* Ada & .Net (Rotor) @ 2002-04-02 16:01 Ehud Lamm 2002-04-02 23:12 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-17 1:37 ` [OT] (was): " Kent Paul Dolan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ehud Lamm @ 2002-04-02 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) It may be interesting to try and make use of the shared source CLI (aka Rotor) to provide Ada support on .Net (by porting Gnat, for example). I am not going to try to analyze the licensing issues here, but be sure to check them out before you _look_ at the shared source as there are different opinions on what the license actually means. Anyway, if you are interested in atacking this project, you may be able to make use of the Microsoft grants: http://research.microsoft.com/programs/europe/rotor/ I am not up to date on this but I think there are some interesting open issues that may be interesting from a researhc point of view. I am thinking mainly about support for generics. Ehud Lamm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-02 16:01 Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ehud Lamm @ 2002-04-02 23:12 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-03 9:48 ` Ehud Lamm 2002-04-17 1:37 ` [OT] (was): " Kent Paul Dolan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-02 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Generics are an interesting topic wrt the problem whether or not this can be done on the CLR level. Is it possible to have a generic written in one language and instantiated in another language? At least the both languages must agree on the semantics of genericity. I think this is a current area of research inside one of the MS dotnet research teams. An implementation of Ada on top of the current CLR might be interesting as a reference for a language that has a long tradition wrt genericty. Ada could be influential on .NET if it comes at the right time. And of course it would be very interesting to see how well Ada could fit into this whole cross-language interoperability (cross language object system, exceptions etc.) story. My 2c J�rgen "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@huji.ac.il> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:a8ch8a$is2$1@news.iucc.ac.il... > It may be interesting to try and make use of the shared source CLI (aka > Rotor) to provide Ada support on .Net (by porting Gnat, for example). I am > not going to try to analyze the licensing issues here, but be sure to check > them out before you _look_ at the shared source as there are different > opinions on what the license actually means. > Anyway, if you are interested in atacking this project, you may be able to > make use of the Microsoft grants: > http://research.microsoft.com/programs/europe/rotor/ > > I am not up to date on this but I think there are some interesting open > issues that may be interesting from a researhc point of view. I am thinking > mainly about support for generics. > > Ehud Lamm > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-02 23:12 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-03 9:48 ` Ehud Lamm 2002-04-08 9:46 ` Juergen Pfeifer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ehud Lamm @ 2002-04-03 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <juergen.pfeifer@gmx.net> wrote in message news:a8ddsd$2nh$01$1@news.t-online.com... > Generics are an interesting topic wrt the problem whether or not this can be > done on the CLR level. > Is it possible to have a generic written in one language and instantiated in > another language? At > least the both languages must agree on the semantics of genericity. I think > this is a current area of > research inside one of the MS dotnet research teams. Those interested in generics for the CLR shoud read the paper linked from http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$1450 Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '00 conference on Programming language design and implementation (PLDI'00). Design and implementation of generics for the .NET Common language runtime. Andrew Kennedy, Don Syme Ehud ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-03 9:48 ` Ehud Lamm @ 2002-04-08 9:46 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-08 14:45 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-08 17:34 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-08 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, nevertheless reading the Ada.Net thread I see that most people don't realize what's going on. Even on CLA you find mostly MS bashing instead of an educated and skilled discussion. To me it seems that most people don't realize that the Win2000 kernel is a huge difference to NT4, not to say the W9x kernel. Win2000 (and better) is for sure one of the best, secure and stable OS in the market. And .NET on top of this OS provides a component model for the Internet, something that is far beyond what Java provides. But it is easier to talk about the past and bash on MS than to look at what they provide today and for the future. So Ada.Net is the story of two entities that carry the burden of bad fame. Ada is the design by commitee, military only, verrrrrrbose ancient language and MS is a toy company crowded by teenage hackers writing software for dummies. I doubt that this mixture will ever work together;-) Rotor may change the perception a bit. Now people can look at the very heart of the .NET architecture, the CLI and the C# compiler and they can see themself how MS code is advancing the state of the art. But again, it's easier to bash that to lern... J�rgen P.S.: This is my personal opinion. I'm not speaking for my employer. "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@huji.ac.il> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:a8efq6$4kj$1@news.iucc.ac.il... > > "Juergen Pfeifer" <juergen.pfeifer@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:a8ddsd$2nh$01$1@news.t-online.com... > > Generics are an interesting topic wrt the problem whether or not this can > be > > done on the CLR level. > > Is it possible to have a generic written in one language and instantiated > in > > another language? At > > least the both languages must agree on the semantics of genericity. I > think > > this is a current area of > > research inside one of the MS dotnet research teams. > > Those interested in generics for the CLR shoud read the paper linked from > http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$1450 > > Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '00 conference on Programming language design > and implementation (PLDI'00). Design and implementation of generics for > the .NET Common language runtime. Andrew Kennedy, Don Syme > > Ehud > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 9:46 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-08 14:45 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-08 17:10 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-09 6:51 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-08 17:34 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-08 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<a8rot5$6r3$07$1@news.t-online.com>... > Well, nevertheless reading the Ada.Net thread I see that most > people don't realize what's going on. Even on CLA you find > mostly MS bashing instead of an educated and skilled discussion. Seeing as they are in effect the Standard Oil of the 21'st century, that shouldn't be suprising. It would make your hair curl to see how Standard Oil was vilified back around the end of the 19th century. > To me it seems that most people don't realize that the Win2000 > kernel is a huge difference to NT4, not to say the W9x kernel. Is it? I haven't noticed any huge differences between 2k and NT4. There are some noticable cosmetic differences, but (with the exception of plug-n-play) the underlying Win32 API and the kernel under that is almost identical. Certianly, there is a huge difference between the NT kernel (used in NT, 2k, and XP) and the Win9x series kernels. They are basicly 2 *very* different OS's (the former a full-featured modern OS, the latter little better than an embedded OS with a GUI) that share a lot of the same API's and are somewhat binary-compatable. The biggest problem I see with an Ada .NET is that the .NET licensing was hand-crafted to be anti-GPL, so it effectively prohibits anyone from using Gnat to implement it. That means only a company with an existing proprietary Ada compiler is going to be able to do the job. > Rotor may change the perception a bit. Now people can look > at the very heart of the .NET architecture, the CLI and the > C# compiler and they can see themself how MS code is Perhaps, but if they do so, they can't apply that knowledge to a GPL project. That means there's no point in *my* looking at it unless someone pays me to. