io.sys (system doesn't do anything with msdos.sys)
command.com
autoexec.bat
config.sys
win.com
Other Windows files
The Windows kernel, as I mentioned, is seperate from the DOS kernel. Until the system loads win.com, you are running DOS 7. You can find the text DOS 7 embedded in these binaries. Windows, the GUI that we know and hate, is made up of binaries, libraries, and whatnot that run on top of these binaries that label themselves internally (yes, they do print out "Windows") as DOS. DOS and Windows are integrated in the sense that they come in the same box, but Windows is actually running on top of DOS like any other program, albeit with a little more functionality than other programs.
The Windows "kernel" is a virtual kernel. The actual kernel in the classic sense of the word is the DOS io.sys.
Multimonitor and the buses are not really built into the DOS kernel in any real sense. USB and Firewire are present to a very limited extent. Again, you confuse the virtual kernel loaded by Windows and the real kernel of the OS Windows runs on top of just like any other program.
I did not say it was a microkernel, I made a (correct) analogy. Look at the files your system loads when running in Windows: all hardware is addressed through drivers which are not part of the kernel, they hook into it and are called through by it (it is not that simple, but they are most definatly not integrated into the kernel).
Windows loads DOS, then the GUI which is the actual Windows. The GUI Windows loads a virtual kernel that runs on top of the DOS kernel that uses various other drivers and junk to do stuff. DOS is, in no technical way, integrated into Windows. That's like saying that since you got you copy of Emacs and the Linux kernel on the same CD, they are integrated. Emacs runs on top of the Linux kernel, and is actually a lot like Windows (it can even run its own programs. I like the Tetris game better than Minesweeper).
True, Windows doesn't use the DOS system for a whole lot, because it basically replaces it, but try using a Zip drive in DOS mode. Windows includes a driver that works with it (don't cheat and use a DOS driver, now. You don't need it, since they're integrated.) What, it won't work? That's because the Windows kernel and associated device drivers are programs that run on top of DOS and its kernel, which is still sitting around in memory, handeling the tasks that aren't replaced by hooks from drivers.
One last time: Windows runs on top of the included DOS system. It loads other files to do stuff. But DOS is there. It is not one big system, there are many parts, and the kernel is just the rarely updated centre. MS would rather patch in functionality from other files than mess with the thing that regulates it all, or else they really would be integrated and you wouldn't have one kernel on top of another one.
If you have any other questions, we can just move this over to email. It's more convenient.
The iPAQ is not a real PC. For starters, its based on StrongARM, not an i386-type chip. Though Intel makes this chip, you may have, um, limited success running an i386 Linux distro on it, and StrongARM support is currently rare amoung distros. The iPAQ is just another WinCE machine, not a stripped-down PC.
Humanity is made ready to monkey around with this stuff because of one of the few constants in all our lives: human error.
Enough experiments will go wrong and enough people will fight with each other that this branch of science, like others, will more or less keep up with our ability to cope.
This is an oversimpification; if you feel a need to expand upon it, do so. I'm polite to flamers:-)
If you ever get in trouble about a contract you signed, semantics is suddenly going to become a very, very important part of your life.
The law depends on exact phrasing, and so does justice. If the phrasing isn't exact enough, the justice handed down based on that law won't be, either.
You can get a lot of "coding" done by filling in blanks in wizard generated code these days, and I know people who do. MSVC isn't the best example, but I saw the CD in my closet while I was typing...
I selected Enlightenment the last time I installed it, and immediatly upgraded to 0.16.4. As I remember, unless you chose something else it does default to KDE. It's on the back of the box, anyway.
And if (like a friend who had an old 486 he didn't want to repartition) you go with BigSlack, you don't have a choice. KDE.
What I was trying to say is that Slack, Pat, or some team member likes KDE and I don't. Sorry about the confusion.
Actually, Windows works differently than Linux. Then kernel is located in a special file (c:\io.sys) on your hard disk. All of the extra hardware functionality (USB, multimoniter, etc.) that you mention is tacked into the OS through a series of interesting things like normal and virtual device drivers. It's sort of like a microkernel, only these drivers are accessed through a GUI (Windows) running on top of the DOS 7 part and the kernel. Unlike with a microkernel, the kernel never actually touches the device drivers and things that Windows runs. Windows even has it's own virtual kernel that runs on top of the actual one!
