Re:3.1/3.11/95a/95b/98/98se/2000/ME/CE/NT3.5/NT3.5
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 1
>>Those are all evolutionary steps of the same system.
Yeah. Windows 2000 is really MS DOS 2000.
Does Windows 2000 have a real mode or is it strictly unreal?
Re:Use for multitaasking, multiuser, networked box
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 1
One user. One box. Single-user.
Two users. Two Boxes. Share nothing, except by sneaker network.
With more than one user and/or box, you get into the business of controlled access to shared resources. The timeshareing systems are not obsolete, we're just seeing more of the flip side.
>>if you want to really screw up Windows, there's an easy way. Just install something.
Ouch! Unfortunately, you are right.
( Ever worse, uninstall something;)
It lets loose another round of entertaining commentary. And no, I did not read the linked article. Judging by the commentary, it would be a waste of time.
You can boot NT from a floppy.
Format floppy under NT command window.
You need from C:\
ntldr
ntdetect.com
ntbootdd.sys
boot.ini
There might be a disk driver or such missing from above list.
Primary reason for FAT16 C: partition is that in extreme duress you may be able to recover something using DOS utilities.
One thing I've found that does seem to help. When the system is messing up or going screwey, kill the power, without logging off or shutting down.I've lost systems from shutting down, but never from killing power.
MS tries to simplify things and make things look a bit easier than they really are. When something breaks is a subtle way, it is usually difficult to find out exactly what is going on. Linux and particularly the BSDs seem to want to be more informative. The net result is that with unqualified help, the *nix admins will actually learn.
No, the 80286 supported protected mode, but the 80386 is so much of an improvement that nobody codes for the 80286. The 80286 had a memory limit of 16 Meg. Transition from protected to real mode via an aborted reset. The 386 also introduced the virtual 86 mode.
The combination of Linux and *BSD is a much tougher problem for Microsoft than either alone.
It seems like there is a steadily increasing amount of support for Linux from the big guns, mostly quiet but persistent and relentless.
Does anyone else think that Microsoft's.net is a farce?
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server or Microsoft Window NT server 4.0 - Add $799
Red Hat Linux Factory-Installed - $149
includes 90 days telephone and Web-based support.
One advanced configuration support incident
180 day access to www.priority.redhat.com
What is more likely is that the collection of all the old King's Quest games sells and is profitable because the individual abandoned games are available, free or otherwise. Unless you have the enthusiasts, there is no market.
In this case, the old version is NOT abandoned. So you have to buy the new version to get the old version, but the old version is still commercially available and presumably supported.
There is a critical difference with "we don't make that anymore", which justifies one-off copying. Any massive copying should compensate the IP owner. The IP owner should retain the right to republish if enough interest and demand occurs. The reason many books are out of print is that republishing them is a rather expensive undertaking and unless the demand is enough, it is a certain loss. But asking the Copyright laws to be reasonable is too much, I guess.
With any luck, that is probably what will take Linux to dominate the desktop (with *BSD not far behind). Actually Caldera's DR DOS starts to look very, very good.
Software is written and sold, with some reasonable expectation of some degree of support, EULA's notwhithstanding. If the software is abandoned by the author or assigns, what is the recourse of the poor saps still using it.
For example, dBASE5/DOS has a very nasty bug which under just the right circumstances writes back to several database files the first 6 (IIRC) bytes from stale buffers. This resets the record count of affected databases, causing newly inserted records to be lost. Without source or support, all you can do is try to work around it. (Hint, avoid USE AGAIN.)
With Open Source, or Abandonware, if there is a bad problem, it is at least theoretically posible to solve it, not easy, but possible.
With source, ultimately I am responsible for what the program does, particularly if I mess with anything. Without source, ultimately the author has to be responsible, since I am not really in any position to correct the problem. For finding and taking advantage of holes in a system, source can be more of a liability than a help. It requires a lot of expertise to set up the test harness, but once established, you get a view of what is actually going on uncolored by the programmer's expectations. Once set up, you can have a better handle on the system than the guy who wrote it.
I do not want to give up multi-user, even if the only user is me. A multi-user OS _must_ give some kind of protection to users from each other. Single user tends to much to "I trust myself".
Certain core (root) processes should be protected from anything the user _can_ throw at them. The watch is a good idea, to see how far they can push it , and what the consequences are.
Yep. Judge Jackson was right. Microsoft has a monopoly and there are no contenders. Yet.
Everything I've seen about IBM indicates that they are in it for the long haul. Expect IBM to gradually take a more and more pro-Linux stance. Probably decided that the timing wasn't quite right just yet.
As far as I can tell, it IS still his site. The fact that it was funded by Andover and now by VA Linux does not change whose site it is. His personal political views are completely proper here, and should not be taken as indicative of those of VA Linux or Andover. Besides, there is all the ensuing commentary to counteract any misplaced bias.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Those are all evolutionary steps of the same system.
Yeah. Windows 2000 is really MS DOS 2000.
Does Windows 2000 have a real mode or is it strictly unreal?
One user. One box. Single-user.
Two users. Two Boxes. Share nothing, except by sneaker network.
