Posts by Richard Plinston

Re: 646464

> I expect soon popular software will be so full of "all the world's 64-bit" assumptions that keeping compatibility with 32-bit gets too laborious.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's Windows 10 on ARM Snapdragon will only run 32 bit x86 software in its emulation making it as useful as RT.

Re: I've used LibreOffice for years.

> it wanted to shut down several running programs

Windows file systems have a limitation that a file cannot be updated while a process has it open - not without causing a crash. This is due to the directory entry having both the filename and the pointer to the data area on disk. On *nix the i-node system caters for updating an open file because the directory entry has the filename and an inode number. The file than is open can continue to be used through its i-node while the replacement file can use a new i-node and new data blocks. The old file will be deleted when all processes have closed it.

This is why Windows requires a reboot. Updated files are given a different name and a script is created to delete the old files and rename the new ones. This script is scheduled to be run during the next reboot.

Re: Seriously ...

> over 90%

You are about a decade behind reality. 'Personal Computers' these days are carried around in peoples pockets and Windows on those in down in the error margin.

Re: Seriously ...

> Windows Server tends to scale better than Linux for many uses

That must be why Windows can run on everything from Raspberry Pi Zero to the top supercomputers. Oh wait, no, it is the other way around.

Re: Seriously ...

> and >75% of on premises servers

That's because they need to run 3 Windows servers to keep up to one *nix server.

Re: Linux is moving on the desktop.

> Why? Windows runs on Arm too.

Yes, on Windows Phone 8, Windows Mobile 10, Windows IOT, Windows RT.

All have which have been dumped due to lack of interest.

The problem isn't whether [a subset of] Windows runs on ARM, the problem is that people don't buy computers to run an operating system, they buy it to run applications. With Linux on ARM they get the full stack because applications were developed to be platform independent. With Windows almost all software is x86 (and most x86-64) and where there are ARM ports these lack features.

Even where Microsoft is trying to save their ARM presence by trying an ARM CPU that does x86 emulation this only does x86 32 bit and so is useless for modern software.

> Does MS store differ from Android or Apple store in this regard?

Probably not, but the distro repository is very different.

Re: Chacun à son goût

> programming in the best language for the job and not require Python "because its easy for beginners".

Being 'easy for beginners' does not prevent it being the best language for the job.

> Never understood the attraction of python.

Your admitted lack of understanding is not a limitation on its attractiveness. ;-)

> it's best claim to fame is lack of switch statements

You say that as if it were a criticism. One of Python's best features is that there is usually just one way to do things. In the case of 'switch' it is if ... elif ... else ... . It does the job.

> and the most types of list/array/tuple/dictionary etc. of anything.

Exactly, no need to have to reinvent your own to circumvent the limitations in other languages.

> used only be people who don't know any better.

We don't have to know 'better', we just use Python and get the job done. 'Better' is the enemy of 'good'.

Re: Wait, what?

> There's no excuse in this day an age for anyone in IT in a business to be in the position to be able to run executables or see URLs in emails!

One can always choose an email client that _doesn't_ automatically run executables or load URLs when the email is opened, or even without it being opened, or even one that does not allow running or loading when these are clicked, and defaults to using plain text rather than html.

But then a) it wouldn't be Microsoft, b) it wouldn't be pretty.

Re: Android

> For example, an embedded Linux using the busybox versions of the basic tools and without other GNU components could still fall into my definition of a Linux-style system

You can go that far with Android by using TerminalIDE or many similar 'apps'.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Android/Terminal_IDE

http://www.spartacusrex.com/terminalide.htm

Re: "Unix-like systems use a inode file system. This allows an open file"

> 1) Processes that are never restarted keep on using the old file -

Further to previous post:

With Windows, if the reboot is not done then _new_ processes also use the old file.

Re: "Unix-like systems use a inode file system. This allows an open file"

> that's one reason why Windows doesn't allow to replace open executables

No it isn't. The only reason is that they _can't_ replace a file that is open without corrupting the system. The directory entry contains the filename and the start of the data block pointers. Replacing the directory entry with one that points to the new data blocks would allow the old blocks to be reused and overwritten while the program with the open file will still be using those blocks.

> Processes that are never restarted keep on using the old file - which could be vulnerable -

Updates are not just for 'vulnerabilities' , they are for bug fixes and enhancements. The update process for services can, and often does, include a service restart, particularly in Debian systems.

