First Details of Windows 7 Emerge 615
Some small but significant details of the next major release of Windows have emerged via a presentation at the University of Illinois by Microsoft engineer Eric Traut. His presentation focuses on an internal project called "MinWin," designed to optimize the Windows kernel to a minimum footprint, and for which will be the basis for the Windows 7 kernel.
Rinse, Repeat (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rinse, Repeat (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft are the kings of targeted vapourware.
They spent most of the '90s poisoning the well [madisonavenuejournal.com] for their competitors with this tactic. What makes you think they're not doing the same thing again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody was already kind enough to give us a link to the roughlydrafted article. Oh wait -- that was you! [slashdot.org]. Of course that article is still not worth the disk space it's saved on for very obvious reasons.
But wait, we have more evidence here -- the infamous google test. Did you even read some of the nonsense that popped up? The second result from google was that roughly drafted nonsense. Plus, I just googled "slashdot africa" and got 5.4 million results back, which means.. well, I'm not sure what it means
why troll parent (Score:3, Insightful)
The Microsoft secret to success (Score:5, Informative)
> have noticed that their current version isn't all that it's made up to be?
Duh. They have been doing this same bait and switch for the life of the company.
Step One. Release wonderous New Version! It is THE must have thing.
Step Two. Everyone realizes it sucks but their money is already in Bill's pocket. And everyone realizes they have no choice but to adopt the new product anyway because of the three year hardware replacement cycle and the illegal (as certified by a US court) bundling agreements with the OEMs that continue to this day. Especially in the case of their OS but to a lesser extent with Office and the other crap they peddle.
Step Three. Microsoft begins hinting about the upcoming new version. It will fix all of the (not quite admitted) problems with current version AND add exciting new must have features. And it is coming Really Soon.
Step Four. Have their minions in the trade press obsess about Upcoming new version. All complaints about Current version are answered with "But Upcoming version will be out soon and will fix that problem." After a year or two make sure to begin writing reviews for competitors products by comparing them to features that Upcoming version will be shipping "Any day now". By this point EVERYONE must be lamenting how crappy the shipping version is to help generate the NEED to upgrade when the new version ships.
Step Five. As the death march to release continues and feaures get cut, spin it as a good thing. (We are focusing on the needs of our customers, blah, blah.) Now that there is beta (anyone else would rate it pre-alpha but.....) code get the drumbeat ramping up in the press with lots of articles and screenshots. Will your hardware be compatible? Can life as you know it continue without the exciting new features? Etc, blah blah.
Step Six. The product finally releases... See Step One.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cairo:
Longhorn:
Windows 7:
Fraud as a Business Plan The magic of the Internet is helping to point out the tragic fallacy of believing in Microsoft's promises. Microsoft assures us that it won't ever slip half a decade between operating systems again, but what about the fact that that's all it has ever done?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/4E2A8848-5738-45B1-A659-AD7473899D7D.html [roughlydrafted.com]
Size matters (Score:5, Funny)
It depends if you have size 24" feet (MS) or 8" feet like real normal OS's. No matter how big the foot, you can only reduce your footprint to the smallest size of the foot.
So that, as far as I am concerned, is a nebulous comment intended to fool the press and others that still believe every MS 'press release' they spew out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point I had full XFCE desktop and latest (at the time) 2.6.xx kernel running in under 35 MB. That was a few months ago.
But I'll be the first to admit that it wasn't a typical install. I was going more for speed, but I compiled the kernel with exactly the set of drivers/modules I needed; and compiled X, XFCE, and most "important" system libraries myself. Base distro was Slackware.
I'm running a fairly standard Debian install right now, and with no apps running it'll use about 150 MB with X, F
Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Funny)
2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!
No wonder kids have so much trouble at math....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Funny)
Nuff said.
No, not really. That equation actually makes sense to you? Are you one of the Microsoft Excel developers?
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, it made sense to me, but I had to reread it 3 times. Let's try again, with formatting:
No mention of Windows ME, but perhaps that's as it should be...
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nice try but you guys are all wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Oops, forgot NT 4.0 (Score:3, Informative)
3: NT 3.51
4: NT 4.0
5: 2000 (5.1: XP)
6: Vista
7: Win7
Or just look at this [wikipedia.org]. I should have google'd it first. It's all right there.
Re:Wrong family line (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 95 (v. 4.0)
Windows 98 (v. 4.1)
Windows ME (v. 4.9)
Line killed off.
