Re: Current status of Ada?

[Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

> Many companies outside of the United States of America are running
> operating systems which had been created before DOS. At least one of
> the banks I am a customer of, for example.

At the desktop?

> You seem to be under the misimpression that what you call "LINUX" is
> an operating system. Dynamically linked binaries for one GNU/Linux
> distribution are extremely unlikely to work for another GNU/Linux

"Extremely unlikely" is wrong, I think, especially for binaries that
have been compiled with the explicit aim to run on multiple Linux
distros. E.g. Open office and Nozilla have binary packages that run on
a wide range of current distributions.

> distribution. They are different operating systems. Many things for
> Microsoft Windows 98 will not run on Microsoft NT 3.51, but their
> level of binary compatibility is far more than is common between
> GNU/Linux distributions.

s/far//

That at least is true. But there is also less necessity for binary
compatibility in Linux than in the closed source world.

> With any of GNU/Linux and Microsoft, a company would need to employ
> someone who is competent at maintaining an installation, whose salary
> would make the price of a Microsoft operating system insignificant.

Absolut nonsense. Furthermore people who need a full time employee to
maintain a Linux installation wuite likely need also someone to run
their windows installations.

> At home, the operating system I mainly use is Microsoft DOS version
> 5. The money which was paid for it in the 1990s was for a permanent
> license and I do not need to buy new software and hardware for it. It
> works better than any of the other operating systems you mentioned in
> this thread.

What does "work better" mean? Does it have better virtual memory
management? Does ist run picture processing programs like Gimp or
photo shop? Etc ...


Regards -- Markus