Posts by Richard Plinston

Re: A question (dumb maybe)

> any Windows PC x86 hardware can load Windows as long as drivers are available. Why can't this be the case for ARM devices?

Any _IBM_PC_derivative, that is any Intel x86 or AMD x86-64 with an IBM-PC compatible BIOS (or UEFI) can boot Windows. That is _one_ type of computer.

In the early 1980s there were large numbers of different computers with quite different architectures: S100 bus, DEC Rainbow, Wang PC, ICL PC2, DRS300 SCSI bus, and those are all x86, there were many other CPUs*. The only way that they could run MS-DOS or CP/M-86 was the manufacturers wrote their own BIOS (which was part of the OS). IBM built a BIOS into the ROM of their PC (which still required a stub MS-BIOS). It was Lotus-123 which required the IBM BIOS that meant that manufacturers had to clone the IBM PC. MS-DOS 5 was the first that dropped support for other architectures.

Because Linux and Android have source available it is relatively easy to implement on whatever SoC is used so there is no pressure to make ARM into a unified interface with a single BIOS.

* There are still dozens of different architectures but many of them are not found in shops.

Re: A question (dumb maybe)

>> phone suppliers to allow Win10 to be installed as an alternative to Android?

> But the question was about Win10, not Windows Phone.

The question was about phones. Microsoft is attempting to look unified by calling everything 'Windows 10' whether it be desktop, tablet, phone or IoT. People were confused when Windows RT did not run Windows programs, they will be even more confused (as you are) when some 'Windows 10' (mobile, IoT) also does not run Windows programs.

> And Windows 10, like their other desk top OSs runs an a wide range of hardware by having installable drivers.

Windows 10 desktop _only_ runs on X86 or X86-64* derivatives of IBM PC, that is not a 'wide range', it is not even the majority of CPUs in use (ARM is). It may support many different GPUs or other peripherals. Just because there are many 'PCs' does not make it a wide range.

Phones and tablets are usually ARM (some MIPS, a small number Intel/AMD).

> If they are really set on providing this platform agnostic user experience than Win10 should surely work the same way. In fact it should be a test case for how well they've done that or whether they've simply applied the same interface over different foundations.

Windows 10 Mobile (ie Windows Phone 10) is just like WP8.1 with some changes. Windows 10 IoT is nothing like other Windows - no UI, no launcher, it simply boots into one 'Universal' app (which is not universal because it is IoT and thus to be useful accesses and requires a GPIO).

* Windows NT did also run on MIPS, Alpha, Itanium and PowerPC but that was a couple of decades ago.

Re: Markets?

> Microsoft clearly believe they can have a good chance of selling stuff. Hence, they're making stuff.

You misunderstand the Microsoft culture. It is not only about selling stuff, it is also about stopping others sell stuff. They have done this with vapourware, with contracts, with per-box pricing, with bundling, with simply buying the competition, with 'free' (eg IE to stop Mozilla and Spyglass), and by complaining to the EU commission.

Re: A question (dumb maybe)

> Is there any practical reason why Microsoft can't do a deal with all of the major phone suppliers to allow Win10 to be installed as an alternative to Android?

Yes. Each model of phone is unique in having one of a large variety of SoCs complemented by different system components such as screens, audio, buttons, etc. This is not a problem for Android because the source code is available and the integrator can modify as required to suit.

Windows Phone is built by Microsoft to suit a limited set of SoCs with a particular set of other components. This has always restricted manufacturers in how they can build Windows Phones. In some cases Microsoft has dictated to OEMs which SoC maker they are allowed to use. Because MS has been slow to incorporate newer components into their OS it has often meant that WP models are half a generation behind Androids.

For example WP7 could only work with about 5 particular single-core SoCs. WP8 only supported half a dozen dual-core SoCs. WP8 would not even run on WP7 hardware let alone contemporary Android devices. The only way to get W10M onto Android phones is to start by building a phone that actually works with W10M and then putting Android on it, but that would limit what the phone can be.

You can upgrade your S3 to Cyanogenmod https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2o_LEc04RY

> Phone shops push consumers away from WP. Not because it sucks but because they don't get an extra few quid as a backhander for selling it.