Business line:
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (v. 5.0)
Windows XP (v. 5.1)
Windows Vista (v. 6)
Windows "7"
There were no NT versions prior to 3.5 because the first NT was released after Windows 3.11, and Microsoft wanted their numbering to be consistent. NT 3.5 coexisted with Windows 3.x (and shared the same GUI design), NT 4.0 coexisted with Windows 4.x, and then MS killed off the "Consumer" Windows line, leaving the NT line to fill versions 5 and 6.
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:4, Funny)
x = 4/9
2k/xp = 5
k = 1000
2000 / xp = 5
x = 4/9
4500p = 5
p = 1/900
Windows == Solved!
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Informative)
MS-DOS Based
1.x, 2.x (Windows/286, Windows/386), 3.x, 4.0 (95), 4.1 (98), 4.9 (Me)
NT Based
3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 6.0 (Vista), 7
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 (NT 5), Windows XP (NT 5.1), Vista (NT 6), 'Windows 7' (NT 7)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, notice that (with consumer releases), Windows seems to be following the even-odd rule? 3.1, meh. '95, good. '98, meh. '98SE, good. ME, ai f'thangan! 2k/XP, excellent. Vista? Pfft. Windows7? Good things to come.
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... it's worse in Excel 2007;
65533, 65534, 65535, 100000, 100000, 65538, 65539.. and so on!
Maybe there's some nice pattern too?
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:4, Funny)
"Me shalt thou not count, neither count thou 2, excepting that thou then proceed to 7. Vista is RIGHT OUT!"
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:5, Funny)
2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7!
I'm more curious what will Apple name their next major release, if ever.
OSX, OSXI, OSXII, OSXIV...?
Of course, once they reach 10.9, they have the option of pissing in the face of basic number representation and call the next version 10.10, then 10.11
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X.X? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OS-Xe (e for enhanced)
Now say it - OS Sexy - geddit?
Re:Lesson in MS Counting (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good intentions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good intentions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Slap it in an DOS VM and be done with it. Hell, that's basically what NT does anyway. Backwards compatibility is a great excuse for a crummy security model and a requirement of the marketing department which can't really give a satisfactory answer to "...but why shouldn't I run my DOS VM on Linux and save $20
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good intentions (Score:5, Insightful)
If the application is sixteen years old, it should have system requirements that would be considered trivial by today's standards, so virtualization or emulation shouldn't cause as much of a performance hit. Instead, the application would perform as if it had been written today.
Re:Good intentions (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good intentions (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good intentions (Score:4, Insightful)
Comparing the situation of Apple and Microsoft is dangerously wrong. Microsoft would most likely bankrupt if they did what Apple did with the three CPU architectures.
I agree with you MS have good intentions and think big. Where I don't agree is that having a product after 5 years of development is just some "things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do".
What else are they supposed to do? Sit on it?
They made mistakes with Vista. First mistake was they started developing Vista on post-XP beta code. It created a huge mess, so they dropped it, took the more modular Windows 2003 codebase, further analyzed it, modularized it, and in the span of 2 years, ported their old code over to end with what's Vista.
They just thought they'd be done too soon. The vision of Vista is great, but they had to carry it out in 2-3 quicker releases, each with lesser more incremental upgrades.
What Microsoft learned from Vista is they need to get their code in order. The new kernel design is part of this effort. I think they're on a good track, I pray like hell they take their time with it, and finish it properly, versus rush it like Vista.
Virtualised Legacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, legacy apps will run marginally slower, but new apps will be free of the built-up cruft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The companies who originally chose these systems, the Amiga based devices, and the customer records database you talked about, made a huge mistake in selecting proprietary technology, and are now paying the price. You'd think enough time has passed for the industry to mature, but people are still choosing proprie
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to coincide with patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, you purchase the base-system and tack-on additional subscription based modules. My concerns are how the subscription model will function, the subscription pricing, and the potential for removal of prior features such as 3D acceleration on the 'base' system.
It also appears that DRM will be used extensively in this model and will not be solely limited to music/video as previously thought.
Honesty, and I'm not trolling here, but this looks pretty scary. This reminds me of driver-signing gone awry. I don't see the potential for open-source/free modules due to item #3. Arbitrary application, memory, CPU, and process limits are also concerning.
The whole "add-on" 3D support as well as "don't limit my desktop to 5 open applications/processes" seems incredible. I imagine the base system will be usable to about 3% of the population and the subscription-based add-on modules may be pricey. I can't imagine a DRM style approach for 3D gaming/enthusiasts being acceptable. Imagine having to pay $20/mo for 3D + multiple core CPU + 2G RAM and the minute you stop paying all those modules expire and are no longer active until you resume payment; like Napster and other DRM based music models work.
