I am just curious if someone has an opinion for the
following link?
Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=5&u=/nf/20021210/tc_nf/20210
All the Best!
Serge.
Probably not true, since MS doesn't like the GPL. However, MS may
release *nix applications any time they want to. Way back in
prehistory, they did supply unix applications and currently Apple uses a
kind of BSD, so to release a Linux version of MS Office and other
utilities, would be very easy for them as they just need to recompile
the Apple versions.
Serge Kuznetsov wrote:
> I am just curious if someone has an opinion for the
> following link?
>
>
> Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=5&u=/nf/20021210/tc_nf/20210
>
> All the Best!
> Serge.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> Probably not true, since MS doesn't like the GPL. However, MS may
> release *nix applications any time they want to. Way back in
> prehistory, they did supply unix applications and currently
Are you saying about Xenix? I remember M$ supports it in late '80s.
All the Best!
Serge.
> I am just curious if someone has an opinion for the
> following link?
>
> Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
> [trim]
Over Bill Gates' dead body. The Microsoft Corporation (and by that, I mean
the people running it: Chairman of the Board, CEO, CIO, CFO, Board of
Directors, most of the stockholders, etc.) is of the genuine belief that
Microsoft Windows is the operating system of the future. (Whether you
believe it or not is a separate topic.) Developing products for the Linux
platform is both 1) an admission that this belief was wrong, and 2) an
admission that their own current version of Microsoft Windows is somehow
shoddy, not-up-to-par, insufficient, or even on an equal footing with Linux.
The Microsoft Corporation will never admit either of those two things.
After all, it's the MICROSOFT CORPORATION. If they didn't believe these
things, they would go somewhere else.
The following scenarios are far more likely.
1) Future development of the Windows operating system or some of its
components will be *BSD based. The Microsoft Corporation will never touch
Linux. Period. The lawyers simply wouldn't allow it. The lawyers think of
GNU GPL as an infectious disease, and so anything Linux is out of the
question. The BSD license is far more favorable to proprietary development,
since it allows you to close off the source. Hence, assimilating a *BSD
structure, component, or piece of code is far more likely.
In fact, Microsoft Windows 2000/XP already did that with Kerberos.
2) Lower prices for Microsoft Licensing or more broadly interpreted
licensing. It may be that to better compete with Linux that Microsoft
lowers the prices of some of its Microsoft products.
One thing Microsoft has already done in this regard is to change the
licensing on Terminal Server. On Windows NT 4.0, each copy of Windows NT
Workstation needed a Client Access License and a Terminal Server Client
Access License to connect to a server and a server's Terminal Server,
respectively. Now, with Windows 2000 and XP Pro, a Terminal Server Client
Access License is included with either a regular Client Access License or a
Windows 2000 or XP Pro operating system license (I forget which).
3) Develop kits, wizards, and other software to help people convert from
Linux to Windows. Microsoft already has Unix for Windows Services (or
something like that with a similar name). It's purpose is to help people
convert from SCO UNIX to Windows. I see no reason that Microsoft can't
develop a similar such kit for, say, Red Hat Linux. (Sure, it would be one
heck-of-a-kit and very complicated, but I can see it).
*Sigh* Yet, another topic for the linux-politics list. There is no such
list, BTW, but this email highlights the need for one.
Joseph Wagner
Didn't they support an "Unix subsystem" on older versions of NT, to emulate
console Unix apps? I seem to remember something about a that a while ago.
-----------------------------------------
Michael Melanson
[email protected]
73 33
----- Original Message -----
From: "Serge Kuznetsov" <[email protected]>
To: "Herman Oosthuysen" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Is this going to be true ?
>
>
> > Probably not true, since MS doesn't like the GPL. However, MS may
> > release *nix applications any time they want to. Way back in
> > prehistory, they did supply unix applications and currently
>
> Are you saying about Xenix? I remember M$ supports it in late '80s.