It is relatively easy to identify services using deleted files* and to issue 'service name restart' commands. This can be automated if required.

* # lsof | awk '$4 == "DEL" { print }'

auditd 1001 1001 root DEL REG /usr/lib64/libnss_files-2.18.so;53bd9626

libvirtd 1468 1509 root DEL REG /usr/lib64/libnss_files-2.18.so;53bd9626

...

Re: The Back Button Dependency

> With the exception of KDE, all desktops feel like a Linux desktop from 2001.

I almost never see the 'desktop' so I don't care about it much. I have several programs running in different virtual desktops and just switch between them. The 'task bar' and menu get used. KDE Plasma, semi-transparent windows, and all the desktop clutter I really don't care about. Gnome 2 or Mint does all that I need when I want it.

The function of an OS is to keep out the way of using using the computer.

Re: "Windows became glacial on both systems" @AC

There was a power cut last month so my 'uptime' is only 22 days. Prior to that it was 200 or so.

The reason that Windows requires reboots on an update is that the file system cannot replace a file that is open, such as a dll. This means that the replacement files must be put in another place and a script written to move those files on the next reboot, which then must be done to complete the update.

Unix-like systems use a inode file system. This allows an open file to be replaced by creating a new inode for it and leaving the open file to be continued to be used through its own inode. When the old file has been closed by all programs then the old file is deleted and the disk space recovered - the OS keeps track of these file opens. It is only necessary to restart long running programs, such as web servers, to get them to use the new updated files.

Re: Right. Sure. Whatever.

> Whereas Linus doesn't bother with the lipstick

I don't bother with lipstick either, and certainly don't want it as a UI.

>> RE: "There are still more Windows 7 PCs than W8 + W10 in spite of all new PCs for the last few years having later versions."

> Nope. Try again...

OK, I'll try again:

There are more Windows 7 than Windows 10 (38.69 > 38.14)

There are more Windows 7 + Windows XP than there are Windows 10 + Windows 8.1

38.69 + 4.23 -> 42.92 > 38.14 + 4.59 -> 42.73

And this is in spite of all new machine being forced to have the latest versions of Windows. Windows 8.1 was released over 5 years ago (October 2013), Windows 10 prerelease was 3 years ago tomorrow. In that time PC sales averaged around 275million per year. So the 700million you claim is actually much less than the total sales of PCs with those operating systems forcibly (by contract) installed.

>> people are not upgrading to Windows 10

> it's already on 700 million PCs

Since Windows 10 was released and forced onto every new PC made by OEMs there have been nearly 700 new PCs sold. There are no figures for how many of those are still running Windows 10 (granted most of them will be).

The original poster referred to 'upgrading'. There are still more Windows 7 PCs than W8 + W10 in spite of all new PCs for the last few years having later versions.

https://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?options=%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22%24and%22%3A%5B%7B%22deviceType%22%3A%7B%22%24in%22%3A%5B%22Desktop%2Flaptop%22%5D%7D%7D%5D%7D%2C%22dateLabel%22%3A%22Trend%22%2C%22attributes%22%3A%22share%22%2C%22group%22%3A%22platformVersion%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%7B%22share%22%3A-1%7D%2C%22id%22%3A%22platformsDesktopVersions%22%2C%22dateInterval%22%3A%22Monthly%22%2C%22dateStart%22%3A%222017-12%22%2C%22dateEnd%22%3A%222018-11%22%2C%22segments%22%3A%22-1000%22%7D

Re: Just go Linux "Take my Linux ... please!"

> Not that many people pay over $100 for Windows

> Most PCs come with Windows

When you buy a PC from an OEM or retailer and it 'comes with Windows' the manufacturer has sent money to Microsoft. This is part of the BOM cost and wholesale and retail margins are added to the total cost.

The PC doesn't just 'come with Windows', you are paying for it. With markup it may well be 'over $100'.

Re: Accuracy

> the AI-written passage is factually incorrect.

And the difference between this and any other text is ?

Re: Accuracy

>> "If they wanted accuracy, they would have translated it from the original text, [...]"

> Is there one?

Not only is there no 'original text' but there never was. Nothing was written down before 'first temple' - around 10thC BCE. That is because there was no form of written hebrew before then. So for several hundred years it was just oral tradition and changed at the whim of the teller. Or maybe it was just invented much later.

