Posts by Richard Plinston

Re: Microsoft was regularly using Unix by 1982...

> and tried to steer the products in a direction that met their needs at least as well as the competition.

You are confused. Microsoft succeeded by _buying_ the competition and claiming that they were Microsoft products. They also bought competition in order to kill them, or did so through incompetence. MS-DOS, Xenix, IE, FrontPage, Visual BASIC, MSC, Powerpoint, and many others were bought.

The only reason that Microsoft hasn't been able to kill Linux by buying it is because it can just be forked and continue.

Re: Perspective from the small side

> The Intel has an uptime of 5 days (to be fair it often lasts 30).

Some of my client's machines (Intel and AMD) have had runs of over 1,000 days, for example just now:

[root@nzedi00 ~]# uptime

09:53:16 up 1069 days, 54 min, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.15, 0.10

[edi@nzedi01 ~]$ uptime

09:54:38 up 848 days, 2:00, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01

Re: Why should ARM Holdings help?

> the whole premise driving ARM server CPUs is that they'd be a lot cheaper than x86 CPUs

No. The whole premise for using ARM server CPUs is that the savings in electricity costs will be greater than the cost of replacing all the x86 based hardware. Not only will the CPUs use less watts per MIPS but most CPU cores can be shut down to use zero watts when load reduces.

> And although ARM versions of Win10 can run Win32 software under emulation

It will only run 32bit software, not the 64bit version you are running on your desktop. Many developers have gone 64bit only in the last decade or so. Also you probably don't want to pay desktop prices for software running on your phone.

> I'm sure it could have been a contender at the cheaper end,

Microsoft never worked out what their target market was. They claimed it was corporates then loaded up the phones with XBox, Zune and social media like it was a Kin. They claimed they were targeting iPhone yet were low-end with WP7.

The phones only sold when they were remaindered or otherwise selling below cost - which is why Nokia phone division never made a profit with them in spite of being given $1 billion a year.

Re: win10

> but Google should not have recorded it.

It was unintentional and was unlikely to have recorded _any_ payload data that could be understood.

Your link fails, a better one is;

https://googleblog.blogspot.co.nz/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html

Re: win10

> most websites have a google tracker watching you.

They may be attempting to watch me, but that fails because I have NoScript, RequestPolicy and others.

Re: Ah the sweet smell of corporate hypocrisy ...

> Im sure they could have used a version of Windows,

They tried that with Windows 8 IoT and Windows 10 IoT. It seems to be a complete failure. So, no, they couldn't use Windows.

Re: Call me a cynic....

> It seems only Amazon has a drop in replacement for Play Services

Microsoft/Nokia - for their Android X

Samsung

Baidu

Re: Why?

> the ordinary Mac user is likely to have to buy new copies of some software

Existing machines won't stop working, nor will their CPUs change the instruction sets they use.

Re: @Pascal Monett -- "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

> The second one is "remove from office"

IMHO that would be an even worse situation. Pence not only thinks that The Rapture is coming soon but will try to ensure that it will - with . Trump is merely a corrupt criminal liar, Pence is insane.

> That's not where this is going. Microsoft are making it unnecessary to run the Linux kernel, which is quite the opposite.

Of course, if people make good use of WSL they may find that it is the Windows kernel that is made unnecessary.

Re: What's in it for distros?

> I seriously don't understand what the appeal of having distros in the Microsoft Store is (to anybody who isn't Microsoft).

At least it would be _someone_ adding stuff into Microsoft Store.

> some real "developer" tossers out there who STILL lock their license keys to IP address.

I wondered how that could possibly work. A home computer on a dial up modem or ADSL, for example, could get a completely different IP address from their ISP every time they connect. With a network it is trivial to change IP address and several machines could have the same address as long as they don't try to communicate.

The answer seems to be that they _don't_ lock the licence to the computer's IP, it is the licence _server's_ IP that is locked to the licence. The server can control how many machines are using the software.

"""The license key delivered to you must be converted to a permanent key that is locked to the IP address of the computer that runs the DialOut/EZ License Manager."""

So the license server should have a fixed IP, or even a reserved IP on the DHCP server, but the clients running to software may not need to have the same IP each time.

I did have some software that was licensed to the network card MAC address. Did they not know about ifconfig ?

Re: Oh dear

> Very poor practice to rely on static IPs

I was at a meeting with one of my client's network consultant. He was adamant that using DHCP (with reserved IP addresses) was 'best practice'. I disabused him of that idea - forcefully. The client had a workshop with several CNC lathes and flat-beds, each with a separate desktop computer where the designs were created and loaded to the lathe. I had provided each pair with a separate switch and fixed IPs. This catered for several failure modes in the network that using DHCP did not. It allowed the revenue earning to continue by catering for keeping the lathes and flat-beds running regardless. And, yes, later there was a power failure after which the servers did not restart.

The use of static IPs or not is not a 'one size fits all' situation.

