On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:39:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 14:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The point was that Andy said that binary blob data could be stored in
>> the registry and not a Linux configuration file.
> 
> Oh. I thought that was more "you *could* do it that way, but it would be
> a stupid way to do it" sort of comment. OK.

Oh, no.  It was entirely about the fact that saying the registry is 
unique (or whatever) because you can store binary data in it was kinda 
silly.

>> So it's still bad behaviour because of poor design.  Design that
>> Microsoft could have some say in, given that they do still hold the
>> largest market share.  But instead they certify drivers for hardware
>> that suffers from poor design.
> 
> They'd probably get their ass sued off if they wouldn't certify drivers
> just because it required resetting the hardware to read its state.

I dunno, they've used some pretty heavy-handed approaches in the past.  
That's part of the reason there's concern in some corners about the new 
secure UEFI stuff.

>>> Machines have had BSOD since long before MS-Dos was around. :-)
>> Sure, but I don't think it was called that.
> 
> Sure, and they weren't blue. (Actually, I still giggle that I had a
> co-worker who had installed and uninstalled so much experimental crap on
> his machine that he got a yellow-on-grey-screen-of-death every time he
> logged out.)

That is pretty impressive. ;)

But the term "BSOD" originally meant "Black Screen of Death" and came 
with certain versions of Novell's VLM client (1.02, IIRC) with DOS and 
Windows 3.1.  To the best of my knowledge, that's where BSOD was first 
used.

>> Well, in the end, I don't really care either, but it bugs me to see the
>> same old myths recycled about Linux....just as it seems to bug you to
>> see the same old myths recycled about Windows. ;)
> 
> Yep, pretty much. Both of taken major strides recently.  Linux more than
> Windows, I think.

Indeed. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message