A Quick Peek at Longhorn 521
Kaypro writes: "The Register
has an interesting article with some minor details regarding Microsoft's next OS.
P2P, filesystem plugins and some thoughts from Hans Reiser, of ReiserFS fame
make for an interesting read."
Thanks MS (Score:3, Troll)
In a nutshell, they are currently deciding how exactly to make the new one obsolete...before they release the new one.
That's marketing at it's finest!
Re:Thanks MS (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Thanks MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks MS (Score:2)
Interesting tidbit - I once read that Mitsubishi actually has a business plan for the next 200 years!!!
Scary future ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
Couple that with MicroSoft's security trackhistory, and possible T1 pipes in every home in a few years, and I see virii mailing entire directories of data.
Scary thought huh??
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
At some point someone might just make an actual "thin client" because traditional Interent applications (email, browsing, etc.) and many business functions can be light client/heavy server apps. These apps don't need big Pentium 6's running at 10 ghz. They also don't need a 2 GB OS. So P2P is a PC "killer app". The sooner client/server computing is moved towards p2p in terms of horsepower, the better for the Duopoly.
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, nothing stops a virus from e-mailing directories right now. Of course, I could point out that nothing stops a Linux virus e-mailing your directories, either.
P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:3, Funny)
There are many hurdles to a Linux Virus:
1) Mircosoft programers aren't smart enough to make a Linux virus. Unix programmers are too busy making money, driving fast cars and picking up the babes to bother maing a virus.
2) Any Linux virus would have to come with it's own libraries, or at least come in a SuSE and Red Hat Version.
3) GNU/Virus doesent have a good ring to it.
4) The BSD Ports system would make any Linux virus delivery system obsolete.
5) There is no version of Outlook for Linux.
6) A Linux virus coulden't statically link to some libraries - it might violate the GPL and we couldent have that.
7) Linux users don't have many contacts in their address books, due to their bathing habits.
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:3, Funny)
7) Linux users don't have many contacts in their address books, due to their bathing habits.
Lucky thing that Linux isn't Unix eh? Oh yeah, this red hat box... that's running some kind of Unix... oh yeah, definitely... not sure which exactly, but it's definitely not Linux. My bath works fine thank you.
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2, Informative)
The plural of "virus" is "viruses". "virii" is just an incorrect extension of the -us -> -ii plural marking you see in words like "cactus".
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2)
Did you read his message?! A future virus would have an easier time sharing your files with the world, since sharing files with the world is integrated at filesystem level. The virus would only have to change WHAT to share, not HOW to share it.
Actually, a Linux virus is way easier than a Windows virus because of all the standard tools (tar, gzip, ftp, mail, or good god, Perl.). I could send your entire user directory to me in a couple lines of shell script.
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2, Offtopic)
Conventions like datum/data and vertex/vertices, or did you mean conventions like woman/women, or sheep/sheep?
English is full of exceptions. Just because it came from Latin into English doesn't mean it is "virii", but on the other hand, the fact that it is an English word doesn't mean it must end with an "s".
There is no "correct" way to say anything, as language evolves with time. The closest one can come to "correct" is whatever best communicates the idea(the point of language).
In the case of viruses/virii, I think they are on pretty equal footing. Especially since this is a geek website.
mark
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2)
Actually, virus IS a latin word, and its nominative plural is viri; it derives from greek and sanskrit, and it translates roughly as "poison, slime, slimy liquid, offensive odor". Both the OED and Merriam-Webster trace the english word virus directly to the latin virus, round about 1599.
Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) (Score:2)
Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) (Score:4, Informative)
read this:
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html
The. Last. Word.
Re:Think Latin (was: Re:Scary future ahead) (Score:2)
the type of noun that is pluralized with an 'i' in
Latin. So "viri", like "virii", is incorrect in
Latin *and* in English.
Furrfu.
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2)
virii for the Linux platform need to be more sophisticated, as there are many choices of systems tools, and a truely eficient virus would download and install the latest tools or just patch them as it went.
Sophisticated? Are you joking? How sophisticated do you need to be to write "tar cf - ~ | gzip | uuencode - | mail l33t@haxhor.com"?
