But IBM weren't good business managers for the product.
It's a pity.
Some people's Linux boxes crash, some people's NT boxes crash. My machine here, I haven't seen it blue screen or hang for the nine months I've been at this site.
So what is your point exactly?
You claim that Microsoft release certain things which destabilise the system. Doesn't this happen with Linux as well, for instance the latest version of the kernel? So do we all say linux crashes all the time? No.
NT crashes all the time does it?
Bullshit mate. Talk about FUD, you are a verifiable kook.
By your wobbly reasoning NT and thus UNIX/LINUX is flawed because the security subsystem on any of these operating systems cannot be uninstalled.
You claim this property of an OS is a demonstration of lack of scalability. "UNIX == not scalable" if you follow your logical argument.
I hope they don't have you writing very complicated boolean logic in any of your programs dude. It could be dangerous.
Yes, I swoon whenever I lay eyes on Linux, he's so masculine!
If you look at my response, it was to a person claiming that the NT kernel and O.S. was crap and I was just informing them that this is not the case, that it has many of the best features of OS/2 (which have been ripped off admittedly), but make it a wet dream to program sophisticated multithreaded apps in, and develop client and server apps in general.
I know G++ exists, it's a compiler not an environment.
My Microsoft compiler has shipped with STL since 1997 or so.
My Sun STILL DOES NOT HAVE IT out of the box!?
My Microsoft IDE makes runtime debugging laughably easy and quick.
$299 for the compiler is about 3 hrs salary.
I have a copy of Python running on my NT box, but I can do the same thing in VB, and it looks about 1000% better.
NT is the biggest (most number of seats) Java development platform. Furthermore, the OO skills of MS developers make it far more easy for them to migrate to Java, as opposed to crufty UNIX programmers, still free()ing that buffer string.
Just FYI, I don't defend C++ either.
I just like the quickest most efficient tool. Think of me as a commando. I'll hotwire the closest tank, because I know vehicles, heavy and small. I tell you now NT/C++/VB/MFC/(D)COM as a development environment is damn efficient and exposes the developer to high levels of radiation... oops!!!.... I means object oriented abstraction.
When I have my nightscope on, and a target appears, and I need a RAD GUI development, a quick multithreaded server development, line by line debugging into my SQL Server.... I don't reach for my K&R C programming book, I type msdev.exe with ruthless efficiency.
My big question is, why do all the UNIX programmers I meet write such crud C++?
A: Because the environment is conducive to C programming.
Hey, I don't defend MFC. But if you want to put together in 5 mins flat, then it's easy to do under the MFC platform. Considering the going rate for a C++ dev where I work is about $100/hr, time is money.
You are clueless if you believe that what platform you use, what class library defines your OO "credentials." It's elitist, and more to the point it looks at the surface of the matter, rather than the substance. CString is a (near) ideal OO implementation. (The imperfection is that you can mangle the string inside through GetBuffer).
I use STL for my storage algorithms because I want Order(log n) retrieval from them, and Order(n log n) sorting. It aint OO, but it's the cheapest and quickest way of doing this stuff, 3 to 4 lines and I have an optimal performance sorted vector implemented, for a CString, or basic_string for that matter.
Dynamic linkage of MFC at initialisation is not a serious performance hit, give me a break. Compile a release build "Hello World" under MFC and run it. Before you purse your lips to say "ONE" it will have fired up. I've traced and optimised app startup before, and this is not significant. OLE object initialisation usually does take time, but there are sacrifices to be made if you want to use non-static linked code. (And the reasons can be many, irrespective of your particular platform.)
Are you seriously claiming that dynamic linkage is the reason for slow application start up. This is a foolish argument, we all know that I can make a cup of tea waiting for Emacs to fire up, this argument will go around in circles and counterpoints, as you claim app X, and I say app Y, so lets not even start.
I would really say that bloat comes from static linked code actually. When every C application has it's own custom string library written for it, which is non-reused. The byte codes for CString are in MFC DLLs and used by 80% of MS programs, so in reality there is a lot of space saved on the HDD.
I think MS have screwed up in their versioning of these DLLs, things aren't perfect, and I sometimes I static link when I can't control the configured environment, and I know that I'm only going to pull in only a small amount of the MFC runtime into the executable.
Yes, I agree, however when writing services, this is can be too expensive.
The time when waiting for multiple events is most useful is from the master thread, when it waits for all threads to terminate, when requested, or for the next free work thread. A thread per waiting object then sort of defeats the purpose of this master "allocator" thread in the first place.
