LOL. Funny how a troll like this can get modded up on/.
I'm developing a Windows XP Embedded based project. Windows XP embedded IS Windows XP -- it IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT based on Windows CE. The individual components and dependencies have been worked out allowing you to choose to install or not to install certain components. Windows XP embedded can run any Windows application and device driver designed for Windows XP or 2000. Windows CE.NET is the next version of Windows CE. Windows XP embedded is the next version of Windows NT embedded and is designed to be fully compatible with all XP software and hardware.
And ofcourse desktop windows is modular, it's built up of many DLLs etc (for fuck's sake). Each new windows OS has been built on previous ones with added functionality. It's just a matter of how fair it is to expect Microsoft to remove vital parts of windows (like IE) from THEIR OS. Windows XP is just as modular as Windows CE. You have DLLs, Drivers etc. It's just that CE was designed to allow the OEM to add/remove certain components (just like Windows XPE).
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc). How can you not understand that software is software, you can remove anything you want. It's just a matter of which components will fail because it relies on it. Redhat Linux wouldn't work as usual if you removed the GTK+ components. Gnome would fail to run etc. But this doesn't mean Linux isn't componentised (I would argue that windows is MORE modular than Linux - windows has proper design for objects (COM) and drivers (WDM)).
Re:CORBA is too heavy & EJB is too RMI/IIOP de
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 1
To me, XML is nothing more than formatted text -- utterly devoid of value until two or more parties agree on a shared vocabulary (in the form of a DTD or Schema).
The point is it has structure and you don't have you write your own parser. You just have to agree on the semantics of the xml data.
These days I think that Microsoft is blind to the need for multiuser processing on a single box.
When was the last time you used windows? 1995?
Windows 2000 is a multiuser OS. It comes with terminal services which allows remote GUI logins. You can control pretty much all of the OS from the command line or by using scripts and WMI. Windows XP Professional includes fast user switching - the ability to log on (graphically) as another user without having to log out of the current user's session. It works f&*&ing well. Linux/X doesn't have this capability.
Their adoption of the GUI is so complete that they can't imagine someone needing to adminstrate a headless box.
One word to describe you: Ignorant.
Who said you can't administrate a headless box using a GUI? I do it all the time - Terminal Services works great over a 56k connection. If I didn't have terminal services, I'd use the command prompt.
If windows 2000/xp wasn't modular it'd be a testimant to the SKILL (not lack of) of the MS programmers. It is next to impossible to get a group of 2000+ developers to write a 50million line piece of software that isn't modular. (I question their sanity though).
I mean, why do people think windows isn't modular? It sure as well is a hell of a lot more modular than Linux. Microsoft has promoted that longer than Linux has been alive with C++, COM and now.NET. I don't have to recompile my kernel to get my hardware to work, I don't have to download a new GUI subsystem because I have a different video card (X). Yeesh.
OK, I'm missing something. I thought that people complained of being disadvantaged (sorry for my english) because Microsoft can integrate Word (et similia) in Windows much better that other companies can since it has access to the full API's. I guess it's not a problem to open the standard file open dialog but I though that was not the point.
LOL
What are you implying with the file open dialog thing? That there are no documented ways to accessing a file in windows without the open dialog?
Go over to MSDN. You'll see the 10s of thousands of APIs nicely document. ASK Sun how they got StarOffice to work in windows. Ask them why Java runs better under windows than solaris. Ask Corel how they managed to get Corel Draw to work under windows. Ask anyone why windows has more feature applications than Linux even though there are "closed APIs".
You seem to be implying that I think modularity is crap. I implied quite the opposite. People (you included by the looks) seem to think that modularity means that there are less dependencies. There are more, which is why windows would be crippled without IE (too many dependencies).
Microsoft has never denied modularity at all. The fact that so many apps depend on IE is a testimant to it's componentised design. Somehow everyone here seems to think componentisation implies less coupling between apps. It actually promotes MORE coupling.
The only people who've been talking about modularity and flexibility (or lack thereof) are the anti-microsoft camp.
If you really think that a comparison between a spontenous gathering of individuals who think alike and a cutlivated corporate culture is the same then you are brainwashed.
ROFL.
1) A gathering of individuals who think alike.
2) A group of individuals who work at a company to feed their kids.
Which is more likely to form into a cult?
MS is made up of individuals who like working on software (and earn money from it). Slashdot is full of zealots who come here to hang around people with the same extremist views...dreaming of destroying microsoft and led by politically motivated leaders like ESR. Geeee.
This may sound like a troll, but it's honestly my own perception: Microsoft operates on a cult-like corporate culture. I
And judging from/., linux zealots are just as cult like.
it was especially evident during the antitrust trial; the behavior of the lawyers and execs and their obvious inability to concede, even to themselves, that they just might not be arguing from a rock solid position. It really did remind me of Scientology.