You have that the wrong way around:

"""Part of the $200 million will apparently be used for retail staff, who are set to receive $10-15 for each handset sold, which should provide ample incentive for sales persons to recommend Windows Phones over iPhones and Android devices."""

http://wmpoweruser.com/nokia-and-microsoft-to-spend-200-million-on-us-marketing-sales-incentives-of-10-15-per-phone/

Re: POSIX

> "Patch" = "thing that papers over the original conceptual model with a new conceptual model to try and graft on some modern functionality and security"

Linux (and other Unix like systems) supports various filesystems and various security models (DAC, ACL, MAC). In particular there can be different domains that have certain security models. That does not mean it is a 'patch', it is a modular hierarchy. The OS checks the domain, if it is set to one system then it uses, say, ACLs, if it is in a different domain (unconfined) then it uses permissions.

Re: POSIX

> No it doesn't "depend entirely" in what you are used to.

Yes it does. If you know how to use the facilities then it is 'easy' compared to facilities that you don't know how to use.

Re: POSIX

> SELinux. It's a patch over the UNIX security model

SELinux is built into the kernel. It may appear to be 'a patch' because ordinary users can be set to operate in an 'unconfined' domain where the usual permission system operates.

Re: POSIX

> You and they are both really reinforcing my point that the default (and most commonly used on GNU/Linux) permissions system is limited and hard to work with.

The default Unix/Linux permissions system is perfectly adequate and is not 'hard to work with'. It has proven itself over many decades. Because Unix/Linux has inode file systems allowing multiple file links and various other flags, such as sticky bit, setuid and setgid, the fit of this model is perfectly matched to the system. I would agree that if the file permission system was applied to Windows filesystems then it would be an ineffectual nightmare, but that is because it is not an inode system.

Because Windows started off with an extremely poor (to the point of non-existence) permissions system, and file systems that lacked the basic facilities offered by inode based systems, then NT had to implement a layer of permissions over the top of the file system. They used ACLs. ACLs may be more flexible in many respects (you can have them on Unix/Linux too if you want). These are far more complicated, whether they are 'easier' or 'harder' to work with depends entirely on what you are used to and whether you know how to use the facilities correctly.

> Apple invents a great interface with the iPad and then nothing. Microsoft picks up the ball and runs and dominates...

Of course, because Microsoft has sold way more Surface* and Windows Phones than Apple has sold iPads and iPhones ... oh, wait ...

* except the 6 million it wrote off last year.

> Do you have evidence of this type of failure?

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-surface-keyboard-splitting-problem/

> Bundling Internet Explorer did not kill Netscape.

Maybe not, but it did kill Spyglass, the people that wrote IE. Microsoft agreed to pay Spyglass for writing IE with an amount for every copy of IE sold. Microsoft claimed that no copies were ever _sold_ (in spite of being part of the sale of Windows) so yet again a Microsoft 'partner' learns what partnership means.

What did kill Netscape was Microsoft writing non-compatibilities into IE and, for example, Frontpage, so that viewing those pages was messed up in Netscape. Many corporates are still suffering by having to keep IE6 running when MS abandoned them.

> then enjoy horrific levels of bugs and crashes.

Probably caused by Windows detecting that Netscape was running.

> To use the Amazon app store you have to enable installation from untrusted sources

Not if you are using an Amazon Fire or other Amazon device. And that is the point, anyone can make their own Android* and their own app store. Nokia did, several others in China have. Plus there are independent ones such as F-Droid. Google cannot know if they can be trusted or not, hence the user needs to confirm that they want to use a store that Google knows nothing about.

> Windows telling you that using a browser other than IE would be a security risk or preventing you installing another browser.

Maybe not, but it does pop-up a UAC.

* they may not be able to use the Android name.

Re: Does no-one remember Minix?

> Why? It was just AT&T Unix Version 7 source code.

Microsoft added code into Xenix. For example for file and record locking. When Xenix was sold to SCO there was a clause that SCO had to pay a licence fee for this code. Later, in OpenServer, all that code had been replaced and _no_ MS code existed but MS insisted on the fees being paid. A court action was required to remove this.

Re: Are we

> this certain company that bought Skype

It has been alleged that the first thing MS did was replace the 'supernode' servers with 10,000 Linux boxes to run Skype so that they could keep it all in-house.