Some of the other things you mention (icons, IE) are actually in executable code in the GUI part of Windows and elsewhere, not through any interaction with anything resembling the kernel. X-Windows isn't part of the Linux kernel, and IE isn't part of the Windows/DOS 7 one.
DirectX is weird. It is made up mostly of a large number of device drivers and some executable code, although there are more complicated things in there.
These security fixes mostly update DLLs and stuff NEVER the kernel. Again, most of Windows is actually executables and libraries. The kernel is quite small and doesn't do a whole lot except interpret for these executables.
In short, the actual kernel has not changed much, other than moving it from two files (msdos.sys used to have part of it) into just io.sys. USB and other nice things never directly interact with the kernel, but work through executable code (win.com and associated dlls and other files) that runs on top of the kernel and accesses hardware. Linux, on the other hand, integrates USB and such into the kernel, so it does not constantly crash because of the complex and unstable patchwork doing things DOS was never meant to do.
You have a very well thought out response. The problem is that you are doing exactly what MS wants: seeing Windows as one big happy family rather than the confused mish mash it is. Dig a little deeper, and you'll discover why the model is insecure and why it crashes constantly.
I believe in the consumer. Joe Consumer doesn't want to build his own computer, so he just goes along with what he has to do to get a pretty blue HP. But Joe Consumer, and the millions of other consumers, will eventually realize how badly they are getting screwed. Only when that happens will thing change.
It'll seem small at first. A few articles in the newspaper, your computer illiterate friends actually making intelligent comments about how much big computer companies are cheating them instead of going along with the latest TV opinions. But it'll get bigger, just like similar changes in other industries.
Prices will still be high, but at least you'll get somthing for your money. Commercial software will, like cars, be expensive but functional.
Then free software will take over the market. But until then, watch for stages of the cycle described above.
The different hardware manufactures tend to add strange chips around the processor or actually put a "wrapper" around the processor in order to interface it with their hardware. There are few standards for this (CE hardware is somewhat standardized, but not as much as you might think), so it's hard to get things running reliably. You might get NetBSD going, but it would be hard to find a version of Linux that worked. PalmOS certainly wouldn't, because even the StrongARM version would still be hardcoded for use with Palm RAM, Palm buses, and Palm screens. Sorry the news couldn't be more positive.
Solaris is not, by my definition, a real OS because it does not include the tools nessecary for development. In my mind, a real OS is one that gives you tools to use but lets you pick your own if you'd rather. Futher, according to Sun's website, getting Solaris source requires payment of an fee for "media" (do CDs cost $75 to make and press? No.) in addtion to various argreements and such. Solaris is therefore not free software, as the source is not avalible with the download. Since you must pay for source, according to Sun, development of derivitives is not possible.
This OS, while powerful, and something I have enjoyed using, is not free software (GNU definition) and is not full-featured. It does not fit my definition of a quality OS, so it is not, in my opinion if not yours, a real OS. You may disagree, but those are my criteria.
Ahh, that was just a lament for a bygone time when those magazines were fun to read.
I guess I would rather teach the lesser programmers than do it for them. I'm not against code reuse; I'd just rather that the person reusing understand exactly what the code does and how.
No, my point is that we should never forget that this is an advantage we have. It's important to think about it, not just chant "release often" over and over. Releases that actually improve things are a strength we need to be reminded of.
We all like the latest software. The problem is, the mainstream (read: Microsoft) OS's have a tendency to update slowly. (MS has set a few actual records for longest wait between releases of an actively developed product). I was looking at the dates on the kernels, and it hit me: 2.2.16 was released a few hours short of a month and four days after 2.2.15. When has MS managed that?
Come to think of it, what kind of changes were made in the kernel between Win95 and 98 (the kernel for these calls itself DOS 7 and 7.10 internally).
Not much. As far as I can tell (and I have done some research) the most major change was a recompile with different internel version numbers.
We all know free software is released faster. But even at the current reduced speed, this still amazes me. Just something to think about.