-evilghost
Awesome! (Score:3, Funny)
That rocks! Windows 7 will finally provide that last push needed to rocket Linux into the mainstream!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the component oriented model seems like it could be a smart move - business users may not want fancy 3d or even sound functionality, a barebones os may be perfect for them, especially for terminal services clients.
this kind of model could also make them immune to their ongoing legal disputes regarding bundled software.
it could also address user complaints about OS bloat, and fears the next version of windows will come o
Call me in 2012..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Call me in 2012..... (Score:5, Funny)
No thanks, I'll be waiting for Hurd [gnu.org] to be production-ready.
This time will be different! (Score:5, Funny)
It's going to have a database file system! It's going to be secure! No more rebooting! It will have a really good command line!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is the middle-management clusterfuck. The direct result of which is the bizarro world of Windows the platform and its zillion libraries and APIs that have subtle (and not so subtle, but probably undocumented) incompatibilities.
Microsoft's own devs can't figure that shit out and they've been trying since XP. It has only become worse since they shoved all the digital restrictions management into the system.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Although there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Linux Monolithic Kernel (especially since it's behaving more and more like a microkernel these days), Linus has admitted that were he to start from scratch, it wouldn't be monolithic.
I don't know too many specifics of the OS X (Mach) kernel, although from what I understand, there are some fundamental performance and latency issues holding the entire system back that have existed in Mach since the beginning.
Although the software on top of NT is often less than stellar (ruined by the businesses execs, and trashed by the requirement for backward-compatibility), the NT kernel is generally regarded as being the most solid part of the operating system.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
ah! just in time (Score:5, Insightful)
looks like Mistersoftie is up to their old hype the vaporware [wikipedia.org] tricks to dissuade buyers from going with attractive alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a common tactic from Microsoft. When there's nothing to say and a competitor may get some PR from a tech media looking for something to write about, come out with something about a product that's on the drawing board, or is only marginally closer to release than the drawing board.
Re:ah! just in time (Score:4, Interesting)
Because, of course, you can't wait to have MinWin on your machine - the Windows that does only one single thing: publish your tasklist via HTTP.
Hmmm, so much better than Leopard
Come on, it's just a tech demonstration, Microsoft in fact closed themselves solid after the release of Vista. Management thinks part of the bad reception of Vista is because they were so open about the whole process for the entire 5 years.
For some part they are right. We'd never know about the dropped features if they were never pre-announced. Most products plan various features that get dropped or deferred in the process of development.
We'd also be surprised at the Aero Glass UI, and the new security features.
What we'd be most surprised about though, is the lack of consistency in the UI and stability/performance issues. So I'm not sure Microsoft has the right strategy right now.
Windows 7 preview (Score:5, Funny)
After entering the correct activation keys, a dialog appears prompting you to select your social login profile group. You have no idea what that is so you click "Other Networks" The next dialog says "Connecting to networks..." for the next 5 minutes. A message apears saying "New Hardware Found" but it can't find the driver. Another popup appears "No networks found". Then your desktop appears. The wallpaper is stunning. The Internet Explorer icon appears to majestically float above the screen. You click it. A message appears warning you that the Internet can harm your computer, do you want to continue? You click "Yes". You are prompted to enter your administrator key. This key is on the sticker on the inside of your PC case. You shutdown the PC, get a screwdriver, open the case, write down the 18 digit administrator code, put the case back together and reboot.
After rebooting, blocking your ears during the chime assault, and oggling the amazing wallpaper, ignoring the "live folders server not found" error, you try Internet Explorer again. You dutifully enter the administrator key. You are asked if you want to save this key to your "universal keyring" You click OK. You are warned that the universal keyring is encrypted and your sending encrypted information. You click OK. After 3 minutes you get an error saying "No key server found"
You never do get to see the Internet. But the wallpaper is amazing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly wonder if some of these posts aren't printed and used internally at Microsoft as either: cubicle decorations, motivation to make better code or ammunition to convince managers to improve the development process.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you didn't understand what they mean by internal. They won't commercialize the kernel itself. They have planned to, are, and WILL use this project to build Window 7 on.
Unless you've missed that Microsoft has hit some hard limits in the way it managed its codebase and for 2-3 years now is spending heavily on analyzing the source code, separating the code in layers, modules, and removing dependencies between the modules.