I wouldn't say MsgWaitForMultipleObjects is a design "mistake". It is rather an enhancement to make more functionality available to single threaded GUI applications. This extension was inserted into the API because multithreaded OLE was not available at the time, and OLE uses the message pump (well it used to, it's been a while since I examined OLE internals...:-) But don't you think that the extensive object oriented exposure and programming talent of the NT userbase is admirable? I started working on Ada systems about 1991, with serious UNIX/VAX hardware and software engineers, and moved into the Windows arena afterward (to chase a buck.) I think Windows strength, in comparison to UNIX, is that a lot of old UNIX programmers are still using malloc() and free(), fixed buffer sizes, and various programming idioms of C. I think that this is encouraged by the lack of free/cheap C++ dev environments (e.g. platform costs for Sun C++ workshop), and the fact that most free source is written in C for portability. This inevitably means that O.O. skills are less than they could be. OLE/DCOM may suck in some ways, for instance being platform specific, however the developers that have learnt and absorbed the knowledge space of DCOM have had exposure to the cutting edge of programming methodology. UNIX's main downfall is that it is a C centric culture. It is much quicker to reuse CString than to hunt down than to write C malloc() allocation/deallocation, and expose yourself to the risk of introduced bugs. This is expensive. New paradigms are needed, not just new implementations of the same old stuff.
I am fucking impressed with the intelligence of your response.
I think you are right. I just think as engineers (well I think coders should be engineers if they want to right code to last) one needs to be able to see the field of debate in a rational light.
A lot of guys here really have hackneyed views on NT, but haven't used the APIs or seen the etensive software engineering in the O.S. There are no critiques of the software.
This is very poor.
Why do I hang out on an advocacy web site full of meaningless and ill-informed ranting? I don't know, this is not rational either....
Try implementing some applications using some of the extensive multithread APIs in the NT OS, such as
WaitForMultipleObjects MsgWaitForMultipleObjects ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx (async i/o) PulseEvent (some of the event stuff is really cool)
and then come back and feel embarrassed for being an ignorant Linux would be all your life.
The applications may or may not be poor in your opinion. However the OS is fantastic. Some subsections of it are problematic (I don't like the registry as a device for instance, and it's support for multiple consoles is poor, and networked GUI), however the core of the OS is amazingly well thoughtout and designed by experienced software engineers.
Not surprising really, as the definition of a nerd is :
a) someone with low ability to relate to others due to his fascination with computers and Star Trek, and inability to relate to others through more conventional converation...
b) thus a young man that doesn't get any sex....
leading to
c) an introverted, emotionally juvenile man, who's main outlet of frustration in life is to abuse the straw men enemies of his life through email, rather than addressing the deeper concerns of happiness that are fundamental to us as human beings
that
d) identifies with inanimate objects, such as operating systems, to reassure himself, much as an infant does a teddy bear.
I am not commenting on all programmers or the entire linux community even, just those that can't address their own impulse control and behave rationally.
IIS 4.0 is a component of NT 4.0 Option Pack, which is ALREADY FREE.
All Balmer is saying is that the current version of IIS has deficiencies, and the new version will address them.
This is not a conspiracy. MS main revenue line is not going to be web servers, it is Operating Systems, hence this the value add is the reason they offer it for free.
Being the best of the breed is their job, of course they are going to attempt to rectify deficiencies in their product.
Repeat after me:- no conspiracy. I am personalising the corporate actions of Microsoft to be entirely driven to destroy Linux. MS motivation is money:- revenue and strategic positioning. This usually comes from a conjunction of factors, one of which is producing the most functional product.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you saying multiple network cards in a machine is "non-real-life"?
Maybe in your uni lab and garage fella, but computers are used in more places than that dude.
I think that you might be living in a "non-real-life scenario"!! :-)
ROFLOL!!!
yada yada ...
"plain evil"
yada yada ...
"division between rich/poor is widened"
yada yada ...
"free ride in this world"
yada yada ...
"dictatorial rule"
yada yada ...
"communists... Russia ... Soviet bloc ... democracy and freedom"
yada yada ...
"right to be angry"
yada yada ...
"stupid tests"
yada yada ...
"BSOD"
yada yada ...
"people who are paranoid"
yada yada ...
"industrial espionage"
yada yada ...
"arrogance and lack of tact about facts"
yada yada ...
"afraid to get hate mail?"
Is it any wonder that no-one listens to you? You are full of crap buddy boy! :)
When are you starting the terrorist bombing campaign, I bet you are an extremist right to lifer too.
Listen OS/2 should have won.
But IBM weren't good business managers for the product.
It's a pity.
Some people's Linux boxes crash, some people's NT boxes crash. My machine here, I haven't seen it blue screen or hang for the nine months I've been at this site.
So what is your point exactly?