Then in the 3rdC BCE or so all the written copies they could find were brought together and a single authorized version was formed. In some cases two of more of the versions were woven together which is why there are two different accounts in Genesis for several things.

Re: "Never trust version .0 of anything. .0 or .1 if it's Microsoft"

> No, he wasn't. He was an adequate programmer. What he really brought to the table was that he's a crackerjack businessperson.

What he really brought to the table was his father who was a crackerjack lawyer and knew how to tie everyone up in contracts.

Re: We need alternatives - good ones

> until I can drive my articulated lorry application on it

Linux is not a weighbridge!

Re: Am I missing something here?

> Windows 3.x - amazing, breakthrough platform. A solid, usable GUI environment, but with full backward compatibility to DOS,

Most went to Windows 3.x so that they could run multiple DOS boxes - Lotus123 and WordPerfect. Solid?? if you didn't get 'Unrecoverable Application Error' with 3.0 every day then you weren't using it. 3.1 was much better but simply replaced UAE with a different message.

> Windows NT - sheer genius:

And that genius was DEC's David Cutler

> Windows CE/Mobile - the breakthrough mobile OS,

Now you are being ironic, maybe you misspelt 'broken'. CE was the equivalent of MS-DOS: single core, single tasking with something like the TSR system. It may have been fine for embedded systems (which is what it was designed for: CE=Consumer Electronics) but it was a stretch to call it an operating system.

> way ahead of its time

No it wasn't, it was from the mid 90s and was all that Microsoft had.

> Abandoning it was Microsoft's single biggest mistake, which Apple quickly capitalized on with its own vastly inferior mobile OS.

They didn't abandon it until far too late, it was still in Windows Phone 7, though this was completely incompatible with the previous CE Windows Mobile 6.x.

> Credit where credit is due - Microsoft didn't rise to power by building crappy products.

No. It rose to power by buying products or companies, rebranding them and making them crappy.

> Alas, once its competitors were all exterminated, the company rapidly went to seed.

Many competitors were all exterminated by MS contracting with them or buying them. The current competitors survived by not being able to be bought, either because they were too big in other areas or because they can be forked and survive.

Re: "Sell Office on Steam, make sure it runs on Linux, too"

> Actually MS started well before to develop browsers

Actually MS paid Spyglass to develop IE. No, wait, it was only Spyglass that thought they were going to get paid to do the work. MS had this plan where they weren't going to pay. Eventually the courts had to order MS to pay Spyglass.

Re: I think it's worth remembering ...

> International Computers Limited

I worked for them here is New Zealand and on projects in Bracknell for a couple of decades. In fact I joined ICT shortly before they changed to being part of ICL.

I still have quite a number of ICL machines in my stack from ICL 1501s (not to be confused with ICT 1500s), PC1, PC2 (8085 and 8086), Quattro, Quattro XM, DRS20 model 40 and 150, DRS300. 6402, 6404, 6404L, 303.

Available by collection only.

Re: "In the 1990s, MS could never have been as stupid . . "

> Nobody is going to migrate to Linux because that is a functional nightmare for a company of just about any size.

And yet Linux is the basis of the most common OS found anywhere (Android) has 99+% of the top supercomputers and has more than 50% of the servers, and dominates embedded systems.

Most companies are already using it.

> Office was always far more reliable than its competitors.

But when it completely screwed up a file this could be recovered by using LibreOffice.

> Yes, all through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 2000s. MS-DOS was terrific,

I always found that DRI operating systems were far better. Early MS-DOS systems would corrupt diskettes if they were swapped. CP/M and DR-DOS would actually check. I used DRI's MP/M and Concurrent-xxx which supported hard drives and pre-emptive multi-tasking and multi-user when MS-DOS still only did floppy disks.

MS-DOS was always a poor performer which is why most successful software bypassed it for everything except file system to do direct BIOS calls or even bit banging the video cards.

While MS-DOS 5 was almost up to what DR-DOS 5 did it was 20 months later. DR-DOS 6 then brought better memory management and even task switching while MS-DOS took almost another year to catch up.

> Windows NT, starting in the mid-1990s, was a miracle of stability when compared to most anything on the desktop.

Windows NT was certainly more stable than 3.x or 95. 95 had a bug for two years where, if the internal clock overflowed after 39 days and some hours, the system locked up. This was not reported for two years because no one had reached that point.

> ambitious, leading-edge software that no other company could have pulled off as well as Microsoft

did.