It's WAY easier do this sort thing under Unix.
Re:Scary future ahead (Score:2)
>the user to wait.
still a bad design. It should at least jump into the background, and maybe even scheduleitselfto run later with at (say, while the locatedb is running, so the rattling won't be notices).
haw
Pluging FS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pluging FS (Score:2, Interesting)
or is this something different [sysinternals.com]?
Re:Pluging FS (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because you haven't looked for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But on NT or XP it costs $1000 (Score:2)
You talking about the File System Driver reference? Try http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wmeother/s torage_5uig.asp
That works only on Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Millennium Edition, and Microsoft no longer sells Windows 95, Windows 98, nor Windows Millennium Edition. From the IFS kit pages [microsoft.com]: "The IFS License, which includes one (1) kit, is $995.00 plus shipping and handling" and is too expensive for the average hobbyist.
Re:But on NT or XP it costs $1000 (Score:2)
Re:But on NT or XP it costs $1000 (Score:3, Interesting)
Very strange.
P2P eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:P2P eh? (Score:2)
Re:P2P eh? (Score:2, Funny)
Proc suport (Score:2, Interesting)
P2P? (Score:4, Troll)
Seriously though, they do need to make some drastic changes to the OS. Any OS that is going to be used by 90% of Americans needs to be more reliable. Nothing worse then having to be tech support because you are the only one in the family that can figure it out.
The move has antitrust implications: it potentially puts Microsoft at an advantage over Oracle and other competing SQL implementations every copy of Windows will effectively come with a light version of Microsoft SQL Server.
Ahh, now I see. I can just see the high-ups at Microsoft, "Hey, we can't make an RDBMS as good as Oracle or IBM's, so let's make our OS one, then when people run SQL Server on it it will be like 10 times faster, and SQL Server will capture the high-end database market."
I hope many of you submitted feedback for the Tunney act before yesterday's deadline or we will see a lot more anti-competitive behavior over the next year.
--Jon
Re:P2P? (Score:2)
Re:P2P? (Score:2)
Yeah, Oracle's DB pounds the hell out of anything MS makes, BUT, Oracle does not have the market leverage that Microsoft does. When you have a monopoly like Microsoft admittedly has, superior quality doesn't go as far as superior market share.
Remember when Microsoft wanted to get into the enterprise DB game? What did they do? They went out and bought the rights to SQL Server from Sybase.
Last I heard Microsoft had something like $36 BILLION in their "war chest" so if something gets in their way, they can either by it, or by some thorns in its side.
Don't ever underestimate the determination of a monopoly
--Jon
Re:P2P? (Score:2)
Ahh, now I see. I can just see the high-ups at Microsoft, "Hey, we can't make an RDBMS as good as Oracle or IBM's, so let's make our OS one, then when people run SQL Server on it it will be like 10 times faster, and SQL Server will capture the high-end database market."
Actually, I think windows _NEEDS_ a decent database at the OS level.
At the moment, just about all MS products that need a database (DHCP, WINS, etc) uses a JET .mdb format (I beleive even exchange 5.5 used a JET based format?); As well as that, there are a ton of third party appliations that make use of JET based databases.
Anyone that's delt with large JET based databases will know that they suck!
IMO it would be much better to have a good quality RDBMs provided as a service by the O/S, insted of all these shitty little JET databases distributed across your computer.
After all, isn't this what an OS is all about? Providing underlying system services
Re:P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quick Question... (Score:4, Offtopic)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess you'd like to think that, and it sounds good and fits into you message well, but Linus has repeatedly said he doesn't care one bit what Redmond is doing, and isn't even familiar with a lot of the newer features in their OS. His singular goal is to make Linux better than Linux, not better than anything MS makes.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick Question... (Score:2)
I find this statement hard to believe. I believe it was true up to maybe kernel 2.0.x, when generally used workstation features and functionality were being added. At its current state, there's so much in the kernel that Linus doesn't need or can't use its hard for me to believe that he's doing it to make something he personally likes (which implies personally uses/needs). And this is just kernel features. Development effort and coordination (see today's other story on Linus scalability) has got to be a major timesink as well, way beyond the "for me personally" stage.
