Amazing how something so "trivial" that has the potential to tilt the balance from Windows to Linux hasn't been fully implemented already. Perhaps because your assumptions are incorrect.
I would guess that a compatibility layer could theoretically fully simulate Windows, but I think it's going to remain theoretical long after Windows is a distant memory. Certainly Wine isn't an appropriate poster-boy for full compatibility.
I don't doubt that a lot of apps are being written for.Net, but backwards-compatibility is all about running apps that other people might think you don't need to run.
"If every application is written in.NET (and I'm seeing more and more.NET apps), making a backwards-compatible OS is as easy as porting the framework."
It would have to be "if every application ever written for Windows was written in.NET"...
Since that isn't the case,.NET isn't a solution to the backwards-compatible problem.
I wasn't aware that Wine could run applications using Vista-specific features. That's fast development!
But seriously, have these emulators really been tested for more than a few well-known apps and does the performance match a native application?
Jeremy White the CEO of Codeweavers (the leading corporate backer of Wine) has stated: "We're still...the problem is that's really hard to answer, because the honest answer is that Wine is never going to be 100 percent, identical to Windows, you're not going to be able run every single Windows application on Wine, it's never going to happen."
So what I said would be hard to do isn't being done by Wine and isn't even planned to be done in Wine.
If you dropped the religious position and just thought about what it would actually take to fully emulate a complex OS like Windows, you wouldn't be at all surprised that Wine doesn't fully work.
I think from a customer's point of view, that's not a very attractive approach. Also keep in mind that Microsoft needs a business case to do this. Just because you have "insanely deep pockets" doesn't mean you want to empty them without a good reason.
Do what? Produce a new OS that isn't compatible with old applications? I'm not an Apple user, but don't they have a reputation for not being very concerned with backward compatibility?
I know you think MS is evil and all, but being evil doesn't erase technical issues. Porting full Vista functionality to Linux would probably take a decade at least and if it worked at all, it would probably be much worse than the real thing.
You buy into the myth that MS isn't capable of writing a an OS as secure and stable as Linux. The truth is they can't write an OS as secure and stable as Linux and still be backward compatible with Windows. Neither can anyone else (not that they want to).
If the day comes when the financial benefits of compatibilty are outweighed by the costs, we'll find out what kind of OS MS is capable of writing when released from the compatiblity chains that currently bind them.
Until then, it will continue to be an Apples to Oranges comparison of OS design skills between MS and Linux.
I doubt that any controversial topic written about in Wikipedia is written entirely by legitimate third parties. Slashdot proves that people will spend a lot of time and effort to support their point of view without being paid. Since many of us have opposite views, being paid isn't a requirement for being wrong or biased.
My point was that the basic premise was proven wrong: That the company with the dominant browser dominates the Internet. The rise of mozilla/firefox wouldn't have been possilbe if MS was dominating the Internet.
I've made no such claim, I merely asked where the evidence was.
Even if I had, it wouldn't make any difference, the burden of proof doesn't shift just because somebody disagrees with the claim. Now, If I had stated something like "It's not MS that is leading the DRM charge, it's Apple" then I'd be making my own claim and I'd have the burden of proof for that one.
If MS's plan has been to control content, they should try a new strategy because it's been a colossal failure.
It wasn't that many years ago that the claim was that if Netscape went out of business, MS would control the Internet. Well, Netscape did go out of business, and MS has less control of the Internet today then ever.
DRM may be a PITA, but it's not going to bring MS closer to world domination.
"And for those who constantly ask for proof of something instead of looking for themselves, well you need to get an education. People can't afford to take the time to constantly educate you. Rather you should be providing evidence contrary to the supposition rather than demanding someone prove to you. This isn't a court of law. If you don't believe them and you won't take the time to research their points and dispel them posting your comments is pointless. It's like claiming the world is round and you asking them to prove it every time because you don't agree. Just like that is common knowledge and the fact that this site tends to focus on technology it isn't our fault you aren't educated sufficiently enough to know the details or research them yourselves."