> at least use DHCP giving out reserved IP addresses based on MAC address.

While that may solve some problems it leads to others. For example a failed network card cannot just be swapped and everything carries on as normal, it is no longer just a hardware problem.

> Says an AC. Troll or astroturfer ?

Most likely it was RICHTO/TheVogon yet again.

Re: Not again!

> think that the Wrights invented the aeroplane,

They did have the patent on ailerons. This held back aircraft development for a few years.

You get the same effect with "Lindbergh was the first to fly the Atlantic" - he was around 57th.

Re: I'm not an aviation engineer...

> if this is supposed to be a city-based air taxi why was the video flying over mountains and valleys;

During development they don't want it falling on cars and pedestrians. The odd goat they can deal with.

Re: Majority to use S mode?

> MS went too far with Windows 8

The whole point of Windows 8 'Metro' (later 'Modern') was that Windows Phone was not selling as well as predicted (outsell iPhone by 2014!). Consultants opined that it was because the WP interface was not well known. The solution was to make that interface 'the most well known' by forcing it down the throats of all desktop users until they _demanded_ it on their phones.

Now, it seems, some consultants have suggested that the reason that to 'Store' is not being used enough is because users haven't tried it and discovered that they love it. 10S and Mode-S is to force it down the users' throats until they demand that all software developers put their software there.

Re: S for...

> as Linux on windows is available as a store app, Window S just makes it easy to run Linux

I am not sure that the store works like that. Just because something is in the store for Windows 10 does not mean that it is available for Windows 10S or S-mode.

Apps may be in the store for Windows Phone 8 but won't show up to be installed for Windows 10.

Re: Horesh*t

> Any other 'reason' MS come up with is pure horsesh*t.

3. It steals revenue from OEMs and retail. At present OEMs install Windows 10 and, probably, Office and add these to the computer price plus some markup for profit. With 'S mode' loaded and locked the computers will be cheaper because there will be no, or much less, software revenue for the OEM or retailer and thus no, or less, markup. They won't sell add-ons because those must be installed with the end-user's account. Microsoft will get revenue directly from the user for upgrading to full Windows and for selling Office and other software from the store.

This is probably why 10S is no longer a thing - OEMs and retailers don't want it, and nor do normal users.

Schools may have been sucked in by the lower initial prices, but they will suffer later from the restrictions and lack of software and/or extra costs to go full 10 so they can use real software.

Re: Balloons/airships ?

> Pull yourself up along that rope and you have an space elevator.

You would also need to accelerate laterally. At ground level at the equator your velocity will be 1600kph. At geostationary orbit it will need to be 11,000 kph. You cannot take energy for acceleration from the tether as this would slow down the satellite.

Re: if you can breathe air

> So if you can breathe air {and use that as a significant part of the exhaust) the rocket itself becomes more efficient. It's only when you get to an altitude where air breathing isn't practical any more that you have to use 'fuel only' to propel you.

The only advantage of 'breathing air' is that you get to use the oxygen in it to burn the fuel rather than having to use the LOX that otherwise has to be carried. A rocket engine using fuel + LOX is completely incompatible with an air breathing engine and so there would have to be 2 completely different systems. in order to get sufficient thrust to make air breathing worth while for the short time the rocket is within the atmosphere the weight and cost are prohibitive.

The Falcon Heavy Lift produces around 23,000Kn. - about the same as 100 747 engines - each weighing 4 tonnes just for the engine.

Merely processing air for its mass without using the oxygen would produce no benefit at all, it would take more energy to accelerate the air than would be obtained in thrust.

Re: You'll never get me up in one of those things

> Computer or other closed-loop feedback systems are a necessary part on several types of aircraft. I believe that the Harrier would be impossible to fly if a human had to make all the control adjustments needed to keep it stable,

The P.1127, Kestrel and Harrier were all manual control. They did not have any computer stabilization.

Re: DOUBLE THE MASS

> If you double the delta velocity, it takes 4 times the energy to do it. OR, if you DOUBLE THE MASS, it only takes TWICE the energy. In both cases, you get twice the thrust.

No. If you double the velocity you do not "take 4 times the energy to do it" if the mass flow (kg per sec) remains the same. However, if the nozzle is the same size then the mass flow will also double and thus it will "take 4 times the energy to do it", but it will give you FOUR TIMES the thrust

Re: Balloons/airships ?

> In theory, you could build an entire moonbase in orbit, and gently drop it onto the moon, ready for habitation ?

How would you get it to be "gentle"? You couldn't use a parachute. Think: dropping a piano off the Empire state Building.

> Not being au fait with the science,

That is obvious.

> how easy would it be to rig up a true conveyor (think paternoster lifts) between earth and a point in LEO.

You cannot 'rig up' a conveyor to LEO (Low Earth Orbit). The Earth takes 24 hour to rotate, LEO is around 90 to 120 minutes. It needs to be to geostationary orbit, around 25,000 miles up.