And services are NT's power to the users. your statement is not correct. Running ms office on the server and projecting the gui of that app to clients is a unix way to approach the design of NT. that those don't match doesn't mean NT is bad designed. it's different.
Re:Kernel-mode GUI is single-user only.
on
FreeBSD VM Design
·
· Score: 1
the gui isn't single user mode. If I use 3 PC anywhere sessions at once to 1 single NT machine it works perfectly. besides... NT is diffenent than Unix when it comes to system design. That's what I was talking about. Projecting the Unix design on NT and THEN deciding some stuff isn't matching is silly. it's a different approach as netware is also a different approach. A different approach doesn't have to be bad, by default.
THe multiuser aspect of NT is already discussed a lot of times at this site: try to telnet with several people at once to an NT system. possible? of course it's possible.
Re:Lower-case / capital letters for filenames
on
FreeBSD VM Design
·
· Score: 1
It can be problematic copying files from unix systems indeed, but using the same filename, but with difference cases is probably not a wise move anyway. So it's hardly ever a problem
Mr. Dillon takes off pleasing his readers with: The NT folk, on the other hand, repeatedly make the same mistakes solved by UNIX decades ago and then spend years fixing them. Over and over again. They have a severe case of 'not designed here' and 'we are always right because our marketing department says so'. I have little tolerance for anyone who cannot learn from history.
Ok, enough of this. Over and over again I have to wade through OR crap like: NT is based on VMS, it's just VMS in a new jacket, OR crap like: NT is not mature, it makes mistakes solved in Unix millions of years ago, over and over again . WHICH mistakes??? the 27 TCP/IP stack bugs, all solved a decade ago? I can't think of any other 'bugs' or 'mistakes' made... but what's really annoying is that the article, with a title that looks really interesting, dives into the same pile of FUD spread over and over again by people who know a LOT about Unix OS-es but seem to know a very LITTLE about NT.
Why?
Does the article need this kind of craptalk? no. Do the readers feel the NEED to learn from Mr. Dillon how the world works? no. The article is about VM's. FreeBSD's vision on VM's. So talk about THAT instead of pumping up the anti-fire. It's not amusing. It's annoying.
The source is just an implementation in a certain language by a certain person. The algorithm and thoughts and ideas BEHIND the program... THATS the real knowledge that's valueable. It's therefor more important to document why what is put where in the sourcecode than just releasing the sourcecode.
1) On windows, the chipset manufacturer/cardmanufacturer gets the driverkits from SGI and writes the OpenGL ICD, which actually is the OpenGL subsystem. This is not different on other operating systems. If this driver/subsystem is 1.2 compliant, it will be on windows, linux or whatever operating system they release it on. The OS isn't really important. 2) Due to the crappy design of PC hardware, it's VERY unlikely to see SGI workstation performance on PC hardware. The SGI NT workstations had special hardware which had shared RAM between videochipsets and CPU(s). This made the machines very fast, and is still the main reason SGI workstations are fast. On PC hardware, video hardware is on a separated card, using the AGP bus. It's very slow to read and write data from/to the card's framebuffer for example. It will NEVER be the case that this kind of setup is as fast or 'THE STANDARD' in 3D workstation land. It can for a great deal of purposes, but it will always be outperformed by special tailored hardware by companies as SGI.
It's nice to see large company backing up OpenGL and supporting it. It's however sad they using hype and buzzwords to get attention..:(
Nerds and geeks are not all alike.
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 1
But I was wrong to post this to Slashdot, which is obviously not an appropriate forum for discussion of subtle ethical matters, and it is apparent that any mention of even a hint of a possible tiny imperfection in the GPL does not belong here, and that anyone who dares to mention any such thing on this website must expect - and probably deserves - a series of harsh, even obscene, personal attacks instead of rational rebukes or comments.
I can't believe that it's wrong to tell people there is a possible hole or inperfection in what these people use or adore. Yesterday I was discussing in another thread (about Linux Demo Day) the fact that it's NECESSARY to inform people that there are alternatives AND why, so they can make the RIGHT choices.
Just ignoring flaws, or inperfections or even bugs or shortcommings is the nail to your own coffin. That's why I say: Roblimo: you don't have to appologize for telling people that there are shortcomings or inperfections. On the contrary!
Why? because I'm a true nerd (living behind my computer programming 12 hours a day for the past 10 years) and proud of it, but that doesn't make me adore or love everything the OpenSource community poops out or says 'obey this'. We all think different, that's why there ARE people here who BELONG here PLUS like your posting. Think about that, forget the flamers. People who bash, flame and replace S-es with $-signes are never reasonable or right.
if you are a developer and something you are working on is not working, you can figure out why. you don't run into the problem of an unresponsive undocumented API. Look at all the crap MSDN-CD is full of, and how impossible it would be to get any work done without it, and how many little SDK idioms you need to resort to.