I don't like seeing the government do this. Microsoft was doomed either way. The government could hold it accountable for its actions, or it could slip into decline in the face of free software. It was just a matter of which would happen first.
It would have been more fun to beat them ourselves, yes. Do I fear a government that does this? Yes. But this isn't the worst outcome, and it isn't the worst thing the government has done.
If this were a movie, this would be the so-so-but-not-happy-or-bad ending.
The main point is that RedHat is a real OS (Unix). Real OSes include everything from applications to compilers. Unix has always come with a full set of programs, so in this case OS means a full distribution, not just a useless GUI and some buggy applets.
If Windows were replaced by Be, I might actually use it. Be is (partially) avalible as source, and is (as the original post stated) more advanced technologically than Windows. I've used Be, so I'm not just repeating what someone else said.
Besides, wasn't the buy-out-and-rebrand strategy what got MS DOS in the first place?
The Emperor in Star Wars said that. Appropriate, huh? We all knew MS was going to lose this case. And I think we all knew it would be tied up in appeals. MS can delay, it can more to another country, but if the government doesn't kill it, free software will.
Another point: mp3.com. Some people just download and don't buy. But some people just download free software, too. I go to mp3.com, download one of a band's songs, and listen to it. If I like it, I download the rest. If I like the band overall, I buy there stuff. I believe that a version of this model (not mp3.com as it is now) is the future.
Mmm, yeah. But I feel like the Traveler in H.G. Wells' Time Machine: technology seems dumbed down. I remember reading old PCMag and BYTE (all right, I read Compute!, too.) and there was code being discussed. These magazines are now mainstream. I don't know about BYTE anymore (think it's less of a problem there) but PCMag covers digital cameras, not C.
There's a computer class at a local high school. They teach C++ there, but no one mentions Kernighan or Ritchie. This class is for the most advance kids in the district. 30 students every year are selected for it. And this is how advanced it really is. That means something.
Depending on who you believe, figures are 60-80%. That's the majority. And once you own something, you can't steal it. If you make a copy of something that is bought and paid for and do not distribute it to anyone unauthorized to posses it, it is not stealing. Like I said, Lars confirms that this whole thing has led to an increase in Metallica album sales.
Even if you disagree with that issue, did you read my second point?
I believe I mentiontioned that he did not found the movement, only preserved it.
The FSF, founded and sheperded by RMS, protects your rights. I never claimed, and the documents of the FSF pages do not claim, that they started this. The story they have always used, the correct story, is that RMS did not like the trends he was noticing and wanted to keep source free. He's kept the torch burning while water poured all around, but now that electric lights have been lit they threaten to outshine him.
Sorry, you can flame me all you want about this, but I just want to ask one question: How many people you know have bought a CD after downloading MP3s? I know a lot. This is a major change, and there will be some upheval, but there have been (both scientific and unscientific) surveys that prove that MP3s actually improve album sales.
There will always be thevies. But in this case, the majority of the people aren't.
And what about the people who would rather download then go through the process of ripping? Time is money and all that, you know.
Fact is, MP3s are good buisiness, not just for those who sell them directly, but for the band, which profits indirectly. Metallica is hurting its sales (even Lars admits that Napster raised his album sales) and its fans.
We all knew it was coming, but it's still kind of a shock. This might lead to more platforms running (what used to be) MS apps, but that doesn't affect me. It might lead to more compitions, but I already work for the compition (remember kids... the right free software job pays quite nicely.) This is big news... but somehow I feel that in 10 years, it won't matter so much.
Slashdot Mirror
- io.sys (system doesn't do anything with msdos.sys)
- command.com
- autoexec.bat
- config.sys
- win.com
- Other Windows files
The Windows kernel, as I mentioned, is seperate from the DOS kernel. Until the system loads win.com, you are running DOS 7. You can find the text DOS 7 embedded in these binaries. Windows, the GUI that we know and hate, is made up of binaries, libraries, and whatnot that run on top of these binaries that label themselves internally (yes, they do print out "Windows") as DOS. DOS and Windows are integrated in the sense that they come in the same box, but Windows is actually running on top of DOS like any other program, albeit with a little more functionality than other programs.The Windows "kernel" is a virtual kernel. The actual kernel in the classic sense of the word is the DOS io.sys.