There's no other way forward.
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, what are you going to do with the code that's already built on top of the old kernel? Rewrite it? Deprecate it? Do you even begin to comprehend how difficult it is to do at this point if you want solid app compat (which I assure you is a top priority for Microsoft - they don't want to push folks towards Linux by making apps incompatible with the new OS).
The only way forward now is to start over and do something other than same old NT and support NT as a subsystem a-la POSIX NT subsystem.
Einstein said "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." This applies to Windows in its current state very well, and they are at the limits of their ability as it is. It's a heck of a lot easier to tangle something than untangle it.
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that always amazes me about Windows is not how half-assed it is, but how half-assed it is given the amount of resources that Microsoft has to throw at the problem. You'd think that they'd have the money to fund tons of cool pieces of software to go with a Windows installation. I mean Windows Paint is a pathetic application that does almost nothing, a team of open source developers could better it in a week. But Microsoft doesn't improve it, or any of the utilities that come with Windows, nor does it ever add any really good or useful ones.
That's just the start. Why didn't Microsoft implement some really awesome tools to assist with driver and hardware management? What they have is so basic! They have BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars and this is the best that they can do?
Honestly, Windows XP isn't terrible as an operating system; if you stick to simple stuff and don't expect too much, it can serve you well. But in terms of bang-for-the-buck, it must be the worst piece of software *ever*. Because if it's the best that a company can do with more money than most countries, well that just says that the company in question is pathetic.
With the amount of money they have, I would think they could afford to fund 10 separate teams in parallel, each developing the next generation of Windows from scratch, and pick the best of the 10 when they're done. And yet they can't even muster enough skill to produce *one* decent next-generation product? What a bunch of losers!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing here is not whether they have the resources to make a fantastic product (they have made some decent products when all things considered) but whether they have the management. You contradicted yourself when you said "... Windows Paint is a pathetic application that does almost nothing, a team of open source developers could better it in a week."
So if OSS
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if an organization is flat. And everybody had their shit together and really knew their code.
2 people have 1 path of communication
3 people have 3 paths of communication
4 people have 6 paths of communication
5 people have 10 paths of communication
Every person you have that needs to be in the know, adds to the complexity of communicating. Soon there is so much overhead nothing gets done but trying to stay up to date.
Every "group" at Microsoft has this problem. The vista start button had one programmer working on it. This programmer had a beta tester, meetings with his manager. The manager had meetings with the UI manager, who had to share and work with his staff about how the button looked. The mananger also met with the systems manager, because his team actually had to plug the "shutdown" button into the code that did the shutdown, or hibernate. When it was all said and done. The programmer would make a change, and it would have to go through like 9 or 13 other people before it could be Ok'ed.
All we are talking about here is ONE LITTLE BUTTON on a menu.
Parkinson's Law "Work Expands To Fill The Time Available To Complete It"
Parkinson correctly predicted that the British Navy would have more Admirals one day than they had ships. Due to people being promoted to fill all available space.
Microsoft is so big. It can't trim back down to being lean and mean. Everything is done to much by committee to get anything important of quality done in a timely matter.
As someone once said "God so loved the world, that he did not send a committee"
Microsoft is it's own biggest competitor (Windows 2000 and XP competing against Vista and 7)
Microsoft is it's own biggest enemy (death by committee)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that always amazes me about Windows is not how half-assed it is, but how half-assed it is given the amount of resources that Microsoft has to throw at the problem. You'd think that they'd have the money to fund tons of cool pieces of software to go with a Windows installation. I mean Windows Paint is a pathetic application that does almost nothing,
MS Paint is a horrible example as that is one of the nicest tools Windows has. It is lean and cold starts up in less than a second. It is easy, you don't have to fiddle with layers just to draw a rectangle or some text. Notepad is the same, perfect if you want to paste some random junk och just check out a small text file. There is nothing quite like those tools on Linux, it seems like all utility programs just must have a Python scripting interface, modular toolbars, splash screens... Application startup
Agreed! (Score:4, Interesting)
They both do Hardware: xBox vs Apple Line (I think apple probably has more employees on their hardware than Microsoft.)
