«

In article <d8d7fa$aia$>, Chris Hope <> wrote:
>Bling-Bling wrote:
>
>> Another example of serious slippage in the development of LongHorn.
>>
>> Before too long the question will be: "how is LongHorn any different
>> from XP?".
>>
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>
>I thought they only just announced that new command shell the other day
>and that it would take 3 to 5 years to implement. I don't recall seeing
>anything about it ever being in Longhorn.
>
>That being said, I don't get why it should take so long to create a half
>way decent shell. Isn't MS supposed to have some pretty good
>programmers?

Probably ... but they probably also have a whole heap of managers



Bruce


-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:47:58 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:00:08 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
> D¹Oliveiro didst scrawl:
>
>> In article <>,
>> Matthew Poole <> wrote:
>>
>>>It might not be indefinite, but for as long as glaring faults with
>>>critical systems come to light it is expected that they will be fixed at
>>>the manufacturers cost.
>>
>> I haven't heard Ford announcing a product recall to fix engineering
>> flaws in its Model T cars. Unless of course they're flawless...?
>
> How many Model Ts are in regular use? Or Model As?
> By the time a car reaches that age, it is unlikely to have faults that
> haven't been discovered and repaired. Realistically, cars aren't really
> subjected to recall after about 20 years - at least, that I've ever seen -
> because the odds of there being a serious, undiscovered fault fall away to
> nearly zero.
> Whereas serious faults in Win2K are still being discovered. Hell, serious
> faults in NT4 were still being discovered eight years after it was
> released, and there are bound to be many, many more that will never be
> fixed despite its continued utility - there will be a considerably higher
> number of active copies of NT4 in the world than there are Model T Fords.


time to wave the open source flag methinks
if NT4 was open source this would be a non-issue, as any later discovered
flaws could be fixed in-house


--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

Bling-Bling wrote:
> Another example of serious slippage in the development of LongHorn.
>
> Before too long the question will be: "how is LongHorn any different
> from XP?".
>
> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss

*******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client -
MSH will be in the administrative interface for Exchange 12 which ships
late next year or early the year after

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:59:05 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:

>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>
> *******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client

Micro$oft never states many things.

But some of what Micro$oft has stated about NoHorn, it has recently
retracted.


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

Bling-Bling wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:59:05 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>
>>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>>
>>*******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client
>
> Micro$oft never states many things.
> But some of what Micro$oft has stated about NoHorn, it has recently
> retracted.

You do realise that they are multiple versions of Longhorn as well as
Longhorn client and Longhorn Server which are releasing in different
calendar years?

Nathan Mercer wrote:
> Bling-Bling wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:59:05 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>>>
>>>
>>> *******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client
>>
>>
>> Micro$oft never states many things.
>> But some of what Micro$oft has stated about NoHorn, it has recently
>> retracted.
>
>
> You do realise that they are multiple versions of Longhorn as well as
> Longhorn client and Longhorn Server which are releasing in different
> calendar years?

Can you say all that in toddler talk for Bling Bling please ?

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:43:50 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:

> Bling-Bling wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:59:05 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>>>
>>>*******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client
>>
>> Micro$oft never states many things.
>> But some of what Micro$oft has stated about NoHorn, it has recently
>> retracted.
>
> You do realise that they are multiple versions of Longhorn as well as
> Longhorn client and Longhorn Server which are releasing in different
> calendar years?

Which are releasing *what* in different calandar years?

Longhorn is an era rather than a software project.

Anything to do with a Micro$oft OS within a specified timeframe is called
NoHorn.

Micro$oft's naming conventions are getting to be really pathetic. What's
the longest, lamest, name of a pice of software that Micro$oft has so far
invented?


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."

Bling-Bling wrote:
>>>>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>>>>
>>>>*******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client
>>>
>>>Micro$oft never states many things.
>>>But some of what Micro$oft has stated about NoHorn, it has recently
>>>retracted.
>>
>>You do realise that they are multiple versions of Longhorn as well as
>>Longhorn client and Longhorn Server which are releasing in different
>>calendar years?
>
>
> Which are releasing *what* in different calandar years?

Windows Client "Longhorn" is scheduled for release in 2006, Windows
Server "Longhorn" is scheduled for release in 2007.

but maybe you like to call them NT6.0?

Bling-Bling wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:43:50 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>> Bling-Bling wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:59:05 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...56234&from=rss
>>>>
>>>>*******s. Microsoft never stated MSH would ship in Longhorn client
>>>
>>> Micro$oft never states many things.
>>> But some of what Micro$oft has stated about NoHorn, it has recently
>>> retracted.
>>
>> You do realise that they are multiple versions of Longhorn as well as
>> Longhorn client and Longhorn Server which are releasing in different
>> calendar years?
>
> Which are releasing *what* in different calandar years?
>
> Longhorn is an era rather than a software project.
>
> Anything to do with a Micro$oft OS within a specified timeframe is
> called NoHorn.
>
> Micro$oft's naming conventions are getting to be really pathetic.
> What's the longest, lamest, name of a pice of software that Micro$oft
> has so far invented?

MS's internal pre-release code name convetion is based on a placename
(Chicago and Cairo (or was it Memphis?) spring to mind as earlier
names) and has been so since at least since Windows 95. What's so
pathetic about naming a project after a placename?

--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:59:42 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:

> but maybe you like to call them NT6.0?

A turd by any other name will still stink as bad.


Bling Bling

--
IBM: "Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a
collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to
create an operating system that works on any hardware platform."