Multimonitor and the buses are not really built into the DOS kernel in any real sense. USB and Firewire are present to a very limited extent. Again, you confuse the virtual kernel loaded by Windows and the real kernel of the OS Windows runs on top of just like any other program.
I did not say it was a microkernel, I made a (correct) analogy. Look at the files your system loads when running in Windows: all hardware is addressed through drivers which are not part of the kernel, they hook into it and are called through by it (it is not that simple, but they are most definatly not integrated into the kernel).
Windows loads DOS, then the GUI which is the actual Windows. The GUI Windows loads a virtual kernel that runs on top of the DOS kernel that uses various other drivers and junk to do stuff. DOS is, in no technical way, integrated into Windows. That's like saying that since you got you copy of Emacs and the Linux kernel on the same CD, they are integrated. Emacs runs on top of the Linux kernel, and is actually a lot like Windows (it can even run its own programs. I like the Tetris game better than Minesweeper).
True, Windows doesn't use the DOS system for a whole lot, because it basically replaces it, but try using a Zip drive in DOS mode. Windows includes a driver that works with it (don't cheat and use a DOS driver, now. You don't need it, since they're integrated.) What, it won't work? That's because the Windows kernel and associated device drivers are programs that run on top of DOS and its kernel, which is still sitting around in memory, handeling the tasks that aren't replaced by hooks from drivers.
One last time: Windows runs on top of the included DOS system. It loads other files to do stuff. But DOS is there. It is not one big system, there are many parts, and the kernel is just the rarely updated centre. MS would rather patch in functionality from other files than mess with the thing that regulates it all, or else they really would be integrated and you wouldn't have one kernel on top of another one.
If you have any other questions, we can just move this over to email. It's more convenient.
* Tell the world that we're going to be the grim
* reaper of innocent orphaned children
*/
child_reaper = current;
In context this makes sense, but by itself it's funny.
Respectfully, you may wish to consult the iPAQ specs and the Intel's StrongARM pages. No HD, no i386, no CDROM...
Perhaps you have it confused with one of the consumer PCs Compaq makes (the ones with funky "lump" cases)? Those are PCs.
Enough experiments will go wrong and enough people will fight with each other that this branch of science, like others, will more or less keep up with our ability to cope.
This is an oversimpification; if you feel a need to expand upon it, do so. I'm polite to flamers :-)
The law depends on exact phrasing, and so does justice. If the phrasing isn't exact enough, the justice handed down based on that law won't be, either.
You can get a lot of "coding" done by filling in blanks in wizard generated code these days, and I know people who do. MSVC isn't the best example, but I saw the CD in my closet while I was typing...
And if (like a friend who had an old 486 he didn't want to repartition) you go with BigSlack, you don't have a choice. KDE.
What I was trying to say is that Slack, Pat, or some team member likes KDE and I don't. Sorry about the confusion.
Some of the other things you mention (icons, IE) are actually in executable code in the GUI part of Windows and elsewhere, not through any interaction with anything resembling the kernel. X-Windows isn't part of the Linux kernel, and IE isn't part of the Windows/DOS 7 one.
DirectX is weird. It is made up mostly of a large number of device drivers and some executable code, although there are more complicated things in there.
These security fixes mostly update DLLs and stuff NEVER the kernel. Again, most of Windows is actually executables and libraries. The kernel is quite small and doesn't do a whole lot except interpret for these executables.
In short, the actual kernel has not changed much, other than moving it from two files (msdos.sys used to have part of it) into just io.sys. USB and other nice things never directly interact with the kernel, but work through executable code (win.com and associated dlls and other files) that runs on top of the kernel and accesses hardware. Linux, on the other hand, integrates USB and such into the kernel, so it does not constantly crash because of the complex and unstable patchwork doing things DOS was never meant to do.
You have a very well thought out response. The problem is that you are doing exactly what MS wants: seeing Windows as one big happy family rather than the confused mish mash it is. Dig a little deeper, and you'll discover why the model is insecure and why it crashes constantly.
It'll seem small at first. A few articles in the newspaper, your computer illiterate friends actually making intelligent comments about how much big computer companies are cheating them instead of going along with the latest TV opinions. But it'll get bigger, just like similar changes in other industries.