They both do MP3: iPod vs Zune (It should be a wash in employee #'s)
They both do Office Suite: iWork vs Office (Office has obviously more employees than iWork)
They both do "Family" apps: iLife vs Microsoft Movie Maker, etc. (iLife probably has more)
They both do an OS: OS X vs XP/Vista. (With out a doubt XP/Vista has more employees on it than OS X)
You'd think that they'd be able to do something right. Heck AppleMaybe it's bureaucracy collapsing the whole thing. Maybe what Microsoft needs is a Steve, a dictator, someone that says what goes and no questions from above. Back in the day Apple wasn't run like this and we had Copeland and all other "Next OSes" there were some iffy products (OpenDoc). Then Apple bought NeXT. Steve came back and the rest is history. (And about 3000% in the stock market).
Re:That's just sooo not gonna fly (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I don't think the priority should be a new version of paint. You are completely missing the point. I am saying that with the resources Microsoft has, they should be able to produce a very, very good operating system, cutting edge and advanced in almost every way, and STILL have enough money left over to do things like update Paint. And after all that, still have $billions of dollars in the bank.
If MS Windows came with a good image manipulation program, there still wouldn't be anything preventing you from buying a better one if you wanted to. And, if Microsoft didn't suck at writing operating systems so badly, it would be a very easy to set option to decide at install time what features you wanted and what you didn't.
Are you saying that having NO choice is better than having SOME choice? Or that Microsoft's productivity *isn't* pathetic given their resources?
This is step one. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been saying it for years now. Windows should either be an open standard for operating systems to be built or be a desktop manager built on a Linux kernel. Of course, then what would the diehards bitch about on slashdot?
Ouch. Don't do it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Classic Oxymorons (Score:4, Funny)
Military intelligence
A new classic
Efficient bureaucracy
Peace force
MinWin
Cheers,
Dave
Can it be like Star Trek? (Score:4, Funny)
1) Windows 3.1?
2) Windows 95
3) Windows 98
4) Windows Me
5) Windows XP
6) Vista
7) First Contact?
Necessity (Score:3)
Microsoft sees what the open source folks are doing -- building quality operating systems around loosely coupled modules with separate developer teams and clearly defined interfaces -- and has decided "oh yeah, Windows should do that too." Of course it's a good idea. Microsoft steals from the best. Ironically, they'll patent it too.
Oh God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
William Shatner posts on slashdot?
Here's what they need to do. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry to be shouting and all but I'm a Windows guy, I always have been a Windows guy, sure I have that slashdot bone in me, wanting OSS to be huge, great, free and out there for everyone to share and love but let's be realistic now, for some people it's not an option, myself included.
Honestly I have been really quite satisfied with XP (after becoming accustomed to its own issues)
However after having recently tried Vista (multiple times) it's a disgrace, PURELY from a look and feel perspective, it's like 500 people designed it around a board room table but consistency and ease of use just aren't even considered.
I'm definately NOT an apple man by any means, yet having now used OSX for a week and an ipod for a year, they just get (most) stuff right, logical and simple - just how it should be.
Vista is wrong, it looks wrong, some of you can whinge it sucks under the hood or perhaps DRM ate your babysitter, maybe it has poor performance copying files and playing MP3's (doesn't bother me) but that UI? Good lord if you can't make it better at least give us back the XP one as an option.
It's time that MS made some RADICAL changes to the user interface, crazy out there stuff, which is actually USEFUL! rather than just re-hashing the same old thing, stapling on some stuff (poorly) and expecting us to enjoy it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought this headline was about (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I thought this headline was about (Score:4, Funny)
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:5, Informative)
The implication that the Mac might have got rid of the BIOS (and hence gained speed) is tied to "a linux-based system is just plain faster". You could easily read that as suggesting the Mac is Linux-based.
FWIW, the Mac doesn't use a BIOS, it uses EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) these days. And it's not Linux-based either.
Simon.
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:5, Informative)
An x86-style legacy BIOS does the same fundamental things as an x86-style EFI BIOS, the only major differences being the BIOS APIs, how the boot process is structured and the fact that EFI is not backwards-compatible on its own. Other than that, a BIOS, by any other name, is still a BIOS. EFI simply has fewer kludges and ties to legacy x86 hardware.
BTW, a few weeks ago, I read an article about some MoBo manufacturers considering adding 512MB-2GB of flash memory to boot an embedded Linux desktop from the BIOS for disk-less web-browsing and other stuff... a BIOS with embedded Linux does not seem that far-fetched, we only need 1GB firmware hubs to plug into Intel's chipsets and hope we will not need to flash our 1GB BIOS too often.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the linux kernel was called so by those that supported Linus Torvalds
Torvalds never named Linux after himself, his supporters named the kernel and then the OS after him much to RMS disgust.