>
> All the Best!
> Serge.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:33:58 -0500, Michael Melanson wrote:
>Didn't they support an "Unix subsystem" on older versions of NT, to emulate
>console Unix apps? I seem to remember something about a that a while ago.
Many versions of Windows have an almost completely useless POSIX subsystem.
It supplies everything POSIX demands and not a drop more, including
essentially no way to interact with the other subsystems. I believe Microsoft
implemented it simply to be able to put a checkbox next to 'POSIX compliant'.
DS
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 04:55:07PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:33:58 -0500, Michael Melanson wrote:
> >Didn't they support an "Unix subsystem" on older versions of NT, to emulate
> >console Unix apps? I seem to remember something about a that a while ago.
>
> Many versions of Windows have an almost completely useless POSIX subsystem.
> It supplies everything POSIX demands and not a drop more, including
> essentially no way to interact with the other subsystems. I believe Microsoft
> implemented it simply to be able to put a checkbox next to 'POSIX compliant'.
And they don't get many deals with it. The government was smart enough to
say "if you claim POSIX compliance you have to use those interfaces" for
certain deals and Microsoft backed out.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Serge Kuznetsov wrote:
> I am just curious if someone has an opinion for the
> following link?
>
>
> Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=5&u=/nf/20021210/tc_nf/20210
>
Not unless they do it from India. M$ has just invested many millions
in a "campus-like" facility in Bangalore, India, about 2 km from
the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). IBM already has such a facility
designed to reduce the cost of software development. I think we have
some persons from that IBM facility on "the list", that may offer some
idea of when the new Microsoft facility will be finished (it was a
recent ground-breaking). Microsoft intends to "continue to be a world
leader...etc..", and is positioning itself world-wide so it will not
even need the United States for distribution. This is its response to the
US lawsuits. Basically, they have outgrown the need for the United
States...
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Joseph D. Wagner wrote:
> > Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
> > [trim]
>
> Over Bill Gates' dead body. The Microsoft Corporation is of the genuine
> belief that Microsoft Windows is the operating system of the future.
Wait a moment, didn't they say that OS/2 was the operating
system of the future ?
And what about that overly complex internet thingy, that'd
never take off, people would use MSN instead.
We have always been at war with Oceania.
> The following scenarios are far more likely.
They'll have no choice but to follow their customers around.
A corporation can't exist without clients.
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
Rik van Riel <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
> > > [trim]
> >
> > Over Bill Gates' dead body. The Microsoft Corporation is of the genuine
> > belief that Microsoft Windows is the operating system of the future.
>
> Wait a moment, didn't they say that OS/2 was the operating
> system of the future ?
>
> And what about that overly complex internet thingy, that'd
> never take off, people would use MSN instead.
>
> We have always been at war with Oceania.
640K
> > The following scenarios are far more likely.
>
> They'll have no choice but to follow their customers around.
> A corporation can't exist without clients.
There is one option: brainwash customers. MS is used to doing it.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
MS once described the GPL as a 'cancer'. One of the 'features' of
cancer is that it grows fast and can't be stopped easily, so I suppose
they were correct...
MS history shows that they did and does support various flavours of
*nix. So, it is not beneath them to release apps for Linux too one day
and it would be a good thing if they do. Competition is always good. It
inpires people to do better.
Joseph D. Wagner wrote:
>>I am just curious if someone has an opinion for the
>>following link?
>>
>>Research Firm: Microsoft Will Use Linux by 2004:
>>[trim]
>
>
> Over Bill Gates' dead body. The Microsoft Corporation (and by that, I mean
> the people running it: Chairman of the Board, CEO, CIO, CFO, Board of
> Directors, most of the stockholders, etc.) is of the genuine belief that
> Microsoft Windows is the operating system of the future. (Whether you
> believe it or not is a separate topic.) Developing products for the Linux
> platform is both 1) an admission that this belief was wrong, and 2) an
> admission that their own current version of Microsoft Windows is somehow
> shoddy, not-up-to-par, insufficient, or even on an equal footing with Linux.
