 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Unix has a concept of "current working directory". Windows has an
> identical concept. But did you know that Windows keeps a working
> directory FOR EVERY DRIVE?
>
> C:\> CD Foo
> C:\Foo> D:
> D:\> CD Bar
> D:\Bar> E:
> E:\> C:
> C:\Foo> D:
> D:\Bar> E:
> E:\> DIR C:
> --lists everything in C:\Bar--
> E:\> DIR C:\
> --lists everything in C:\--
>
> How random is that?
>
Let see from way back when I was using DOS 3... Well before knowing
anything about Windows.
Yes, I could do exactly that.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/06/2011 09:07 PM, Alain wrote:
> Let see from way back when I was using DOS 3... Well before knowing
> anything about Windows.
>
> Yes, I could do exactly that.
Well, I doubt they added it for Windows. The command prompt is pretty
much a deprecated way of doing things. It's only supported for backwards
compatibility. So yes, I had presumed this carried over from MS-DOS
(although I couldn't say what version).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> OSes are like cities: built on top of the ruins of older ones...
>>
>> This seems to be the main think that's broken about both Windows and
>> Linux. Too many decades of backwards compatibility.
>
> Coincidentally that's exactly what made them successful in the first
> place (as opposed to e.g. BeOS). You know, avoiding the hen-and-egg
> problem of OS vs. applications.
The same could be said of the ancient x86 platform, which still supports
running obsolete versions of MS-DOS if you want to.
> Hm... which makes me think: Has there ever been any attempts yet to
> implement a stand-alone JVM as an OS?
Isn't that kind of the original *point* of Java?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.06.2011 09:56, schrieb Invisible:
>>>> OSes are like cities: built on top of the ruins of older ones...
>>>
>>> This seems to be the main think that's broken about both Windows and
>>> Linux. Too many decades of backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Coincidentally that's exactly what made them successful in the first
>> place (as opposed to e.g. BeOS). You know, avoiding the hen-and-egg
>> problem of OS vs. applications.
>
> The same could be said of the ancient x86 platform, which still supports
> running obsolete versions of MS-DOS if you want to.
Egg-sactly.
>> Hm... which makes me think: Has there ever been any attempts yet to
>> implement a stand-alone JVM as an OS?
>
> Isn't that kind of the original *point* of Java?
Not sure; the way it is /implemented/, the JVM seems to always be an
intermediate layer on top of some host OS. It might have gained enough
momentum by now though that a dedicated Java OS might be successful.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Hm... which makes me think: Has there ever been any attempts yet to
>>> implement a stand-alone JVM as an OS?
>>
>> Isn't that kind of the original *point* of Java?
>
> Not sure; the way it is /implemented/, the JVM seems to always be an
> intermediate layer on top of some host OS. It might have gained enough
> momentum by now though that a dedicated Java OS might be successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS
(Note the "see also" section as well.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.06.2011 12:37, schrieb Invisible:
>>>> Hm... which makes me think: Has there ever been any attempts yet to
>>>> implement a stand-alone JVM as an OS?
>>>
>>> Isn't that kind of the original *point* of Java?
>>
>> Not sure; the way it is /implemented/, the JVM seems to always be an
>> intermediate layer on top of some host OS. It might have gained enough
>> momentum by now though that a dedicated Java OS might be successful.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS
>
> (Note the "see also" section as well.)
Hm... latest news from any of those projects date from January 2009...
so no, not enough momentum as it seems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS
>>
>> (Note the "see also" section as well.)
>
> Hm... latest news from any of those projects date from January 2009...
> so no, not enough momentum as it seems.
At some point, a couple of guys implemented an OS in Haskell.
And once they'd done it, they said "well, that was fun!", and the
project vanished into history.
I suspect that an OS is subject to some *serious* network effects. It's
an interesting toy project to write an OS in language XYZ, but once
you've done it, what are you going to use it for?
(I guess this leads us back to the dead-end OSes with decades of
backwards compatibility kludges...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.06.2011 14:17, schrieb Invisible:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS
>>>
>>> (Note the "see also" section as well.)
>>
>> Hm... latest news from any of those projects date from January 2009...
>> so no, not enough momentum as it seems.
>
> At some point, a couple of guys implemented an OS in Haskell.
Ah - yes...
> And once they'd done it, they said "well, that was fun!", and the
> project vanished into history.
>
> I suspect that an OS is subject to some *serious* network effects. It's
> an interesting toy project to write an OS in language XYZ, but once
> you've done it, what are you going to use it for?
I think a much more important thing than "what [language] is it written
/in/" is the question "what is it written /for/". In case of a Haskell
OS I don't know what that would be, but in case of a Java OS it seems
plain as hell: Run JVM bytecode. Applications are plenty for that.
> (I guess this leads us back to the dead-end OSes with decades of
> backwards compatibility kludges...)
Yep.
For instance, the virtual memory management of an OS dedicated to
running JVM bytecode could easily provide built-in support for garbage
collection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The command prompt is pretty much a deprecated way of doing things.
Depends on what you do.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/06/2011 14:30, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> The command prompt is pretty much a deprecated way of doing things.
>
> Depends on what you do.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, the command prompt is deprecated. You
should at least be using PowerShell. Ideally, you should write your
scripts in VB (or better, VB.Net), or build a custom COM module, or
whatever. The command prompt is for backwards compatibility with MS-DOS
(which is beyond obsolete).
Not that anybody really listens to what MS wants, mind you...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
