Microsoft does something right

[Joe]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/09/1724239&from=rss

.. by announcing that their software is horribly broken and cannot be fixed!

[Sidoh]

It's Windows 98? :\

[Joe]

I came *really* close to buying an IBM thinkpad with Windows 98 SE for around $200 yesterday. Not that I wouldn't buy it today, either..

[Newby]

well, I'll get modded down but...

MS got it wrong... "Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet" For some reason this contains a "98" which came out of nowhere. It should read

"Windows is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet"

Hahahahah.

[iago]

well, I'll get modded down but...

MS got it wrong... "Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet" For some reason this contains a "98" which came out of nowhere. It should read

"Windows is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet"

Hahahahah.

For some reason, he accidentally added "on today's internet". 

It should be, "Windows is so broken that it's crazy to be running it"


And yeah, I think this is the first time that Microsoft has admitted (sort of) that they can't keep all supported versions secure.  Ha!

[Warrior]

They're going to drop support for 98 soon, I thought they did already. Anyhow 98 is a horrible OS.

It goes like this

2000 -> Done Right
XP -> Done Well, some bad ideas and times changed
Vista -> A good attempt, but again some bad ideas and limitations
Vienna -> The revolution?

I don't know but Microsoft needs to change how it markets and distributes it's projects. I'd honestly rather have it delayed than have features cut. Vista is a really stable OS and a good upgrade to XP but honestly for their prices it's feature dry. If they would offer it perhaps $150 for Vista and maybe like $130 as an upgrade to XP I might see some reason in people getting it.

Of course, people will still own Vista however. OEMs will distribute it on their OS due to their bonds with MS being tight as glue. Microsoft will make profit regardless and with their vendor lockin techniques they plan to stay on top.

I might not necessarily agree with everything MS does but I need to point out regardless they can make some pretty decent software.

[Newby]

Vista -> A good attempt, but again some bad ideas and limitations
Vienna -> The revolution?

What happened to Vista being the revolution? How do we know that Vienna won't be another fuckup?

[Warrior]

Vista -> A good attempt, but again some bad ideas and limitations
Vienna -> The revolution?

What happened to Vista being the revolution? How do we know that Vienna won't be another fuckup?

Vista is a revolution in itself, although I'll admit I expected it to be better (Before they started pulling features) but it's a very nice try.

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

[Newby]

Vista is a revolution in itself, although I'll admit I expected it to be better (Before they started pulling features) but it's a very nice try.

You did not see this coming? It's happened in nearly every OS M$ has put out.

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

Eww. Ewwww. Eww! The entire thing will be in .NET? Why not just write it in Java? That way it's cross-platform!

[Warrior]

Vista is a revolution in itself, although I'll admit I expected it to be better (Before they started pulling features) but it's a very nice try.

You did not see this coming? It's happened in nearly every OS M$ has put out.

Usually it hasn't been this bad, they are cutting them to make a deadline they could easily delay. That annoys me.

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

Eww. Ewwww. Eww! The entire thing will be in .NET? Why not just write it in Java? That way it's cross-platform!

You do know .NET will keep being upgraded and will soon have little difference over native applications. Microsoft is pushing it's C# language to the limits, .NET imho is the future.

[Ergot]

Warrior, you know they're going to fuck it up some how, yet people will flock to it

[Warrior]

It's their brilliant marketing and deals with OEMs.

[iago]

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

Eww. Ewwww. Eww! The entire thing will be in .NET? Why not just write it in Java? That way it's cross-platform!

A cross platform.... platform?  Then you can have like, Windows for Linux? 

[Warrior]

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

Eww. Ewwww. Eww! The entire thing will be in .NET? Why not just write it in Java? That way it's cross-platform!

A cross platform.... platform?  Then you can have like, Windows for Linux? 

.NET is cross platform (and was written to be so)

[iago]

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

Eww. Ewwww. Eww! The entire thing will be in .NET? Why not just write it in Java? That way it's cross-platform!

A cross platform.... platform?  Then you can have like, Windows for Linux? 

.NET is cross platform (and was written to be so)

Newby said writing it in Java, whose main strength is cross-platformity.   A cross-platform OS makes no sense, though, hence the joke.

[Warrior]

I know, I doubt the whole OS would be .NET (Though possible), mainly most of the components. And if they write it in .NET it will be written in a non cross platform .NET 3.0 (WinFX) which only works on XP and Later.
Beat that mono.

[Chavo]

Beat that mono.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this statement.  I thought mono's intention was to allow .NET applications to run and be developed on Linux, not extend the features or compete with .NET...

[Warrior]

Beat that mono.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this statement.  I thought mono's intention was to allow .NET applications to run and be developed on Linux, not extend the features or compete with .NET...