You claim that Microsoft release certain things which destabilise the system. Doesn't this happen with Linux as well, for instance the latest version of the kernel? So do we all say linux crashes all the time? No.
NT crashes all the time does it?
Bullshit mate. Talk about FUD, you are a verifiable kook.
By your wobbly reasoning NT and thus UNIX/LINUX is flawed because the security subsystem on any of these operating systems cannot be uninstalled.
You claim this property of an OS is a demonstration of lack of scalability. "UNIX == not scalable" if you follow your logical argument.
I hope they don't have you writing very complicated boolean logic in any of your programs dude. It could be dangerous.
Yes, it's called BackOrifice! :-)
Yes, I swoon whenever I lay eyes on Linux, he's so masculine!
If you look at my response, it was to a person claiming that the NT kernel and O.S. was crap and I was just informing them that this is not the case, that it has many of the best features of OS/2 (which have been ripped off admittedly), but make it a wet dream to program sophisticated multithreaded apps in, and develop client and server apps in general.
It's OS/2-styled naming.
I guess it's IBM's fault.
No, I have a good idea, let's blame MS anyway!
Cheers!
I nominate you for slashdot kook of the month!
So if OS/2 was (not the preterite) so good, how come you can't admit NT OS is is the dogs bollocks!?
Too hard to swallow?
OS/2 completely lacked a security subsystem, unfortunately.
I know C++ on UNIX possible.
I know G++ exists, it's a compiler not an environment.
My Microsoft compiler has shipped with STL since 1997 or so.
My Sun STILL DOES NOT HAVE IT out of the box!?
My Microsoft IDE makes runtime debugging laughably easy and quick.
$299 for the compiler is about 3 hrs salary.
I have a copy of Python running on my NT box, but I can do the same thing in VB, and it looks about 1000% better.
NT is the biggest (most number of seats) Java development platform. Furthermore, the OO skills of MS developers make it far more easy for them to migrate to Java, as opposed to crufty UNIX programmers, still free()ing that buffer string.
Just FYI, I don't defend C++ either.
I just like the quickest most efficient tool. Think of me as a commando. I'll hotwire the closest tank, because I know vehicles, heavy and small. I tell you now NT/C++/VB/MFC/(D)COM as a development environment is damn efficient and exposes the developer to high levels of radiation... oops!!! .... I means object oriented abstraction.
When I have my nightscope on, and a target appears, and I need a RAD GUI development, a quick multithreaded server development, line by line debugging into my SQL Server.... I don't reach for my K&R C programming book, I type msdev.exe with ruthless efficiency.
My big question is, why do all the UNIX programmers I meet write such crud C++?
A: Because the environment is conducive to C programming.
Hey, I don't defend MFC. But if you want to put together in 5 mins flat, then it's easy to do under the MFC platform. Considering the going rate for a C++ dev where I work is about $100/hr, time is money.
You are clueless if you believe that what platform you use, what class library defines your OO "credentials." It's elitist, and more to the point it looks at the surface of the matter, rather than the substance. CString is a (near) ideal OO implementation. (The imperfection is that you can mangle the string inside through GetBuffer).
I use STL for my storage algorithms because I want Order(log n) retrieval from them, and Order(n log n) sorting. It aint OO, but it's the cheapest and quickest way of doing this stuff, 3 to 4 lines and I have an optimal performance sorted vector implemented, for a CString, or basic_string for that matter.
Dynamic linkage of MFC at initialisation is not a serious performance hit, give me a break. Compile a release build "Hello World" under MFC and run it. Before you purse your lips to say "ONE" it will have fired up. I've traced and optimised app startup before, and this is not significant. OLE object initialisation usually does take time, but there are sacrifices to be made if you want to use non-static linked code. (And the reasons can be many, irrespective of your particular platform.)
Are you seriously claiming that dynamic linkage is the reason for slow application start up. This is a foolish argument, we all know that I can make a cup of tea waiting for Emacs to fire up, this argument will go around in circles and counterpoints, as you claim app X, and I say app Y, so lets not even start.
I would really say that bloat comes from static linked code actually. When every C application has it's own custom string library written for it, which is non-reused. The byte codes for CString are in MFC DLLs and used by 80% of MS programs, so in reality there is a lot of space saved on the HDD.
I think MS have screwed up in their versioning of these DLLs, things aren't perfect, and I sometimes I static link when I can't control the configured environment, and I know that I'm only going to pull in only a small amount of the MFC runtime into the executable.
Yes, I agree, however when writing services, this is can be too expensive.
The time when waiting for multiple events is most useful is from the master thread, when it waits for all threads to terminate, when requested, or for the next free work thread. A thread per waiting object then sort of defeats the purpose of this master "allocator" thread in the first place.