> The Microsoft Corporation will never admit either of those two things.
> After all, it's the MICROSOFT CORPORATION. If they didn't believe these
> things, they would go somewhere else.
>
> The following scenarios are far more likely.
>
> 1) Future development of the Windows operating system or some of its
> components will be *BSD based. The Microsoft Corporation will never touch
> Linux. Period. The lawyers simply wouldn't allow it. The lawyers think of
> GNU GPL as an infectious disease, and so anything Linux is out of the
> question. The BSD license is far more favorable to proprietary development,
> since it allows you to close off the source. Hence, assimilating a *BSD
> structure, component, or piece of code is far more likely.
>
> In fact, Microsoft Windows 2000/XP already did that with Kerberos.
>
> 2) Lower prices for Microsoft Licensing or more broadly interpreted
> licensing. It may be that to better compete with Linux that Microsoft
> lowers the prices of some of its Microsoft products.
>
> One thing Microsoft has already done in this regard is to change the
> licensing on Terminal Server. On Windows NT 4.0, each copy of Windows NT
> Workstation needed a Client Access License and a Terminal Server Client
> Access License to connect to a server and a server's Terminal Server,
> respectively. Now, with Windows 2000 and XP Pro, a Terminal Server Client
> Access License is included with either a regular Client Access License or a
> Windows 2000 or XP Pro operating system license (I forget which).
>
> 3) Develop kits, wizards, and other software to help people convert from
> Linux to Windows. Microsoft already has Unix for Windows Services (or
> something like that with a similar name). It's purpose is to help people
> convert from SCO UNIX to Windows. I see no reason that Microsoft can't
> develop a similar such kit for, say, Red Hat Linux. (Sure, it would be one
> heck-of-a-kit and very complicated, but I can see it).
>
> *Sigh* Yet, another topic for the linux-politics list. There is no such
> list, BTW, but this email highlights the need for one.
>
> Joseph Wagner
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 13:38, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> recent ground-breaking). Microsoft intends to "continue to be a world
> leader...etc..", and is positioning itself world-wide so it will not
> even need the United States for distribution. This is its response to the
> US lawsuits. Basically, they have outgrown the need for the United
> States...
Lawsuits are very little to do with it. Its straight forward hard
numbers. Software writing is a labour intensive business with easily
transportable goods. Like all such businesses the non specialist part of
it has no future in the US or Western Europe. Any economist can happily
show you that all these "digital future", "e-economy" buzzwords are
crap, at least to the west.
Herman Oosthuysen <[email protected]> writes:
> MS history shows that they did and does support various flavours of
> *nix. So, it is not beneath them to release apps for Linux too one
> day and it would be a good thing if they do.
Why would that be good? People would start using their programs and
blame Linux when they crash.
> Competition is always good. It inpires people to do better.
Doing better than MS isn't much of an inspiration to me.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
On 11 Dec 2002, [iso-8859-1] M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Herman Oosthuysen <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > MS history shows that they did and does support various flavours of
> > *nix. So, it is not beneath them to release apps for Linux too one
> > day and it would be a good thing if they do.
>
> Why would that be good? People would start using their programs and
> blame Linux when they crash.
Well, when the program crashes, you get to run it again under Linux
and Unix operating systems. Not so with Windows. With Windows, you
reinstall windows after first booting DOS from a floppy and using
DEBUG to clear out the partition information, otherwise the new
Windows installation won't boot. Microsoft "help" desk advises to
replace the disk when, in fact, the partition information has been
corrupted by Windows.
>
> > Competition is always good. It inpires people to do better.
>
> Doing better than MS isn't much of an inspiration to me.
