nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> no, I'm simply saying that those "multiple operating systems" are 
>>> using the same old code from the same single company to handle old 
>>> apps, so that doesn't count as multiple operating systems.
>>
>> Well, no, they're not. That's just factually incorrect. If that was 
>> the case, DOS programs couldn't write to files on NTFS partitions or 
>> access network shares,
> 
> once the NTFS partitions or network shares are "mounted", I guess they 
> just made it available to the DOS IO calls as local files in DOS 
> "standard file format".  Little extensions and adjustments to let the 
> old dog keep moving.

Yes. It's called "compatibility". Honestly, think about it. You have 
DOS, which was written before NTFS, which managed the file system on the 
disk. Indeed, that's pretty much the only thing it did.

Now you have a completely different file system that's incompatible with 
DOS. What parts of DOS are you reusing?

>> nor would software that writes directly to the screen work inside a 
>> window.
> 
> why not?

What part of DOS was responsible for making programs that wrote directly 
to screen memory instead write into a window?

Have you forgotten what we're discussing at this point?

>  videogame emulators have long been tricking console software 
> dumps into thinking a rectangular area in a windowing system is actually 
> the TV screen...

It's called a "genlock". While most video cards have genlocks on them 
these days (also called "overlays"), that isn't how Windows does it.

>> I.e., you've pushed off the work of porting your stuff to the author 
>> of the interpreter.
> 
> so what?  old DOS apps running on Windows also did that.

I don't think you are keeping track of what we're discussing. Because 
this rejoinder makes no sense to me.

> Your code is portable and you don't have to recompile nor compile the 
> runtime for yourself.  Are people never satisfied?

Quite satisifed, yes. What's wrong with VMWare, again?

>> Yet "mono" for some reason is "proprietary Microsoft code"?
> 
> besides the untested IP aspect that can give M$ weapons for spreading 
> "Linux uses our IP" FUD by distorting some truth, the real horrendous 
> aspect of mono is that it gets people hooked on yet another M$ dependent 
>  technology that'll never run as well on the real thing and that is 
> always one step behind the original.

Hmmmm... Like, say, Java?

>> That doesn't make it "cross-platform".
> but it is:  I can use from Windows at work, Linux at home, whatever...

I'm not sure you and I are speaking about the same thing.

>>>> Except they don't provide executables.
>>> They sure do.  And they are truly cross-platform.
>>
>> Python compiles down to an executable I can run on both Windows and 
>> Linux without installing a Python interpreter? Cool.
> 
> I thought you saying the companies did not provide executables.

No. We're talking about Windows providing backward compatibility for 
compiled executables on multiple operating systems. Why would I be 
talking about recompiling python interpreters?

>>>  But the source is there 
>> ... if you don't mind giving it away ...
> we're talking about open-source software here, aren't we?

Not exclusively. The advantage that MS has over its competitors is they 
managed to get executables that are *NOT* open source to run on multiple 
operating systems over the years. *That* is a big part of why they have 
a monopoly.

>> Yep. In other words, recompile.  As opposed to Microsoft, which 
>> manages to do it without recompiling and without a "cross-platform 
>> language".
> 
> they recompiled their own DOS runtimes and APIs and introduced 
> "middlemen" so as to make them see network shares or windows as 
> traditional resources.

And you know this ... how?  What makes you think there's any significant 
amount of DOS code left in XP?

> Why are you so obsessed with recompilations when it's not even any 
> trouble for you as a user?

Because that's what we're talking about - closed-source commercial 
for-fee executables running on multiple OSes.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message