Microsoft + Suse Linux
-
Hmm, I predict an OSX/BSD-like OS in the future.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Hmm, I predict an OSX/BSD-like OS in the future.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Huh?
-- The Show That Watches Back
-
Huh?
-- The Show That Watches Back
That makes two of us :P
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
-
Huh?
-- The Show That Watches Back
Apple's OSX is a gui-based version of FreeBSD. Now that Microsoft is 'partnering' with SuSe, you can be sure that there's going to be some 'collaboration'.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Huh?
-- The Show That Watches Back
It's not like Microsoft hasn't toyed with BSD/Unix in the past. Ref: Xenix
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Apple's OSX is a gui-based version of FreeBSD. Now that Microsoft is 'partnering' with SuSe, you can be sure that there's going to be some 'collaboration'.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Huh?
-- The Show That Watches Back
You must admit Vista is very 'OSX' like. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I'm unable to modify my previous posts for some reason.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Sean Cundiff wrote:
Here[^]
Damn. Getting that link out of you was worse than pulling teeth, and it's still only a link to the google search (haha, Google asks, did I mean "Microsoft Mouse"!). Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Sean Cundiff wrote:
Here[^]
Damn. Getting that link out of you was worse than pulling teeth, and it's still only a link to the google search (haha, Google asks, did I mean "Microsoft Mouse"!). Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
Getting that link out of you was worse than pulling teeth
?? -- If you're referring to the amount of time, that's because I'm checking this site between rounds of Sly 3, Honor Among Thieves.
Marc Clifton wrote:
it's still only a link to the google search
Check out the Announcements Here[^] And Here[^] Seriously, this is old news.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Apple's OSX is a gui-based version of FreeBSD. Now that Microsoft is 'partnering' with SuSe, you can be sure that there's going to be some 'collaboration'.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
OSX isn't really a version of FreeBSD. It's got a Unix-server on top of a Mach-core which provides a FreeBSD like interface.
Sean Cundiff wrote:
you can be sure that there's going to be some 'collaboration'.
Uh.. why? they've spend countless billions of dollars on their own R&D. No way they're gonna ditch it. If anything, they'll crush Suse like they've done with most of their competitors over the years...
-- Based on a True Story
-
You must admit Vista is very 'OSX' like. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I'm unable to modify my previous posts for some reason.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
That's "innovation" from Redmond. What does that have to do with Linux? :~ I think you're grasping here...
-- If not entertaining, write your congressman
-
That's "innovation" from Redmond. What does that have to do with Linux? :~ I think you're grasping here...
-- If not entertaining, write your congressman
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I think you're grasping here...
Not grasping, just making a prediction. I don't lean either way in my preference for either OS. Linux/Unix is good for some things, Windows is a lot nicer for others.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Hmm, I predict an OSX/BSD-like OS in the future.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
I doubt it, I agree with the people that say Vista is the last bloated OS to come from redmond and they will be making a shell OS as their next release in order to compete with open source software. They can't afford to make another Vista, time to product is much to long and development costs would kill them if they didn't make their $ back on upgrades and new pc sales.
if (!interested){return false;} amclint
-
I doubt it, I agree with the people that say Vista is the last bloated OS to come from redmond and they will be making a shell OS as their next release in order to compete with open source software. They can't afford to make another Vista, time to product is much to long and development costs would kill them if they didn't make their $ back on upgrades and new pc sales.
if (!interested){return false;} amclint
You've stated the point I was trying to make more clearly.
amclint wrote:
They can't afford to make another Vista, time to product is much to long and development costs would kill them if they didn't make their $ back on upgrades and new pc sales.