>
Competition isn't always good. There are people in the former
Soviet Union and in India who will gladly do your job. And, they
will do it just as well as you, perhaps even better. You get to
live where you have your own bathroom, but can't afford hot water
because you don't have a job. The people who now do your job
never had it so good. They have hot water for the first time in
their lives.
So, competition simply changes who has hot water.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
What I can say is what Linux kernel development outperforms
M$-Windows development in timeline by many parameters.
That what I know for sure.
For this moment M$ have only nice and comfy GUI, but I hope it will change very soon.
All the Best!
I totaly agree with you.
But why do you think Microsoft will come back to *nix lane?
AFAIK, they closed their Xenix project back in 80s.
Do you think they will resurrect it?
All the best!
Serge.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:12:41PM -0500, Serge Kuznetsov wrote:
> But why do you think Microsoft will come back to *nix lane?
> AFAIK, they closed their Xenix project back in 80s.
> Do you think they will resurrect it?
Is this really relevant to Linux-kernel ?
Please take this back to slashdot where it belongs.
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
> 1) Future development of the Windows operating system or some of its
> components will be *BSD based. The Microsoft Corporation will never touch
> Linux. Period. The lawyers simply wouldn't allow it. The lawyers think of
> GNU GPL as an infectious disease, and so anything Linux is out of the
> question. The BSD license is far more favorable to proprietary development,
> since it allows you to close off the source. Hence, assimilating a *BSD
> structure, component, or piece of code is far more likely.
BTW, It explains me why M$ made server side CLI for FreeBSD, not Linux.
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 18:06, Serge Kuznetsov wrote:
> What I can say is what Linux kernel development outperforms
> M$-Windows development in timeline by many parameters.
>
> That what I know for sure.
>
> For this moment M$ have only nice and comfy GUI, but I hope it will change
> very soon.
You've had to have stood with your head in the sand for a few years not to see
that Microsoft actually has a good OS as well. Win2k _does_ have nice
features and runs fast. The main problem with comparing unices and Windoze,
is the question "What is an operating system"? Is the kernel the OS? Are the
libraries part of it as well? Is X part it? Windows has a good bunch of APIs
that quite a few userspace programmers love. Unices + libs + X don't have the
same abstraction as Windows has, resulting in longer, more low-level
development.
I don't like Windows, but saying there's nothing except the GUI doesn't make
you look smarter.
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
ProntoTV AS - http://www.pronto.tv/
Tel: +47 9801 3356
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.
Serge Kuznetsov wrote:
>I totaly agree with you.
>
>But why do you think Microsoft will come back to *nix lane?
>AFAIK, they closed their Xenix project back in 80s.
>Do you think they will resurrect it?
>
>
I just remembered... what happened to SCO ? Isn't it still from Microsoft?
--
?lvaro Lopes
---------------------
A .sig is just a .sig
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:26:06PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> libraries part of it as well? Is X part it? Windows has a good bunch of APIs
> that quite a few userspace programmers love. Unices + libs + X don't have the
which ones would they be?
j.
--
toyota power: http://indigoid.net/
Herman Oosthuysen <[email protected]> writes:
>kind of BSD, so to release a Linux version of MS Office and other
>utilities, would be very easy for them as they just need to recompile
>the Apple versions.
BS. Mac OS X does not use the X11 window system. That's where the fun lies.
If a company decides to release an application for Linux they will either
rewrite it using Motif (ugh) or use a modern window tool kit like GTK or
QT. Or even (horrors) use some sort of Windows Compatibility Library like
WINE or WxWindows.
But you can't compile a MacOS X application on Linux. You're missing all of
the necessary display libraries and infrastructure.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
[email protected] (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) writes:
>> Competition is always good. It inpires people to do better.
>Doing better than MS isn't much of an inspiration to me.
There are no similar applications like the Exchange Server or the
BizTalk server for Linux. I'd see them port all of the server portions
of these applications to an *ix platform (be it MacOS X, *BSD or
Linux) in quite short time. The management GUIs and application
development tools will stay on Windows, however.
