Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Because you had lots of OSes called UNIX that weren't compatible with
> each other, even at the source level.  (See autoconf)

that only happens when you exchange a common API for platform-specific APIs that
do the same thing faster or funkier.  It happens even in Java.

It doesn't really happen in M$ because there really is a single vendor with a
single set of solutions and they can cram old APIs to handle old code in their
newer products with newer incompatible APIs.

> > Win9x did not support DOS programs: they simply had DOS included to handle
> > those.
>
> DOS programs ran in a window, just like they do now.

It runs in a window because that's how graphical ambients run console programs:
by opening a window terminal and letting the console program do their job.  It
doesn't magically transform them into full graphical programs with graphical
drop-down menus.  The OS calls such programs did were DOS calls and such calls
are still supported these days by letting an emulated DOS handle those.

So, there's your secret for backwards compatibility:  let old code handle old
code.  or just let user old code die...

> > Single vendor, single solution.
>
> Yes? So?

So they can afford to provide their older APIs together with the new.  It's
their own code, it's not really "2 different OSes"!

> So, different operating systems. You're making my point for me. :-)

old code still handled by old code, not new.

> So you agree with me, but think MS is bad.

Yes, because MS is a monopoly.  That's what is bad about it.  The fact that the
programs are buggy is not as bad, every software has bugs.  What makes it
particularly annoying is the fact that this giant SOB with some of the
brightest minds behind it and tons of money *still* has bugs and steals so much
ideas from other sources.  Or just buy them.

So, it's a giant complex software with tons of interdependencies?!  It should
have bugs?  Linux distributions are also giant complex software with tons of
interdependencies and to get it worse, such software is made by thousands of
little contributions from developers around the world with almost no contact
with each other.  I've been using the likes of Ubuntu, OpenSuse and Fedora the
last few years and while the bugs are certainly different than those of MS
software, there doesn't seem to be as many or as little as those.

So, why is the single largest and richest developer in the world with so many
bright minds and a single set of enforcement rules over their developers about
code quality and API standards get rivalled by ad-hoc developers from around
the world working on many different little pieces of software that eventually
get assembled into a Linux distribution?

It seems to me MS crappy, crippled software is such by design, so people have
always a reason to update.

Post a reply to this message