Not to mention that it's main selling point 'the most secure Windows ever' remains to be proven. --- This conversation/thread reminds me of one I had a few months ago with some Rams fans (I'm a long time fan from the LA days). I'll bet against the other team sometimes and they'll say to me, "you aren't a Rams fan." Well, yes I'm a Rams fan, but when money is involved, I'm going to bet on the team the sporting books in Las Vegas pick as the winner.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
I doubt it, I agree with the people that say Vista is the last bloated OS to come from redmond and they will be making a shell OS as their next release in order to compete with open source software. They can't afford to make another Vista, time to product is much to long and development costs would kill them if they didn't make their $ back on upgrades and new pc sales.
if (!interested){return false;} amclint
Utter nonsense. Microsoft will not discard the NT kernel, which is far and away better than Linux. The effort to implement Win32 on top of a different kernel would be huge, probably dwarfing Vista. Their main problem with Vista was overreaching - trying to do too much in one version. They tried to implement new versions of Explorer and other major elements on top of WPF, which didn't have a stable programming interface until this year, and it in turn is implemented in .NET 2.0, which wasn't released until late 2005 and could not be called stable until the middle of last year. Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1, and the x64 efforts all added additional distractions (although you could argue that XP SP2 might not have been necessary in its current form if "Longhorn" had been even close to a releasable state). The next version of Windows - after "Longhorn" Server - is likely to be a point release, and I would expect it to take about two years: more like how long Windows XP took after Windows 2000. Vista SP1 will get "Longhorn" Server's kernel - enhancements are already under development.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Utter nonsense. Microsoft will not discard the NT kernel, which is far and away better than Linux. The effort to implement Win32 on top of a different kernel would be huge, probably dwarfing Vista. Their main problem with Vista was overreaching - trying to do too much in one version. They tried to implement new versions of Explorer and other major elements on top of WPF, which didn't have a stable programming interface until this year, and it in turn is implemented in .NET 2.0, which wasn't released until late 2005 and could not be called stable until the middle of last year. Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1, and the x64 efforts all added additional distractions (although you could argue that XP SP2 might not have been necessary in its current form if "Longhorn" had been even close to a releasable state). The next version of Windows - after "Longhorn" Server - is likely to be a point release, and I would expect it to take about two years: more like how long Windows XP took after Windows 2000. Vista SP1 will get "Longhorn" Server's kernel - enhancements are already under development.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Utter nonsense.
Hardly, this has been in discussion for years by MS and others in the industry
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Microsoft will not discard the NT kernel, which is far and away better than Linux.
That's your opinion, and many other MS folks, although not nearly as many as there once was. I run an MS shop, so no I'm not an MS hater, but 'far and away better' is stretching it. If you like you can point out specific examples, and we'll have a discussion on them, otherwise I will take that as an un-educated statement. Whether or not the kernel is better really doesn't matter, if MS tries to do another OS that takes as long as Vista or XP they'll lose market share and revenue by the bucketload. Bloated OS's just won't be able to cut it in the consumer marketplace like they used to, there are too many multi-use devices to tie people down to an expensive PC. Either MS makes an OS that is adaptable and can evolve quickly, or someone else will and they will feel the pain of losing market share just like other companies who have failed to keep up with advancing technology.
if (!interested){return false;} amclint
-
Utter nonsense. Microsoft will not discard the NT kernel, which is far and away better than Linux. The effort to implement Win32 on top of a different kernel would be huge, probably dwarfing Vista. Their main problem with Vista was overreaching - trying to do too much in one version. They tried to implement new versions of Explorer and other major elements on top of WPF, which didn't have a stable programming interface until this year, and it in turn is implemented in .NET 2.0, which wasn't released until late 2005 and could not be called stable until the middle of last year. Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1, and the x64 efforts all added additional distractions (although you could argue that XP SP2 might not have been necessary in its current form if "Longhorn" had been even close to a releasable state). The next version of Windows - after "Longhorn" Server - is likely to be a point release, and I would expect it to take about two years: more like how long Windows XP took after Windows 2000. Vista SP1 will get "Longhorn" Server's kernel - enhancements are already under development.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
I agree! For probably the next five to eight years, Microsoft will probably be releasing version upgrades much like Win 98 and Win ME were to the Windows 95 platform. After that, who knows if we will even use computers they way we do today. At the current rate though, I would expect Microsoft to have 256 versions of the next OS :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: Vista for Web Development, Read this first! Latest Tech Blog Post: USA City Burnt To Death...