What I don't understand is: why are you bashing MSDN, the biggest developersource on the planet? And why is it that it's impossible to get work done without it? because you don't know where to look or which of the numerous nice ways to find your way to the 1.5GB of information should be taken or is the fastest? That's exactly why it's not that interesting for a lot of developers to dive into a large pile of Open source code to fix something. Have you ever joined a developmentteam that was working on a software project for already some time? Did they expect you to know where to find every bit of functionality right away? NO! Not at all, because it would have been redicilous. It IS possible to find bugs yourself BECAUSE you have the source it's however not realistic every USER of an open source program and also knows how to program is ABLE to patch a bug quickly: because he/she doesn't know where to look, and HOW to patch a piece of sourcecode so that it won't effect other parts of the software.
Sorry if I sounded offended, but I can't really understand why people are talking so easy about adapting sourcecode and that it is 'all nice and easy because you can easily patch it yourself'. A lot of developers are confronted with this every day. Helping their managers think it's very easy to catch on is not the way to go IMHO.
Your intentions are good: informing people of alternatives is always a Good Thing (tm). That way people are really able to make choices. However, I get the feeling that you couldn't plan your event on a more worse date than you did. It's perhaps hard to buy, but on that day, journalists simply want to report win2k-win2k-win2k. It's like advertising for soccer during a superbowl break.
If you really want to inform people who have no clue that there ARE alternatives, DO so: contact sites and magazines those people go to/read and tell your story. You get much more attention.
It's not the design of Unix, nor security issues with both OS-es. (Kerberos is a very reliable security system, build in win2k btw, just fyi:)). Security is a matter of knowledge. Both systems force the administrator to get books, do studying and get practice skills before implementing a site.
What sets both OS-es apart is the focus of the 2 OS-es. Both OS-es have total different designphilosophies. You can only on a very very global way compare the two, with general featurelists like 'has webserver, has filesystem with auditing capabilities etc'. nothing more.
Unix takes years to master, but so does NT. The GUI is making it look like it has a low learning curve, but there are a lot of small glitches a person has to know before you really master NT, like you also have to know on Unix.
WinNT comes with the COM aware scripting host, a VB scripting language engine. You can write programs in VB script, and use COM objects like OLE DB drivers to connect to databases etc etc. Ok, not a full blown C++ type language, but it's a programming language. Furthermore, WinNT comes with IIS and the ASP engine. You have an app running in no time. Sure, no C type commandline thingy, allthough you can create one with the VBscript host easily.
If you think about it... why do you need the compiler anyway? if you want to develop programs on win32 you have the compiler. If you just use programs, you don't NEED a compiler. All you need is a mouse, to doubleclick setup.exe. No Compiler Needed (tm).
Visual Studio, or Borland C++ cost money. Sure, Linux comes with a free compiler. But, that compiler is available on win32 too. (djgpp) there are other free C++ compilers for win32. It's not that hard:)
Perhaps it's me, but besides the high geekfactor (and that's a factor you can't always ignore;-D), what's the use of a multiuser handheld, a handheld or other small device looking like it running linux?:) To me: not an aweful lot.
Perhaps it's not the linux history of Thorvalds what brought him to transmeta but the technology knowledge he has.
Flame away, but if a closed source company who earns money by selling the software they create (a normal business) can't sell it's software to a certain market, it won't look at that market, OR it will try to change that market so it WILL buy the software. Make Closed Source software bad and evil, but lots of people here, as myself, live from the money we make working on software that pays our salaries, because it's sold. If Metroworks decides the linux market isn't interesting because the majority of the users won't buy the product, why take the hassle for porting the tool, set up supportlines, write manuals etc? it will cost a lot of money and they probably won't see that back. I can fully understand why they took this decision.
Why won't the majority of linuxusers buy the tool? because it's crap? naaa, there is not really an alternative like it, only VC++ beats it, but that's not available on Unix;). No, it's because the majority is used to the fact that most of the software is free and open source. IMHO ok, but not every piece of software can be free. This misunderstanding is IMHO a weak spot in the Open Source model.
"Write an Open SOurce equivalent!" Sure. But that takes time, plus it's not sure if it's up to par with the closed source tool it has to replace within a certain amount of time (it's nice to have a good tool after 2 years of coding, but that's not very usable at the moment or within 6 months).
I wish everybody a VC++ equivalent development environment on linux, I also think it will be hard for a lot of linux users to convince software developers there ARE people on linux willing to pay for a tool, closed source or not.
