier to start with
Linux, and then move to BSD or Solaris, than
it is to start with W2K and move. At least
Linux is compatible with its bigger buddies!
5) IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO SUPPORT WINDOWS --
MICROSOFT MAKES MONEY SELLING IT. SO HOW COME
I CAN'T GET SUPPORT FOR WIN 3.1 FROM MICROSOFT
ANYMORE?
That is a comment for the dung-heap. If I
could moderate you a new a-hole, I would.
In fact, the only post more stupid than yours
is this one. (And I ain't posting anonymously).
- READ THE GPL. Where the h*ll does it eliminate
ownership?
Some people just steam me.
So I had an idea a few years ago. Why bother
with SPEED of access? I really don't look at
most of my files (like, why bother? they are
really not important).
Get myself a USENET site. Deliberatly insert
junk into messages and recirculate them.
I think I could jam many gigabytes into the
system without too many people noticing.
Use steganography to hide the messages...
Or, SPAM with the info hidden into the anti-
SPAM defeaters. Or, encode into junk emails
that will be bounced.
Ok, it's silly. But I really have to do something
about the 30GB of music that I am collecting but
not listening too...
ls -> list directory
>file.txt -> universal capture to file or device
Now... you learn some words representing
concepts (in shorthand for typing efficiency)
and can then apply these concepts to other
problems. Symbolic reasoning.
An example will suffice. If a unix system has
a sorted list of words available (and they do),
and you didn't have a command to check the
spelling of your document, you can (with a
bit of thought) synthesize a shell command
to accomplish the spell check.
How would you accomplish this on a Mac?
No, the command line is NOT for people who
are incapable of (1) reasoning and (2) cannot
learn another symbolic language.
Too bad. Life isn't fair. And I admit that
graphics do have a place. It's limited though.
Did you post your message in icons? Give it
a try. Put your money where your mouth is.
My contention is that people have developed
symbolic language for a damn good reason, and
that it IS superior to hieroglyphics. No, it
isn't "transparent" and learning to READ and
WRITE IS DIFFICULT. It pays off, so give it
a try.
ls >file.txt
Simple, beautiful. Now, to print a directory
listing...
ls | lp
and to sort it (well, it isn't needed, but lets
throw in the example)
ls | sort
and to find letters to Jack, in this or any
subfolder, by content
grep "Dear Jack" `find . -type f`
Yes, you WILL have to LEARN this. If you don't
want to bother, then just let it go.
Why PINBALL.SYS
Gordon Letwin wrote HPFS at Microsoft. The sound
of the hard-drive was likened to a pinball
arcade machine, thus the name of the thing
was made PINBALL.
Nothing more sinister. Sorry to burst your
bubble.
Ratboy666
1 - type promotion -- used to be easy in K&R C -- signed to unsigned and shorter to wider. With ANSII C it's a bit more involved. Will bite you moving from (say) 32 bit to 64 bit.
2 - C originally didn't define a run-time library, many have been caught in this sink-hole (incompatible libraries, missing functions).
3 - C is a language. Most issues with Java porting are not language, they are GUI/OS/support issues. Try porting a C program from Windows to X -- compare that effort to your Java migration.
I had written an application in the mid-80's on the PC using Turbo Pascal 8087 edition. It required a math processor to operate. One customer had an early '286 laptop, without a '287, and couldn't run the app.
In two days I hacked together a suitable 8087 emulator... (simtel, emul87.zip).
This was the technique... I noted that Turbo C supported '87 floating point, and could emulate if the math processor wasn't available. I noted that there was a pattern in the INT instructions used to replace the floating point instructions.
I wrote a very simple TSR, that enabled the emulate trap, and reversed the transformation usually done, then dispatched to the Turbo C library. Total of 50 lines of code!
It worked beautifully. I consider this my best computer programming hack. Of course it doesn't qualify as anything close to the "Top 10".