Basically the same thing, many other server platform vendors (Oracle,
InterSystems Cache are the ones I spontanously remember) do. You get 1
(one) Linux Server in the company running the server and be able to
keep 100 (one hundred) % of the desktops on Windows. Sounds like a
good deal for M$ to me.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
"Richard B. Johnson" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Why would that be good? People would start using their programs and
>> blame Linux when they crash.
>Well, when the program crashes, you get to run it again under Linux
>and Unix operating systems. Not so with Windows. With Windows, you
>reinstall windows after first booting DOS from a floppy and using
Grow up and stop spreading FUD. I haven't had to reinstall a Windows
2000 server ever since it was released (not that there were many that
I ever used. But I actually did and deployed apps on them). 95, 98 and
ME maybe. NT4 almost never and W2K is a quite stable platform even
under load.
I'm amazed that the most violent Windows critique comes from people
that claim to "never have touched a M$ operating system in their whole
life". But then again, same goes to the Linux critics... :-)
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Why would that be good? People would start using their programs and
> >> blame Linux when they crash.
>
> >Well, when the program crashes, you get to run it again under Linux
> >and Unix operating systems. Not so with Windows. With Windows, you
> >reinstall windows after first booting DOS from a floppy and using
>
> Grow up and stop spreading FUD. I haven't had to reinstall a Windows
> 2000 server ever since it was released (not that there were many that
> I ever used. But I actually did and deployed apps on them). 95, 98 and
> ME maybe. NT4 almost never and W2K is a quite stable platform even
> under load.
>
> I'm amazed that the most violent Windows critique comes from people
> that claim to "never have touched a M$ operating system in their whole
> life". But then again, same goes to the Linux critics... :-)
>
> Regards
> Henning
I wish to hell it was FUD. I have watched all the Sun Workstations
at work be replaced with Windows/2000/Professional PCs. I have watched
all the 'nix programmers leave, replaced by Internet junkies who
don't (can't) write any code. In spite of the fact that don't actually
use their machines for any work, about 10 percent out of 600++ are
down at any one moment, most always to "reload Windows".
Just to get this Windows machine up at home, tonight, I had to reconfigure
the network because it "forgot" everything it knew last night
about the LAN. I use Windows at home only because I compose music
using Cake-walk and it hasn't been ported to Linux. It is a corrupt,
defective, dastardly, incredibly obnoxious operating system that
has no redeeming qualities at all. Virtually every Windows program
has horrible bugs that make it barely usable. Even Microsoft Visual
C/C++ will take down the whole machine when it encounters source files
that don't have a CR/LF sequence as an end-of-line (accidental Unix LF
files). It is the worse programming environment, ever, and I have even
used a MDS-200 "Green Monster" during my 35 years as an Engineer.
This machine used to have two CPUs. I had to take one out when I
changed it from a Linux machine to a Windows machine. Two CPUs under
Windows will trash the file-system so it won't boot if it's been
up for over an hour. I have reloaded Windows on my two Windows machines
at least once per week, usually more often than that. My Linux machines
run until I break them by installing a buggy driver. Even then, I
can reboot and nothing bad happens to the file-systems.
Once Windows fails to boot, you can reinstall from a CD/ROM, but
it won't boot after the reinstall! You need to make Windows "think"
that the boot disk is new by deleting all partitions before you
"reinstall" Windows or the new installation won't boot.
Microsoft has trained the "new breed" of Engineer that bugs are
normal and a natural consequence of using computers. This has
helped destroy software development as an Engineering endeavor and
substituted in its place, a developmental crap-game.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
> > Grow up and stop spreading FUD. I haven't had to reinstall a Windows
> > 2000 server ever since it was released (not that there were many that
> > I ever used. But I actually did and deployed apps on them). 95, 98 and
> > ME maybe. NT4 almost never and W2K is a quite stable platform even
> > under load.