If you are reasonable, not everything on earth like bread, cars, gasoline, playboychannel can (but perhaps should !;-D) be free;)
[good light on the subject] "I don't say that I've beaten this nail down completely. In fact, my proposed (incomplete) solution is really besides my major point: that we need a replacement to the idea of "bundling" that provides the same - or greater - ease with improvements to safety and flexibility."
... which results in a focus on a model that's better for the USER. I totally agree. Placing that back into the light of a MS splitup: IMHO, driving away the several pieces of software MS has connected together during the years is perhaps in the favor of the competitors of MS (and should I care? it's a business world out there, it's tough, they play as bad as MS plays bad, they lost round 1...pity) but definitely NOT in favor of the users of the products, people who just don't understand computers but are very happy that the computer they bought already had an 'os-thingy with a browser' on it, so it was ready to roll...
As a techie, I too want to have as much 'top notch high tech on my hands', but is the world served by that?;)
It's really amusing...:) 'I want to let MS publish all the api's! and all the protocols! and all the fileformats!'
well read http://msdn.microsoft.com/libary Learn, absorb knowledge and get productive. The world is not served with tears from eyes who just see what the blinded mind wants them to see.
Some people really don't think, IMHO. Do you really believe the average manager suddenly would swap officesuite? Because the chance is there? of course not! Will the majority of computersellers swap office suite? no. Because the majority of the buyers wants MS Office. It's not about the reasons, it's about the FACT they want it.
Lots of companies are using windows on the client computers where the officepeople work with. Will they all of a sudden change ship, use another OS? why? Windows is good enough for the task they want it to perform. Plus, swapping to an alternative is possible today too. But not a lot of companies do that.
Microsoft is a software company but owns a lot stock in other companies which do other things, cabling companies, computer companies (apple) etc. Splitting it up in 'OS', 'Software' and 'Internet' is too vague. where would you place IE for example? it's a trick question;) The DOJ wants to achieve it's cut away from the OS, so it's moved in software or Internet. But... which? it's something with internet, but it's also software. Better example: IIS. It's a webserver, but tightly intergrated in NT. You can't cut it out and run it on windows 9x. But it's an internetapplication, should it be placed with the OS, as it is now, or should it be moved to 'software' because it's an application or to the internet company because it's an internet related object.
Which pops up the real question: what is an OS? what is necessary software for the OS, so that a buyer of the OS can install it and use it out of the box, and not has to buy 20 packages (or download) to get something started?
From the anti-MS point of view, it's obvious. But from the normal or from the pro-MS point of view it's not. Because if I take a package like Red Hat in my left hand and windows 2000 in my right hand, what's the difference, except the price (functionality wise, not detailed) ? both are full blown packages with an OS, add on tools and other stuff to get me started right away.
Cutting the package up in my right hand makes it not comparable with the package in my left hand who still is allowed to keep all the stuff that had to be cut away in the right hand. Not very fair to me.
But it's also not official yet. It's a proposal of some layers working at the DOJ side. There are also settlementnegociations going on, plus MS has the right to appeal, which could take years to end. And who knows, perhaps by then we all eat MSAOLTimeWarnerGeneralMotors bread and butter:)
errr... afaik claris was first with packing several tools together as an office suite. Wordperfect also packed tools together way before MS Office saw the light with office '95. I also can't follow you with the lotus thing. Since when did MS bundle a wordprocessor with the OS? or did you mean with wordprocessor 'write/wordpad' ?
Bundeling apps together into larger suites/applications won't stop here, nor will other companies stop to do that (it's a common thing, not a MS only thing. Saw Staroffice? you can't even run the wordprocessor alone, you have to run the complete suite). NT and win2000 are already stand alone OS-es without production tools on them, except perhaps a browser (ok KDE also comes with a buildin browser, so what's the big deal?). You can say it's bad and evil what MS does, but do you really think the average joe really cares? no. he can now work with a lot more stuff much easier. It's bad for the companies who have lost the race about the no1 spot, but should we care? if you say: "yes! we should care, Otis!" all I can answer is: "Do you care also about the same subject with the same level of enthousiasm in other area's of ICT where MS is a small name and other companies are big?
1) You assume there are secret api's. Which one? can you name them? 'no they are secret'. Ah. It's a rumour, those api's. Fact is, WP and other companies could have used the api's which were THERE to write the code they wanted, so what's the big deal. It's MS fault the programs didn't work?
2) you say:
: I think my answer to #1 will help with the shoddy code bit. It'll still be shoddy, but might force MS to redesign their interface. Heck, maybe they'll think about "kernel space" and "user space" and start using loadable modules *gasp*.