All very easy to do in Win32 too.
I wouldn't say MsgWaitForMultipleObjects is a design "mistake". It is rather an enhancement to make more functionality available to single threaded GUI applications. This extension was inserted into the API because multithreaded OLE was not available at the time, and OLE uses the message pump (well it used to, it's been a while since I examined OLE internals... :-) But don't you think that the extensive object oriented exposure and programming talent of the NT userbase is admirable? I started working on Ada systems about 1991, with serious UNIX/VAX hardware and software engineers, and moved into the Windows arena afterward (to chase a buck.) I think Windows strength, in comparison to UNIX, is that a lot of old UNIX programmers are still using malloc() and free(), fixed buffer sizes, and various programming idioms of C. I think that this is encouraged by the lack of free/cheap C++ dev environments (e.g. platform costs for Sun C++ workshop), and the fact that most free source is written in C for portability. This inevitably means that O.O. skills are less than they could be. OLE/DCOM may suck in some ways, for instance being platform specific, however the developers that have learnt and absorbed the knowledge space of DCOM have had exposure to the cutting edge of programming methodology. UNIX's main downfall is that it is a C centric culture. It is much quicker to reuse CString than to hunt down than to write C malloc() allocation/deallocation, and expose yourself to the risk of introduced bugs. This is expensive. New paradigms are needed, not just new implementations of the same old stuff.
I am fucking impressed with the intelligence of your response.
I think you are right. I just think as engineers (well I think coders should be engineers if they want to right code to last) one needs to be able to see the field of debate in a rational light.
A lot of guys here really have hackneyed views on NT, but haven't used the APIs or seen the etensive software engineering in the O.S. There are no critiques of the software.
This is very poor.
Why do I hang out on an advocacy web site full of meaningless and ill-informed ranting? I don't know, this is not rational either....
"I am right!! I am right!!
:-)
I am a very smart person!! Let me show you the email I posted that predicted this!!
(conveyed feeling: this guy is smug about himself)
(hidden meaning: acknowledge me, I am desperate for acknowledgement)"
Well that's the way I see it!
Try implementing some applications using some of the extensive multithread APIs in the NT OS, such as
WaitForMultipleObjects
MsgWaitForMultipleObjects
ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx (async i/o)
PulseEvent (some of the event stuff is really cool)
and then come back and feel embarrassed for being an ignorant Linux would be all your life.
The applications may or may not be poor in your opinion. However the OS is fantastic. Some subsections of it are problematic (I don't like the registry as a device for instance, and it's support for multiple consoles is poor, and networked GUI), however the core of the OS is amazingly well thoughtout and designed by experienced software engineers.
Cheers
... it's all demonstrative of low self-esteem.
Not surprising really, as the definition of a nerd is :
a) someone with low ability to relate to others due to his fascination with computers and Star Trek, and inability to relate to others through more conventional converation...
b) thus a young man that doesn't get any sex....
leading to
c) an introverted, emotionally juvenile man, who's main outlet of frustration in life is to abuse the straw men enemies of his life through email, rather than addressing the deeper concerns of happiness that are fundamental to us as human beings
that
d) identifies with inanimate objects, such as operating systems, to reassure himself, much as an infant does a teddy bear.
I am not commenting on all programmers or the entire linux community even, just those that can't address their own impulse control and behave rationally.
cheers!
Because the antisocial, unscientific flamage the Linux newbie/lamer community generates is so predictable?
Think of that?
Smug self-satisfaction seems to be a pattern in linux communities.
Psychologically, it's a demonstration of low self-esteem.
IIS 4.0 is a component of NT 4.0 Option Pack, which is ALREADY FREE.
:- no conspiracy. I am personalising the corporate actions of Microsoft to be entirely driven to destroy Linux. MS motivation is money :- revenue and strategic positioning. This usually comes from a conjunction of factors, one of which is producing the most functional product.
All Balmer is saying is that the current version of IIS has deficiencies, and the new version will address them.
This is not a conspiracy. MS main revenue line is not going to be web servers, it is Operating Systems, hence this the value add is the reason they offer it for free.
Being the best of the breed is their job, of course they are going to attempt to rectify deficiencies in their product.
Repeat after me
to tell another man how to live his life?
FSF is about the domain of FSF software and the definition of what Free Software is.
ESR seems to see his post as to "coordinate" and set priorities for, i.e. control, that which he defines falling within OSI, FSF included.
The measure of success of FSF has been the development of the "greater" Linux O.S. with FSF tools.
Is this success lesser than the OSI political initiatives? I for one do not think so.