Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Workplace Shell & virtualisation engine (Score 1) 134

It used a lot of COM/DCOM to get its job done, though, and there are implications for creating long-term persistent system objects with those things, that aren't released when you close applications. So you could end up tying up a system resource until you rebooted, if your application crashed in the process of using an object. System-level objects look good on paper, but there they really don't handle failures very well, most of the time.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 134

I got it working on a 386sx with 4 MB of RAM and a standard VGA card. Linux would run on the system as well, but I never could get X11 running well on it and ended up just using terminal mode, with one of the virtual terminals dialing up gate.net and running slirp. OS/2 had a number of artifacts from Windows, so even though it was preemptively multitasking, one program could type up the system event queue. They came up with a workaround for that, but it never really worked all that well. So if you really wanted OS/2 to shine, you had to install it on a multiprocessor system. That version of OS/2 created an event queue for each processor, so you could tie event queue up and the system would still be responsive. We did a pretty impressive demo at the '95 COMDEX in Atlanta on a massive Compaq quad processor 486 with a ridiculous 16MB of RAM, running 4 videos in 4 different video players without slowing the system down.

Funnily, even though OS/2 sported newfangled "threads", very few IBM applications used them -- most IBM OS/2 programs were pure windows ports. Ironically, if you ran the windows versions of those programs, you could run them in separate memory spaces so that the programs couldn't interfere with each other when doing processing in the event-handling thread. So Windows programs ran better on OS/2 than they did in windows and better than OS/2 programs ran in OS/2. You could format a disk and run a print job at the same time, as long as you did it from the command line. The GUI versions would tie the system queue up, so you could only do one at a time.

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 1) 467

Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.

Business has something in common with war and engineering:
  1 You try a bunch of stuff that looks like it might work.
  2 Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
  3a. You stop doing (and wasting resources on) what doesn't work
  3b, and continue doing more of what does (transferring any remaining resources from the abandoned paths.)
  4. PROFIT!

In business, step 3a is called "a large business environment, major projects are done in separate subsidiary corporations. This uses the "corporate veil" as a firewall, to keep the failed attempts from reaching back and sucking up more resources from what's succeeding. Dropping a failed experiment in step 3a (when it's failed so badly that there's nothing left to salvage in a different attempt's 3b) is called "bankruptcy". It lets you stop throwing good money after bad and move on.

So bankruptcy is NOT necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of business acumen. On the contrary: It shows the decision-maker was smart enough to spend a bit extra to erect the firewall between the bulk of his holdings and the iffy project.

So a successful large-business-empire-operator who is also innovative will usually have a number of bankruptcies in his history. It's no big deal, anyone in business at or near that level knows it, and took it into account if they risked some of their resources in someone else's experiment that failed in the hope of profit if it succeeded.

Also: Someone starting out may have to few resources to run many experiments simultaneously. (Or even a big guy may be reduced to a little guy by too many failures - not necessarily his fault.) So he has to try serially, doing only one or a few at a time. This may mean total bankruptcy, even multiple times, before coming up with something that does work. Lots of successful businessmen went through total bankruptcy, sometimes several times, before hitting it big.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 134

What was the software running on it? Or did it crash without any non-IBM supplied hardware or software?

I'm trying to think of any Windows software I actually bothered to run. It was on a Novell network, I was sitting at it. I was in IT and we didn't have any fruity groupware or anything (this was before that crap was popular) so I really just ran ordinary applications, and tried to stick with the utilities and accessories that came with the OS. We didn't have budget for a bunch of OS/2 apps, though.

Did Mossad break into your home and steal your shoes, as well?

No. They didn't even steal my Casio terrist watch.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1, Interesting) 134

Let me put it this way: if I had to use systemd/Linux or OS/2, I'd choose OS/2. Being able to boot properly is an important trait for any OS. OS/2 has this ability. Systemd/Linux often does not.

As much as I hate systemd, it really has no place in this conversation. You can get Linux without systemd, so you're presenting a false dichotomy in any case.

I've also had OS/2 corrupt itself on an unclean shutdown and fail to boot. I haven't had this with Linux since the early days of xfs.

Comment Re:Uh, why? (Score -1) 134

OS/2 was a very stable and reliable operating system

What? Who told you that? I ran 2.1, 3.0 and 4.0 and they were all unremittingly unreliable pieces of shit. Not just that but I ran them on a fucking PS/Valuepoint 486, so there was absolutely no excuse for incompatibility. Linux makes OS/2 look like Windows 3.1. The system was especially likely to explode when you ran Windows programs, too, and Windows compatibility was absolutely the only reason many people bought it.

I was actually running OS/2 for evaluation at a site that was ALL IBM, every single PC, every single piece of networking equipment, and OS/2 was still a horrible pain in the asshole. People remembering it fondly have memory problems.

Comment Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote (Score 1) 222

My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.

Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.

The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.

Comment Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe? (Score 2) 222

Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year

There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.

Comment Re:But Dissent is Now HATE (Score 2) 222

Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.

If your argument is that Google cannot afford to hire 150-200 additional employees, it's a pretty lousy argument.

And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?

Your failure is of imagination. No, no you don't. You let the community flag your misses. Just getting the vast majority of them would do the job.

Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.

That's because you're being disingenuous. Or dumb.

Slashdot Top Deals

Help fight continental drift.

Working...