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 14:45 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-08 17:10 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:31 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:39 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-09 6:51 ` Juergen Pfeifer 1 sibling, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-08 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > The biggest problem I see with an Ada .NET is that the .NET licensing > was hand-crafted to be anti-GPL, so it effectively prohibits anyone > from using Gnat to implement it. That means only a company with an > existing proprietary Ada compiler is going to be able to do the job. Are you sure? AFAIK you may not produce GPL-clones of .NET-functionality but it should be allowed to produce .NET-applications with compilers and languages whatever you like. GPL states that if you modify GPL sources then you have to publish your modifications. But it doesn't force you to publish your source if you, for example, write a new Office from scratch and compile it with gcc. Of course, you would be forced to publish your Office code if you would take a small piece of some GPL code and enhance it to your final Office. Ingo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 17:10 ` Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-08 17:31 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:35 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:39 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-08 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Ingo Marks wrote: > Ted Dennison wrote: > >> The biggest problem I see with an Ada .NET is that the .NET licensing >> was hand-crafted to be anti-GPL, so it effectively prohibits anyone >> from using Gnat to implement it. That means only a company with an >> existing proprietary Ada compiler is going to be able to do the job. > > Are you sure? AFAIK you may not produce GPL-clones of .NET-functionality > but it should be allowed to produce .NET-applications with compilers and > languages whatever you like. > > GPL states that if you modify GPL sources then you have to publish your > modifications. But it doesn't force you to publish your source if you, for > example, write a new Office from scratch and compile it with gcc. Of > course, you would be forced to publish your Office code if you would take > a small piece of some GPL code and enhance it to your final Office. > > Ingo Supplement: One of the officially supported .NET languages is Component Pascal. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/partners/language/default.asp#component http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/partners/language/universityqueensland.asp http://www2.fit.qut.edu.au/CompSci/PLAS//ComponentPascal/ The license of Component Pascal is GPL-like. I haven't found any usager estrictions by Microsoft yet. Why should MS? Wouldn't they shoot into their feet if they prohibit the usage of free development tools to produce .NET applications? Gardens Point Component Pascal Copyright Copyright 1998 � 2002 Queensland University of Technology (QUT). All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1.Redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials with the distribution. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE GPCP PROJECT �AS IS� AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE GPCP PROJECT OR QUT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the GPCP project or QUT. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 17:31 ` Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-08 17:35 ` Ingo Marks 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-08 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/partners/language/default.asp#component It's sad to see Cobol, Fortran and APL supported by .NET but not far-superior Ada. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 17:10 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:31 ` Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-08 17:39 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-08 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Ingo Marks <adv@region-nord.de> wrote: : GPL states that if you modify GPL sources then you have to publish your : modifications. Not necessarily. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 14:45 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-08 17:10 ` Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-09 6:51 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-09 9:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-10 7:42 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-09 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw) > > > To me it seems that most people don't realize that the Win2000 > > kernel is a huge difference to NT4, not to say the W9x kernel. > > Is it? I haven't noticed any huge differences between 2k and NT4. > There are some noticable cosmetic differences, but (with the exception > of plug-n-play) the underlying Win32 API and the kernel under that is > almost identical. > > Certianly, there is a huge difference between the NT kernel (used in > NT, 2k, and XP) and the Win9x series kernels. They are basicly 2 > *very* different OS's (the former a full-featured modern OS, the > latter little better than an embedded OS with a GUI) that share a lot > of the same API's and are somewhat binary-compatable. > No, No, No. Then you didn't look close enough. Of course the old APIs of NT4 mostly stay stable, but under the hood there are a lot of differences in implementation that makes the huge difference between Win2K and the NT4 kernel. The whole domain system has been changed and Active Directory has been introduced. That makes large Domains much easier to manage. COM+ has been integrated seamlessly, giving you a world class AppServer functionality including distributed Transaction monitoring, reliable message queueing and queued components for free. You have IntelliMirror technology, encrypted filesystem etc. etc. The networking stack has been improved (giving you IPSec for example) or a much better DNS, WINS and DHCP implementation than before. And one could continue this list. Not to mention that the codebase has been significantly cleaned up. All that results in a much higher stability of Win2000 compared to NT4. J�rgen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-09 6:51 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-09 9:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-10 8:44 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-10 7:42 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-09 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Juergen Pfeifer <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: : : but under the hood there are a lot : of differences in implementation that makes the huge difference between : Win2K and the NT4 kernel. The whole domain system has been : changed and Active Directory has been introduced. That makes large : Domains much easier to manage. COM+ has been integrated seamlessly, : [...] Is all this really in the kernel? In this case, is the kernel the best place for mostly user level functionality like COM+? : giving you a world class AppServer functionality including distributed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-09 9:11 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-10 8:44 ` Juergen Pfeifer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-10 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw) "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:a8ub8b$col$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de... > Juergen Pfeifer <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > : > : but under the hood there are a lot > : of differences in implementation that makes the huge difference between > : Win2K and the NT4 kernel. The whole domain system has been > : changed and Active Directory has been introduced. That makes large > : Domains much easier to manage. COM+ has been integrated seamlessly, > : [...] > Is all this really in the kernel? In this case, is the kernel the > > best place for mostly user level functionality like COM+? > > : giving you a world class AppServer functionality including distributed COM+ is of course not part of the kernel, but is an integral part of the OS. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-09 6:51 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-09 9:11 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-10 7:42 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2002-04-10 8:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2002-04-10 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> writes: > > > > > To me it seems that most people don't realize that the Win2000 > > > kernel is a huge difference to NT4, not to say the W9x kernel. > > > > Is it? I haven't noticed any huge differences between 2k and NT4. > > There are some noticable cosmetic differences, but (with the exception > > of plug-n-play) the underlying Win32 API and the kernel under that is > > almost identical. > > > > Certianly, there is a huge difference between the NT kernel (used in > > NT, 2k, and XP) and the Win9x series kernels. They are basicly 2 > > *very* different OS's (the former a full-featured modern OS, the > > latter little better than an embedded OS with a GUI) that share a lot > > of the same API's and are somewhat binary-compatable. > > > No, No, No. Then you didn't look close enough. Of course the old > APIs of NT4 mostly stay stable, but under the hood there are a lot > of differences in implementation that makes the huge difference between > Win2K and the NT4 kernel. The whole domain system has been > changed and Active Directory has been introduced. That makes large > Domains much easier to manage. COM+ has been integrated seamlessly, > giving you a world class AppServer functionality including distributed > Transaction monitoring, reliable message queueing and queued components > for free. You have IntelliMirror technology, encrypted filesystem etc. etc. > The networking stack has been improved (giving you IPSec for example) > or a much better DNS, WINS and DHCP implementation than before. > And one could continue this list. Not to mention that the codebase has > been significantly cleaned up. All that results in a much higher stability > of > Win2000 compared to NT4. > > J�rgen But it still is not as stable as Solaris or even Linux judging from the number of reebots after I switched boxes on my desk. :-( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 7:42 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2002-04-10 8:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-10 13:50 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-10 15:01 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-10 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) >> ... >> All that results in a much higher stability > > of > > Win2000 compared to NT4. > > > > J�rgen > > But it still is not as stable as Solaris or even Linux judging from > the number of reebots after I switched boxes on my desk. :-( Then you have other problems. I (and collegues) are running W2K or WinXP for several month without any reboot (and we have load on the systems). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 8:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-10 13:50 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-10 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-10 15:01 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-10 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> writes: > >> ... > >> All that results in a much higher stability > > > of > > > Win2000 compared to NT4. > > > > > > J�rgen > > > > But it still is not as stable as Solaris or even Linux judging from > > the number of reebots after I switched boxes on my desk. :-( > > Then you have other problems. I (and collegues) are running W2K > or WinXP for several month without any reboot (and we have > load on the systems). OT but... I agree with Juergen, Windows _used_ to be a very bad platform, but today it is making really good progress, Windows NT was a nice move, Windows 2K and Windows XP are a big step forward they are very reliable and nice to work with. Of course it is always a bit tricky to build Open Source softwares on this platform (it is quite easier to use the Microsoft Compiler and environment), but with a bit of effort it is possible to build a lot of the nice tools we have on Unix (thanks to Cygwin). I also agree with Jurgen that the underlying framework has changed a lot... but if the .NET was the answer, what was the question ? A market share, the fight with SUN and Java... what's the real value for the enterprises ? Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 13:50 ` Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-10 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-11 12:52 ` Mário Amado Alves 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry 0 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-10 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:ur8lnd5o4.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > work with. Of course it is always a bit tricky to build Open Source softwares > on this platform (it is quite easier to use the Microsoft Compiler and > environment), but with a bit of effort it is possible to build a lot of the > nice tools we have on Unix (thanks to Cygwin). > In what way is it tricky to build Open Source software on Windows? Can you not build Open Source software using a Microsoft compiler? Maybe you can't give away their part of the software but it would seem that anything you build is yours. Or do you mean that much Open Source software is developed for various flavors of Unix and hence doesn't always translate well to Windows? Just trying to understand where you're going with this. Lots of us use Ada on PC's with Windows and I don't think that precludes development of Open Source (depending on your definition of "Open Source" too...) > I also agree with Jurgen that the underlying framework has changed a > lot... but if the .NET was the answer, what was the question ? A market > share, the fight with SUN and Java... what's the real value for the > enterprises ? > Keep in mind that Microsoft is in business to make money for the stockholders and not necessarily to further computer technology. They can, and have, sold/attempted to sell things that move the market to further dependence on Microsoft. (Not unlike a drug dealer giving away free samples to get you hooked.) Not all of those things are good for the end users and sometimes they have been rejected by the market. Maybe .NET fits into that category - it has yet to be seen. Maybe its a Solution in search of a Problem? MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* RE: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 14:35 ` Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-11 12:52 ` Mário Amado Alves 2002-04-15 22:05 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Mário Amado Alves @ 2002-04-11 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) << Not all of those things are good for the end users and sometimes they have been rejected by the market. Maybe .NET fits into that category - it has yet to be seen. Maybe its a Solution in search of a Problem? >> (MCD) Definitely. Actually to me it is not even clear what .NET _is_. /* Maybe it's just me; however I undertand perfectly what Rotor--a thing "at the heart of .NET"--is. So I might be confused--but not worried ;-) */ Cheers, --MAA ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 12:52 ` Mário Amado Alves @ 2002-04-15 22:05 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-16 8:17 ` Ingo Marks ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-15 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, lets look a bit at history: Windows became really successfull when Visual Basic arrived and made the platform much more easier to program. That led to new apps that made the platform more attractive for developers... To improve reusability they then invented COM as a very successfull component model. You get it...?! Today the platform is the Internet. .NET is a component model for the internet. The .NET remoting architecture - its base for distributed computing - is quite open and there exist some implementation of the remoting model, e.g. SOAP over HTTP or a .NET proprietaty binary protocol over IP. Java is a programming language for the Internet, but .NET is much more: it is a language agnostic component model for the Internet. The virtual object system in the .NET VM is far more oriented to that goal then the JVM which was designed from the beginning for toasters and coffee machines. The metadata model and the reflection mechanism is very complete and - unlike the JVM - you can extend even the metadata model. That provides a very interisting and elegant framework for modern concepts like declarative programming or aspect oriented programming. Not to menntion that such a framework is an excellent base for mostly automatic and transparent serialization support etc. You should not identify .NET with C#. .NET is really language agnostic and the intermediate language (the "bytecode") is designed from the beginning to support that (for example there is a concept of references in the machine model which makes it very easy to have procedures with out params; try this with JVM). Most of the power is really in the virtual execution engine, the virtual object model and the class libraries. If you have a basic understanding of the architecture and then use Visual Studio.NET to write a .NET component that exposes it's interfaces via SOAP just by declarative programming, or write an ASP.NET page with a compelling user interface just the way you did before with VB on Windows - then you start to understand that the intention is to copy the successfull Windows <-> VB story in the Internet era: provide an iinternet standards based platform and a component and programming model that makes it very easy to write services and apps for the platform. Juergen "M�rio Amado Alves" <maa@liacc.up.pt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:mailman.1018529522.8353.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > << > Not all of those things are good for the end users and sometimes they > have been rejected by the market. Maybe .NET fits into that category - > it has yet to be seen. Maybe its a Solution in search of a Problem? > >> (MCD) > > Definitely. Actually to me it is not even clear what .NET _is_. /* Maybe > it's just me; however I undertand perfectly what Rotor--a thing "at the > heart of .NET"--is. So I might be confused--but not worried ;-) */ > > Cheers, > --MAA > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 22:05 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-16 8:17 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-16 9:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 20:06 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-16 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Juergen Pfeifer wrote: > ... > Java is a programming language for the Internet, but .NET is much more: > ... It's nice (for Microsoft) that you advertise .NET for them. But this is an Ada newsgroup and some of us are just interested in having Ada support for .NET. AFAIK no vendor plans to do this so .NET isn't attractive for Ada developers. Maybe someday someone starts a Ada.NET project - I don't know. I have read a document from MS Research mentioning that it would theoretically be possible to have Ada support for .NET. Currently Java support for Ada is much more interesting because there exists a working Ada frontend producing Java Bytecode. The DotGNU project (competitional framework to .NET) plans to support Java Bytecode so this framework is also more interesting than .NET (at least for me). > You should not identify .NET with C#. .NET is really language agnostic and > the intermediate language (the "bytecode") is designed from the beginning > to support that (for example there is a concept of references in the > machine model which makes it very easy to have procedures with out params; > try this with JVM). Most of the power is really in the virtual execution > engine, the virtual object model and the class libraries. This may be true. But it doesn't