This article is very against JAVA. Yet more FUD from the media. Please note that Zona got to choose the group of business developers. If they were using VB, they are Windows (probably Intel) platform. Responding to quotes in the article... "The Zona study found that, in the eyes of business developers, Java still has some significant shortcomings that Sun will need to address. Topping the list is performance speed, according to the 150 developers surveyed by Zona. Users have long complained about how slow Java applications run on the desktop."...Is VB really faster? C, C++ can be, but VB? I wonder about this. The GUI I can see, because JAVA talks through its GUI (say AWT) to X or Windows, whereas VB can hit the Windows layer directly. "The other major concern among developers is the lack of a Java standard managed by an open-standards body. Currently, Sun is the arbiter of Java specifications and standards."...And Microsoft is the arbiter of VB specifications and standards. "Other concerns include: Java's scalability, or the ability of Java applications to be expanded to keep pace with business growth, and migrating applications across all platforms."...And VB, C and C++ also have a problem migrating applications across all platforms. At least JAVA makes an attempt to tackle the problem. VB is Windows only, and C, C++ don't have a defined GUI that is standard....And VB doesn't scale... It goes to NT and that's it. C and C++ scale... sort of. Threads, MP, etc are not defined (well... they are, POSIX, but that isn't part of the language... and try running POSIX threads on Visual C++ without add-in libraries!) What they are implying is that JAVA won't overtake VB until some problems are worked out -- speed, portability, scalability, and ownership of the specifications. For each of these points, JAVA has an answer, while VB doesn't even address the issue. Ratboy666
Slashdot Mirror
Sockets are an interprocess communications
mechanism. Now, a 100MB ethernet can transfer
10 megabytes per second. From my reading of
Dr. Bradford's results, that would seem to
support 3 100MB ethernets on a windows OS,
and around 7 under linux. Still, the test
was for interprocess communication. Of course
two thread context switches are needed (at least)
because there are two processes involved.
Maggard
Please don't compare Apple to SUN in this instance. You can certainly obtain full versions of Solaris for free. From SUN. With no restrictions as to prior ownership.
The only people that this software benefits are those that have Apple hardware. Apple already has your money. This is just software support. I *am* thinking about this. If Apple gave away OSX for Intel, *then* you could compare Apple to SUN. Sun gives away Solaris for Intel. And SUN doesn't make Intel boxen.
Windows 3.1 is *only* six years old (in "end-
of-life" terms). I expect support should still
be forthcoming. You brought up SunOS. Let's
look at that..
Solaris 2.5 (release 1995) is still supported,
by a company that makes HARDWARE. Sun updated
to 2.5.1 in 1996, along with releasing Solaris 6
(the same year). So the "end-of-life" clock
starts ticking in 1996.
The last version of SunOS was released in 1992
(SunOS 4.1.3). That would be 9 (!) SUN operating
system releases ago.
Compare with Microsoft -- Windows 95 superceded
Windows 3.1, and so the clock on end-of-life
starts in 1995. Windows 3.1 is only 3 versions
old. Again, I Microsoft to support it.
(heck, US military is on Solaris 2.5.1 -- these
rollouts take time). ESPECIALLY from a software
company.
I deployed some Windows 3.1 in 1996, purchased
RETAIL. These are only 4 to 5 years old. No,
the applications DON'T work under 95 (but may
run under Windows 2000, I don't know). Sun
offers porting assistance (paid and free service)
-- does Microsoft? Or is Microsoft busy chasing
the next big thing?
As to ease of administration, etc. there are
GUI interfaces to Solaris as well for these
functions. Indeed, as a Unix/Linux/Solaris
user, I find it VERY difficult to get things
done on a Windows machine.
There seem to be Windows "experts" out there,
and this may drive down market value for Windows
administrators. So it may be cheaper to go with
a "Windows" network. But, when your organization
grows, you will have to port all of your stuff
to a bigger box. Pay now, or pay later. Of course
it may be less expensive in future to just
buy more Intel boxes, and more administrators
because changing the underlying IS infrastructure
is such a nightmare. Caveat Emptor.