How many good lawyers do you see go "yeah, sorry my client is wrong. whoops. we conceed defeat"?
I am saying that the applications should be the most dependant, and not at all depended upon. Gnome should be highly dependant on glibc, however, the behavior of glibc should be indepdendant of gnome. Applications should be the bottom layer of the depdenency tree. A standard c library will probably be really high on the dependency graph, while apps (that themselves are not directly needed to build the code, make, compiler, etc) should be low in the graph.
*rolls eyes*. Well duh. I thought we had cleared up that the kernel wasn't depedent on IE. What we have is a problem that apps ont the same level (or above) as IE depend on it. Anyway, if the kernel did depend on IE all it would mean is that IE would be a subsystem of the kernel (it isn't). So your argument is futile.
Why should a media player belong in an office document?
Uh. Some people like video clips in their powerpoint presentations. Some people want HTML in their word documents/excel spreedsheets. (Excel XP automatically changes cells according to data from webservices such as stock prices).
So I guess you think the behaviour of Gnome should be the same without glibc?
Desinging reusable components is the reason there are so many depedencies. It's a really good thing. It means the office team don't have to write their own html browser, or audio player. You can embed windows media player and into a word document and know it'll function just the same as the normal media player.
The core functionality of the OS isn't the only thing that makes up Windows. Windows has a UI, browser, notepad, media player (which by the way has been in there from windows 3.0), command prompt, calculator etc.
While there is lynx, konqeuror, mozilla, galeon, opera, etc, availible for usage on Linux, none of them are required for the kernel to be functional.
Who said IE was required for the kernel to function? It isn't. But that doesn't mean IE isn't integral to Windows. Windows would be crippled without it. Or are you now saying that the kernel is the only thing that makes an OS an OS?
Windows Media Player Explorer "web view" Windows Update Active Desktop Outlook Express
Many 3rd part apps such as: Neoplanet, Winamp, Encarta, Grollia Encyclopedia, ICQ, Office, RealOne and many many more.
If there are soo many 3rd party apps that require a certain library - wouldn't it make sense to include it in the OS? Considering the OS needs it too...
TummyX... read the other posts. People are removing (read this as *not replacing* with something else) IE with 98lite.
Uh. 98lite cripples the OS. Parts of the OS will NOT work properly after you apply 98lite. This has nothing to do with it anyway. I was trying to point out that modularity builds many dependencies. If IE was not a component that could be embedded into other applications, those applications wouldn't be crippled with the removal of IE.
If M$ is worried about components getting replaced with ones they do not want to be associated then why did they make it modular? Why are they lying about this in court?
Um, because modularity and componentisation are a good way to write software! It (amongst other thigns) allows you to develop and debug components individually. Look at Microsoft; They've been doing this for ages. COM had it's roots in 1990.
Good point. Maybe the engine wasn't the best example! My point regarding windows still stands though. Do you consider gtk to be an important part of Redhat Linux? It's so essential for Gnome. Gnome is highly componentised, but this causes many dependencies on Gnome's libraries. Just like how Windows depends so much on IE's libraries. I bet you'd also consider glibc to be an integral part of Linux no? There was a time when it wouldn't have been an integral part of an operating system (say on a C64).
Redhat Linux isn't a very useful desktop OS without Gnome and X. You could remove Gnome from the distribution (or maybe just the HTML renderer in Gnome). This would however render many parts of Redhat useless. The only solution is to replace those components and not just remove them. Redhat Linux did exist at one time without Gnome, just as Windows did without IE. That doesn't mean they should have to exist without them today. Redhat as a desktop OS would be crippled, and so would Windows.
It's clear that what is considered to part of an OS changes over time to time as OSs start to provide higher and higher levels of abstraction over hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. Funny how a troll like this can get modded up on /.
I'm developing a Windows XP Embedded based project. Windows XP embedded IS Windows XP -- it IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT based on Windows CE. The individual components and dependencies have been worked out allowing you to choose to install or not to install certain components. Windows XP embedded can run any Windows application and device driver designed for Windows XP or 2000. Windows CE.NET is the next version of Windows CE. Windows XP embedded is the next version of Windows NT embedded and is designed to be fully compatible with all XP software and hardware.
And ofcourse desktop windows is modular, it's built up of many DLLs etc (for fuck's sake). Each new windows OS has been built on previous ones with added functionality. It's just a matter of how fair it is to expect Microsoft to remove vital parts of windows (like IE) from THEIR OS. Windows XP is just as modular as Windows CE. You have DLLs, Drivers etc. It's just that CE was designed to allow the OEM to add/remove certain components (just like Windows XPE).