I can only conclude that further development and complexity in the kernel must serve some other need -- it may not be direct competition with MS, but it certainly can't just be because Linus personally likes it. It makes for a high-minded "ars gratia artis" kind of statement, but it also is kind of hard to swallow.
Re:Quick Question... (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be good... (Score:5, Funny)
Just think if this were extended to the whole Internet!
"Find pr0n featuring Traci Lord with two men wearing spandex."
"Find l33t games with midgets in Iowa."
"Find ripped versions of Longhorn Windows."
Re:This could be good... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This could be good... (Score:2)
Yes, it could be good, since Hans Reiser makes the point of just how much the overall utility of information is in making that information more widely accessible to the fringes of access.
That's a key insight, one that deserves to be addressed.
The immediate practical issue with this is that
which, admittedly, represents more of a psychological and personality problem than it does a problem in information technlogy. All the great file system ideas in the world won't work if people are fundamentally against the premise of more information sharing being a Good Thing.Indeed, one could argue that more research is probably being funded into ways of restricting information access than devising filesystems to make widespread information access more efficient. Why? Well, because restricting the free flow of information is a policy that is more closely aligned with the current revenue models of important content copyright holders.
You watch. Longhorn will have some improved technology in the filesystem to make information queries more efficient, but everyone on the corporate LAN will clamp down access controls that render it effectively of no value.
This is an insult! (Score:3, Offtopic)
Naming their new OS 'Longhorn' is an affront to all UT [utexas.edu] grads everywhere!
Can't they call it 'Aggie' or something?
AngryArmadillo
Re:This is an insult! (Score:5, Informative)
and CE... (Score:2)
because the head developer
Re:This is an insult! (Score:2)
relational databases as fs (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a few problems though:
Boot media. Right now, in the windows world, most boot floppies are fat12. NTFS won't fit on a single boot floppy. And it is a pain in the butt to make a bootable cd when compared to making a bootable floppy.
So what happens when you need to boot from something other than your hard drive? How easy will it be to make a boot cd?
What about the way MS keeps things hidden from you? Try this in XP: make a directory. Put 1 file in it called "testme" with no file extension. Open the file and type in the word "apple". Now do a search for all files containing the word apple in that directory. Windows won't find it.
What happens when you do something with a file that the relational database can't handle?
Done well, this has the potential to be really cool. I doubt it will be done well.
Re:relational databases as fs (Score:2)
Re:relational databases as fs (Score:2)
PICK was a database-as-OS, but it wasn't relational. PICK liked to say they were "post-relational" but really, they just used flat files with multivalued fields. Essentially, any field could become a one-dimensional array.
De-fragging a disk drive on a native PICK system was a nightmare. Essentially, you had to reformat and restore from backup to defrag a native PICK machine. It's little wonder that PICK Systems eventually ported their DBMS to various *nix platforms and gave up on the DBMS-as-OS concept.
Re:relational databases as fs (Score:2)
Ah, just like the Windows registry! hmm...
In related news... (Score:4, Flamebait)
BCOD (Score:3, Funny)
Re:BCOD (Score:5, Funny)
Re:BCOD (Score:2)
Re:BCOD (Score:2)
of course not (Score:2)
Ahh,the state of pre-schooleducation in the US . . .
:)
hawk
Database Filesystem (Score:3, Interesting)
What happened to revs? (Score:4, Insightful)
the "upgrade" cycle (Score:2)
It's sort of funny to me that Mac die-hards are complaining about the difficulties associated with moving to OS X, when the last serious OS upgrade we've had to deal with was OS 7, back at circa 1994.
I'd hate to be a poor beleagured Windows user, having to go through major OS changes every time I finally get used to working with the previous OS.
I guess it's job insurance for MS tech support folks.
Step away from the crack pipe (Score:2)
But if I were working in Corporate America, and the good people in my IT department were following Microsoft's firm guidance (notice they've made it VERY difficult for enterprise users to stay with NT 4.0?), I might not have any choice in the matter.
I've had it happen to me before.
I didn't say anything at all about having the government force Microsoft to stop upgrading their OS. In fact, I think that Microsoft's continued reliance on "this one is even bigger and better than the one before" OS rollouts is ultimately good for distributors of other OSes (because they can attract disgruntled MS users).