Prices will still be high, but at least you'll get somthing for your money. Commercial software will, like cars, be expensive but functional.
Then free software will take over the market. But until then, watch for stages of the cycle described above.
The different hardware manufactures tend to add strange chips around the processor or actually put a "wrapper" around the processor in order to interface it with their hardware. There are few standards for this (CE hardware is somewhat standardized, but not as much as you might think), so it's hard to get things running reliably. You might get NetBSD going, but it would be hard to find a version of Linux that worked. PalmOS certainly wouldn't, because even the StrongARM version would still be hardcoded for use with Palm RAM, Palm buses, and Palm screens. Sorry the news couldn't be more positive.
This OS, while powerful, and something I have enjoyed using, is not free software (GNU definition) and is not full-featured. It does not fit my definition of a quality OS, so it is not, in my opinion if not yours, a real OS. You may disagree, but those are my criteria.
I guess I would rather teach the lesser programmers than do it for them. I'm not against code reuse; I'd just rather that the person reusing understand exactly what the code does and how.
Sorry, I just wanted to clear that up.
We all like the latest software. The problem is, the mainstream (read: Microsoft) OS's have a tendency to update slowly. (MS has set a few actual records for longest wait between releases of an actively developed product). I was looking at the dates on the kernels, and it hit me: 2.2.16 was released a few hours short of a month and four days after 2.2.15. When has MS managed that?
Come to think of it, what kind of changes were made in the kernel between Win95 and 98 (the kernel for these calls itself DOS 7 and 7.10 internally).
Not much. As far as I can tell (and I have done some research) the most major change was a recompile with different internel version numbers.
We all know free software is released faster. But even at the current reduced speed, this still amazes me. Just something to think about.
It would have been more fun to beat them ourselves, yes. Do I fear a government that does this? Yes. But this isn't the worst outcome, and it isn't the worst thing the government has done.
If this were a movie, this would be the so-so-but-not-happy-or-bad ending.
The main point is that RedHat is a real OS (Unix). Real OSes include everything from applications to compilers. Unix has always come with a full set of programs, so in this case OS means a full distribution, not just a useless GUI and some buggy applets.
Besides, wasn't the buy-out-and-rebrand strategy what got MS DOS in the first place?
The Emperor in Star Wars said that. Appropriate, huh? We all knew MS was going to lose this case. And I think we all knew it would be tied up in appeals. MS can delay, it can more to another country, but if the government doesn't kill it, free software will.
Another point: mp3.com. Some people just download and don't buy. But some people just download free software, too. I go to mp3.com, download one of a band's songs, and listen to it. If I like it, I download the rest. If I like the band overall, I buy there stuff. I believe that a version of this model (not mp3.com as it is now) is the future.
There's a computer class at a local high school. They teach C++ there, but no one mentions Kernighan or Ritchie. This class is for the most advance kids in the district. 30 students every year are selected for it. And this is how advanced it really is. That means something.
Even if you disagree with that issue, did you read my second point?
I may be wrong, but this deal seems to have a time limit on it. After 10 years (or something), MS is free to be reborn as an even bigger monster.
The FSF, founded and sheperded by RMS, protects your rights. I never claimed, and the documents of the FSF pages do not claim, that they started this. The story they have always used, the correct story, is that RMS did not like the trends he was noticing and wanted to keep source free. He's kept the torch burning while water poured all around, but now that electric lights have been lit they threaten to outshine him.
He is a hero.
There will always be thevies. But in this case, the majority of the people aren't.
And what about the people who would rather download then go through the process of ripping? Time is money and all that, you know.
Fact is, MP3s are good buisiness, not just for those who sell them directly, but for the band, which profits indirectly. Metallica is hurting its sales (even Lars admits that Napster raised his album sales) and its fans.
We all knew it was coming, but it's still kind of a shock. This might lead to more platforms running (what used to be) MS apps, but that doesn't affect me. It might lead to more compitions, but I already work for the compition (remember kids... the right free software job pays quite nicely.) This is big news... but somehow I feel that in 10 years, it won't matter so much.
In the meantime, though, wow.