NT was originally designed to be portable. Whether that has been retained since the abandonment of support for Alphas and PowerPCs is something I couldn't say.
Given that it's still availabile on 3-4 (depending on how you want to count) different architectures, I'd say "yes, it has been retained" is a fairly safe bet.
The problem is not the OS. The problem is the applications.
Even if the audio stack wasn't rewritten, the drivers wouldn't work. New security model, you see. No drivers survived.
Several types of XP drivers will work in Vista - printers, video (in a compatibility mode), etc.
The (audio) driver breakage had nothing to with a changing security model and everything to do with significant subsystems (like the audio stack) being completely redesigned.
What do you think changed in the security model that broke drivers ?
Remember that they were also introducing a new security model, which is one of the reasons they HAD to break it.
Vista did not introduce a new security model, it improved the UI around the same security model that it's had since 1993 - and it was most certainly not the reason the audio stack was rewritten.
Speaking of that, WTF is up with all the virtual machine stuff? Isn't the OS supposed to isolate application data and code from each other and provide a robust abstraction so applications run nicely with each other? Oh wait, Microsofts applications crash the OS so much and therefore crash other applications, you can't run a business system with more than one app running on one piece of hardware. So lets' virtualize them....
It's pretty clear you are in no position whatsoever to be offering opinions on virtualisation.
Titles like Wing Commander really drove the need for better and better graphics hardware, in fact, Wing Commander was the one that made the 386 chip a necessity and apparently made people upgrade to play it.
Pretty much the entire Wing Commander franchise had run its course before a machine's video card was much more than incidental.
reading that I still don't get what they did, "The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts".
It seems fairly obvious that they distributed binaries compiled from their code statically linked against some GPLed library.
Are they really so care free with other peoples software that licenses don't matter?
When you come from pretty much anywhere else except the GPL, linking against libraries is not something to be overly concerned about. That is, after all, pretty much the whole point of shared libraries in the first place.
Sorry, you almost had me convinced of a mistake but it looks like they had to know they were dealing with the GPL. Ballmer and other MS execs yell about this stuff all the time so their developers are clueless? Nope, don't buy it. Good try though.
Right. Because obviously in a company with tens of thousands of employees, everyone from the CEO to the janitor is going to have the same worldview.
As already mentioned, the restrictions the GPL imposes with regards to "derivative" works are quite unusual in the software development world. It is not at all unreasonable to think the typical developer who might never, ever have been involved with GPLed code before, and may not understand the potential ramifications of doing so.
This saga started when one of the user's on the Vyatta forum inquired about supporting Hyper-V network driver in the Vyatta kernel. A little googling found the necessary drivers, but on closer examination there was a problem. The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts. The GPL does not permit mixing of closed and open source parts, so this was an obvious violation of the license.
So the problem was not, in fact, that GPLed code had become "embedded" in Microsoft's code, the problem was that they statically linked their code to some GPLed module.
Seeing as how, in the commercial software world, linking to other code is generally not something to be overly concerned with, it's actually not unreasonable to think that this was an innocent mistake by the developers responsible.
However, it only requires them to release their code if it contains GPL code.
The problem is that "contains" is overarchingly defined by the FSF. So your code, which you wrote, suddenly becomes a "derivative work" because you happened to link it against a GPLed library (which is what happened with Microsoft's drivers in this case).
*That* is the problem/concern with the GPL. It takes two *very* different scenarios - actually copying (/"stealing") someone's actual source code vs just linking against some compiled binary - and lumping them together as the same thing.
I'll agree that not everyone can be wealthy, but that doesn't make it zero sum. If it was a zero sum game, we could not have far more wealthy people than the world has seen before, and we could not have a vast majority of western countries with citizens who enjoy material wealth not even possible 100 years ago.
That's a mighty vague definition of "wealth" you have there.
You need compatibility, ease of use, and cost effectiveness.
Automobiles only need to be "compatible" with the road, an energy source and safety regulations. The same is not true at all of computers, which also need to be compatible with each other.
If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now [...]
Evidence ? Ideas ? What alternatives are you looking at that are meaningfully better than Windows ? Linux and FreeBSD are just slavish reimplementations of an OS that's been around since the sixties, and the only somewhat "new" feature OS X brought to the table (Quartz) was a clear and obvious evolution existing technologies (video acceleration and display postscript).
[...] the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.
The much harder assumption is that this wouldn't have happened anyway. It's not like history isn't littered with non-Microsoft software that's buggy, sluggish and insecure.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
My point stands. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable quotable source. You can't do that for reasons already sufficiently vetted. We don't have to prove our point on the obvious.