I can't believe slashbots are still arguing about the modularity of Windows. Noone ever said it technically wasn't. Simply that integration means there are too many dependecies to reasonable remove IE from windows without crippling related subsystems (the help system etc). How can you not understand that software is software, you can remove anything you want. It's just a matter of which components will fail because it relies on it. Redhat Linux wouldn't work as usual if you removed the GTK+ components. Gnome would fail to run etc. But this doesn't mean Linux isn't componentised (I would argue that windows is MORE modular than Linux - windows has proper design for objects (COM) and drivers (WDM)).
To me, XML is nothing more than formatted text -- utterly devoid of value until two or more parties agree on a shared vocabulary (in the form of a DTD or Schema).
The point is it has structure and you don't have you write your own parser. You just have to agree on the semantics of the xml data.
The copy of Windows NT I got 5 years ago allowed me the option not to install IE and it ran fine without it.
yeah, and the copy of windows I installed 8 years ago ran fine without this "windows explorer" thing. why is it needed in windows xp? fuck that!
These days I think that Microsoft is blind to the need for multiuser processing on a single box.
When was the last time you used windows? 1995?
Windows 2000 is a multiuser OS. It comes with terminal services which allows remote GUI logins. You can control pretty much all of the OS from the command line or by using scripts and WMI. Windows XP Professional includes fast user switching - the ability to log on (graphically) as another user without having to log out of the current user's session. It works f&*&ing well. Linux/X doesn't have this capability.
Their adoption of the GUI is so complete that they can't imagine someone needing to adminstrate a headless box.
One word to describe you: Ignorant.
Who said you can't administrate a headless box using a GUI? I do it all the time - Terminal Services works great over a 56k connection. If I didn't have terminal services, I'd use the command prompt.
A good businessperson? Of course; he's evil enough and it's hard to argue that his company is not monetarily successful.
You are a fucking tosser.
So... when are we going to see the linux kernel compiled on VC++?
Considering the linux kernel uses non standardised GCC extensions...i doubt it.
Actually, managed EXEs and DLLs are assemblies.
So go out and by a USB -> RS232 adapter.
And another thing...
.NET. I don't have to recompile my kernel to get my hardware to work, I don't have to download a new GUI subsystem because I have a different video card (X). Yeesh.
If windows 2000/xp wasn't modular it'd be a testimant to the SKILL (not lack of) of the MS programmers. It is next to impossible to get a group of 2000+ developers to write a 50million line piece of software that isn't modular. (I question their sanity though).
I mean, why do people think windows isn't modular? It sure as well is a hell of a lot more modular than Linux. Microsoft has promoted that longer than Linux has been alive with C++, COM and now
OK, I'm missing something. I thought that people complained of being disadvantaged (sorry for my english) because Microsoft can integrate Word (et similia) in Windows much better that other companies can since it has access to the full API's. I guess it's not a problem to open the standard file open dialog but I though that was not the point.
LOL
What are you implying with the file open dialog thing? That there are no documented ways to accessing a file in windows without the open dialog?
Go over to MSDN. You'll see the 10s of thousands of APIs nicely document. ASK Sun how they got StarOffice to work in windows. Ask them why Java runs better under windows than solaris. Ask Corel how they managed to get Corel Draw to work under windows. Ask anyone why windows has more feature applications than Linux even though there are "closed APIs".
What kind of crack are you smoking?
You seem to be implying that I think modularity is crap. I implied quite the opposite. People (you included by the looks) seem to think that modularity means that there are less dependencies. There are more, which is why windows would be crippled without IE (too many dependencies).
Funny. Cause there is already a Hecko wrapper for MSHTML.
I guess you didn't look hard enough?
MSHTML interfaces ARE documented (how else can 3rd party apps use it if it isn't?).
The 'bad' thing Microsoft did was closing their API!
Which one? What are you trying to do and why can't you do it without that API?
Why can people companies like VMWare etc write what they write for windows with these evil closed APIs?
How did you get modded up?
Microsoft has never denied modularity at all. The fact that so many apps depend on IE is a testimant to it's componentised design. Somehow everyone here seems to think componentisation implies less coupling between apps. It actually promotes MORE coupling.
The only people who've been talking about modularity and flexibility (or lack thereof) are the anti-microsoft camp.
If you really think that a comparison between a spontenous gathering of individuals who think alike and a cutlivated corporate culture is the same then you are brainwashed.
ROFL.
1) A gathering of individuals who think alike.
2) A group of individuals who work at a company to feed their kids.
Which is more likely to form into a cult?