Congratulations. That's the longest excuse I've every read for not being able to backup a claim with facts. Perhaps you should join MS's FUD department, you have a gift.
uClinux uses a MC68328 processor that implements privilege levels which makes a seperate kernel space and user space possible, but thanks for playing anyway.
"Privilege levels can be simulated using memory mapping hardware external to the 6502 CPU. Does the C=64 have these?"
A memory mapping scheme isn't sufficient to establish privilege levels, the CPU must have privileged instructions. As for asking if the C64 uses external memory mapping, you're joking, right? Unless you mean memory-mapped I/O.
You're right. Having an OS that runs on 90% of the desktop computers on the planet doesn't make your company that powerful. The MS monopoly isn't even in the same league as the ones AT&T, Xerox, and IBM enjoyed in their heyday.
Since the processor used in the Commodore 64 was part of the 6502 family, it has no privilege levels. An OS that can't have a separate kernel space and user space can't be Linux. The GP is correct, you need a minimum of a 386 to run any version of Linux.
"Just why do you think that an industry that is at least 6x larger does not have a realistic chance of forcing hollywood to capitulate rather than the other way around?"
Simply because the computer industry has nothing that the MPAA members need. If the computer industry fails to go along with the DRM, it will have little financial impact on the MPAA members since most people watch movies on stand-alone DVD players, not computers.
I think the statistical measure you mention just indicates, on average, how much information can be transmitted at a given rate using a given amount of energy. It seems to me this really isn't "encoding the data on a photon" it's encoding data by modulating a carrier wave. It's the aggregate of photons that contain the information, looking at any particular photon won't tell you anything.
For storage you either have to a fixed number of bits per photon or you have to have some way of determining how many bits a particular photon represents.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing how something so "trivial" that has the potential to tilt the balance from Windows to Linux hasn't been fully implemented already. Perhaps because your assumptions are incorrect.
I would guess that a compatibility layer could theoretically fully simulate Windows, but I think it's going to remain theoretical long after Windows is a distant memory. Certainly Wine isn't an appropriate poster-boy for full compatibility.
I don't doubt that a lot of apps are being written for .Net, but backwards-compatibility is all about running apps that other people might think you don't need to run.
"If every application is written in .NET (and I'm seeing more and more .NET apps), making a backwards-compatible OS is as easy as porting the framework."
.NET" ...
.NET isn't a solution to the backwards-compatible problem.
It would have to be "if every application ever written for Windows was written in
Since that isn't the case,
I wasn't aware that Wine could run applications using Vista-specific features. That's fast development!
But seriously, have these emulators really been tested for more than a few well-known apps and does the performance match a native application?
Jeremy White the CEO of Codeweavers (the leading corporate backer of Wine) has stated:
"We're still...the problem is that's really hard to answer, because the honest answer is that Wine is never going to be 100 percent, identical to Windows, you're not going to be able run every single Windows application on Wine, it's never going to happen."
So what I said would be hard to do isn't being done by Wine and isn't even planned to be done in Wine.
If you dropped the religious position and just thought about what it would actually take to fully emulate a complex OS like Windows, you wouldn't be at all surprised that Wine doesn't fully work.
I think from a customer's point of view, that's not a very attractive approach. Also keep in mind that Microsoft needs a business case to do this. Just because you have "insanely deep pockets" doesn't mean you want to empty them without a good reason.
Do what? Produce a new OS that isn't compatible with old applications? I'm not an Apple user, but don't they have a reputation for not being very concerned with backward compatibility?
I know you think MS is evil and all, but being evil doesn't erase technical issues. Porting full Vista functionality to Linux would probably take a decade at least and if it worked at all, it would probably be much worse than the real thing.
You buy into the myth that MS isn't capable of writing a an OS as secure and stable as Linux. The truth is they can't write an OS as secure and stable as Linux and still be backward compatible with Windows. Neither can anyone else (not that they want to).
If the day comes when the financial benefits of compatibilty are outweighed by the costs, we'll find out what kind of OS MS is capable of writing when released from the compatiblity chains that currently bind them.