Most of which was bought in from other companies, or the company was bought. Even NT was a bought in project that eventually MS had to settle with DEC by paying them a reported $100million.

Re: Broken, yes... and not fixable.

> To be fair, the design of CP/M was also ripped off - from the PDP-8 operating system OS/8. The fact that the Copy command was called PIP (Peripheral Interchange Program) is the smoking gun.

CP/M was developed on DEC machines at Intel while Gary was under contract to develop PL/M compilers. The CP/M BDOS was written in PL/M to prove that useful programs could be developed. Intel did not want CP/M as their plans for the 8080 did not include small computers and Gary was allowed to keep it for his own use.

That the utility has the same name of PIP does not indicate that anything was 'ripped off'.

Re: Broken, yes... and not fixable.

> Altair Basic/Basica/GW-Basic, developed by Bill Gates and Paul Allen themselves.

When Bill and Paul were at Harvard they were able to use the DEC computer. It is alleged that there was an open source version of BASIC that Bill was able to obtain. When they developed Altair BASIC they used a DEC-20 to cross compile to 8080 using standard Intel tools (and did not pay for the computer time they used). The maths routines needed complete rewrite which was done by Monte Davidoff.

> Did you know that their first OS was a Unix clone called Xenix?

Xenix was a real Unix version 6 or 7 licenced from AT&T and ported to 8086 by 'The Santa Cruz Operation' (SCO), a software house that specialised in porting Unix to various machines. Later this was sold to SCO becoming SCO Xenix and later updated to System3 and renamed as SCO OpenServer.

Re: Broken, yes... and not fixable.

> - MSDOS - bought from Tim Paterson (who copied the design of CP/M)

There are some that say that Tim copied the code of CP/M, specifically of version 1.2.

Both SCP and MS were OEM licenced for CP/M. SCP for their Zebra range, MS for the Z80 Softcard for the Apple II. Both had all the source code that DRI would supply to its OEMs. The BDOS, however, was written in PL/M and supplied as a binary because it was invarient. At the time there were 'commented decompilers' available for various software, including CP/M BDOS. There was also an Intel 8080 -> 8086 ASM translator.

SCP was developing 8086 processor boards for their Zebra machines and needed an OS to test with. It has been claimed that they decompiled the BDOS, ran it through the Intel translator and recompiled (with many fixups) to get the initial QDOS. This would have had CP/M file system which would have been needed as they would have built the system the system using CP/M, swapped the processor board and rebooted.

The MS FAT filesystem was added later from MS's 'Stand-alone BASIC'.

It is alleged that when IBM was testing PC-DOS, Gary Kildal was able to enter a particular command and get a DRI copyright message displayed. IBM settled giving Gary money, agreeing to sell CP/M-86 alongside PC-DOS and rewriting the BDOS - which became version 1.25.

The reason that it is alleged to be version 1.2 that was copied is that it had a specific bug in handling the FCBs and this bug existed in the earliest MS-DOS and PC-DOS - prior to 1.25.

SCP initially licenced Microsoft non-exclusively for 86-DOS (or SCP-DOS) running on 8086 CPUs. In theory its use on 8088 was breaking the licence. Later, MS purchased it outright and this gave SCP as many free copies of MS-DOS as required as long as they were sold with a computer. When the SCP factory burned down they started selling a V20 chip (faster 8088 clone with 8080 support) with a copy of MS-DOS. MS had to buy back the agreement for a million or so.

> - Internet Explorer - licensed from Spyglass

Spyglass wrote IE, it was not a version of Mosaic but was new code, on the basis of getting a royalty ($5?) for every copy sold. MS gave away IE and thus none were sold and no royalties were paid. Spyglass sued and eventually won a settlement of some millions, but by then the company had folded.

Re: Google is far better than apple

> Google was able to say "If you make a phone with that, we won't let you build anything else".

You are correct that if a company signs up for play services then they can't do ASOP. They could, however, build anything else they want to, such as Windows Phones, or Tizen.

Compare that with HP where MS used 'loyalty discounts' to kill WebOS, or Dell where they dropped Android in similar circumstances.

Re: You're ignoring Windows

> Microsoft is supposedly supporting ARM Windows that does its own translation from x64 to ARM64,

No, Microsoft is not doing 'x64' (x86-AMD64) to ARM64. It is doing x86-32 to ARM64.