I didn't say anything about Linux kernel upgrades, either.
Version numbers... (Score:5, Informative)
Names like Longhorn are just internal codenames, just like, say, Debian Potato.
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 4.0 = Windows 95
Windows 4.1 = Windows 98
Windows 4.9 = Windows Me
Windows 98 SE was version 4.1 with a higher build number than Windows 98
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 5.0 = Windows 2000
Windows NT 5.1 = Windows XP
- There will probably be an XP Second Edition, which'll be version 5.1 with a higher build number
- Longhorn will probably be version 5.2. Who knows what'll actually be called - XP wasn't decided on till last spring.
- Blackcomb will probably be version 6.0
Re:Version numbers... (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, I'd call XP a downgrade. Adding bugs to a version of windows which came close to being stable could never be an upgrade.
If I want fancy themed window borders I'll jump over to linux and kde and have all I want. If I want to waste cpu time I've got plenty of utilities that will eat it and give me pretty little items to look at as it kills it. If I want things hidden from me I'll just turn on cspan and watch congress.
How can they make Longhorn? (Score:4, Funny)
Go read the Hans Reiser paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go read the Hans Reiser paper (Score:5, Insightful)
I submitted this story on Blackcomb in AUGUST: (Score:5, Informative)
Read it yourself:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,1
The Speed of Slashdot. (Score:2, Funny)
Time the register posted the original story:
28 January 2002 5:58pm
Time slashdot posted the link:
Tuesday January 29, @06:04PM
Therefore:
5.58pm - 06.04pm = 6 minutes
Distance from London, England to California, USA:
5372 miles
Therefore:
5372/6 = 895.3333333 miles per minute
=53720mph
Is this some kind of world record?
Re:The Speed of Slashdot. (Score:2)
5:58 PM GMT January 28 to 6:04 PM GMT January 29 = 1446 minutes.
Taken from that, 5372/1446 = 3.7150760719225449515905947441217 miles/minute = 222 mph
Nothing there about MS' new security focus (Score:2, Insightful)
And not just that the new "features" metioned sound like great new places for bugs to hide, but MS doesn't even mention new security features in it's leaks.
Like many other people have said, if MS is serious about security then the next release of Windows has to be a complete security audit with zero new features.
sigh. and I had such high hopes that they got it this time.
Interesting what wasn't discussed (Score:5, Insightful)
like all the work and money MS has been throwing into SDMI like digital copywrite detection and prevention.
From what I understand MS sees an opportunity to vector the DMCA-like drum beating of the music and film industry with it's own "application as services" subscriber model.
don't know when that shoe is going to drop, but when it does well... here is a quote for you: "Piracy is not a technological issue. It's a behavior issue," Apple CEO Steve Jobs
All hail alternative operating systems
sounds like something I have seen before (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this sound so very similar to any other Windomanages to anyone else. So often on slashdot I see comments regarding Linux needs to stop playing catch up to Windows, but now it seem that Windown is playing catch up to Linux in may errors:
- Security is now a hot iteam at MS
- The "new" task bar
Ok that is only a few and to clarify I am not saying that Linux is beating MS, but it does look that MS sees many good ideas with the work being done with Linux.
Shucks (Score:2)
-Legion
Re:They did... (Score:2)
Decent, fairly stable platform which pukes on most of my games. I triple-boot (soon to be quadruple with Solaris 8), running high-end graphics applications on 2000, games on 98, and anything important on Linux.
I *might* "upgrade" to XP once it's been out a year and most of the major security problems have been worked out.
-Legion
Re:They did... (Score:2)
SQL integration (Score:2)
The move has antitrust implications: it potentially puts Microsoft at an advantage over Oracle and other competing SQL implementations every copy of Windows will effectively come with a light version of Microsoft SQL Server
Sorry I dont see how a light version of MS SQL Server and Oracle 9i could be playing in the same field...
