Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 613

by gladish (#47813385) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

services.msc is the Microsoft Management Console snap-in for controlling the service control manager. It's really not the thing that's similar to systemd. I think the service control manager (SCM) itself is similar, but it also has an API for control and a couple command line interfaces (dos and powershell). I've actually worked on a project on FreeBSD (closed source) where the concept of an SCM type application always came up. In theory it could have provided a nice consistent interface to our "services" to do things like stop, start, query status, logging, etc. All the boiler plate stuff then looks the same from the outside, instead of being more adhoc. I guess with initd and all the shell scripts, you get a few logging utilities and then shell error codes. Other than that, it's pretty much open season.

Anyone who has written a service for windows knows a few things. First, you always need a way to run it as a normal windows console app or debugging it is a royal pain. Second, you better write it so that it shuts down properly or you'll be getting tons of questions about warnings and errors in the event log. Installing and un-installing can also be painful. I can't be certain how/why, but automating the installation, upgrade, and removal of the service was sometimes problematic if someone logged in and left the SCM control panel running.

Once you have all the kinks ironed out, it's really nice. Admins can start and stop things, install/run your service as different users both domain or local. They can also do things like restrict access to the network, etc. and it's all familiar to them. It does take some cooperation on the developer's part. It is possible to write a service that totally sucks. By sucks, I mean it's buggy and therefore doesn't play nicely with the SCM. Leaves cruft in the registry, and so on.

I had an opportunity to write code on windows (c++ and c#) for about 5-6 years after working exclusively on Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX, HP-UX, and Solaris for about 10 years. I really liked it a lot. I worked on win2k3 and xp, and then win2k8 and win7. I thought win2k8/win7 were both really nice. I was actually blown away about how good the MS IDE and debugger is. The shell still sort of sucks (powershell). I wish someone would write a 'native' shell for windows that was cool. I'd event settle for a dos prompt you can resize like an xterm.

Comment: History is destined to repeat itself (Score 3, Interesting) 88

by gladish (#46652265) Attached to: Amazon's Fire TV: Is It Worth Game Developers' Time?
Is it or me does it seem more and more like SunOS, IRIX, HP-UX, VMS, Digital UNIX, and so on all over again? I sometimes wonder if this is the precursor to the second coming of windows. Microsoft is the only company that seems to be trying to unify all their "stuff" across various devices/platforms.

Comment: Re:Python's problem (Score 1) 510

by gladish (#39388257) Attached to: Van Rossum: Python Not Too Slow
If you ever write a module extension that requires interaction with the GIL, you'll find yourself trolling through the interpreter source code trying to figure out when you should acquire/release the GIL. I can say, the experience was pretty fun and educational, but it just seems like concurrency within the interpreter itself was an afterthought. I would think that a relatively modern language like python would have 1st class support for threading in it's "official" runtime. (CPython). I agree with the original post, that the GIL is a huge shortcoming. As someone who's also written a lot of .NET wrappers around c++ libraries, I can tell you that in theory it's great, but in practice it's no where near as nice as having a fully "managed" implementation. For starters, portability now relies on that wrapper being available on your target platform. If you own the entire stack, that's fine, but there's still an additional maintenance cost. Also, a lot of people writing python code don't have the expertise to simply drop into c/c++, re-write a critical section of code, THEN write the language binding. No to mention when they're debugging, their code goes into this sort of "black whole" method call and comes back out... hopefully in a good state.

Comment: Re:dual sim? (Score 1) 371

by gladish (#38552776) Attached to: Speculating On What a Microsoft Superphone Might Mean
I'm not familiar how a carried binds a number to a sim. I don't' see why you couldn't route multiple numbers to a single sim, or even better a sim that's billable via different personalities. Here's the way I'm seeing it. Lots of people are carrying multiple devices. This is often times driven by corporate governance/compliance policy. One device for work, one or more for personal use. Eventually most mobile devices will look the same. I see patent litigation as an attempt to slow the commoditization of mobile devices as much as possible. Once all devices are nearly the same, software and yes, services, will be the differentiating factor. If you offer a single device that can be used in a corporate environment -- mostly to integrate with outlook, and be used as a personal device, then legions of BB users would line up to switch. I think virtualization is the key. They manage one clean restricted OS, I manage the other, virus infected, ad riddled image. How they switch... I'm not sure. Not having to reboot or log as a different user would be really nice.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...