I'll ignore your ad hominems and consider taking you seriously when you've managed provide at least an equal amount of evidence for your assertions.
In other words, the essential part that makes humans different from animals, the "software" that when running on the brain constitutes a human IS running. The mind is active, and starts exploring it's surroundings.
Can you outline how the behaviour of a human foetus in utero is any different to that of an animal foetus ?
It's not a question of freedom. If MS's stuff worked half as well as unix I wouldn't care.
Ah, funny, I say the same thing about Linux. Particularly after spending numerous hours trying to get something working Linux that takes a few mouse clicks in Windows or OS X (recent examples: multiple monitors and docking stations, and reliably sharing a mobile broadband connection).
He quotes wikipedia. Can't even do that in college and get away with it.
"Can't even" ? I would certainly hope that even the lowliest college would not allow Wikipedia as a source.
However, this isn't college, or even high school. It's an internet forum. So a Wikipedia quote is about as good as it's going to get - and, I note after looking at some of your other comments, is dramatically more evidence than you have provided for any of your claims.
Others don't mind paying for a tiny desktop that makes almost zero noise (PC towers make considerably more) and eats far less juice.
Any remotely well built PC makes next to no noise in this day and age - and that certainly includes the average Dell. Heck, the Precision 3500 under my desk is as powerful as a Mac Pro and it makes no noise that I can discern.
And let's face it, the Mini is more than adequate for most home users, who don't do much more than rip a few CDs, browse the web, and load up iPhoto./.ers are all about big performance, but most people don't give a crap as long as it does a few things well enough.
Well if all you wanted was a "does the basics" PC, then you'd spend about half of the ~$800 it takes to get a useful Mac Mini.
For me, having a version number automatically built into file names was a major usability difference between VMS and other operating systems. Its a shame that microsoft didn't implement something similar.
They kind of started along that path with the multiple file streams in NTFS, but I imagine it simply got deprioritised. It's a useful feature, but I suspect it is also something generally better off in the application layer.
Dave Cutler didn't architect VMS. Dave was one of the developers.
Dave Cutler was most certainly an architect of VMS:
In April 1975, DIGITAL began a hardware project, code named Star, to design on a 32-bit virtual address extension to its PDP-11. In June 1975, Dave together with Dick Hustvedt, and Peter Lippman were appointed the technical project leaders for the software project, code-named Starlet, to develop a totally new operating system for the Star family of processors. These two projects were tightly integrated from the beginning. The three technical leaders of the Starlet project together with three technical leaders of the Star project formed the "Blue Ribbon Committee" at DIGITAL who produced the fifth design evolution for the programs. The design featured simplifications to the memory management and process scheduling schemes of the earlier proposals and the architecture was accepted. The Star and Starlet projects culminated in the development of the VAX-11/780 superminicomputer and the VAX/VMS operating system, respectively.
DIGITAL began working on RISC technology in 1986 and Cutler, who was then working in DEC's DECWest facility in Bellevue, Washington, was elected to head Prism, a project to develop the company's RISC machine. Its operating system, code named Mica, would embody the next generation of design principles and have a compatibility layer for UNIX and VMS.
Dave took what he learned at D.E.C. and "brought it over to Microsoft."
Yes. He changed employers. Just like millions of people do every day. Just like you probably have several times.
Microsoft wooed him over, paid him extra, and got W/NT (note the letters are one higher than VMS).
I note that you're an idiot.
FACT: Microsoft's W/NT used concepts and code from DEC VMS
Of course the concepts are similar - they were designed by the same person. What evidence do you have that VMS code was used by Microsoft ?
Microsoft elected to pay DEC instead of defend in court and maybe lose the right to use the stolen code
Thousands of lawsuits are settled out of court. What's your point ?
The truth IS out there as anyone who reads the interwebs will see.
Should be pretty simple for you to provide some evidence then.
Slashdot Mirror
NT was originally designed to be portable. Whether that has been retained since the abandonment of support for Alphas and PowerPCs is something I couldn't say.
Given that it's still availabile on 3-4 (depending on how you want to count) different architectures, I'd say "yes, it has been retained" is a fairly safe bet.
The problem is not the OS. The problem is the applications.
Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993.
Even if the audio stack wasn't rewritten, the drivers wouldn't work. New security model, you see. No drivers survived.
Several types of XP drivers will work in Vista - printers, video (in a compatibility mode), etc.