Longhorn (Score:3, Funny)
computres never mkae mistooks. -WOPR
food for thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an idea MS. Why don't you try building a REAL OS before adding a bunch of features. Then I hope Oracle et al go after them for attempts at tying again. This time a RDBMS with an OS, instead of the browser. Not that they have a chance against Oracle, just that I'd like to see them burn after being forced you use their various products. It really sucks when you've seen the alternatives.
Before I started going back to school I worked in a UNIX environment, and although crashes did occur and were considered big events they were rare with years plus of up time. However, with MS products I ran into constantly (yes constantly) crashes, locks up, or spontaneously combusts. Now they want to try something as potentially dangerous with my data like ty it to the filesystem as a database. No doubt they will leave transactions and rollbacks out of it, so not only do you lose the current data from one of their features( crashes are a feature aren't they?) but suddenly it corrupts even more stuff because it was joined, etc.
Now add someone somewhere else with malicious intent, with MS current(talk doesn't count) stance on security, not only wiping out relations, probing for intimate details(you're not keeping your finances on that machine are you?)
Maybe, I'm just a little skeptical or pananiod or both. That whole thing bothers me to no end.
Is the ghost of Larry Ellison posses Microsoft? (Score:2)
"Everything is a database..."
Why does my Mother, who reads email and plays solitare, need a database?
What she NEEDS is an OS that doesn't flake out all the time.
Winsupersite (Score:3, Informative)
Article Text (Score:2, Redundant)
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 28/01/2002 at 21:58 GMT
Sources close to Microsoft confirm that The Beast is set to include a new relational file store at the core of its next version of Windows. Some roadmap slippage has apparently occurred, too, as the database core will be introduced into Longhorn, and Blackcomb has been pushed further back. That leaves a gap for a point revision of XP next year, although there's no sign of this on the roadmap just yet. Despite the annual revisions being named as users' number one bugbear, Microsoft hasn't let a year go by without releasing a new version of Windows since 1997, when it was fighting the browser wars.
The final feature set for Longhorn - the codename for the successor to Windows XP - hasn't been nailed down yet, and the database core had been rumored for inclusion in Blackcomb, the next Windows after Longhorn.
It's highly significant, as it signals a much tighter integration between Microsoft's enterprise server products and the client.
As Jon Honeyball wrote here last May - but it's still the most comprehensive dissection of the change - file systems would become plug-ins for a raw, native relational data store.
We don't yet know if this runs in user land, or kernel mode.
Peep to Peep
Microsoft will also offer a new peer-to-peer networking feature, say sources briefed by The Beast. A new "sub-workgroup" network level - a subset of the current "workgroup" - offers a finer granularity of network access for ad hoc collaboration. Microsoft is intent on P2P-style workgroup collaboration looks seamless, with additional updates to NetMeeting built in to the OS.
(Microsoft took a $51 million stake in P2P pin-up Groove Networks, the company started by Lotus Notes creator Ray Ozzie, last year).
The demonstration version of Longhorn currently being demoed to Microsoft's teams and selected third parties displays a new type of task dock that can include everything from stock tickers to work group collaboration features. The task dock is similar to what is found in Office XP with the tasks panels. That's the pane in Office XP that provides a list of most recently used files, or clipboard entries, or other frequently-accessed features.
Sources tell us that the Longhorn "screenshots" showing some of this functionality currently doing the rounds, but sources briefed by Microsoft assure us these are not genuine.
Sane, useful, legal?
There's a sensible rationale for such a move, argue advocates: our data stores are confined to silos such as our email application. A shared namespace would allow distributed corporate queries such as 'Find emails from Bob to Carole about ProjectX in FacilityY'.
Although Microsoft has touted such a vision for a decade, precedents are rare. They've run into performance issues, and no namespace schema has won general acceptance.
Hans Reiser, of ReiserFS fame, has been leading the discussion in how free software can respond to the challenge, and his arguments are summarized in his excellent paper here which should be compulsory reading.
As we noted last year, Pick and IBM's OS/400 effectively run a data store as the file system, but they didn't get there from here, so to speak, having designed the OS around such an architecture from the ground up. On the desktop, the late Be Inc attempted such an ambitious scheme (hi Benoit) before reverting to a more conventional file system layer which has database-like properties: relying on file attributes which are constantly reindexed in the background.