They try to implement the .NET framework on a different platform (MS having made their own product for MacOSX and Linux) so yes, they are competing. It would be interesting to see them keep up with .NET. Meaning they'd need to implement WinFX in it's entirety which includes WPF. I don't see that happening anytime soon, sorry.

[Chavo]

Beat that mono.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this statement.  I thought mono's intention was to allow .NET applications to run and be developed on Linux, not extend the features or compete with .NET...

They try to implement the .NET framework on a different platform (MS having made their own product for MacOSX and Linux) so yes, they are competing. It would be interesting to see them keep up with .NET. Meaning they'd need to implement WinFX in it's entirety which includes WPF. I don't see that happening anytime soon, sorry.

I didn't know there was a MS product for .NET on Linux, could you link me?

[Joe]

www.google.com/search?q=mono

[Chavo]

Beat that mono.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this statement.  I thought mono's intention was to allow .NET applications to run and be developed on Linux, not extend the features or compete with .NET...

They try to implement the .NET framework on a different platform (MS having made their own product for MacOSX and Linux) so yes, they are competing. It would be interesting to see them keep up with .NET. Meaning they'd need to implement WinFX in it's entirety which includes WPF. I don't see that happening anytime soon, sorry.

I didn't know there was a MS product for .NET on Linux, could you link me?

http://www.mono-project.com/About_Mono

If you can't figure out why your post was retarded on your own, god help you.

[Warrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Language_Infrastructure

The Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure (SSCLI), previously codenamed Rotor, is Microsoft's shared source implementation of the CLI, the core of .NET.

[Newby]

There is no Microsoft product on Linux. Microsoft produces for Win32 / Win64 alone.

There is an implementation of a Microsoft product on Linux. Microsoft did not write this implementation.

[Chavo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Language_Infrastructure

The Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure (SSCLI), previously codenamed Rotor, is Microsoft's shared source implementation of the CLI, the core of .NET.

Unless I'm misreading something, what I gather from that wiki entry is this:

1.  Microsoft provided the necessary technology/information for a mono like application to exist on other platforms, it does not appear that it exists for any other purpose.  Mono implementing this wouldn't be competing with MS since there is no actual MS product (as Newby said), just MS rescources.

2.  It also says the most current version is not supported on anything other than XP sp2 which would also suggest that Mono is in fact filling a void instead of just being competition

If it seems I'm being overly defensive of Mono.....well I am

[Warrior]

There is no Microsoft product on Linux. Microsoft produces for Win32 / Win64 alone.

There is an implementation of a Microsoft product on Linux. Microsoft did not write this implementation.

What part of Microsoft's (*As in written by them*) shared source implementation did you miss?

[Warrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Language_Infrastructure

The Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure (SSCLI), previously codenamed Rotor, is Microsoft's shared source implementation of the CLI, the core of .NET.

Unless I'm misreading something, what I gather from that wiki entry is this:

1.  Microsoft provided the necessary technology/information for a mono like application to exist on other platforms, it does not appear that it exists for any other purpose.  Mono implementing this wouldn't be competing with MS since there is no actual MS product (as Newby said), just MS rescources.

Which MS wrote and shipped out as a product. Withought it Mono, DotGNU, etc.. wouldn't exist.

2.  It also says the most current version is not supported on anything other than XP sp2 which would also suggest that Mono is in fact filling a void instead of just being competition

If it seems I'm being overly defensive of Mono.....well I am

They provide the documentation, you implement. Isn't that what you guys wanted?

Who's to say MS will release .NET 3.0 information? WinFX implementations? They can stop if they damn want to and if they do, then Mono and everyone else will never support .NET 3.0. I love how these things work.

[Joe]

This is about Windows 98, not .NET (which sucks).

Topic locked. I'd expect less fighting and more on topic discussion from the king and a member, but I guess I overestimated.

[Sidoh]

It's a controversial topic.  You know we have pro-windows people on these boards.  If you don't want structured debate (I think they both did a pretty good job of keeping their cool), don't post this kind of crap.

Also, .NET does not suck.  Do you want me to go get MyndFyre to rip you a new one?

[Newby]

There is no Microsoft product on Linux. Microsoft produces for Win32 / Win64 alone.

There is an implementation of a Microsoft product on Linux. Microsoft did not write this implementation.

What part of Microsoft's (*As in written by them*) shared source implementation did you miss?

Mono was not written by Microsoft. It's based on the Common Language Infrastructure (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm). It's like you writing a Battle.net bot based on documentation from BnetDocs. Does that make BnetDocs the owner of your bot because much of your work was based off of their documentation?

Hey joe, next time you wanna try and insult me I'll fucking ban you. Got it?