The (audio) driver breakage had nothing to with a changing security model and everything to do with significant subsystems (like the audio stack) being completely redesigned.
What do you think changed in the security model that broke drivers ?
Remember that they were also introducing a new security model, which is one of the reasons they HAD to break it.
Vista did not introduce a new security model, it improved the UI around the same security model that it's had since 1993 - and it was most certainly not the reason the audio stack was rewritten.
Speaking of that, WTF is up with all the virtual machine stuff? Isn't the OS supposed to isolate application data and code from each other and provide a robust abstraction so applications run nicely with each other? Oh wait, Microsofts applications crash the OS so much and therefore crash other applications, you can't run a business system with more than one app running on one piece of hardware. So lets' virtualize them....
It's pretty clear you are in no position whatsoever to be offering opinions on virtualisation.
Titles like Wing Commander really drove the need for better and better graphics hardware, in fact, Wing Commander was the one that made the 386 chip a necessity and apparently made people upgrade to play it.
Pretty much the entire Wing Commander franchise had run its course before a machine's video card was much more than incidental.
reading that I still don't get what they did, "The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts".
It seems fairly obvious that they distributed binaries compiled from their code statically linked against some GPLed library.
Are they really so care free with other peoples software that licenses don't matter?
When you come from pretty much anywhere else except the GPL, linking against libraries is not something to be overly concerned about. That is, after all, pretty much the whole point of shared libraries in the first place.
Sorry, you almost had me convinced of a mistake but it looks like they had to know they were dealing with the GPL. Ballmer and other MS execs yell about this stuff all the time so their developers are clueless? Nope, don't buy it. Good try though.
Right. Because obviously in a company with tens of thousands of employees, everyone from the CEO to the janitor is going to have the same worldview.
As already mentioned, the restrictions the GPL imposes with regards to "derivative" works are quite unusual in the software development world. It is not at all unreasonable to think the typical developer who might never, ever have been involved with GPLed code before, and may not understand the potential ramifications of doing so.
Is it really so hard for people to understand that "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."
It is when the logical conclusion is actually "an eye for an eye will leave the perpetrators and their victims blind".
What I would like to know is how exactly did this code get in the driver to begin with.
Well, you could try, you know, *researching*.
This saga started when one of the user's on the Vyatta forum inquired about supporting Hyper-V network driver in the Vyatta kernel. A little googling found the necessary drivers, but on closer examination there was a problem. The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts. The GPL does not permit mixing of closed and open source parts, so this was an obvious violation of the license.
So the problem was not, in fact, that GPLed code had become "embedded" in Microsoft's code, the problem was that they statically linked their code to some GPLed module.
Seeing as how, in the commercial software world, linking to other code is generally not something to be overly concerned with, it's actually not unreasonable to think that this was an innocent mistake by the developers responsible.
However, it only requires them to release their code if it contains GPL code.
The problem is that "contains" is overarchingly defined by the FSF. So your code, which you wrote, suddenly becomes a "derivative work" because you happened to link it against a GPLed library (which is what happened with Microsoft's drivers in this case).
*That* is the problem/concern with the GPL. It takes two *very* different scenarios - actually copying (/"stealing") someone's actual source code vs just linking against some compiled binary - and lumping them together as the same thing.
I'll agree that not everyone can be wealthy, but that doesn't make it zero sum. If it was a zero sum game, we could not have far more wealthy people than the world has seen before, and we could not have a vast majority of western countries with citizens who enjoy material wealth not even possible 100 years ago.
That's a mighty vague definition of "wealth" you have there.
Why should 25% of my resources be already utilized when I'm not yet doing anything?
So that when you do do something, there's a better chance it'll happen faster.
You should read up on how memory management actually works in a contemporary Operating System.
You need compatibility, ease of use, and cost effectiveness.
Automobiles only need to be "compatible" with the road, an energy source and safety regulations. The same is not true at all of computers, which also need to be compatible with each other.
If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now [...]
Evidence ? Ideas ? What alternatives are you looking at that are meaningfully better than Windows ? Linux and FreeBSD are just slavish reimplementations of an OS that's been around since the sixties, and the only somewhat "new" feature OS X brought to the table (Quartz) was a clear and obvious evolution existing technologies (video acceleration and display postscript).
[...] the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.
The much harder assumption is that this wouldn't have happened anyway. It's not like history isn't littered with non-Microsoft software that's buggy, sluggish and insecure.