The move has antitrust implications: it potentially puts Microsoft at an advantage over Oracle and other competing SQL implementations every copy of Windows will effectively come with a light version of Microsoft SQL Server.
In practice, however, a distributed database is only as strong as its weakest link, and we can't imagine a corporate IS manager who'd turf out Oracle for a distributed network of Windows PCs running Longhorn. A mantra in recent years has been that IBM and Sun offer a "single point of failure", but the dangers of multiple points of failure become more stark in a distributed system. Want last quarter's accounts receivable? Ah, you'll have to wait until the cleaner's unplugged the Hoover. ®
Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Redhat doesnt make the databases they disturbute with redhat, therefore theres no alterior motive other than making users life easier
2. Microsoft In my opinion will use this database on everyones desktop business to basically increase teh speed of Sql server (they did it with internet explorer, when you push it so far down in the kernel its bound to make some speed increases (hello Tux webserver (if thats what its name was) written by Redhat that was a Web server directly embedded in the kernel to improve performance)
So as you can see, this is a very diffirent situation
Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Hey, bright boy... has Red Hat been convicted in a court of law for being an illegal monopolist? Does Red Hat even have a legal monopoly of any kind?
Not with *A* database, no. (Score:2)
Not so far as I've heard; Ellison probably figures the enemy of his enemy is his friend.
--Charlie
Re:I like the antitrust jab at the end. (Score:3, Informative)
If I understood the article correctly Microsoft is going to flip that relationship. The file system would be Front end to the Database. This would mean if Oracle did, or could, produce a database it would have to do one of two things. First it could run on top of the File System which would make the file system a go-between between Oracle and the RDBMS (probalble a SQL-Server derivative). The other possiblity would be to Have Oracle interact directly with the RDBMS. Either way, what's the point of having a Database run on top of a database? I think that would be one the reasons Oracle file a lawsuit against Microsoft. It isn't that much different than what they did to Netscape and AOL (with the tie in of MSN).
The article referenced another article [theregister.co.uk] that went into more detail.
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:2)
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:2)
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:2)
Before you start rambling on about Open Source or Free Software:
1) I have used Linux (until recently it was my firewall and home web server) - replacing it with FreeBSD. More agreeable licensing.
2) I have a fundamental disagreement with RMS over his beliefs that software should be free. It conflicts with my belief that I should be allowed to charge for goods and services.
3) The issues of privacy and security in the operating system are of great concern to me, and I agree that Microsoft has been shamefully lax in this area. I believe that this will improve in the future.
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:2)
Keep in mind that all these goodies are only "free" until the competition is dead--after that, Microsoft will make you pay
Can you give any examples of this? IE is still FREE, and for all intents and purposes, Netscape is dead.
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:3, Insightful)
> because putting a database as the filesystem
> backend will give them an advantage over some of
> their competitors, us desktop Windows users should
> be denied the benefits it would afford us?
What benefits? Most Windows users don't even know what a filesystem is much less a relational filesystem. Users just want to run their stuff.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market in Operating Systems. They are using their power in one market to vie for another market. There are companies out there that would like to compete - they have families to feed, they have dreams and goals too. Shall we deny them the chance to make it by allowing a monopolist to run unchecked?
Are you a monopolist?
Microsoft is attempting to coopt the Applications into the Operating System i.e. tie their applications to the Windows OS so that competition is stiffled. We need firm definitions of what an Operating System and Application IS so that competition can occur and therby stimulate real innovation.
Here is what I think would be a good start on an idea that would provide for both competition and innovation for consumers of Operating Systems:
Define an Operating System as a kernel i.e. that single piece of code that has ultimate programmatic control over the machine and is not preemptable by any other piece of code. The running level of the kernel is to be deemed kernelspace.
Define an Application as a client of the kernel and as receiving services provided by the kernel and that operating environment that is preemptable by the kernel and doesn't run in kernelspace is to be deemed userspace. Require interfaces between clients of the kernel and between clients and the kernel to be documented and published 6 months prior to the Operating System Producers version of same interfaces and any derivatives therof.
