On 09/10/2011 09:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:32:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>> Of course, Microsoft stole the idea of a progress bar that makes no
>>> sense from Novell.  Just like BSOD (which they embraced, and then
>>> 'enhanced' by making it 'blue' instead of 'black'). ;)
>>
>> It least they don't call it a "guru meditation number" any more...
>
> Microsoft never did, that was an Amiga error code.

I know. And I always thought it was a really weird name...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
> How is it that it would cost more to host a repository for software for
> one platform than the other?

Insurance. Management. Stuff like that. Basically, overhead and risk abatement.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:11, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 09/10/2011 09:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:32:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course, Microsoft stole the idea of a progress bar that makes no
>>>> sense from Novell. Just like BSOD (which they embraced, and then
>>>> 'enhanced' by making it 'blue' instead of 'black'). ;)
>>>
>>> It least they don't call it a "guru meditation number" any more...
>>
>> Microsoft never did, that was an Amiga error code.
>
> I know. And I always thought it was a really weird name...

You didn't know the origin of that?

The Amiga had a game that used a pad you stood or sat on that turned your 
weight shifts into a joystick input, not unlike some of the Wii surfing 
controllers and such. The idea was that you sat cross-legged on that pad, 
and when your app-under-development caused a guru meditation error, you 
shouldn't be so startled that it makes you shift your weight.

At least that's what I've read.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

>> 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.)

> 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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:08:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 10:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, I think you probably would - some of the compiled code would
>>> already be in object form, and the compiler wouldn't have to compile it
>>> again.
>>
>> Nope. This was one giant compile of one source file. (Well, lots of
>> nested includes, etc.) I didn't have to log back in, restart the
>> compile, or anything like that. Plus, of course, on Linux, you'd have a
>> corrupted output file, because Make doesn't check that the compile
>> finished, only that the object code has a timestamp later than the
>> source code.
>
> I'll have to take your word for it.  I've worked on a lot of different
> systems and have never seen that kind of behaviour before.

Well, to be fair, it was core memory, so all the processor had to do was 
save the registers when it got the "power fail" interrupt. :-) It's just one 
of those "you never have to reboot linux unless you have a kernel update" 
myth-busters.

Unless you mean the makefile stuff, which sure, it's trivial to break Make.

> In fact, I remember my friend at Microsoft (whom I mentioned before)
> telling me that those laptops they bought - the manufacturer wouldn't
> make drivers for them for Windows Vista.  Microsoft ended up returning
> the 15,000 laptops they had just purchased because the vendor wouldn't
> address that issue.  I understand they bought replacements from some
> other hardware manufacturer.

I can see that. Vista broke a lot of my hardware too.

> Except that one tends to patent and sue (or imply a patent and sue or
> extort) when the other doesn't.

Well, one is trying to make money. The fact that MS sues over patents is 
irrelevant (for the most part) to the question of technical features. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

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

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:11:34 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 09/10/2011 09:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:32:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course, Microsoft stole the idea of a progress bar that makes no
>>>> sense from Novell.  Just like BSOD (which they embraced, and then
>>>> 'enhanced' by making it 'blue' instead of 'black'). ;)
>>>
>>> It least they don't call it a "guru meditation number" any more...
>>
>> Microsoft never did, that was an Amiga error code.
> 
> I know. And I always thought it was a really weird name...

So did I.  For that matter, I still do. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:34:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 14:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> How is it that it would cost more to host a repository for software for
>> one platform than the other?
> 
> Insurance. Management. Stuff like that. Basically, overhead and risk
> abatement.

So, the same kinds of things that you have to be careful of with Linux 
repositories as well.

That's why, for example, the official openSUSE repos don't have any 
proprietary codecs or device drivers in them.  Because of liability, 
insurance, and management.

So again, why would it be any more expensive for Microsoft than for an 
open source project?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:34:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 14:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> How is it that it would cost more to host a repository for software for
>>> one platform than the other?
>>
>> Insurance. Management. Stuff like that. Basically, overhead and risk
>> abatement.
>
> So, the same kinds of things that you have to be careful of with Linux
> repositories as well.

No. People putting things into a Linux repository aren't going to sue them 
for failing to distribute it properly. Nobody is going to sue Red Hat when 
Reader crashes their machines. Etc.

> That's why, for example, the official openSUSE repos don't have any
> proprietary codecs or device drivers in them.  Because of liability,
> insurance, and management.

Well, there you go, then. Why are you asking why Microsoft doesn't do it, 
then? There are tons of repositories of free Windows software that Microsoft 
doesn't run.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 16:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

I didn't catch that assertion. OK. It's fairly unique in being a standard 
searchable format with an API, but not in that it stores binary data.

> 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.

Interesting.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message