Did you ever saw large snaps of Microsoft code? Was it representative code so you could conclude it's 'shoddy' ??? I bet you haven't. And to refresh YOUR mind: does 'dll' mean anything to you? or COM? or ring0, ring3? Apparantly you think MS' operating systems like NT or windows2000 are Dosshells in realmode, using 1 big block of code?
Perhaps a rant, offtopic flamebait or whatever, but throwing mud at people or companies with 'facts' proven by your own lack of knowledge is not the right way to discuss serious matters like the split up of the biggest company in the world. It will have an enormous inpact on the economy and the ICT sector. I'm not going to start an essay here about if it's good or bad, or right or wrong. All I can say is that most people laughing about the split up of Microsoft are not thinking further about the impact it will have on the majority of computerusers, namely joe anonymous who DOES buy his PC at a store you and I won't even buy a CDwritable. The more it all will be split up, IMHO the more it won't work together like it works today. Perhaps you in your basement full with pdp-11's won't care about this, but again, the average user will, and more important: the companies who use ICT to communicate with this user and are relying on that user for their business.
you treat the temp as a normal employee? I mean, if you hire a temp for 2 weeks, should that temporary employee get all the benefits a truely devoted employee gets who works there for, lets say, 2 years? IMHO no.
A temporary employee SHOULD get the benefits of a 'working' person, like healthcare, but isn't that taken care of by the middleman agency like Manpower ?;) Here in Holland it is. And for the contractors: sorry, but you are on your own. You are a one man company, so why should you benefit from company favors to employees. You are not an employee. The company that contracted you hires services from your company, which is in fact you. A contracter normally gets payed per hour and gets more money per hour than an average employee, because it's infact a company.
I'm aware of the offtopic rant you started but ok here we go: NT is not multiuser as you know from the unixworld, that's correct: users are not really logged in, their sessions are, the applications they use, the services they connect to. In fact, NT works with Object security, so if a user from a client request a service to do this or that, on unix the user logs in on the server, starts a proces and gets the result. On NT he starst a program on the client, that client connects to a service on the NT server and the service fills in the request (like RPC-ing to a daemon.). The whole philosophy is different, the system is designed to be different, it works different than unix. So just saying 'NT isn't even multiuser!' doesn't make any sence.
Besides that, NT is posix compliant, so it can have more than 1 user currently logged in if you want (ever telnetted with some people to an NT server with a telnet service running?:))
The problem with the crappy drivers has one advantage (yes it has:): the reason why crappy drivers still can work in the system is also the reason why there are so many drivers for so many hardware/software. You see: MS has a tough testlab and they certify every driver they can (you should always use only certified drivers to be safe, if you don't do that in a production environment it's your fault:)) and can't certify every driver in a short period of time. Because a company is still able to supply 'a' driver to bridge that time, more hardware works on windows than on any other OS that only wants to have certified drivers or drivers which are granted permission by a committee. Win2K breaks this 'run it if you dare' syndrome and only allowes certified drivers to run. Perhaps we all get wise in the end;)
Cutler and the people he worked with at dec (about a 100 engineers) moved to MS, correct. Ofcourse Cutlers ideas about solving problem X and Y didn't change, nor did the ideas of his staff change about how to implement it. however, it's a long shot to mark NT as 'VMS derived material'. It's a new OS, with some solutions in it which are the same as implemented in VMS, and in other OS-es perhaps. VMS is not that unique:)
Off topic ofcourse, I know, but I thougth I'd to put this into the discussionthread.:) the rumour you touch with your texts is as much true as marking apple as inventor of the gui with a mouse and windows.
this new winsock dll greatly reduces latency with networktraffic over tcp/ip on win9x systems. Afaik it was released last week or the week before that. Saw it on voodooextreme, someone should search it back there if he/she feels up to it:)
The Goverment can now control what's in it.
on
China Banning Win2k
·
· Score: 1
Ok, allthough it's open source etc, the goverment of China will be able to put in code to control what the user can and more important: can't do. Or control/trace actions of the user. Not that much people know C well enough to understand 6 million lines of sourcecode, or better: will READ all 6 million lines of sourcecode to scan if there will be special things put into it. Because people in China are not that much willing to protest against control by the goverment (because of the possibility of a high punishment), not much people will argue against this.
Note: the amount of lines of sourcecode I mentioned can differ, I don't know the exact amount of source lines in Linux.
Note2: perhaps some original open source parts will be closed sourced in the Red Flag version. Who will stop them if they do? Linus? The US Goverment?. Remember that citizens of China are only allowed to visit websites which are preselected by the Goverment, and don't have the oppertunity to 'patch' the goverment parts with source downloaded from western FTP sites..