Until then, it will continue to be an Apples to Oranges comparison of OS design skills between MS and Linux.
I doubt that any controversial topic written about in Wikipedia is written entirely by legitimate third parties. Slashdot proves that people will spend a lot of time and effort to support their point of view without being paid. Since many of us have opposite views, being paid isn't a requirement for being wrong or biased.
My point was that the basic premise was proven wrong: That the company with the dominant browser dominates the Internet. The rise of mozilla/firefox wouldn't have been possilbe if MS was dominating the Internet.
If you believe that Netscape is still in business, I suggest you do a stock symbol lookup for Netscape and let us know what it is.
If you think asking for evidence is bullshit, than I don't think we have enough of a common frame of reference to have a discussion.
I've made no such claim, I merely asked where the evidence was.
Even if I had, it wouldn't make any difference, the burden of proof doesn't shift just because somebody disagrees with the claim. Now, If I had stated something like "It's not MS that is leading the DRM charge, it's Apple" then I'd be making my own claim and I'd have the burden of proof for that one.
If MS's plan has been to control content, they should try a new strategy because it's been a colossal failure.
It wasn't that many years ago that the claim was that if Netscape went out of business, MS would control the Internet. Well, Netscape did go out of business, and MS has less control of the Internet today then ever.
DRM may be a PITA, but it's not going to bring MS closer to world domination.
Well, bub, the principle that the person making the claim has the burden of proof goes back many centuries.
"And for those who constantly ask for proof of something instead of looking for themselves, well you need to get an education. People can't afford to take the time to constantly educate you. Rather you should be providing evidence contrary to the supposition rather than demanding someone prove to you. This isn't a court of law. If you don't believe them and you won't take the time to research their points and dispel them posting your comments is pointless. It's like claiming the world is round and you asking them to prove it every time because you don't agree. Just like that is common knowledge and the fact that this site tends to focus on technology it isn't our fault you aren't educated sufficiently enough to know the details or research them yourselves."
Congratulations. That's the longest excuse I've every read for not being able to backup a claim with facts. Perhaps you should join MS's FUD department, you have a gift.
Sorry, but a bare link isn't an argument. I gave you one freebee, but if you want me to respond in the future, you'll actually have to say something.
uClinux uses a MC68328 processor that implements privilege levels which makes a seperate kernel space and user space possible, but thanks for playing anyway.
"Privilege levels can be simulated using memory mapping hardware external to the 6502 CPU. Does the C=64 have these?"
A memory mapping scheme isn't sufficient to establish privilege levels, the CPU must have privileged instructions. As for asking if the C64 uses external memory mapping, you're joking, right? Unless you mean memory-mapped I/O.
You're right. Having an OS that runs on 90% of the desktop computers on the planet doesn't make your company that powerful. The MS monopoly isn't even in the same league as the ones AT&T, Xerox, and IBM enjoyed in their heyday.
Since the processor used in the Commodore 64 was part of the 6502 family, it has no privilege levels. An OS that can't have a separate kernel space and user space can't be Linux. The GP is correct, you need a minimum of a 386 to run any version of Linux.
"Just why do you think that an industry that is at least 6x larger does not have a realistic chance of forcing hollywood to capitulate rather than the other way around?"
Simply because the computer industry has nothing that the MPAA members need. If the computer industry fails to go along with the DRM, it will have little financial impact on the MPAA members since most people watch movies on stand-alone DVD players, not computers.
"Completely ridiculous rumor debunked, proves DRM is benevolent," states person unfamiliar with logic"
Stated by a person unfamiliar with the fallacy of the straw man.
Where is your evidence that MS is "leading the DRM charge"?
I think the statistical measure you mention just indicates, on average, how much information can be transmitted at a given rate using a given amount of energy. It seems to me this really isn't "encoding the data on a photon" it's encoding data by modulating a carrier wave. It's the aggregate of photons that contain the information, looking at any particular photon won't tell you anything.
For storage you either have to a fixed number of bits per photon or you have to have some way of determining how many bits a particular photon represents.