>how it has given chip/platform makers a specific, generic target OS that they can use freely to get something useful running on their hardware quickly
> "Perhaps because it is a Unix work-alike, and this was the original design goal of Unix?"
I'm pretty sure the original design goal of Unix was typesetting.
Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
IIRC, Apple stated during their keynote that some users may run Windows on their Apple hardware - Apple wouldn't support them, but it wouldn't stop them either.
I don't disagree with your general point but: "6. It's not a real Unix."
Installing updates for things other than the kernel requires a reboot. You can't show its GUI apps on other PCs via X. It has weird cut and paste. Packages are massive, non granular, statically linked thinks.
FreeBSD doesn't do that. Linux doesn't do that. Solaris doesn't do that. Because they're Unix.
I don't care whether it meets some old specs. Windows NT4 meets most of those specs. It ain't Unix either.
The Mac OS was built around a Unix kernel not unlike Linux, but with a very advanced and slick user interface. The normal Apple menu structures and way of doing things are what the majority of both Mac and Windows users expect to see. The operative word is "intuitive."
Gnome: Your applications are in yoru applcations menu. OK, applications isn't the best name, but it looks pretty obvious that this is where you find stuff OSX: Your main applications are in the dock. The rest are under purple smiley face thing
Gnome: Firefox Web browser OSX: Icon on dock for Safari. Thing in Applications menu called 'Safari'
Gnome: File Browser OSX: Purple smiley face thing. When I start it it's called 'Finder'. I don't want to search for anything, thanks, I just want to look at my files...oh wait, that's what it does. Look at my files. Why is it called finder?
There are the odd pathetic Linux distro where GUI apps don't result in say, menu entries, which is pretty weak in 2005. But there's plenty of other distros that do. Fedora and Ubuntu would be two of them.
The Linux world suffers from a lack of modern intuitive menus and commands. Anyone who has played with the Open Office Programs such as the Powerpoint clone called "Impress" soon finds themselves lost in a jungle of menu structures and naming conventions.
Agreed in some respects... remember 'Autopilot' from Openoffice 1.1? They call it 'wizard' in OpenOffice 2.
I can use Windows and Gnome quite comfortably...to change what a file opens with in those OSs, I can change its properties. To do the same, in OSX, I have to 'Get Info' on the file. What does getting info have to do with changing what program the file opens with? Doesn't the file already have 'info' inside it?
I honestly don't believe OSX to be the great UI everyone thinks it is. I think people's minds are colouded by its very pretty visual appearance, a dislike of MS, and an assumption that Linux doesn't care about UI (a lot of Linux users/developers don't, it depends on your distro).
Apple just moved to Intel to scale their ships to higher frequencies. Steve Jobs promised 3.0Ghz and going to Intel apparently helped him deliver that.
I have Office 2000, and so I'm using it, but I'd probably be perfectly comfortable using only OOo (2.0, I hate 1.1)
Same here - I'm not sure what it is - the toolbar changes, the new icon artwork, the seperate packaging for each app, or the way the stylist neatly docks into a side pane rather than hovering around like some annoying extra window. But OpenOffice 2 is good. Really good. Try it. It feels completely different than OpenOffice 1.1. It feels like a fucking awesome office suite.
I can't wait till this is the OpenOffice that people compare with Microsoft Office.
Since when has Linux won? It looks to me more like Windows did.
Implied: winning the Unix wars. That should have been obvious. Even in terms of general OS thoough, Windows hasn't won the server by far.
While this is true, that doesn't suddenly mean that everything else should conform to it's standards.
Indeed. What means everythign else should conform to Linux's standard is that everything else is claiming it conforms to Linux's standards. Making it easy to port applications (by taking care of such probs themselves) is part of that.
All the major business distros conform to the LSB. Suse, Red Hat, Debian. The Unix's should conform because IBM and Sun are advertisiong that they conform, and Lies Make Baby Jesus Cry.
Assuming everything is Redhat on i386 is not the right way to go.
Er, yes. That's why the post you're replying to is called 'Are 7 platforms not enough to find the bugs?'
Because Linux won. Proprietary Unix lost. AIX and Solaris advertise their LSBness and Linux Binary Compatibility. It makes logical sense that the maintainers of these platforms take care of issues involved in porting OSS code to run on them.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ships on 7 platforms already. x86, x86 64, Itanium 2, zseries, iseries, pseries, and something else I forgot. Fedora runs on the first two, plus ppc.
From the blog in question: And there certainly should be more than one mainstream architecture to keep all the players real, so I welcome PPC in addition to x86/x86-64. But there is no benefit at all in supporting something like PA Risc, m68k, cris, etc as configurations of the generic code.