Good point (especially the 'source will live on and thus the product' part). Your remark is a good argument to release sourcecode of an application that has a lot of followers. thanks:)
Slashdot Mirror
And services are NT's power to the users. your statement is not correct. Running ms office on the server and projecting the gui of that app to clients is a unix way to approach the design of NT. that those don't match doesn't mean NT is bad designed. it's different.
the gui isn't single user mode. If I use 3 PC anywhere sessions at once to 1 single NT machine it works perfectly. besides... NT is diffenent than Unix when it comes to system design. That's what I was talking about. Projecting the Unix design on NT and THEN deciding some stuff isn't matching is silly. it's a different approach as netware is also a different approach. A different approach doesn't have to be bad, by default.
THe multiuser aspect of NT is already discussed a lot of times at this site: try to telnet with several people at once to an NT system. possible? of course it's possible.
It can be problematic copying files from unix systems indeed, but using the same filename, but with difference cases is probably not a wise move anyway. So it's hardly ever a problem
Mr. Dillon takes off pleasing his readers with:
The NT folk, on the other hand, repeatedly make the same mistakes solved by UNIX decades ago and then spend years fixing them. Over and over again. They have a severe case of 'not designed here' and 'we are always right because our marketing department says so'. I have little tolerance for anyone who cannot learn from history.
Ok, enough of this. Over and over again I have to wade through OR crap like: NT is based on VMS, it's just VMS in a new jacket, OR crap like: NT is not mature, it makes mistakes solved in Unix millions of years ago, over and over again . WHICH mistakes??? the 27 TCP/IP stack bugs, all solved a decade ago? I can't think of any other 'bugs' or 'mistakes' made... but what's really annoying is that the article, with a title that looks really interesting, dives into the same pile of FUD spread over and over again by people who know a LOT about Unix OS-es but seem to know a very LITTLE about NT.
Why?
Does the article need this kind of craptalk? no. Do the readers feel the NEED to learn from Mr. Dillon how the world works? no. The article is about VM's. FreeBSD's vision on VM's. So talk about THAT instead of pumping up the anti-fire. It's not amusing. It's annoying.
The source is just an implementation in a certain language by a certain person. The algorithm and thoughts and ideas BEHIND the program... THATS the real knowledge that's valueable. It's therefor more important to document why what is put where in the sourcecode than just releasing the sourcecode.
1) On windows, the chipset manufacturer/cardmanufacturer gets the driverkits from SGI and writes the OpenGL ICD, which actually is the OpenGL subsystem. This is not different on other operating systems. If this driver/subsystem is 1.2 compliant, it will be on windows, linux or whatever operating system they release it on. The OS isn't really important. 2) Due to the crappy design of PC hardware, it's VERY unlikely to see SGI workstation performance on PC hardware. The SGI NT workstations had special hardware which had shared RAM between videochipsets and CPU(s). This made the machines very fast, and is still the main reason SGI workstations are fast. On PC hardware, video hardware is on a separated card, using the AGP bus. It's very slow to read and write data from/to the card's framebuffer for example. It will NEVER be the case that this kind of setup is as fast or 'THE STANDARD' in 3D workstation land. It can for a great deal of purposes, but it will always be outperformed by special tailored hardware by companies as SGI.
:(
It's nice to see large company backing up OpenGL and supporting it. It's however sad they using hype and buzzwords to get attention..
But I was wrong to post this to Slashdot, which is obviously not an appropriate forum for discussion of subtle ethical matters, and it is apparent that any mention of even a hint of a possible tiny imperfection in the GPL does not belong here, and that anyone who dares to mention any such thing on this website must expect - and probably deserves - a series of harsh, even obscene, personal attacks instead of rational rebukes or comments.
I can't believe that it's wrong to tell people there is a possible hole or inperfection in what these people use or adore. Yesterday I was discussing in another thread (about Linux Demo Day) the fact that it's NECESSARY to inform people that there are alternatives AND why, so they can make the RIGHT choices.
Just ignoring flaws, or inperfections or even bugs or shortcommings is the nail to your own coffin. That's why I say: Roblimo: you don't have to appologize for telling people that there are shortcomings or inperfections. On the contrary!
Why? because I'm a true nerd (living behind my computer programming 12 hours a day for the past 10 years) and proud of it, but that doesn't make me adore or love everything the OpenSource community poops out or says 'obey this'. We all think different, that's why there ARE people here who BELONG here PLUS like your posting. Think about that, forget the flamers. People who bash, flame and replace S-es with $-signes are never reasonable or right.
if you are a developer and something you are working on is not working, you can figure out why. you don't run into the problem of an unresponsive undocumented API. Look at all the crap MSDN-CD is full of, and how impossible it would be to get any work done without it, and how many little SDK idioms you need to resort to.