Osx was based on NeXT... Next was a variation of one of the Unixes (A BSD of some variety I think?)
So you could say OSx has more connection to Windows than it ever could to Linux (since so many Windows programs are under the BSD license.
The operating system family tree (Score:5, Funny)
Linux is loosly based on Minix only ditching the microkernel design and got support as the GNU kernel (another microkernel) was going nowhere.
Minix and BSD are based on UNIX, anyone can make a UNIX System III derivative for free as the code is public domain. Just most of the code is obsolete so you are better off making a BSD or Linux derivative (or Minix 3 if you want a microkernel)
So if you look at a family tree, Minix and Linux are brothers while OSX and Linux are more like cousins
Windows is the annoying friend that spunges off you for handouts and crashes on your couch
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldnt have said loosly but I agree that they are not the same.. Is that why OSX has only now gained the true UNIX certification rather than always conforming?
Saying OSX is loosly based on Next is like saying Windows 2000 is loosly based on Windows 98... I'd say that the comparison between 2k and XP would be more apt taking Rhapsody, Blue Box and Yellow Box into account.
talking about pulling stuff out of your ass.... I'm goi
Re:The operating system family tree (Score:4, Insightful)
"Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of FreeBSD 5 (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system), and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.[1]
Some of the benefits of this choice of kernel are the Mach-O binary format, which allows a single executable file (including the kernel itself) to support multiple CPU architectures, and the mature support for symmetric multiprocessing in Mach. The hybrid kernel design compromises between the flexibility of a microkernel and the performance of a monolithic kernel."
Re:The operating system family tree (Score:4, Insightful)
OSX was loosly based on NeXT.
Indeed. In the same way Windows Vista is "loosely" based on Windows 2000.
It's kernel is Darwin which is based on NetBSD.
Darwin is "based on" Mach, with a bunch of code welded in from the various BSD projects (mostly FreeBSD).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
GNU/Linux vs. uClinux (Score:3, Interesting)
Although quazi officially the OS is called GNU/Linux I'd like to see how many people actually call it that outside RMS most avid supporters.
I use "GNU/Linux" especially to distinguish the PC operating system that includes Linux from the embedded operating system that includes Linux:
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I went to check my facts. I found this visual history [wikipedia.org], and OSX was nowhere on there. Great, I thought. I just need one more link to cement my position. Then I found the Open Group's list [opengroup.org], and damn, I was wrong again. OSX 10.5 is Unix 03. Sucks to be me.
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:5, Funny)
He is clearly attempting to say that UNIX is not true, whatever that means
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:that sounds good but.. (Score:5, Informative)
It is possible you had a sound card that just wasn't a full blown hardware sound and off loaded a bunch of stuff onto the system's processor and memory.
Of course the different types of boot logs on NT machines didn't work so it cannot look at XPs boot logs. I haven't found anything like it for 2000/XP either. Which really sucks because often the boot log can show all sorts of problem areas that could lead to other glitches in the OS.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That IS Windows 7! It's the return of the CLI! Everything old is new again! Reviewers are already writing accolades for the new interface. It's been called "Bold" "Clean" and "Unobtrusive".
The perfect OS for people new to computers, no longer is there a rash of icons to confuse them, the OS is "simple" for those
Re:microkernel? (Score:4, Informative)
This, of course, works just fine and it makes the kernel rock solid, but makes system calls slower. I'm guessing that when Win7 is released hardware will be fast enough that this will be a non-issue (hell, it might even not be one now), but the point is, a "regular" kernel will almost always outperform it on the same hardware.
Re:Small kernel, only for now (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that all it does is check encryption keys and decrypt data - i would wager it could be done in the equivalent of 1-2 lines of Perl. I've noticed no real speed difference between XP and vista on an old 2.4ghz non-ht PC. That machine is 5 years old.
The "bloat" in windows is things like:
I like linux/bsd as much as the next guy, but you'll notice that as they begin to get feature parity with windows, the "bloat" is going up in them as well.
When putting out an OS you have a choice: do you provide just the bare minimum of services (useful for embedded apps), or do you provide a complete OS including graphics libraries, 3d graphics libraries, various programming widgets, etc?
Is Windows bloat free? Of course not. However, when RAM costs I'd much rather be running FreeBSD full time, but it's not because of the bloat - it's because of the user environment - windows treats you like a fucking retard, and it's irritating... but for the apps most people want to run/develop, it's a fairly usable platform.