 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh... my God! o_O
>
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.06.2011 15:52, schrieb Invisible:
>>> Oh... my God! o_O
>>
>> 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.
Hm... which makes me think: Has there ever been any attempts yet to
implement a stand-alone JVM as an OS?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 6:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> So back then it was probably a good idea.
>
> Oh... my God! o_O
That's gonna be my answer to everything: "Well, it seemed like a good
idea at the time."
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:51:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> How random is that?
Not very, it makes sense that they'd maintain the state of each drive
letter in memory. That's why on older DOS machines you had the LASTDRIVE
directive in CONFIG.SYS.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