What I don't understand is: why are you bashing MSDN, the biggest developersource on the planet? And why is it that it's impossible to get work done without it? because you don't know where to look or which of the numerous nice ways to find your way to the 1.5GB of information should be taken or is the fastest? That's exactly why it's not that interesting for a lot of developers to dive into a large pile of Open source code to fix something. Have you ever joined a developmentteam that was working on a software project for already some time? Did they expect you to know where to find every bit of functionality right away? NO! Not at all, because it would have been redicilous. It IS possible to find bugs yourself BECAUSE you have the source it's however not realistic every USER of an open source program and also knows how to program is ABLE to patch a bug quickly: because he/she doesn't know where to look, and HOW to patch a piece of sourcecode so that it won't effect other parts of the software.
Sorry if I sounded offended, but I can't really understand why people are talking so easy about adapting sourcecode and that it is 'all nice and easy because you can easily patch it yourself'. A lot of developers are confronted with this every day. Helping their managers think it's very easy to catch on is not the way to go IMHO.
Your intentions are good: informing people of alternatives is always a Good Thing (tm). That way people are really able to make choices. However, I get the feeling that you couldn't plan your event on a more worse date than you did. It's perhaps hard to buy, but on that day, journalists simply want to report win2k-win2k-win2k. It's like advertising for soccer during a superbowl break.
:)
If you really want to inform people who have no clue that there ARE alternatives, DO so: contact sites and magazines those people go to/read and tell your story. You get much more attention.
Just my 2 dollars
It's not the design of Unix, nor security issues with both OS-es. (Kerberos is a very reliable security system, build in win2k btw, just fyi :)). Security is a matter of knowledge. Both systems force the administrator to get books, do studying and get practice skills before implementing a site.
What sets both OS-es apart is the focus of the 2 OS-es. Both OS-es have total different designphilosophies. You can only on a very very global way compare the two, with general featurelists like 'has webserver, has filesystem with auditing capabilities etc'. nothing more.
Unix takes years to master, but so does NT. The GUI is making it look like it has a low learning curve, but there are a lot of small glitches a person has to know before you really master NT, like you also have to know on Unix.
WinNT comes with the COM aware scripting host, a VB scripting language engine. You can write programs in VB script, and use COM objects like OLE DB drivers to connect to databases etc etc. Ok, not a full blown C++ type language, but it's a programming language. Furthermore, WinNT comes with IIS and the ASP engine. You have an app running in no time. Sure, no C type commandline thingy, allthough you can create one with the VBscript host easily.
:)
If you think about it... why do you need the compiler anyway? if you want to develop programs on win32 you have the compiler. If you just use programs, you don't NEED a compiler. All you need is a mouse, to doubleclick setup.exe. No Compiler Needed (tm).
Visual Studio, or Borland C++ cost money. Sure, Linux comes with a free compiler. But, that compiler is available on win32 too. (djgpp) there are other free C++ compilers for win32. It's not that hard
Perhaps it's me, but besides the high geekfactor (and that's a factor you can't always ignore ;-D), what's the use of a multiuser handheld, a handheld or other small device looking like it running linux? :) To me: not an aweful lot.
Perhaps it's not the linux history of Thorvalds what brought him to transmeta but the technology knowledge he has.
Flame away, but if a closed source company who earns money by selling the software they create (a normal business) can't sell it's software to a certain market, it won't look at that market, OR it will try to change that market so it WILL buy the software. Make Closed Source software bad and evil, but lots of people here, as myself, live from the money we make working on software that pays our salaries, because it's sold. If Metroworks decides the linux market isn't interesting because the majority of the users won't buy the product, why take the hassle for porting the tool, set up supportlines, write manuals etc? it will cost a lot of money and they probably won't see that back. I can fully understand why they took this decision.
;). No, it's because the majority is used to the fact that most of the software is free and open source. IMHO ok, but not every piece of software can be free. This misunderstanding is IMHO a weak spot in the Open Source model.
;-D) be free ;)
Why won't the majority of linuxusers buy the tool? because it's crap? naaa, there is not really an alternative like it, only VC++ beats it, but that's not available on Unix
"Write an Open SOurce equivalent!" Sure. But that takes time, plus it's not sure if it's up to par with the closed source tool it has to replace within a certain amount of time (it's nice to have a good tool after 2 years of coding, but that's not very usable at the moment or within 6 months).
I wish everybody a VC++ equivalent development environment on linux, I also think it will be hard for a lot of linux users to convince software developers there ARE people on linux willing to pay for a tool, closed source or not.