help us as long there is no Ada compiler for .NET. For myself, I don't want to switch to .NET and write all my applications for .NET only but just to have the _option_ to code in Ada when I need to write .NET applications. > ... provide an iinternet standards > based platform and a component and programming model that makes it very > easy to write services and apps for the platform. The last sentence you should have written this way: > easy to write services and apps for the _Windows_ platform. I know that MS eagerly tries to convince developers to .NET and asserts that .NET would be a platform independent framework. But a) Steve Ballmer himself has emphasized at CeBit 2002 in Hannover that MS will hinder every competition to the .NET framework by using its patents. MS allows competitional frameworks (like Mono) just for "academical research". b) From experience I know: When MS says "platforms" they always mean Windows platforms only. c) Many companies are not interested in .NET because they already use Java and/or they don't agree with the new license politics of Microsoft which forces them to follow every update. And some companies are neither interested in Java/J2EE nor in .NET because they want to keep their knowledge secret and know that there exist pretty good decompilers revealing their knowledge ;-) .NET is a nice framework but suitable for Windows developers only. I think it is not wise to be dependent from one vendor only. I like Ada because its standards are really platform independent. There are (even free) compilers out there for many platforms and this makes porting applications between platforms really possible. Ada just needs some standardization and some more good libraries. Then ... who knows? Why should it not become a new (little ;-) competitor to the Java and .NET frameworks? This would be good for everyone because we all know that competition betters quality. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 22:05 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-16 8:17 ` Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-16 9:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 20:06 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-16 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Juergen Pfeifer <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: Hm. This sounds as if CORBA, Distributed SOM, protocols, inter-language operability and previous research have never been there before MS invented the beast. As always.... : [.NET] is a language agnostic to (quite) some extent : The : virtual object system in the .NET VM is far more oriented to that goal then : the JVM which was designed from the beginning for toasters and coffee : machines. A comparison to CORBA is much more appropriate I think. : You should not identify .NET with C#. .NET is really language agnostic to some extent. (Not a bad thing, but neither a technical sensation.) : provide an iinternet standards based : platform and a component and programming model that makes it very easy to : write services and apps for the platform. apps writing made very easy... O.K., the tedious parts are well integrated, and can be done in short time. (database access, GUI, i.e. graphically framed text lists and text buttons aka dialog windows :), network integration, ...) Does that make writing the core logic any more easy? Is .NET the first component framework? No. You don't know it? Seems like marketing power is still an issue. Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 22:05 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-16 8:17 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-16 9:16 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-16 20:06 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-16 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<a9fis4$q67$05$1@news.t-online.com>... > Well, lets look a bit at history: Windows became really successfull when > Visual Basic arrived and made the platform much more easier to program. That Revisionist history perhaps. Microsoft originally supported VB for both DOS and Windows. When I say "Windows", I mean the original pre-95 Windows, which never really was very popular at all. (VB was released in 1991) Many businesses used Windows as a platform for MS's Office apps (which did not yet own the market like they do today), and some home users had it, but most people stuck with DOS. There are lots of good candidates for "the thing that made Windows successfull" which could be reasonably argued. VB is not really one of them. A good VB history page is available at http://www.johnsmiley.com/visualbasic/vbhistory.htm -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-11 12:52 ` Mário Amado Alves @ 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-11 18:12 ` Marin David Condic ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-11 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes: > "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message > news:ur8lnd5o4.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > work with. Of course it is always a bit tricky to build Open Source > softwares > > on this platform (it is quite easier to use the Microsoft Compiler and > > environment), but with a bit of effort it is possible to build a lot of > the > > nice tools we have on Unix (thanks to Cygwin). > > > In what way is it tricky to build Open Source software on Windows? Can you > not build Open Source software using a Microsoft compiler? Maybe you can't > give away their part of the software but it would seem that anything you > build is yours. I don't understand this part. > Or do you mean that much Open Source software is developed for various > flavors of Unix and hence doesn't always translate well to Windows? Ok, I meant that. > Just trying to understand where you're going with this. Lots of us use Ada > on PC's with Windows and I don't think that precludes development of Open > Source (depending on your definition of "Open Source" too...) Well, I also use a lot Ada, but to build GCC/GNAT, GDB, Emacs, CVS (pserver), gpg, AWS, GLADE, AdaSockets, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, GDBM... you really need to have a UNIX like environment. Or you need to port the software to avoid using GNU/configure, GNU/automake or GNU/autoconf tools or whatever UNIX oriented part that just does not work on Windows. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-11 18:12 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-11 22:08 ` Larry Kilgallen 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-11 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:un0wacgxh.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > Well, I also use a lot Ada, but to build GCC/GNAT, GDB, Emacs, CVS (pserver), > gpg, AWS, GLADE, AdaSockets, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, GDBM... you really need to have > a UNIX like environment. Or you need to port the software to avoid using > GNU/configure, GNU/automake or GNU/autoconf tools or whatever UNIX oriented > part that just does not work on Windows. > O.K. I understand your meaning now. The original comment just had me confused. This can be a real problem when developers get too OS-centric. There is a tendency sometimes to believe that there is only One True Operating System in the universe and then go forth and develop in such a way as to make it difficult to run anywhere else. That's why I like developing a single, monolithic application that only uses a command line and text files - you can usually count on something like that porting readily. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-11 18:12 ` Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-11 22:08 ` Larry Kilgallen 2002-04-12 16:11 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2002-04-11 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <un0wacgxh.fsf@wanadoo.fr>, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes: > > "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes: > >> "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message >> news:ur8lnd5o4.fsf@wanadoo.fr... >> > work with. Of course it is always a bit tricky to build Open Source >> softwares >> > on this platform (it is quite easier to use the Microsoft Compiler and >> > environment), but with a bit of effort it is possible to build a lot of >> the >> > nice tools we have on Unix (thanks to Cygwin). >> > >> In what way is it tricky to build Open Source software on Windows? Can you >> not build Open Source software using a Microsoft compiler? Maybe you can't >> give away their part of the software but it would seem that anything you >> build is yours. > > I don't understand this part. > >> Or do you mean that much Open Source software is developed for various >> flavors of Unix and hence doesn't always translate well to Windows? > > Ok, I meant that. In that regard, Windows should be no harder than OS/400. Open Source software is not different from normal software. Making useful programs portable between operating systems requires careful effort from the beginning. If there is no effort at portability put into some individual piece of Open Source software, that is a problem that cannot be blamed on Microsoft. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 22:08 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2002-04-12 16:11 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-12 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > In that regard, Windows should be no harder than OS/400. > > Open Source software is not different from normal software. Well in theory yes, but Open Source softwares are using GNU/C and commercial software on Windows use Microsoft compiler... and both are not really compatible :) > Making useful programs portable between operating systems > requires careful effort from the beginning. If there > is no effort at portability put into some individual piece > of Open Source software, that is a problem that cannot be > blamed on Microsoft. I do not blame Microsoft I was just saying that it is harder to build Open Source software using GCC on Windows... And that most (if not all) Open Source softwares are using GNU/C has the compiler and peoples use mostly GNU/Linux systems to develop them. So as I said Windows 2000/XP is a very good platform these days but it is just a bit harder to have the benefit of all ongoing Open Source efforts. BTW, Apple did a great job with Mac OS X, you have the famous Mac GUI and the powerful and flexible UNIX environment... but this is another story. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 16:11 ` Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 2002-04-15 13:19 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2002-04-12 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <uit6wdhi7.fsf@wanadoo.fr>, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes: > > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: >> Making useful programs portable between operating systems >> requires careful effort from the beginning. If there >> is no effort at portability put into some individual piece >> of Open Source software, that is a problem that cannot be >> blamed on Microsoft. > > I do not blame Microsoft I was just saying that it is harder to build Open > Source software using GCC on Windows... And that most (if not all) Open Source > softwares are using GNU/C has the compiler and peoples use mostly GNU/Linux I realize too much effort has already been spent discussing the meaning of "Open Source", but to me it seems that source described as "Open" should work with any compiler that matches a language standard. > systems to develop them. So as I said Windows 2000/XP is a very good platform > these days but it is just a bit harder to have the benefit of all ongoing Open > Source efforts. So some popular software that happens to be Open Source today is hard to build on Windows. Certainly that is an attribute of that particular software and not of Open Source. Without checking, I will presume for the sake of discussion that David Botton's COM software for Ada is Open Source. Probably it is not hard to build on Windows. Possibly it is quite hard to build (to the point of doing something useful) on Unix. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2002-04-15 13:19 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-15 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw) "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message news:iDK7+9+GKkgk@eisner.encompasserve.org... > > I realize too much effort has already been spent discussing > the meaning of "Open Source", but to me it seems that source > described as "Open" should work with any compiler that matches > a language standard. > That might be a bit too stringent a requirement. Even though Ada is one of the best and most portable standards around, it still allows for quite a bit of implementation variance even within the things that are "standard". Throw on top of that the implementation specifics of connecting to an OS or other utilities and how that might vary between implementations and platforms and I think you're just in a morass where anything but the most trivial applications wouldn't qualify as "Open Source" > > So some popular software that happens to be Open Source today > is hard to build on Windows. Certainly that is an attribute of > that particular software and not of Open Source. > One might allow for the fact that (probably) the largest body of "Open Source" software is being built by folks in the Linux or other flavors of Unix environments. Clearly those apps are going to have a big tendency to depend on Unix. Not to "blame" anyone - but it does tend to cause problems for Windows users who might want to utilize that software. Of course, one answer is for more Windows users to produce open source variants of these popular programs. Could that be an opportunity for Ada? Identify a handful of Open Source products that work on Linux/Unix but not on Windows & produce similar apps that would work on Windows? (Or both, using something like GtkAda?) > Without checking, I will presume for the sake of discussion that > David Botton's COM software for Ada is Open Source. Probably > it is not hard to build on Windows. Possibly it is quite > hard to build (to the point of doing something useful) on Unix. A reasonable observation and again something that points to a niche that Ada could exploit within the Open Source world. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-11 18:12 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-11 22:08 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-12 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<un0wacgxh.fsf@wanadoo.fr>... > Well, I also use a lot Ada, but to build GCC/GNAT, GDB, Emacs, CVS (pserver), > gpg, AWS, GLADE, AdaSockets, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, GDBM... you really need to have > a UNIX like environment. Or you need to port the software to avoid using > GNU/configure, GNU/automake or GNU/autoconf tools or whatever UNIX oriented > part that just does not work on Windows. Ahhh. That's probably the source of the confusion right there. The first thing I do with a new Windows box is install Emacs and cygwin. Since my 4 previous boxes were 4 different shades of proprietary Unix, this happens to exactly match the first steps I did with any of them (install Emacs, gcc, gnumake, and friends). Since I generally can find binary distributions for Windows rather than have to build everything from sources, setup is actually quite a bit *easier* for Windows than it has been in the past for Unix boxes. :-) So essentially I have a Unix box that happens to use Windows as the window manager. It crashes way more than a typical Unix box, but it plays way more games too. Fair trade in my book. :-) -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis 2002-04-13 1:14 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-13 8:37 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2002-04-12 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > So essentially I have a Unix box that happens to use Windows as the > window manager. It crashes way more than a typical Unix box, but it > plays way more games too. Fair trade in my book. :-) > > Well, you can always get the XFree86 port for Cygwin, then grab IceWM and have a rather nice alternate. I have a couple of boxes configured that way,and it works rather well. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis @ 2002-04-13 1:14 ` Ingo Marks 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ingo Marks @ 2002-04-13 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Falis wrote: > Ted Dennison wrote: > >> So essentially I have a Unix box that happens to use Windows as the >> window manager. It crashes way more than a typical Unix box, but it >> plays way more games too. Fair trade in my book. :-) >> >> > > Well, you can always get the XFree86 port for Cygwin, then grab IceWM > and have a rather nice alternate. I have a couple of boxes configured > that way,and it works rather well. With libW11 (Xlib for Windows) you don't need an X server: http://freshmeat.net/projects/libw11/?topic_id=809%2C909 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis @ 2002-04-13 8:37 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-13 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw) dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) writes: > Ahhh. That's probably the source of the confusion right there. The > first thing I do with a new Windows box is install Emacs and cygwin. What confusion ? In my first message I pointed out that Cygwin was a very nice way to have a Unix like environment on Windows... Anyway, I'm a bit lost with this thread now :) Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis 2002-04-13 8:37 ` Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-15 23:59 ` jim ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-15 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) If you want to look Windows more like Unix and want to port Software more easily to a Win2K environment, then you should perhaps wait until Windows Services for Unix V 3.0 will be released. This contains a full blown Unix subsystem on top of the NT microkernel, so this runs parallel to Win32 and not on top of it as some kind of emulation layer (this has been formerly known as Interix, but the new version is a reasonable improvement over the last version). This is not free but is a product, but its quite affordable. This "Microsoft Unix" is state of the art and has shared libs, a lot of GNU software on it and much more. Juergen "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4519e058.0204121314.5daae178@posting.google.com... > Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<un0wacgxh.fsf@wanadoo.fr>... > > Well, I also use a lot Ada, but to build GCC/GNAT, GDB, Emacs, CVS (pserver), > > gpg, AWS, GLADE, AdaSockets, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, GDBM... you really need to have > > a UNIX like environment. Or you need to port the software to avoid using > > GNU/configure, GNU/automake or GNU/autoconf tools or whatever UNIX oriented > > part that just does not work on Windows. > > Ahhh. That's probably the source of the confusion right there. The > first thing I do with a new Windows box is install Emacs and cygwin. > Since my 4 previous boxes were 4 different shades of proprietary Unix, > this happens to exactly match the first steps I did with any of them > (install Emacs, gcc, gnumake, and friends). Since I generally can find > binary distributions for Windows rather than have to build everything > from sources, setup is actually quite a bit *easier* for Windows than > it has been in the past for Unix boxes. :-) > > So essentially I have a Unix box that happens to use Windows as the > window manager. It crashes way more than a typical Unix box, but it > plays way more games too. Fair trade in my book. :-) > > > -- > T.E.D. > Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) > Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-15 23:59 ` jim 2002-04-17 13:57 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-16 10:57 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 20:12 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: jim @ 2002-04-15 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted, perhaps you should look at a mac with os x on it. its REAL unix, runs macos 9, Aqua, X-windows, and yes windows xx AND it plays a lot of games. not as much as windows perhaps but way more than unix so its a nicer compromise! I write ada code for Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, SGI, and Windows all on the same laptop. Jim > So essentially I have a Unix box that happens to use Windows as the > > window manager. It crashes way more than a typical Unix box, but it > > plays way more games too. Fair trade in my book. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 23:59 ` jim @ 2002-04-17 13:57 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-17 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw) jim <jim_evart@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<150420021959070675%jim_evart@yahoo.com>... > Ted, perhaps you should look at a mac with os x on it. its REAL unix, > runs macos 9, Aqua, X-windows, and yes windows xx AND it plays a lot of > games. not as much as windows perhaps but way more than unix so its a > nicer compromise! You don't understand. There can be no compromise on the gaming issue. I buy a lot of games at full price *the day* they come out, because I can't wait. Macs may play more games than Linux, but they still get fewer games than Windows and generally get them later. For my gaming rig I need *the* gaming OS. However, my parents are MacHeads, and I've been trying to talk them into getting OSX installed. It would be awfully nice to have a usable machine over there when I go visit. :-) -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-15 23:59 ` jim @ 2002-04-16 10:57 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 13:06 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-16 15:14 ` Wes Groleau 2002-04-16 20:12 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-16 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Juergen Pfeifer <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: : This is not free but is a product, If you allow me to be picky, being a product may mean having been produced. GNAT not a product? Ha! CLAW not a product because there is a no-cost version? I think StarOffice, OS/360, .NET framework, free beer, ... all qualify as products perfectly well. GNU/Linux is a product with full support available. : This "Microsoft Unix" is state of the art and has shared libs, a lot of GNU : software on it and much more. INcidentally, AT&T has made a similar thing, UWIN. Anything to do with it? Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-16 10:57 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-16 13:06 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-16 15:14 ` Wes Groleau 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-16 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw) That's a little definitional & may come under various legal considerations. If you develop something under a government grant (such as SBA or various military things) they will have lots of requirements you need to meet and giving something away at no cost may not be in that list. So there may be a clash between "free" and "product" depending on the context. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:a9h034$cal$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de... > > If you allow me to be picky, being a product may mean having > been produced. GNAT not a product? Ha! CLAW not a product because > there is a no-cost version? I think StarOffice, OS/360, .NET > framework, free beer, ... all qualify as products perfectly well. > GNU/Linux is a product with full support available. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-16 10:57 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 13:06 ` Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-16 15:14 ` Wes Groleau 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 2002-04-16 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) > INcidentally, AT&T has made a similar thing, UWIN. Anything to do > with it? Great name! :-) -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-15 23:59 ` jim 2002-04-16 10:57 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-16 20:12 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-16 21:26 ` Ed Falis 2 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-16 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<a9fh3u$7a1$04$1@news.t-online.com>... > If you want to look Windows more like Unix and want to port Software more > easily to a Win2K environment, then you should perhaps wait until Windows > Services for Unix V 3.0 will be released. This contains a full blown Unix > subsystem on top of the NT microkernel, so this runs parallel to Win32 and > not on top of it as some kind of emulation layer (this has been formerly > known as Interix, but the new version is a reasonable improvement over the > last version). This is not free but is a product, but its quite affordable. > This "Microsoft Unix" is state of the art and has shared libs, a lot of GNU > software on it and much more. We had 1.0 and 2.0 here (we needed NFS). I don't suppose this "Microsoft Unix" would happen to be a relabeled MKS Unix tools distribution? There was a "demo version" of it on the 1.0 and 2.0 CD's. As I remember, it was about $500. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-16 20:12 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-16 21:26 ` Ed Falis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2002-04-16 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > We had 1.0 and 2.0 here (we needed NFS). I don't suppose this > "Microsoft Unix" would happen to be a relabeled MKS Unix tools > distribution? There was a "demo version" of it on the 1.0 and 2.0 > CD's. > > As I remember, it was about $500. > Not the same thing at all. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 8:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-10 13:50 ` Pascal Obry @ 2002-04-10 15:01 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-10 22:58 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-15 21:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 1 sibling, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-10 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw) "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<a90tsf$tms$07$1@news.t-online.com>... > >> ... > >> All that results in a much higher stability > > > of > > > Win2000 compared to NT4. > > > > But it still is not as stable as Solaris or even Linux judging from > > the number of reebots after I switched boxes on my desk. :-( > > Then you have other problems. I (and collegues) are running W2K > or WinXP for several month without any reboot (and we have > load on the systems). My home Win2k system (an Athlon box with a non-intel chipset on which I play a lot of games) tends to crash all the time, particularly while playing DirectX games. My work NT4 system (A PIII system with an Intel chipset on which I do development) generally stays up until we take a power hit at work (or I stupidly test out one of the device drivers I'm creating on it). The point of this is: o *Of*course* stability has everything to do with what you do with the system. It'd have to be a truly crappy system to crash when nothing's running. :-) o As an end-user, the distinction doesn't really matter to me. The fact of the matter is that, for whatever reason, I currently find my Win2k box significantly less stable than my NT4 box. Perhaps they did clean up a kernel bug or two in NT, but whatever crashes they prevented are being swamped by the overall buggyness of their hardware support and their DirectX interface. Now in defence of Windows, often the real culprit is the hardware. Over the years I've found that while putting together a PC system is fairly easy, putting together a *stable* one is pretty hard. Sun has only a very few hardware combinations to worry about, so its much easier for them to put together a stable system. For instance, I think I increased the stability of my home system by about %300 by just installing a case fan near the CPU. SETI@Home isn't giving my CPU a breather *ever*, and that takes a toll in heat. Similarly my wife's Win98 system for a long time had trouble with reboots whenever her desk was bumped. After a while I got sick of her yelling at the kids for bumping the desk, and determined to fix the damn thing. It turned out that the power supply's circuit board had broken near the mounting screw holes, and was thus swinging freely. Whenever the system took a big bump, the PS circuit board would swing back, and the circuits underneath would make contact with its metal enclosure. Out go the lights. But still we can't entirely let Microsoft off the hook here. They seem to get things working fine with the most common hardware, and then just quit. Folks with second-tier vendor stuff like Athlons