> I wish to hell it was FUD. I have watched all the Sun Workstations
> at work be replaced with Windows/2000/Professional PCs. I have watched
> all the 'nix programmers leave, replaced by Internet junkies who
> don't (can't) write any code. In spite of the fact that don't actually
> use their machines for any work, about 10 percent out of 600++ are
> down at any one moment, most always to "reload Windows".
Clearly the truth is somewhere between your two viewpoints, but one thing is
for sure: The Linux kernel is hands down the better product. There are
still a few exceptions to this rule, but those are disappearing rapidly
(epoll cures the last one that gives me heartburn).
Now, if only the application designers could match what Windows applications
designers have accomplished. I think the first step would to torpedo
X-Windows :) ...But that's a topic for some other mailing list.
[email protected] (Alvaro Lopes) wrote on 11.12.02 in <[email protected]>:
> Serge Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> >I totaly agree with you.
> >
> >But why do you think Microsoft will come back to *nix lane?
> >AFAIK, they closed their Xenix project back in 80s.
> >Do you think they will resurrect it?
> >
> >
> I just remembered... what happened to SCO ? Isn't it still from Microsoft?
Well, I suppose there are still a few MS copyright notices in there, but
MS sold it off a *long* time ago.
It was not quite recently borged by Caldera, the same people who borged Dr
DOS^W^WNovell DOS. Remember what OS *they* started out with?
MfG Kai
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:57:10PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [email protected] (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) writes:
>
> >> Competition is always good. It inpires people to do better.
>
> >Doing better than MS isn't much of an inspiration to me.
>
> There are no similar applications like the Exchange Server or the
> BizTalk server for Linux. I'd see them port all of the server portions
> of these applications to an *ix platform (be it MacOS X, *BSD or
I point your attention towards suse's open exchange server (which isnt
open, or free, btw)
http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/
--
Ragnar Hojland - Project Manager
Linalco "Especialistas Linux y en Software Libre"
http://www.linalco.com Tel: +34-91-5970074 Fax: +34-91-5970083
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>
> Herman Oosthuysen <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > MS history shows that they did and does support various flavours of
> > *nix. So, it is not beneath them to release apps for Linux too one
> > day and it would be a good thing if they do.
>
> Why would that be good? People would start using their programs and
> blame Linux when they crash.
If office is the _only_ programs they use perhaps. Otherwise, you get
"Damn, office fell over again but at least I didn't have to reboot like
before.
Why can't it just stay up like those other apps of mine?"
Helge Hafting
john slee <[email protected]> writes:
> > libraries part of it as well? Is X part it? Windows has a good
> > bunch of APIs that quite a few userspace programmers love. Unices
> > + libs + X don't have the
>
> which ones would they be?
Perhaps the 10K calls in the Win32 API. Or the 100K bugs in MFC.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <[email protected]> writes:
> > What I can say is what Linux kernel development outperforms
> > M$-Windows development in timeline by many parameters.
> >
> > That what I know for sure.
> >
> > For this moment M$ have only nice and comfy GUI, but I hope it will change
> > very soon.
>
> You've had to have stood with your head in the sand for a few years
> not to see that Microsoft actually has a good OS as well. Win2k
> _does_ have nice features and runs fast. The main problem with
Find some text about process scheduling in Windows. You'll have a
good laugh.
> comparing unices and Windoze, is the question "What is an operating
> system"? Is the kernel the OS? Are the libraries part of it as well?
IMHO, the operating system is whatever is reached through system
calls, i.e traps. MS seems to define it as whatever they bundle on
the CD.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
[email protected] (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) writes:
>> comparing unices and Windoze, is the question "What is an operating
>> system"? Is the kernel the OS? Are the libraries part of it as well?
>IMHO, the operating system is whatever is reached through system
>calls, i.e traps. MS seems to define it as whatever they bundle on
>the CD.