If you are reasonable, not everything on earth like bread, cars, gasoline, playboychannel can (but perhaps should !
[good light on the subject] "I don't say that I've beaten this nail down completely. In fact, my proposed (incomplete) solution is really besides my major point: that we need a replacement to the idea of "bundling" that provides the same - or greater - ease with improvements to safety and flexibility."
... which results in a focus on a model that's better for the USER. I totally agree. Placing that back into the light of a MS splitup: IMHO, driving away the several pieces of software MS has connected together during the years is perhaps in the favor of the competitors of MS (and should I care? it's a business world out there, it's tough, they play as bad as MS plays bad, they lost round 1...pity) but definitely NOT in favor of the users of the products, people who just don't understand computers but are very happy that the computer they bought already had an 'os-thingy with a browser' on it, so it was ready to roll...
;)
As a techie, I too want to have as much 'top notch high tech on my hands', but is the world served by that?
It's really amusing... :) 'I want to let MS publish all the api's! and all the protocols! and all the fileformats!'
well read http://msdn.microsoft.com/libary Learn, absorb knowledge and get productive. The world is not served with tears from eyes who just see what the blinded mind wants them to see.
Some people really don't think, IMHO. Do you really believe the average manager suddenly would swap officesuite? Because the chance is there? of course not! Will the majority of computersellers swap office suite? no. Because the majority of the buyers wants MS Office. It's not about the reasons, it's about the FACT they want it.
;) The DOJ wants to achieve it's cut away from the OS, so it's moved in software or Internet. But... which? it's something with internet, but it's also software. Better example: IIS. It's a webserver, but tightly intergrated in NT. You can't cut it out and run it on windows 9x. But it's an internetapplication, should it be placed with the OS, as it is now, or should it be moved to 'software' because it's an application or to the internet company because it's an internet related object.
:)
Lots of companies are using windows on the client computers where the officepeople work with. Will they all of a sudden change ship, use another OS? why? Windows is good enough for the task they want it to perform. Plus, swapping to an alternative is possible today too. But not a lot of companies do that.
Microsoft is a software company but owns a lot stock in other companies which do other things, cabling companies, computer companies (apple) etc. Splitting it up in 'OS', 'Software' and 'Internet' is too vague. where would you place IE for example? it's a trick question
Which pops up the real question: what is an OS? what is necessary software for the OS, so that a buyer of the OS can install it and use it out of the box, and not has to buy 20 packages (or download) to get something started?
From the anti-MS point of view, it's obvious. But from the normal or from the pro-MS point of view it's not. Because if I take a package like Red Hat in my left hand and windows 2000 in my right hand, what's the difference, except the price (functionality wise, not detailed) ? both are full blown packages with an OS, add on tools and other stuff to get me started right away.
Cutting the package up in my right hand makes it not comparable with the package in my left hand who still is allowed to keep all the stuff that had to be cut away in the right hand. Not very fair to me.
But it's also not official yet. It's a proposal of some layers working at the DOJ side. There are also settlementnegociations going on, plus MS has the right to appeal, which could take years to end. And who knows, perhaps by then we all eat MSAOLTimeWarnerGeneralMotors bread and butter
errr... afaik claris was first with packing several tools together as an office suite. Wordperfect also packed tools together way before MS Office saw the light with office '95. I also can't follow you with the lotus thing. Since when did MS bundle a wordprocessor with the OS? or did you mean with wordprocessor 'write/wordpad' ?
Bundeling apps together into larger suites/applications won't stop here, nor will other companies stop to do that (it's a common thing, not a MS only thing. Saw Staroffice? you can't even run the wordprocessor alone, you have to run the complete suite). NT and win2000 are already stand alone OS-es without production tools on them, except perhaps a browser (ok KDE also comes with a buildin browser, so what's the big deal?). You can say it's bad and evil what MS does, but do you really think the average joe really cares? no. he can now work with a lot more stuff much easier. It's bad for the companies who have lost the race about the no1 spot, but should we care? if you say: "yes! we should care, Otis!" all I can answer is: "Do you care also about the same subject with the same level of enthousiasm in other area's of ICT where MS is a small name and other companies are big?
1) You assume there are secret api's. Which one? can you name them? 'no they are secret'. Ah. It's a rumour, those api's. Fact is, WP and other companies could have used the api's which were THERE to write the code they wanted, so what's the big deal. It's MS fault the programs didn't work?
2) you say:
: I think my answer to #1 will help with the shoddy code bit. It'll still be shoddy, but might force MS to redesign their interface. Heck, maybe they'll think about "kernel space" and "user space" and start using loadable modules *gasp*.