[Warrior]

Mono was not written by Microsoft. It's based on the Common Language Infrastructure (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm).

I didn't say Mono was written by Microsoft. SSCLI is written by Microsoft. It's their product, an independant one? No. But it is a product, the ported over .NET core.

[MyndFyre]

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

I highly doubt they'll move to a managed kernel.  Windows will not ever be .NET-kerneled; .NET is the class library, and there's too much stuff in the class library that relies on the API. 

Singularity is a proof-of-concept research project.  They said that if they did move it into commercial work, it would most likely be an independent (from Windows) platform.

I know, I doubt the whole OS would be .NET (Though possible), mainly most of the components. And if they write it in .NET it will be written in a non cross platform .NET 3.0 (WinFX) which only works on XP and Later.

You're an idiot.  WinFX is an API (Windows Framework) that is built on the current CLR (v2.0) and included in Windows Vista, and .NET 3.0 will ship with Vista and be down-level available for XP and 2003.

That has nothing to do with the kernel and little to do with the OS.  Read about how Singularity was designed with three managed layers for more information.

[Warrior]

Vienna is completely rewritten, they are scrapping the current kernel. I suspect it will be all if not mostly .NET

I highly doubt they'll move to a managed kernel.  Windows will not ever be .NET-kerneled; .NET is the class library, and there's too much stuff in the class library that relies on the API. 

Singularity is a proof-of-concept research project.  They said that if they did move it into commercial work, it would most likely be an independent (from Windows) platform.

They also said Windows was just a graphical front end for DOS. If it works out well enough they will use it, and do you see any problems with it currently? I don't.

I know, I doubt the whole OS would be .NET (Though possible), mainly most of the components. And if they write it in .NET it will be written in a non cross platform .NET 3.0 (WinFX) which only works on XP and Later.

You're an idiot.  WinFX is an API (Windows Framework) that is built on the current CLR (v2.0) and included in Windows Vista, and .NET 3.0 will ship with Vista and be down-level available for XP and 2003.

That has nothing to do with the kernel and little to do with the OS.  Read about how Singularity was designed with three managed layers for more information.

You know..except WinFX has been NAMED the .NET Framework 3.0 by the vice president of Microsoft who is also incharge of Development in Vista.

.NET Framework 3.0 (previously known as WinFX) is the set of new core APIs introduced with Windows Vista that will include Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) and Windows CardSpace (WCS) previously codenamed InfoCard.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#.NET_Framework_3.0

Is anyone denying .NET 3.0 isn't backwards compatible? You know ..since WinFX is backwards compatible..??

Look at the early Longhorn builds, most of the Windows components were managed. It was pulled because .NET was not ready. For vienna, theres no doubt they will try it again. Remember, Vienna is after Fijii so they have about 10 years to get research done and get it done right.

Because you read a few articles on Singularity don't get gassed up on me, I've already read my fill about Singularity, Kernel design, and the .NET framework.

[MyndFyre]

Did you read the blog entry about the name change from WinFX to .NET Framework 3.0?  Note that they say in the remarks, yes, the CLR is still 2.0.

[Warrior]

It also defines what the .NET framework really is, not just THE .NET framework but their latest developer solution.

Weather or not it uses the 2.0 CLR doesn't matter if the meaning of the word '.NET' is the latest and greatest Windows development platform. It's already known that Non managed applications will run in a sandbox in Vienna, meaning Microsoft is planning something big for Vienna.

[MyndFyre]

It also defines what the .NET framework really is, not just THE .NET framework but their latest developer solution.

Weather or not it uses the 2.0 CLR doesn't matter if the meaning of the word '.NET' is the latest and greatest Windows development platform. It's already known that Non managed applications will run in a sandbox in Vienna, meaning Microsoft is planning something big for Vienna.

...much like Windows 3.x applications (and now Win9x applications) run in WOW now?

That's not *that* big of a deal.  It can either be nice, or annoying.  Doing things this way though can destroy any kind of hack.  Of course, it also breaks Warden (gfg blizzard pwnd).

[Warrior]

It also defines what the .NET framework really is, not just THE .NET framework but their latest developer solution.

Weather or not it uses the 2.0 CLR doesn't matter if the meaning of the word '.NET' is the latest and greatest Windows development platform. It's already known that Non managed applications will run in a sandbox in Vienna, meaning Microsoft is planning something big for Vienna.

...much like Windows 3.x applications (and now Win9x applications) run in WOW now?

That's not *that* big of a deal.  It can either be nice, or annoying.  Doing things this way though can destroy any kind of hack.  Of course, it also breaks Warden (gfg blizzard pwnd).

Well I think it could make things much more secure since everything is done through the parent (FS access, graphics drawing) of course this is just an experimental phase I believe. It may/may not work out.