With more than one user and/or box, you get into the business of controlled access to shared resources. The timeshareing systems are not obsolete, we're just seeing more of the flip side.
Like actually taking a look at the backup to see if it was readable?
Trusting MS. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>>if you want to really screw up Windows, there's an easy way. Just install something. ;)
Ouch! Unfortunately, you are right.
( Ever worse, uninstall something
It lets loose another round of entertaining commentary. And no, I did not read the linked article. Judging by the commentary, it would be a waste of time.
You can boot NT from a floppy.
Format floppy under NT command window.
You need from C:\
ntldr
ntdetect.com
ntbootdd.sys
boot.ini
There might be a disk driver or such missing from above list.
Primary reason for FAT16 C: partition is that in extreme duress you may be able to recover something using DOS utilities.
One thing I've found that does seem to help. When the system is messing up or going screwey, kill the power, without logging off or shutting down.I've lost systems from shutting down, but never from killing power.
MacDonalds has better quality control.
MS tries to simplify things and make things look a bit easier than they really are. When something breaks is a subtle way, it is usually difficult to find out exactly what is going on. Linux and particularly the BSDs seem to want to be more informative. The net result is that with unqualified help, the *nix admins will actually learn.
Of course the intelligent 1% look down on you flatlanders.
No, the 80286 supported protected mode, but the 80386 is so much of an improvement that nobody codes for the 80286. The 80286 had a memory limit of 16 Meg. Transition from protected to real mode via an aborted reset. The 386 also introduced the virtual 86 mode.
Ever watch a bubble start to burst?
First there was Melissa. Melissa was nice.
Then there was the Love Bug. Not so nice.
What's next?
The combination of Linux and *BSD is a much tougher problem for Microsoft than either alone. .net is a farce?
It seems like there is a steadily increasing amount of support for Linux from the big guns, mostly quiet but persistent and relentless.
Does anyone else think that Microsoft's
From current catalog, rack-optimized servers.
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server or Microsoft Window NT server 4.0 - Add $799
Red Hat Linux Factory-Installed - $149
includes 90 days telephone and Web-based support.
One advanced configuration support incident
180 day access to www.priority.redhat.com
Points well made. You make a good case against the poor saps who use proprietary standards and closed source.
What is more likely is that the collection of all the old King's Quest games sells and is profitable because the individual abandoned games are available, free or otherwise. Unless you have the enthusiasts, there is no market.
In this case the rest of this comment was very well worth reading, probably the best commentary I've read so far.
In this case, the old version is NOT abandoned. So you have to buy the new version to get the old version, but the old version is still commercially available and presumably supported.
Methinks those companies will be soon out of business. Creates an incredible amount of ill will. Imagine Ford suing a Model T enthusiast club.
Critical difference. Mickey Mouse is very much alive. Ditto for Fantasia, Gone With The Wind.
There is a critical difference with "we don't make that anymore", which justifies one-off copying. Any massive copying should compensate the IP owner. The IP owner should retain the right to republish if enough interest and demand occurs. The reason many books are out of print is that republishing them is a rather expensive undertaking and unless the demand is enough, it is a certain loss. But asking the Copyright laws to be reasonable is too much, I guess.
With any luck, that is probably what will take Linux to dominate the desktop (with *BSD not far behind). Actually Caldera's DR DOS starts to look very, very good.
Software is written and sold, with some reasonable expectation of some degree of support, EULA's notwhithstanding. If the software is abandoned by the author or assigns, what is the recourse of the poor saps still using it.
For example, dBASE5/DOS has a very nasty bug which under just the right circumstances writes back to several database files the first 6 (IIRC) bytes from stale buffers. This resets the record count of affected databases, causing newly inserted records to be lost. Without source or support, all you can do is try to work around it. (Hint, avoid USE AGAIN.)
With Open Source, or Abandonware, if there is a bad problem, it is at least theoretically posible to solve it, not easy, but possible.
With source, ultimately I am responsible for what the program does, particularly if I mess with anything. Without source, ultimately the author has to be responsible, since I am not really in any position to correct the problem. For finding and taking advantage of holes in a system, source can be more of a liability than a help. It requires a lot of expertise to set up the test harness, but once established, you get a view of what is actually going on uncolored by the programmer's expectations. Once set up, you can have a better handle on the system than the guy who wrote it.
I do not want to give up multi-user, even if the only user is me. A multi-user OS _must_ give some kind of protection to users from each other. Single user tends to much to "I trust myself".
Certain core (root) processes should be protected from anything the user _can_ throw at them. The watch is a good idea, to see how far they can push it , and what the consequences are.
Yep. Judge Jackson was right. Microsoft has a monopoly and there are no contenders. Yet.
Everything I've seen about IBM indicates that they are in it for the long haul. Expect IBM to gradually take a more and more pro-Linux stance. Probably decided that the timing wasn't quite right just yet.
As far as I can tell, it IS still his site. The fact that it was funded by Andover and now by VA Linux does not change whose site it is. His personal political views are completely proper here, and should not be taken as indicative of those of VA Linux or Andover. Besides, there is all the ensuing commentary to counteract any misplaced bias.