He also speaks about OS platforms: how complaints about things not working on AIX are stopping GCC development. In 2005, it's AIXs job to conform to the LSB (including GCC). Not the other way around.
I've been running XP Pro on an SATA Maxtor for a year now, booted and isntalled from the CD.
I'm guessing you have a customized XP disc. I can't find the MS Knowledgebase article re: SATA on XP (the search is shit), but check out other people's experiences.
Your hardware experience with Linux will vary depending on the distro you use, but most of the end-user distros can DDC probe monitors (a feature supported by 99% of screens) and autodetect video cards - even if there's no official driver in your distro, you can still use the Vesa driver and get 1024*768 while you download one.
A better example would have been SATA hard disks.
It's impossible to install any released version of Windows onto a SATA hard disk (including an XP SP2 install disk - Christ, that was only released that year) unless you have a floppy drive.
It's 2005. Who the fuck gets a floppy drive with a computer?
Does that go some way to meeting your burden of proof? (don't get me wrong, I like them, I just feel they could do with some refinement).
It certainly does - but like you, I'm more inclined to think that the LDAP RFC needs to be expanded to cover areas outside the spec rather than wholesale replaced with OSI DAP, as the original poster was suggesting. Think of LDAP like ipsec in the early days, or SANs right now - a good technology at the point where it's so useful everybody wants to interoperate with it, which tends to show up areas the original spec is lacking.
Sorry, that LDAP uses a portion of ASN 1 does not prove that DAP (which lost in the marketplace) is better than LDAP (which is being used now, and works).
Referals work fine on every LDAP server I've set up. Hashes are sent through SSL encrypted pipes, LDAP glue works, it ain't hacky,m it works between LDAP directories.
Prove your point. * Saying 'security and authentication' are mysteriously bad doesn't do it. * That people are still submitting things to the LDAP working group proves nothing either. People are still submitting things to the http working group. Does that mean it is inferior to its predecessors?
The last major thing that even happened to DAP was slapd.
You're right, I can't see it. And you can't show it to me, otherwise you would have.
Wasting your time promoting DAP without any detailed technical evidence is indeed a burden on your time. Why bother?
Personally I think you just like showing off that you knew LDAP was descended from OSI DAP, and didn't mean to get caught up in this conversation.
I didn't doubt you, I just wanted you do do the work. I was wrong: LDAP does indeed use a subset of ASN 1. Point is, it's not a full implementation - this is often touted as one of LDAP's advantages - and I don't see anyone complaining about it except from 2 guys on Slashdot.
From your RFC:
The protocol elements of LDAP are encoded for exchange using the
Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [11] of ASN.1 [3]. However, due to the
high overhead involved in using certain elements of the BER, the
following additional restrictions are placed on BER-encodings of LDAP
protocol elements:
(1) Only the definite form of length encoding will be used.
(2) OCTET STRING values will be encoded in the primitive form only.
(3) If the value of a BOOLEAN type is true, the encoding MUST have
its contents octets set to hex "FF".
Now, as I was asking earlier: since DAP is older than LDAP, and LDAP was invented because DAP wasn't being used, and since LDAP has been used to implement larger directories than DAP ever has, and since global directories are possible and dare I say only mature on LDAP (ironically fulfilling ITUT's dream of a global directory), why is DAP better?
What exactly is it about the referrals currently used in multiple-million object LDAP servers you dislike?
Referals work. Server to Server works. They're in production. Now. There are almost no DAP servers. LDAP was invented because DAP was bloated. It suceeded in the marketplace. DAP did not.
Again - tell me, specifically, what's wrong. Don't tell me it's 'not proper' or 'underspecced'that doesn't mean anything. Burden of proof is on you - I'm happy with LDAP, so is the rest of the world, so I can't be bothered reading the OSI DAP RFC. You do it. Prove me wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
>how it has given chip/platform makers a specific, generic target OS that they can use freely to get something useful running on their hardware quickly
> "Perhaps because it is a Unix work-alike, and this was the original design goal of Unix?"
I'm pretty sure the original design goal of Unix was typesetting.
Er, dude. Got any evidence to back that up?
Someone who lives in Australia.
Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
IIRC, Apple stated during their keynote that some users may run Windows on their Apple hardware - Apple wouldn't support them, but it wouldn't stop them either.
Microsoft's rival in this area is shaping up to be Xen [...] Xen doesn't yet support Windows, however
I think he means to say Windows doesn't support Xen.
I don't disagree with your general point but: "6. It's not a real Unix."