Re: It's everywhere

> They will even SELL you Linux

No. They are _not_ selling Linux. They are selling Azure, which happens to be able to run Linux as distributed by others (who thus fulfil the GPL by distributing the code).

Re: They didn't have much choice.

> But they'll be intending to sell this, it won't just be an internal use thing.

That is merely speculation on your part - unsupported by any evidence.

Re: Does no-one remember Minix?

> In 1996, Bill Gates said that for a long time Microsoft had the highest volume AT&T license!

Right up to 1990 MS used Xenix for all their accounting and for developing: MS-DOS, OS/2, Office, and much else were developed using vi. Excel started as Multiplan on Xenix.

At one point, when MS-DOS 2 was released, MS talked about a 'family' of operating systems, which is why MS-DOS 2 had some poorly implemented features copied from Xenix (such as sub-directories).

Re: I don't see what is strange here

> the difference is that Microsoft bought up all the rights to QDOS before they started selling it.

1. No they didn't. They obtained a _licence_ to resell SCP-DOS for 8086 machines and then sold a licence to IBM (and a couple of others) which used 8088 - technically a breach. _Later_ they purchased SCP-DOS (alleged for $50,000.00) but SCP retained the rights to resell all versions of MS-DOS at no cost (Ie no payment to MS) as long as it was sold with a computer. After the fire that burnt down SCP factory, SCP started selling MS-DOS bundled with just a V20 CPU (a faster 8088). MS had to buy them out of that right, allegedly for 1million.

2. MS was a CP/M OEM (for Z80 softcard) but never bought any further rights to CP/M, though IBM settled with DRI for an undisclosed amount after PC-DOS 1 was shown to display a DRI copyright.

Re: Any comment from Steve Balmer?

> they've been contributing to the kernel for years.

No. That is not true. They did contribute stuff to the kernel once, in 2012. It was for its Hyper-V virtualization hypervisor, only useful to Microsoft.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/16/linux_foundation_kernel_report_2013/

Re: Codebug works, shipped, in stock

> removing the onboard CR2032 battery

That was the main issue (AFAIK). Small batteries and small children are not a good mix.

http://www.safekids.org/safetytips/field_risks/batteries

Re: Why new hardware?

> The money would've better been spent on getting a decent Python IDE running on a cheap tablet.

Android QPython

Re: I have a theory...

> There seems to be a lot more OEMs interested and creating devices for Windows 10 Mobile, mostly small OEMs but Acer and HTC have devices in the pipeline.

OEMs need to keep their 'loyalty' discount. If Microsoft tell them that they need to make Win10 mobile devices in order to show their loyalty (or pay an extra few million a year for non-discounted Windows and Office) then they will talk about making some.

> And then selling the whole Lumia family to a 3rd party.

Would anyone want to buy it ? Only if Microsoft paid them a billion a year, as they did to Nokia.

Re: Linux on the desktop

> Still I do wonder about those percentages. What are they based on.

According to the article these particular figures use "StatCounter and Netmarketshare". You can go to those websites to undersatnd what the numbers count. They gather statics from web site accesses. In particular certain web sites (self selected) put some Javascript into [some of] their web pages (also self-selected) and when this script runs it (not the web site) sends data to statcounter for accumulating. Many users are self-unselected by not running Javascript (eg NoScript), or by blocking tracking sites (eg Ghostery, RequestPolicy) and so, for example, my Linux machines will never show up even if I went to sites that used these trackers (theRegister does not it seems).

It is likely that these sites may be useful to show Windows migrations because individuals will follow the same actions when they move from one version to another. It is unlikely to be a useful comparison between different operating systems because they will likely visit different sites and will use different software and may have a different view on privacy (such as being aware of it).

Also this is the desktop statistics only. The 'all' statistics show that Android will soon grab the top spot from Windows 7, both being around 30% of all.

Re: Maybe you "Entitled" cyclists....

> Only for small ones that are similar in size. Ocean Liners versus Sailboats is not the same, the smaller vessel must move out of the way unless it is dead in the water.

You are a simpleton. The rules are very complex and who gives way depends not on size but on many factors such as whether it is open sea, traffic lanes, or restricted areas. It also depends on particular activities. Your example above may be true in a harbour, but not at sea. Please refrain from commenting until you actually know something about the subject.

> Same for Trucks versus bicycles.

You are an idiot who should be prevented from ever holding a driving licence.