Or, talk to your local Sun rep. Sun may well
give you support in updating your IS
infrastructure to an open solution.
(Or HP, IBM or Compaq). And when you actually
get support, rethink the Microsoft pricing
policies.
end of rant.
ratboy666
I have been trying to collect some old software
from CP/M-80. A *lot* of it is lost, perhaps
forever. Specifically, there was the Whitesmiths
C compiler (written by PJP), but he hasn't got
it, and the company that currently owns the
copyright may no longer be able to read the
mag-tape backup. This software may now be lost
forever. People and companies should give old
material like this to digital archives, and these
archives should be available on the 'net for
research purposes. *Before* the media disintegrates. Unfortunately, IP ownership makes
it unlikely that sources etc. will be freely
published, and by the time that the IP is
worthless, the company is likely to be gone as
well. When will we see Windows 1.03 and it's
source published? Probably never (but thanks
to Caldera for publishing source and images
for CP/M, GEM, etc. That *is* the right thing
to do).
Ratboy666
...invest is a true hardcore Solaris expert...
...reduced learning curve is well worth the
cost of the $800 license...
1) Prove that Windows 2000 has a better learning
curve than Solaris (specifically with reference
to servers).
2) If you have servers, aren't you going to
need a "true hardcore Windows expert"? Isn't
that just a wash?
3) How can starting up be easier with Linux,
and then easier with Windows? Are you just
confused?
4) I submit that it is easier to start with
Linux, and then move to BSD or Solaris, than
it is to start with W2K and move. At least
Linux is compatible with its bigger buddies!
5) IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO SUPPORT WINDOWS --
MICROSOFT MAKES MONEY SELLING IT. SO HOW COME
I CAN'T GET SUPPORT FOR WIN 3.1 FROM MICROSOFT
ANYMORE?
Ratboy666
That is a comment for the dung-heap. If I
could moderate you a new a-hole, I would.
In fact, the only post more stupid than yours
is this one. (And I ain't posting anonymously).
- READ THE GPL. Where the h*ll does it eliminate
ownership?
Some people just steam me.
If you rely on your Winders box for ANYTHING
... drum roll
security related, you're in serious trouble.
Just do what I do... View software in different
classes:
1 - Commercial ware
2 - Free ware
3 - Open source ware
4 - Share ware
and
5 - INVOLUNTARY WARE
Hope this clears up any confusion.
Ratboy666
Just to let you know...
Solaris 8 has some GNU stuff -- bash, bzip2,
less, etc.
Ratboy666
So I had an idea a few years ago. Why bother
with SPEED of access? I really don't look at
most of my files (like, why bother? they are
really not important).
Get myself a USENET site. Deliberatly insert
junk into messages and recirculate them.
I think I could jam many gigabytes into the
system without too many people noticing.
Use steganography to hide the messages...
Or, SPAM with the info hidden into the anti-
SPAM defeaters. Or, encode into junk emails
that will be bounced.
Ok, it's silly. But I really have to do something
about the 30GB of music that I am collecting but
not listening too...
Liberate my hard disc!
Wow...
Here's the breakdown --
ls >file.txt
ls -> list directory
>file.txt -> universal capture to file or device
Now... you learn some words representing
concepts (in shorthand for typing efficiency)
and can then apply these concepts to other
problems. Symbolic reasoning.
An example will suffice. If a unix system has
a sorted list of words available (and they do),
and you didn't have a command to check the
spelling of your document, you can (with a
bit of thought) synthesize a shell command
to accomplish the spell check.
How would you accomplish this on a Mac?
No, the command line is NOT for people who
are incapable of (1) reasoning and (2) cannot
learn another symbolic language.
Too bad. Life isn't fair. And I admit that
graphics do have a place. It's limited though.