No you can't even do that in college. Grow up.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
My point stands. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable quotable source. You can't do that for reasons already sufficiently vetted. We don't have to prove our point on the obvious.
I'll ignore your ad hominems and consider taking you seriously when you've managed provide at least an equal amount of evidence for your assertions.
There is no scientific consensus on when life begins, but most would agree that the thing is a living human whenever the egg is fertilized.
Evidence to support this assertion ?
In other words, the essential part that makes humans different from animals, the "software" that when running on the brain constitutes a human IS running. The mind is active, and starts exploring it's surroundings.
Can you outline how the behaviour of a human foetus in utero is any different to that of an animal foetus ?
You may not be aware of it but Linux outperforms Windows on any platform, 88.6% of the top 500 computers in the world run Linux (June 2009).
For those of you who have ever wondered what a non-sequitur looks like, this is an excellent example.
It's not a question of freedom. If MS's stuff worked half as well as unix I wouldn't care.
Ah, funny, I say the same thing about Linux. Particularly after spending numerous hours trying to get something working Linux that takes a few mouse clicks in Windows or OS X (recent examples: multiple monitors and docking stations, and reliably sharing a mobile broadband connection).
He quotes wikipedia. Can't even do that in college and get away with it.
"Can't even" ? I would certainly hope that even the lowliest college would not allow Wikipedia as a source.
However, this isn't college, or even high school. It's an internet forum. So a Wikipedia quote is about as good as it's going to get - and, I note after looking at some of your other comments, is dramatically more evidence than you have provided for any of your claims.
Others don't mind paying for a tiny desktop that makes almost zero noise (PC towers make considerably more) and eats far less juice.
Any remotely well built PC makes next to no noise in this day and age - and that certainly includes the average Dell. Heck, the Precision 3500 under my desk is as powerful as a Mac Pro and it makes no noise that I can discern.
And let's face it, the Mini is more than adequate for most home users, who don't do much more than rip a few CDs, browse the web, and load up iPhoto. /.ers are all about big performance, but most people don't give a crap as long as it does a few things well enough.
Well if all you wanted was a "does the basics" PC, then you'd spend about half of the ~$800 it takes to get a useful Mac Mini.
For me, having a version number automatically built into file names was a major usability difference between VMS and other operating systems. Its a shame that microsoft didn't implement something similar.
They kind of started along that path with the multiple file streams in NTFS, but I imagine it simply got deprioritised. It's a useful feature, but I suspect it is also something generally better off in the application layer.
NT was about as much like VMS as Linux is like OS/2 Warp.
The architectures of VMS and NT are very, very similar.
Which is neither surprising nor damning, given the same person was one of the main designers of both.
Dave Cutler didn't architect VMS. Dave was one of the developers.
Dave Cutler was most certainly an architect of VMS:
In April 1975, DIGITAL began a hardware project, code named Star, to design on a 32-bit virtual address extension to its PDP-11. In June 1975, Dave together with Dick Hustvedt, and Peter Lippman were appointed the technical project leaders for the software project, code-named Starlet, to develop a totally new operating system for the Star family of processors. These two projects were tightly integrated from the beginning. The three technical leaders of the Starlet project together with three technical leaders of the Star project formed the "Blue Ribbon Committee" at DIGITAL who produced the fifth design evolution for the programs. The design featured simplifications to the memory management and process scheduling schemes of the earlier proposals and the architecture was accepted. The Star and Starlet projects culminated in the development of the VAX-11/780 superminicomputer and the VAX/VMS operating system, respectively.
DIGITAL began working on RISC technology in 1986 and Cutler, who was then working in DEC's DECWest facility in Bellevue, Washington, was elected to head Prism, a project to develop the company's RISC machine. Its operating system, code named Mica, would embody the next generation of design principles and have a compatibility layer for UNIX and VMS.
Dave took what he learned at D.E.C. and "brought it over to Microsoft."
Yes. He changed employers. Just like millions of people do every day. Just like you probably have several times.
Microsoft wooed him over, paid him extra, and got W/NT (note the letters are one higher than VMS).
I note that you're an idiot.
FACT: Microsoft's W/NT used concepts and code from DEC VMS
Of course the concepts are similar - they were designed by the same person. What evidence do you have that VMS code was used by Microsoft ?
Microsoft elected to pay DEC instead of defend in court and maybe lose the right to use the stolen code
Thousands of lawsuits are settled out of court. What's your point ?
The truth IS out there as anyone who reads the interwebs will see.
Should be pretty simple for you to provide some evidence then.