Installing updates for things other than the kernel requires a reboot. You can't show its GUI apps on other PCs via X. It has weird cut and paste. Packages are massive, non granular, statically linked thinks.
FreeBSD doesn't do that.
Linux doesn't do that.
Solaris doesn't do that.
Because they're Unix.
I don't care whether it meets some old specs. Windows NT4 meets most of those specs. It ain't Unix either.
The Mac OS was built around a Unix kernel not unlike Linux, but with a very advanced and slick user interface. The normal Apple menu structures and way of doing things are what the majority of both Mac and Windows users expect to see. The operative word is "intuitive."
... remember 'Autopilot' from Openoffice 1.1? They call it 'wizard' in OpenOffice 2.
Gnome: Your applications are in yoru applcations menu. OK, applications isn't the best name, but it looks pretty obvious that this is where you find stuff
OSX: Your main applications are in the dock. The rest are under purple smiley face thing
Gnome: Firefox Web browser
OSX: Icon on dock for Safari. Thing in Applications menu called 'Safari'
Gnome: File Browser
OSX: Purple smiley face thing. When I start it it's called 'Finder'. I don't want to search for anything, thanks, I just want to look at my files...oh wait, that's what it does. Look at my files. Why is it called finder?
There are the odd pathetic Linux distro where GUI apps don't result in say, menu entries, which is pretty weak in 2005. But there's plenty of other distros that do. Fedora and Ubuntu would be two of them.
The Linux world suffers from a lack of modern intuitive menus and commands. Anyone who has played with the Open Office Programs such as the Powerpoint clone called "Impress" soon finds themselves lost in a jungle of menu structures and naming conventions.
Agreed in some respects
I can use Windows and Gnome quite comfortably...to change what a file opens with in those OSs, I can change its properties. To do the same, in OSX, I have to 'Get Info' on the file. What does getting info have to do with changing what program the file opens with? Doesn't the file already have 'info' inside it?
I honestly don't believe OSX to be the great UI everyone thinks it is. I think people's minds are colouded by its very pretty visual appearance, a dislike of MS, and an assumption that Linux doesn't care about UI (a lot of Linux users/developers don't, it depends on your distro).
The MHz myth is now dead.
Apple just moved to Intel to scale their ships to higher frequencies. Steve Jobs promised 3.0Ghz and going to Intel apparently helped him deliver that.
Why is there bicarb all over your kitchen?
QEmu, with KQEmu, has a similar architecture and similar performance to VMWare.
Except it's Open Source.
I have Office 2000, and so I'm using it, but I'd probably be perfectly comfortable using only OOo (2.0, I hate 1.1)
Same here - I'm not sure what it is - the toolbar changes, the new icon artwork, the seperate packaging for each app, or the way the stylist neatly docks into a side pane rather than hovering around like some annoying extra window. But OpenOffice 2 is good. Really good. Try it. It feels completely different than OpenOffice 1.1. It feels like a fucking awesome office suite.
I can't wait till this is the OpenOffice that people compare with Microsoft Office.
(filler)
Um, I don't know anything about mainframes.
I didn't even read the article.
But the icon looks really pretty and I want whatever it's a picture of.
You know about this stuff. What is it?
Since when has Linux won? It looks to me more like Windows did.
Implied: winning the Unix wars. That should have been obvious. Even in terms of general OS thoough, Windows hasn't won the server by far.
While this is true, that doesn't suddenly mean that everything else should conform to it's standards.
Indeed. What means everythign else should conform to Linux's standard is that everything else is claiming it conforms to Linux's standards. Making it easy to port applications (by taking care of such probs themselves) is part of that.
All the major business distros conform to the LSB. Suse, Red Hat, Debian. The Unix's should conform because IBM and Sun are advertisiong that they conform, and Lies Make Baby Jesus Cry.
Assuming everything is Redhat on i386 is not the right way to go.
Er, yes. That's why the post you're replying to is called 'Are 7 platforms not enough to find the bugs?'
Because Linux won. Proprietary Unix lost. AIX and Solaris advertise their LSBness and Linux Binary Compatibility. It makes logical sense that the maintainers of these platforms take care of issues involved in porting OSS code to run on them.
Or, um, just expect IBM should be submitting fixes for those bugs.
You fucking moron.
Wait a sec...
Porting Open Source to Minor Platforms is Harmful
What the fuck? Where'd you get that from? Read Ulrichs post. How about:
Delaying the development of features because of problems with minority platforms that can't be fixed by the bug reporters is Harmful
You may disagree, but unlike the title of this article, it does actually cover what Ulrich is talking about.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ships on 7 platforms already. x86, x86 64, Itanium 2, zseries, iseries, pseries, and something else I forgot. Fedora runs on the first two, plus ppc.