Did you post your message in icons? Give it
a try. Put your money where your mouth is.
My contention is that people have developed
symbolic language for a damn good reason, and
that it IS superior to hieroglyphics. No, it
isn't "transparent" and learning to READ and
WRITE IS DIFFICULT. It pays off, so give it
a try.
ls >file.txt
Simple, beautiful. Now, to print a directory
listing...
ls | lp
and to sort it (well, it isn't needed, but lets
throw in the example)
ls | sort
and to find letters to Jack, in this or any
subfolder, by content
grep "Dear Jack" `find . -type f`
Yes, you WILL have to LEARN this. If you don't
want to bother, then just let it go.
Ratboy666
Wow...
Read the Halloween documents. Please.
Even Microsoft acknowledges that developing
for Linux is EASIER than for Windows.
Next...
Why PINBALL.SYS Gordon Letwin wrote HPFS at Microsoft. The sound of the hard-drive was likened to a pinball arcade machine, thus the name of the thing was made PINBALL. Nothing more sinister. Sorry to burst your bubble. Ratboy666
C has gone through contortions...
1 - type promotion -- used to be easy in K&R C -- signed to unsigned and shorter to wider. With ANSII C it's a bit more involved. Will bite you moving from (say) 32 bit to 64 bit.
2 - C originally didn't define a run-time library, many have been caught in this sink-hole (incompatible libraries, missing functions).
3 - C is a language. Most issues with Java porting are not language, they are GUI/OS/support issues. Try porting a C program from Windows to X -- compare that effort to your Java migration.
Ratboy666
I had written an application in the mid-80's on the PC using Turbo Pascal 8087 edition. It required a math processor to operate. One customer had an early '286 laptop, without a '287, and couldn't run the app.
In two days I hacked together a suitable 8087 emulator... (simtel, emul87.zip).
This was the technique... I noted that Turbo C supported '87 floating point, and could emulate if the math processor wasn't available. I noted that there was a pattern in the INT instructions used to replace the floating point instructions.
I wrote a very simple TSR, that enabled the emulate trap, and reversed the transformation usually done, then dispatched to the Turbo C library. Total of 50 lines of code!
It worked beautifully. I consider this my best computer programming hack. Of course it doesn't qualify as anything close to the "Top 10".
Ratboy666 F. Weigel.
This article is very against JAVA. Yet more FUD from the media. Please note that Zona got to choose the group of business developers. If they were using VB, they are Windows (probably Intel) platform. Responding to quotes in the article... "The Zona study found that, in the eyes of business developers, Java still has some significant shortcomings that Sun will need to address. Topping the list is performance speed, according to the 150 developers surveyed by Zona. Users have long complained about how slow Java applications run on the desktop." ...Is VB really faster? C, C++ can be, but VB? I wonder about this. The GUI I can see, because JAVA talks through its GUI (say AWT) to X or Windows, whereas VB can hit the Windows layer directly. "The other major concern among developers is the lack of a Java standard managed by an open-standards body. Currently, Sun is the arbiter of Java specifications and standards." ...And Microsoft is the arbiter of VB specifications and standards. "Other concerns include: Java's scalability, or the ability of Java applications to be expanded to keep pace with business growth, and migrating applications across all platforms." ...And VB, C and C++ also have a problem migrating applications across all platforms. At least JAVA makes an attempt to tackle the problem. VB is Windows only, and C, C++ don't have a defined GUI that is standard. ...And VB doesn't scale... It goes to NT and that's it. C and C++ scale... sort of. Threads, MP, etc are not defined (well... they are, POSIX, but that isn't part of the language... and try running POSIX threads on Visual C++ without add-in libraries!) What they are implying is that JAVA won't overtake VB until some problems are worked out -- speed, portability, scalability, and ownership of the specifications. For each of these points, JAVA has an answer, while VB doesn't even address the issue. Ratboy666