MS is made up of individuals who like working on software (and earn money from it). Slashdot is full of zealots who come here to hang around people with the same extremist views...dreaming of destroying microsoft and led by politically motivated leaders like ESR. Geeee.
This may sound like a troll, but it's honestly my own perception: Microsoft operates on a cult-like corporate culture. I
And judging from
it was especially evident during the antitrust trial; the behavior of the lawyers and execs and their obvious inability to concede, even to themselves, that they just might not be arguing from a rock solid position. It really did remind me of Scientology.
How many good lawyers do you see go "yeah, sorry my client is wrong. whoops. we conceed defeat"?
I am saying that the applications should be the most dependant, and not at all depended upon. Gnome should be highly dependant on glibc, however, the behavior of glibc should be indepdendant of gnome. Applications should be the bottom layer of the depdenency tree. A standard c library will probably be really high on the dependency graph, while apps (that themselves are not directly needed to build the code, make, compiler, etc) should be low in the graph.
*rolls eyes*. Well duh. I thought we had cleared up that the kernel wasn't depedent on IE. What we have is a problem that apps ont the same level (or above) as IE depend on it. Anyway, if the kernel did depend on IE all it would mean is that IE would be a subsystem of the kernel (it isn't). So your argument is futile.
Why should a media player belong in an office document?
Uh. Some people like video clips in their powerpoint presentations. Some people want HTML in their word documents/excel spreedsheets. (Excel XP automatically changes cells according to data from webservices such as stock prices).
Are you on crack?
So I guess you think the behaviour of Gnome should be the same without glibc?
Desinging reusable components is the reason there are so many depedencies. It's a really good thing. It means the office team don't have to write their own html browser, or audio player. You can embed windows media player and into a word document and know it'll function just the same as the normal media player.
The core functionality of the OS isn't the only thing that makes up Windows. Windows has a UI, browser, notepad, media player (which by the way has been in there from windows 3.0), command prompt, calculator etc.
For fucks sake. Since when is running apache, send mail and serving hundreds of clients a function of a DESKTOP operating system?
Without X or Gnome redhat would be crippled as a desktop OS.
How many times do i have to spell it out to you?
While there is lynx, konqeuror, mozilla, galeon, opera, etc, availible for usage on Linux, none of them are required for the kernel to be functional.
Who said IE was required for the kernel to function? It isn't. But that doesn't mean IE isn't integral to Windows. Windows would be crippled without it. Or are you now saying that the kernel is the only thing that makes an OS an OS?
It's pretty clear that HTML renderers are an important part of an operating system.
Linux comes with several.
Solaris comes with several.
Swing (Java) supports HTML thought JHtmlPane. Basically another IWebBrowser control.
Windows Media Player
Explorer "web view"
Windows Update
Active Desktop
Outlook Express
Many 3rd part apps such as: Neoplanet, Winamp, Encarta, Grollia Encyclopedia, ICQ, Office, RealOne and many many more.
If there are soo many 3rd party apps that require a certain library - wouldn't it make sense to include it in the OS? Considering the OS needs it too...
Uh. Like I said. Redhat would be a crippled DESKTOP operating system. You could run Win31 if you want a useless OS if you want too.
TummyX... read the other posts. People are removing (read this as *not replacing* with something else) IE with 98lite.
Uh. 98lite cripples the OS. Parts of the OS will NOT work properly after you apply 98lite. This has nothing to do with it anyway. I was trying to point out that modularity builds many dependencies. If IE was not a component that could be embedded into other applications, those applications wouldn't be crippled with the removal of IE.
If M$ is worried about components getting replaced with ones they do not want to be associated then why did they make it modular? Why are they lying about this in court?
Um, because modularity and componentisation are a good way to write software! It (amongst other thigns) allows you to develop and debug components individually. Look at Microsoft; They've been doing this for ages. COM had it's roots in 1990.
Good point. Maybe the engine wasn't the best example! My point regarding windows still stands though. Do you consider gtk to be an important part of Redhat Linux? It's so essential for Gnome. Gnome is highly componentised, but this causes many dependencies on Gnome's libraries. Just like how Windows depends so much on IE's libraries.
I bet you'd also consider glibc to be an integral part of Linux no? There was a time when it wouldn't have been an integral part of an operating system (say on a C64).
Redhat Linux isn't a very useful desktop OS without Gnome and X. You could remove Gnome from the distribution (or maybe just the HTML renderer in Gnome). This would however render many parts of Redhat useless. The only solution is to replace those components and not just remove them. Redhat Linux did exist at one time without Gnome, just as Windows did without IE. That doesn't mean they should have to exist without them today. Redhat as a desktop OS would be crippled, and so would Windows.
It's clear that what is considered to part of an OS changes over time to time as OSs start to provide higher and higher levels of abstraction over hardware.