Did you ever saw large snaps of Microsoft code? Was it representative code so you could conclude it's 'shoddy' ??? I bet you haven't. And to refresh YOUR mind: does 'dll' mean anything to you? or COM? or ring0, ring3? Apparantly you think MS' operating systems like NT or windows2000 are Dosshells in realmode, using 1 big block of code?
Perhaps a rant, offtopic flamebait or whatever, but throwing mud at people or companies with 'facts' proven by your own lack of knowledge is not the right way to discuss serious matters like the split up of the biggest company in the world. It will have an enormous inpact on the economy and the ICT sector. I'm not going to start an essay here about if it's good or bad, or right or wrong. All I can say is that most people laughing about the split up of Microsoft are not thinking further about the impact it will have on the majority of computerusers, namely joe anonymous who DOES buy his PC at a store you and I won't even buy a CDwritable. The more it all will be split up, IMHO the more it won't work together like it works today. Perhaps you in your basement full with pdp-11's won't care about this, but again, the average user will, and more important: the companies who use ICT to communicate with this user and are relying on that user for their business.
you treat the temp as a normal employee? I mean, if you hire a temp for 2 weeks, should that temporary employee get all the benefits a truely devoted employee gets who works there for, lets say, 2 years? IMHO no.
;) Here in Holland it is. And for the contractors: sorry, but you are on your own. You are a one man company, so why should you benefit from company favors to employees. You are not an employee. The company that contracted you hires services from your company, which is in fact you. A contracter normally gets payed per hour and gets more money per hour than an average employee, because it's infact a company.
A temporary employee SHOULD get the benefits of a 'working' person, like healthcare, but isn't that taken care of by the middleman agency like Manpower ?
Just a thought.
I'm aware of the offtopic rant you started but ok here we go:
:))
NT is not multiuser as you know from the unixworld, that's correct: users are not really logged in, their sessions are, the applications they use, the services they connect to. In fact, NT works with Object security, so if a user from a client request a service to do this or that, on unix the user logs in on the server, starts a proces and gets the result. On NT he starst a program on the client, that client connects to a service on the NT server and the service fills in the request (like RPC-ing to a daemon.). The whole philosophy is different, the system is designed to be different, it works different than unix. So just saying 'NT isn't even multiuser!' doesn't make any sence.
Besides that, NT is posix compliant, so it can have more than 1 user currently logged in if you want (ever telnetted with some people to an NT server with a telnet service running?
The problem with the crappy drivers has one advantage (yes it has :): the reason why crappy drivers still can work in the system is also the reason why there are so many drivers for so many hardware/software. You see: MS has a tough testlab and they certify every driver they can (you should always use only certified drivers to be safe, if you don't do that in a production environment it's your fault :)) and can't certify every driver in a short period of time. Because a company is still able to supply 'a' driver to bridge that time, more hardware works on windows than on any other OS that only wants to have certified drivers or drivers which are granted permission by a committee. Win2K breaks this 'run it if you dare' syndrome and only allowes certified drivers to run. Perhaps we all get wise in the end ;)
Cutler and the people he worked with at dec (about a 100 engineers) moved to MS, correct. Ofcourse Cutlers ideas about solving problem X and Y didn't change, nor did the ideas of his staff change about how to implement it. however, it's a long shot to mark NT as 'VMS derived material'. It's a new OS, with some solutions in it which are the same as implemented in VMS, and in other OS-es perhaps. VMS is not that unique :)
:) the rumour you touch with your texts is as much true as marking apple as inventor of the gui with a mouse and windows.
Off topic ofcourse, I know, but I thougth I'd to put this into the discussionthread.
this new winsock dll greatly reduces latency with networktraffic over tcp/ip on win9x systems. Afaik it was released last week or the week before that. Saw it on voodooextreme, someone should search it back there if he/she feels up to it :)
Ok, allthough it's open source etc, the goverment of China will be able to put in code to control what the user can and more important: can't do. Or control/trace actions of the user. Not that much people know C well enough to understand 6 million lines of sourcecode, or better: will READ all 6 million lines of sourcecode to scan if there will be special things put into it. Because people in China are not that much willing to protest against control by the goverment (because of the possibility of a high punishment), not much people will argue against this.
Note: the amount of lines of sourcecode I mentioned can differ, I don't know the exact amount of source lines in Linux.
Note2: perhaps some original open source parts will be closed sourced in the Red Flag version. Who will stop them if they do? Linus? The US Goverment?. Remember that citizens of China are only allowed to visit websites which are preselected by the Goverment, and don't have the oppertunity to 'patch' the goverment parts with source downloaded from western FTP sites..
Good point (especially the 'source will live on and thus the product' part). Your remark is a good argument to release sourcecode of an application that has a lot of followers. thanks :)