99,95+% of the computer users base out there tend to differ. This
makes your point rather moot :-) (To me, the "OS" consists at least of
the kernel, c standard library/ies with their support files and enough
infrastructure to start programs without having to hard code them on a
kernel boot line or in code. Which is at least /sbin/init and might
even contain a simple user command shell).
This definition could fit on a floppy, though. Might even fit on an
720k diskette. :-) Kernel + /sbin/init + busybox is IMHO an OS.
If you define "OS" at the syscall layer you end up with what we
started. Two threads printing 1 0 1 0 1 0 on your screen.
Regards
henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
> If you define "OS" at the syscall layer you end up with what we
> started. Two threads printing 1 0 1 0 1 0 on your screen.
>
> Regards
> henning
Way back when I was in college and studying interrupts, etc., I wrote a
program to interrupt some little routine and reenable interrupts to
interrupt a routine, etc. I was enthralled and thought to myself, "I
bet I could write a space game ..."
Way back when Linus was studying interrupts and got 1 0 1 0 1 0 ..., he
thought, "I bet I could get a movement started to generate an entirely
new unix-like OS so popular it will eventually take over the world".
Dream big.
--
Billy
Billy Harvey <[email protected]> writes:
>Way back when Linus was studying interrupts and got 1 0 1 0 1 0 ..., he
>thought, "I bet I could get a movement started to generate an entirely
>new unix-like OS so popular it will eventually take over the world".
No, as you can read in about every book about the Linux history. I'd
advise "Rebel Code" or "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental
Revolutionary" (where the title already says all :-) ).
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> There are no similar applications like the Exchange Server or the
> BizTalk server for Linux. I'd see them port all of the server portions
> of these applications to an *ix platform (be it MacOS X, *BSD or
> Linux) in quite short time. The management GUIs and application
> development tools will stay on Windows, however.
Not quite true. Check out CommuniGate Pro from http://www.stalker.com. When used with the MAPI connector, it looks and acts almost exactly like Exchange.
ahp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0
iQA/AwUBPfiZ7d0rskLi2W+SEQKKWACfYNxrbnRL1+lOHahUhBbhvJwSMXYAn2q0
FyUuyS2y89kI3P3oL0VUFwT+
=N/uK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tor, 2002-12-12 kl. 00:57 skrev Henning P. Schmiedehausen:
> [email protected] (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) writes:
>
> >> Competition is always good. It inpires people to do better.
>
> >Doing better than MS isn't much of an inspiration to me.
>
> There are no similar applications like the Exchange Server or the
> BizTalk server for Linux. I'd see them port all of the server portions
Wrt BizTalk...doesn't BEA Weblogic do just about anything that this
server application can and then some? I guess there are a few other
players in this field that are more friendly to Linux also.
Cheers
Kjartan
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:16:19 -0500 (EST), Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>I wish to hell it was FUD. I have watched all the Sun Workstations
>at work be replaced with Windows/2000/Professional PCs. I have watched
>all the 'nix programmers leave, replaced by Internet junkies who
>don't (can't) write any code. In spite of the fact that don't actually
>use their machines for any work, about 10 percent out of 600++ are
>down at any one moment, most always to "reload Windows".
I think an idiot can screw up a Linux machine as easily as one can screw up
a Windows machine.
>Just to get this Windows machine up at home, tonight, I had to reconfigure
>the network because it "forgot" everything it knew last night
>about the LAN.
Hmm, IP address, netmask, default router. Maybe nameservers too. Did that
take you more than a minute?
>I use Windows at home only because I compose music
>using Cake-walk and it hasn't been ported to Linux. It is a corrupt,
>defective, dastardly, incredibly obnoxious operating system that
>has no redeeming qualities at all.
What about I/O completion ports? What about operating-system code to
automatically keep the number of running threads close to the number of CPUs?
>Virtually every Windows program
>has horrible bugs that make it barely usable.
