From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f49c8f164340c377 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: Current status of Ada? Reply-To: anon@anon.org (anon) References: <1187726191.464593.16480@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.198.12 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1188554092 12.64.198.12 (Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:52 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1621 Date: 2007-08-31T09:54:52+00:00 List-Id: > >I live in Europe now as I did throughout the entirety of the 1990s and >if you think public European libraries have computer magazines from >that decade then you are not very well informed about this topic. I >can tell you that a review of OS/2 Warp in a European magazine I read >(which I can easily retrieve from my own personal collection and send >you a copy of if you wish) was not very positive. Another issue of >that magazine from that decade contained coverage of OS/2 Warp which >was much more negative (and somewhat exaggerated) and was somewhat >like the following: it was a response to a letter and the response was >like this: of the hundreds of thousands of readers of this magazine, >we would receive about two complaints for criticizing OS/2 and most of >them [sic] would probably be fom employees of IBM. You might still go to the library are get some name of the Eurpoean computer magazines name. Then check their website for archive. A few time I have done this and have found what I was looking for. Well, the history of OS/2 (2.0-Warp) is that. Version 2.0 was written by Microsoft and like all os that they have release the first version had a few bugs, but the version was better than Windows 3.x. IBM released version 2.1 patched version 2.0 just like they did with DOS ( MS released verson 6.00 and IBM would release the patched version 6.01 a few week later ). Then IBM released a major upgrade to 3.0 to include the P4. But the writting was on the wall because when they created release 4.0 aka OS/2 WARP, most of IBM TEAM OS/2 had already transfered to other projects such as JAVA and the others that were left were looking mostly for new job. So, their hearts was not into doing a good job. When I say that OS/2 was better than Windows I was talking about the buggy version 2.0 and the patched 2.1. As for your European magazine they normally was talking about WARP. >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"This leads one to believe that most Non-US companies will not switch to | >|Vesta. | >| | >|>Maybe not, maybe. | >| | >|This should be a no brainer! Keep the existing LINUX system" | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >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. > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|" which is | >|easy to update" | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >Running two closed source third party programs which were dynamically >linked for different GNU/Linux operating systems can be very difficult >if you need to run them in one operating system on one computer. This >problem could easily arise if one program needs to be upgraded. > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|" and update only when it is needed. Plus you do not have | >|to update software unless there is a problem or an expansion. Or pay | >|Microsoft Big bucks for a complete new system both software as | >|well as new hardware, every 18 to 24 months and a yearly licensing | >|fee." | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >You seem to be under the misimpression that what you call "LINUX" is >an operating system. Yes, I call LINUX an operating system. There is no requirement that an operating system must use DLL. But in any case LINUX does allow installable modules that can be install at boot or durring execution and id when finished with the module you can uninstall it. I have programs that dynamically config the system by installing a number of different modules based on the systems needs. Aka a simple type of DLL. > Dynamically linked binaries for one GNU/Linux >distribution are extremely unlikely to work for another GNU/Linux >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. Actually, the installing program that is normally used today is "RPM", which trys to insure that the program has all the libraries it needs before RPM will install the program. So, they is no real problem here. > >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. An example of TCO that link was at www.groklaw.net said that a System that cost $2 Mil for a Microsoft system with new hard and an annually licensing fee $200 K month would be TCO of $4.2 Mil for year one, and $6.4 for two years. and that does not include the number of ITs to maintain the system. Plus, the licensing fee is not optional (Sometime Microsoft enforces this). But for LINUX. The initial system cost would be $1.25 to $1.5 Mil and a annually licensing fee $10K per month and with a single full time IT to maintain the system of $50K. That would give a TCO of $1.5 to $1.6 Mil at the maximum fo the first year, and only $1.7 for a second year. Licencing maintance fee is optional in most cases. So MS would cost a company $6.4 Mil every two years while LINUX only cost you $1.7 Mil. > >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. Well your license is what is called an "AS-IS" license. That states that if the software damages things such as your computer, TV/VCR (connected through video card). Or even hurt you, the software copright owners are not liable for any damages, including your life. But when it comes to business, they want someone liable, so they can recover their damages or to pass the buck to if someone get hurt. That means that businesses pay for yealy license and the software copright owners provides timely updates to the software. And in some cases the software copright owners can share in legal reasonability for damages. In , Colin Paul Gloster writes: >On 2007-08-30, anon wrote: > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"In , Colin Paul Gloster writes:| >| | >|>Which companies used OS/2 much? | >| | >|[..] For others | >|and to know which ones, well I suggest you go to the local Public | >|Library and check out some of the computer magazines of the 1990s. | >|All of my magazines are Archived." | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >I live in Europe now as I did throughout the entirety of the 1990s and >if you think public European libraries have computer magazines from >that decade then you are not very well informed about this topic. I >can tell you that a review of OS/2 Warp in a European magazine I read >(which I can easily retrieve from my own personal collection and send >you a copy of if you wish) was not very positive. Another issue of >that magazine from that decade contained coverage of OS/2 Warp which >was much more negative (and somewhat exaggerated) and was somewhat >like the following: it was a response to a letter and the response was >like this: of the hundreds of thousands of readers of this magazine, >we would receive about two complaints for criticizing OS/2 and most of >them [sic] would probably be fom employees of IBM. > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"[..] | >| | >|I believe there is a link at www.groklaw.net about the Microsoft and | >|European court battle, it was a couple of years ago that I saw it, so | >|look in the achives! [..]" | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >Thank you, I might check this when I have more time. > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"This leads one to believe that most Non-US companies will not switch to | >|Vesta. | >| | >|>Maybe not, maybe. | >| | >|This should be a no brainer! Keep the existing LINUX system" | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >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. > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|" which is | >|easy to update" | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >Running two closed source third party programs which were dynamically >linked for different GNU/Linux operating systems can be very difficult >if you need to run them in one operating system on one computer. This >problem could easily arise if one program needs to be upgraded. > >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|" and update only when it is needed. Plus you do not have | >|to update software unless there is a problem or an expansion. Or pay | >|Microsoft Big bucks for a complete new system both software as | >|well as new hardware, every 18 to 24 months and a yearly licensing | >|fee." | >|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >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 >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. > >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. > >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.