and VIA chipsets are just left swinging. What you end up with is a thousand hardware vendors (who generally operate in very low-margin businesses) trying to make their drivers work with 4 Windows OSes and the drivers of a thousand other hardware vendors, which are all secret code and moving targets. It just *cannot* be done. I have to constantly scan the VIA and Athlon and nVidia websites for news of new compatability problem fixes. The fact of the matter is that users are dying to help fix problems, but The System in Windows won't let them. For example, there was one problem some folks were having with crashes while trying to burn music CD's. Over the course of a month assorted users narrowed it down to systems with NT and a certian VIA southbridge chip. VIA denied there was a problem. Next they figured out that it happened whenever there was activity on both IDE busses, and the soundcard was just using enough PCI resources to make the problem show up more often. Then somone managed to reverse-engineer the VIA bios and find a BIOS hack that made IDE behave diffently and fix the issue. Later semone else made an NT device driver to apply it at boot time. About a month later, VIA released a driver with the fix, so the custom device driver was no longer nessecary. The punchline is that it turned out that Linux folks had identified a similar problem and fixed it months before. I really don't see how the system Microsoft has set up of thousands of interoperating secret device drivers in a secret kernel can ever hope to compete for stability with the Linux system of drivers (and the kernel) being standard and open and available for debugging by anyone who happens to notice a problem with their particular hardware combo, vendor or not. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 15:01 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-10 22:58 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 0:05 ` David Brown 2002-04-15 21:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-10 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > I really don't see how the system Microsoft has set up of thousands of > interoperating secret device drivers in a secret kernel can ever hope Wes: You sent me an email question about this message, but I really have no way of sending you an aswer, since I highly doubt a message sent to wesgroleau@despammed.com is going to reach you. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 22:58 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-11 0:05 ` David Brown 2002-04-11 13:24 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: David Brown @ 2002-04-11 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > Wes: You sent me an email question about this message, but I really have > no way of sending you an aswer, since I highly doubt a message sent to > wesgroleau@despammed.com is going to reach you. :-) Actually, it looks like a very reasonable address for someone to use for posting. despammed.com provides a mail filtering service. Dave Brown ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 0:05 ` David Brown @ 2002-04-11 13:24 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 15:55 ` Darren New 2002-04-11 18:11 ` Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-11 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw) David Brown <cla@davidb.org> wrote in message news:<pr4t8.35934$VQ2.16993909@twister.socal.rr.com>... > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > > Wes: You sent me an email question about this message, but I really have > > no way of sending you an aswer, since I highly doubt a message sent to > > wesgroleau@despammed.com is going to reach you. :-) > > Actually, it looks like a very reasonable address for someone to use for > posting. despammed.com provides a mail filtering service. Ahhh, my mistake. It looked like a fake address, so when I couldn't hit a website at www.despammed.com, I figured it must be. I guess next time I try a ping test first. :-) -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 13:24 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-11 15:55 ` Darren New 2002-04-11 16:37 ` [OT] ping alternatives Wes Groleau 2002-04-11 18:11 ` Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Darren New @ 2002-04-11 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > Ahhh, my mistake. It looked like a fake address, so when I couldn't > hit a website at www.despammed.com, I figured it must be. I guess next > time I try a ping test first. :-) Better would be telnet despammed.com smtp Best would be nslookup > set type=mx > despammed.com :-) -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. Remember, drive defensively if you drink. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [OT] ping alternatives 2002-04-11 15:55 ` Darren New @ 2002-04-11 16:37 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 2002-04-11 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) > Better would be > telnet despammed.com smtp On some systems, this won't work. In that case, telnet <host> 25 > Best would be > nslookup > > set type=mx > > despammed.com Thanks - that's a little fancier than I've ever done with nslookup. I should learn more about it. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 13:24 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 15:55 ` Darren New @ 2002-04-11 18:11 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 19:46 ` Wes Groleau 2002-04-12 1:49 ` Steve Doiel 1 sibling, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-11 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in message news:<4519e058.0204110524.535514af@posting.google.com>... > David Brown <cla@davidb.org> wrote in message news:<pr4t8.35934$VQ2.16993909@twister.socal.rr.com>... > > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > > > > Wes: You sent me an email question about this message, but I really have > > > no way of sending you an aswer, since I highly doubt a message sent to > > > wesgroleau@despammed.com is going to reach you. :-) > > > > Actually, it looks like a very reasonable address for someone to use for > > posting. despammed.com provides a mail filtering service. > > Ahhh, my mistake. It looked like a fake address, so when I couldn't > hit a website at www.despammed.com, I figured it must be. I guess next > time I try a ping test first. :-) (sigh) And apparently is was just down last night and this morning. It hits a website now. Perhaps I should just give up and get a job working cattle... -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 18:11 ` Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-11 19:46 ` Wes Groleau 2002-04-11 20:38 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-12 1:49 ` Steve Doiel 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 2002-04-11 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw) > Perhaps I should just give up and get a job working cattle... I've thought that quite often in this profession.... :-) -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 19:46 ` Wes Groleau @ 2002-04-11 20:38 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2002-04-11 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw) "Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:3CB5E7FB.33731FBB@despammed.com... > > > Perhaps I should just give up and get a job working cattle... > > I've thought that quite often in this profession.... :-) > I always threaten to go get myself 40 acres and a mule and start up a dental floss ranch in Montana - where the smallest unit of time will be a season... :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-11 18:11 ` Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 19:46 ` Wes Groleau @ 2002-04-12 1:49 ` Steve Doiel 2002-04-12 14:27 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Steve Doiel @ 2002-04-12 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message > Perhaps I should just give up and get a job working cattle... > Does it pay better than digging ditches? ;-) SteveD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 1:49 ` Steve Doiel @ 2002-04-12 14:27 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-12 16:01 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-12 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw) "Steve Doiel" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<r2rt8.7479$Gl6.3034@sccrnsc01>... > "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message > Perhaps I should > just give up and get a job working cattle... > > > > Does it pay better than digging ditches? No, but compared to working S/W, the you have to put up with slightly less bullsh...err..perhaps I'd better quit before I get in any further trouble. :-) -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-12 14:27 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-12 16:01 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-12 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: : No, but compared to working S/W, the you have to put up with slightly : less bullsh... ^^^^^^^^^ Given todays amount of digesting animals per place, you must be confronted with an outstanding number of surprising requirements :-) - georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-10 15:01 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-10 22:58 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-15 21:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-15 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) That sounds to me like you have a hardware problem or you are using some rotten 3rd party driver for some of your hardware. And in case of certain hardware problems or driver bugs an OS might fail. Another common source for crashes is that people tend to use Windows with priviledged