This is largely because they're written by one of two types of people:
1) Inexperienced programmers. They're attracted to Windows because it really
is easier to get things up and running. (Of course, this ease is deceptive.
Hence the crappy software.)
2) Experienced UNIX programmers who aren't willing to learn how to do things
right on Windows. An example of this is any Windows application that uses
'select'.
Microsoft has made it easier for people to write software, so more people
do. Since there's more software of all kinds, there's going to be more junk.
90% of anything is crap.
>Even Microsoft Visual
>C/C++ will take down the whole machine when it encounters source files
>that don't have a CR/LF sequence as an end-of-line (accidental Unix LF
>files).
I have used Visual C++ for about 4 years now on a weekly basis at least. The
vast majority of my source files have Unix line endings. I've never had it
take down my machine. In any event, there are things you can do that will
take down a Linux machine. Fix it or don't do that. ;)
>It is the worse programming environment, ever, and I have even
>used a MDS-200 "Green Monster" during my 35 years as an Engineer.
I like joe/make/gcc best myself. But I develop mostly server apps, so a GUI
is just in the way.
>This machine used to have two CPUs. I had to take one out when I
>changed it from a Linux machine to a Windows machine. Two CPUs under
>Windows will trash the file-system so it won't boot if it's been
>up for over an hour.
I've used a dual-CPU Windows 2000 machine as my primary desktop machine
(though mostly to run two rxvt's into a Linux machine.) since Windows 2000
came out. I have not lost a single file. I can't say the same for my Linux
machine which has lost quite a few. (Though none since ext3 became stable and
I started using it.)
>I have reloaded Windows on my two Windows machines
>at least once per week, usually more often than that. My Linux machines
>run until I break them by installing a buggy driver. Even then, I
>can reboot and nothing bad happens to the file-systems.
NTFS has been totally stable for me. I've never heard anyone report any
repeatable problems with it (though I have heard tales of a very small number
of spactacular events). Your experiences don't seem to be common.
My three kids have 98SE and ME machines. They beat the heck out of them.
None of them have ever lost a file that wasn't modified within seconds of a
power loss or crash. (Though they have accidentally installed SpyWare that
has taken me *many* hours to worm out of the OS. *ugh* Linux at least has
sane permissions.)
>Once Windows fails to boot, you can reinstall from a CD/ROM, but
>it won't boot after the reinstall! You need to make Windows "think"
>that the boot disk is new by deleting all partitions before you
>"reinstall" Windows or the new installation won't boot.
Huh? You can do a repair installation of NT or 2000 from the CDROM and it
just works, though you may lose all your security updates and whatnot. I
reinstalled ME in place over a previous installation about two weeks ago and
it just worked.
>Microsoft has trained the "new breed" of Engineer that bugs are
>normal and a natural consequence of using computers. This has
>helped destroy software development as an Engineering endeavor and
>substituted in its place, a developmental crap-game.
Absolutely. I entirely agree with that paragraph. But it says nothing about
the OS. This is very similar to blaming AOL for the condition of USENET. Yes,
they lowered the bar so anyone can post on USENET and as a result there's a
lot of crap there. Does this mean it's bad to make it easy to get online?
Should it be difficult to develop software? So that this way only those who
are really competent can do it?
By the way, just as an off-the-cuff guesstimate, how many bugs do you think
there are in the Linux kernel? Say the latest 2.4 series stable release. If I
order the latest version of RedHat or Slackware, how many bugs would you
estimate are in it, total?
DS
--- "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[email protected]> a ?crit?: >
Billy Harvey <[email protected]> writes:
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Please ...
=====
--
A mouse is a device used to point at
the xterm you want to type in.
Kim Alm on a.s.r.
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 05:56, szonyi calin wrote:
> --- "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[email protected]> a ?crit : >
> Billy Harvey <[email protected]> writes:
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> Please ...
WTF? Does humor have to be kept at the level of the three stooges to be
understood these days?
Billy