From the blog in question:
And there certainly should be more than one mainstream architecture to keep all the players real, so I welcome PPC in addition to x86/x86-64. But there is no benefit at all in supporting something like PA Risc, m68k, cris, etc as configurations of the generic code.
He also speaks about OS platforms: how complaints about things not working on AIX are stopping GCC development. In 2005, it's AIXs job to conform to the LSB (including GCC). Not the other way around.
I've been running XP Pro on an SATA Maxtor for a year now, booted and isntalled from the CD.
I'm guessing you have a customized XP disc. I can't find the MS Knowledgebase article re: SATA on XP (the search is shit), but check out other people's experiences.
It doesn't. 99% of monitors support VESA DDC probing.
And 1% don't, or don't repond with proper values. They're the ones that need drivers (or better yet, replacement).
Your hardware experience with Linux will vary depending on the distro you use, but most of the end-user distros can DDC probe monitors (a feature supported by 99% of screens) and autodetect video cards - even if there's no official driver in your distro, you can still use the Vesa driver and get 1024*768 while you download one.
A better example would have been SATA hard disks.
It's impossible to install any released version of Windows onto a SATA hard disk (including an XP SP2 install disk - Christ, that was only released that year) unless you have a floppy drive.
It's 2005. Who the fuck gets a floppy drive with a computer?
Linux handles it no probs.
Does that go some way to meeting your burden of proof? (don't get me wrong, I like them, I just feel they could do with some refinement).
It certainly does - but like you, I'm more inclined to think that the LDAP RFC needs to be expanded to cover areas outside the spec rather than wholesale replaced with OSI DAP, as the original poster was suggesting. Think of LDAP like ipsec in the early days, or SANs right now - a good technology at the point where it's so useful everybody wants to interoperate with it, which tends to show up areas the original spec is lacking.
Thanks for your post.
Sorry, that LDAP uses a portion of ASN 1 does not prove that DAP (which lost in the marketplace) is better than LDAP (which is being used now, and works).
Referals work fine on every LDAP server I've set up. Hashes are sent through SSL encrypted pipes, LDAP glue works, it ain't hacky,m it works between LDAP directories.
Prove your point.
* Saying 'security and authentication' are mysteriously bad doesn't do it.
* That people are still submitting things to the LDAP working group proves nothing either. People are still submitting things to the http working group. Does that mean it is inferior to its predecessors?
The last major thing that even happened to DAP was slapd.
You're right, I can't see it. And you can't show it to me, otherwise you would have.
Wasting your time promoting DAP without any detailed technical evidence is indeed a burden on your time. Why bother?
Personally I think you just like showing off that you knew LDAP was descended from OSI DAP, and didn't mean to get caught up in this conversation.
I didn't doubt you, I just wanted you do do the work. I was wrong: LDAP does indeed use a subset of ASN 1. Point is, it's not a full implementation - this is often touted as one of LDAP's advantages - and I don't see anyone complaining about it except from 2 guys on Slashdot.
From your RFC:
The protocol elements of LDAP are encoded for exchange using the
Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [11] of ASN.1 [3]. However, due to the
high overhead involved in using certain elements of the BER, the
following additional restrictions are placed on BER-encodings of LDAP
protocol elements:
(1) Only the definite form of length encoding will be used.
(2) OCTET STRING values will be encoded in the primitive form only.
(3) If the value of a BOOLEAN type is true, the encoding MUST have
its contents octets set to hex "FF".
Now, as I was asking earlier: since DAP is older than LDAP, and LDAP was invented because DAP wasn't being used, and since LDAP has been used to implement larger directories than DAP ever has, and since global directories are possible and dare I say only mature on LDAP (ironically fulfilling ITUT's dream of a global directory), why is DAP better?
What exactly is it about the referrals currently used in multiple-million object LDAP servers you dislike?
Referals work. Server to Server works. They're in production. Now. There are almost no DAP servers. LDAP was invented because DAP was bloated. It suceeded in the marketplace. DAP did not.
Again - tell me, specifically, what's wrong. Don't tell me it's 'not proper' or 'underspecced'that doesn't mean anything. Burden of proof is on you - I'm happy with LDAP, so is the rest of the world, so I can't be bothered reading the OSI DAP RFC. You do it. Prove me wrong.
LDAP uses ASN.1 as well, as it must.
Really? Can you point to the RFC section where it says ASN1 is mandatory?
Do you think most DAP over TCP implementions are more or less stable than LDAP implementations?
Also, DAP uses the OSI protocols, including ASN.1. Are you sure that's what you want?