Define a module or driver as a pseudo-client of the kernel OS and it's interfaces shall be documented in the same spirit as any code that runs in a particular space. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is present in the kernel i.e. loaded and running in kernelspace, it is to be considered as part of the running kernel and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities. When the pseudo-client/driver/module is running in userspace it is to be considered an application and subject to it's benefits and responsibilities.
Whatever a competitor wants to do inside the black box of the kernel/OS, Application/client or pseudo-client/driver/module can be deemed proprietary insofar as the black-box doesn't try to communicate such proprietary data, information or interfaces between components, interfaces or running levels i.e. kernelspace and userspace.
IANAL and I'm sure others may have better or more concise definitions but.... the definitions should be made and separation of the various pieces should be enforced as well as the publicly available documentation of their interfaces in a timely and competitive manner.
Sorry... forgot to turn RANT on.
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:3, Insightful)
Define an Operating System as a kernel i.e. that single piece of code that has ultimate programmatic control over the machine and is not preemptable by any other piece of code. The running level of the kernel is to be deemed kernelspace
My definition of an OS is slightly different:
Define an OS as a kernel and set of related code that provides a set of base level services which application developers can leverage as they need.
For example; web serving; RDBMS; SMTP service; HTML rendering engine. (note; not nessaseraly a web browser; just a set of DLLS that provide standards based HTML rendering; a third party application that leverage this rendering engine to make a complete browser; like Quatz is for Mac OSx)
By your definition, to get the same features that I get out of my $300 copy of WIn2k Server, I would have to purchase; A Kernel (os); a window manager; a dhcp server; a wins server; a web server; a mac server; a file sharing server; a print server; a web browser... and the list goes on!
...and would I be forced to purchase these from seperate companies? How does this affect distributions liek RedHat?
Re:More of the same anti-competitive practices. (Score:2)
> definition of an OS, and LIMIT what it can do. How
> is that supposed to increase innovation?
I don't recall my suggestions LIMITING what a Kernel/OS/Non-Preemptable entity could do. If a webserver were to be designed as a pseudo-client/module/driver and it ran in kernelspace then it would be considered part of the running kernel. The interfaces between the pseudo-client/module/driver and the Kernel/OS and any other kernelspace or userspace code would need to be documented. How is that limiting what an OS can do?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:2)
With the lenient stance of W's DoJ toward Microsoft (probably from a family habit of looking after big oil companies) and Bush being from Texas (by way of New England like Geo. Sr.) I wonder about the 'Longhorn' connection. Play on words?
Re:Great... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Tougher migration (Score:2)
Re:Tougher migration (Score:2)
And if you think XP phones
...and just got a real scary visual.
Re:Needs Pentium 7 to run (Score:3, Funny)
2.4Ghz Pentium 4
1GB DDR or RDRAM
UDMA133 10GB minimum for OS
nVidia GeForce3 or equal power 4x AGP card
Of course, those are just minimums to get it to BOOT. To actually use it, go SMP, double the RAM, and try hardware RAID if you actually want your hard drives to respond.
Other not-well-know features:
CD-RW support (only support 1x burn speed to slow down pirates, and includes a pseudo-random error generator to make CD coasters with an approximate ratio of 1:7)
DVD support (won't actually play DVDs because of DRM issues, just used to distribute software)
USB 2 support (finally)
Various NIC support (but it will still rely on noisy, broadcast-centric network protocols)
Modem support (WinModems preferred...but then again, who uses modems anymore [-1:flamebait])
And a plethora of other third-party devices are supported but will not work well with each other and whose drivers will on occasion cause Longhorn to hard-lock in a newly improved GREEN screen of death. (Their research indicated people have more positive emotions about the color green instead of blue. If you're color-blind, you unfortunately will see the same old BSOD.)
And of course, the number of system changes that require a reboot is dropped to an all-time low of THREE!!!
But what I want to know is: how often will you have to DE-FRAG the dbfs?
Re:What's going on? (Score:2)
But this post has nothing to do with the topic. So it should be modd'ed down. It is off topic (although this reply is on topic to your off topic post).
I've had similar problems with the moderators (I'm one myself) but I attribute it to the general decline in posts in general (not singling you or anybody specifically).
But seeing how I am now at 50 I'll burn some of my karma for your enlightenment.