accounts. Then even a broken app can crash your system. You can easily get this if you run a faulty app as root on Unix. Juergen "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4519e058.0204100701.25c99fb6@posting.google.com... > "Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<a90tsf$tms$07$1@news.t-online.com>... > > >> ... > > >> All that results in a much higher stability > > > > of > > > > Win2000 compared to NT4. > > > > > > But it still is not as stable as Solaris or even Linux judging from > > > the number of reebots after I switched boxes on my desk. :-( > > > > Then you have other problems. I (and collegues) are running W2K > > or WinXP for several month without any reboot (and we have > > load on the systems). > > My home Win2k system (an Athlon box with a non-intel chipset on which > I play a lot of games) tends to crash all the time, particularly while > playing DirectX games. My work NT4 system (A PIII system with an Intel > chipset on which I do development) generally stays up until we take a > power hit at work (or I stupidly test out one of the device drivers > I'm creating on it). > > The point of this is: > > o *Of*course* stability has everything to do with what you do with > the system. It'd have to be a truly crappy system to crash when > nothing's running. :-) > > o As an end-user, the distinction doesn't really matter to me. The > fact of the matter is that, for whatever reason, I currently find my > Win2k box significantly less stable than my NT4 box. Perhaps they did > clean up a kernel bug or two in NT, but whatever crashes they > prevented are being swamped by the overall buggyness of their hardware > support and their DirectX interface. > > Now in defence of Windows, often the real culprit is the hardware. > Over the years I've found that while putting together a PC system is > fairly easy, putting together a *stable* one is pretty hard. Sun has > only a very few hardware combinations to worry about, so its much > easier for them to put together a stable system. > > For instance, I think I increased the stability of my home system by > about %300 by just installing a case fan near the CPU. SETI@Home isn't > giving my CPU a breather *ever*, and that takes a toll in heat. > Similarly my wife's Win98 system for a long time had trouble with > reboots whenever her desk was bumped. After a while I got sick of her > yelling at the kids for bumping the desk, and determined to fix the > damn thing. It turned out that the power supply's circuit board had > broken near the mounting screw holes, and was thus swinging freely. > Whenever the system took a big bump, the PS circuit board would swing > back, and the circuits underneath would make contact with its metal > enclosure. Out go the lights. > > But still we can't entirely let Microsoft off the hook here. They seem > to get things working fine with the most common hardware, and then > just quit. Folks with second-tier vendor stuff like Athlons and VIA > chipsets are just left swinging. What you end up with is a thousand > hardware vendors (who generally operate in very low-margin businesses) > trying to make their drivers work with 4 Windows OSes and the drivers > of a thousand other hardware vendors, which are all secret code and > moving targets. It just *cannot* be done. I have to constantly scan > the VIA and Athlon and nVidia websites for news of new compatability > problem fixes. The fact of the matter is that users are dying to help > fix problems, but The System in Windows won't let them. > > For example, there was one problem some folks were having with crashes > while trying to burn music CD's. Over the course of a month assorted > users narrowed it down to systems with NT and a certian VIA > southbridge chip. VIA denied there was a problem. Next they figured > out that it happened whenever there was activity on both IDE busses, > and the soundcard was just using enough PCI resources to make the > problem show up more often. Then somone managed to reverse-engineer > the VIA bios and find a BIOS hack that made IDE behave diffently and > fix the issue. Later semone else made an NT device driver to apply it > at boot time. About a month later, VIA released a driver with the fix, > so the custom device driver was no longer nessecary. The punchline is > that it turned out that Linux folks had identified a similar problem > and fixed it months before. > > I really don't see how the system Microsoft has set up of thousands of > interoperating secret device drivers in a secret kernel can ever hope > to compete for stability with the Linux system of drivers (and the > kernel) being standard and open and available for debugging by anyone > who happens to notice a problem with their particular hardware combo, > vendor or not. > > -- > T.E.D. > Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) > Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-08 9:46 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-08 14:45 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-04-08 17:34 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2002-04-08 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Juergen Pfeifer <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: : Rotor may change the perception a bit. Now people can look : at the very heart of the .NET architecture, the CLI and the : C# compiler and they can see themself how MS code is : advancing the state of the art. I think it's more like there is a state of the art, and MS is capable of making that state visible and, in a particular way, usable. Also, it appears that it is not the source for the shipping MS binaries that you will see. From the article by Stutz: * There are significant differences in implementation between this code and the code for Microsoft's commercial CLR implementation, both to facilitate portability and to make the codebase more approachable. (Might I throw in that .NET has "pre-competitive" (MS) and not completely non-competitive (pre)cursors outside of Microsoft?) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* [OT] (was): Ada & .Net (Rotor) 2002-04-02 16:01 Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ehud Lamm 2002-04-02 23:12 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2002-04-17 1:37 ` Kent Paul Dolan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Kent Paul Dolan @ 2002-04-17 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) It's sort of bemusing in one thread here to see educators cheering on their students' self-weaning from the Microsoft hegemony, and in another to see plans to join the thundering herds self-directed into yet another Microsoft-initiated proprietary system. Obviously the "evil" of "Evil Empire" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. xanthian. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-04-17 13:57 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 54+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-04-02 16:01 Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ehud Lamm 2002-04-02 23:12 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-03 9:48 ` Ehud Lamm 2002-04-08 9:46 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-08 14:45 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-08 17:10 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:31 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:35 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-08 17:39 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-09 6:51 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-09 9:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-10 8:44 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-10 7:42 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2002-04-10 8:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-10 13:50 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-10 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-11 12:52 ` Mário Amado Alves 2002-04-15 22:05 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-16 8:17 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-16 9:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 20:06 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 16:56 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-11 18:12 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-11 22:08 ` Larry Kilgallen 2002-04-12 16:11 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 2002-04-15 13:19 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-12 21:14 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-12 21:27 ` Ed Falis 2002-04-13 1:14 ` Ingo Marks 2002-04-13 8:37 ` Pascal Obry 2002-04-15 21:36 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-15 23:59 ` jim 2002-04-17 13:57 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-16 10:57 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-16 13:06 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-16 15:14 ` Wes Groleau 2002-04-16 20:12 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-16 21:26 ` Ed Falis 2002-04-10 15:01 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-10 22:58 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 0:05 ` David Brown 2002-04-11 13:24 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 15:55 ` Darren New 2002-04-11 16:37 ` [OT] ping alternatives Wes Groleau 2002-04-11 18:11 ` Ada & .Net (Rotor) Ted Dennison 2002-04-11 19:46 ` Wes Groleau 2002-04-11 20:38 ` Marin David Condic 2002-04-12 1:49 ` Steve Doiel 2002-04-12 14:27 ` Ted Dennison 2002-04-12 16:01 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-15 21:41 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2002-04-08 17:34 ` Georg Bauhaus 2002-04-17 1:37 ` [OT] (was): " Kent Paul Dolan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox