«

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 17:32:58 -0800 (PST), Lew wrote:

> Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone
>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or
>> some flavor of Unix?
>
> Happens all the time.
>
>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky
>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. )
>
> No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples.
>
>> 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that
>
> No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples.

In the context of making a process not run in multi-instances, on iOS
you've already won, so it is indeed irrelevant to consider it. But thanks
for playing.

--
Hexapodia is the key insight.

On 1/6/2013 8:43 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:23:46 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>> No, I did not.
>>
>> That has clearly been demonstrated.
>
> Good that you've seen the light at last and now agree with me.

Actually the "that" were intended to refer to Peter's claim not yours.

Arne

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:47:52 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/6/2013 8:43 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:23:46 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>> No, I did not.
>>>
>>> That has clearly been demonstrated.
>>
>> Good that you've seen the light at last and now agree with me.
>
> Actually the "that" were intended to refer to Peter's claim not yours.

Aww, and now you're backpedaling away from the brink of conceding defeat.
So cute. Too bad you didn't start until after you'd already gone over the
side.

--
Hexapodia is the key insight.

On 1/6/2013 8:47 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> In the context of making a process not run in multi-instances, on iOS
> you've already won, so it is indeed irrelevant to consider it.

But this subthread is not about how to ensure only
one instance.

This subthread is about whether there are or should be a platform
agnostic to get PID.

An iOS is perfectly valid in that context.

Arne

On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it,
>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising
>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that
>>>>> Windows supports, most likely.
>>>>
>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic.
>>>
>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone
>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or
>>> some flavor of Unix?
>>
>> Yesterday.
>
> What operating system was it?

OpenVMS

> Do you think your experience at all typical
> of the general population?

No.

But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make
them non-existing.

>>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky
>>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. )
>>
>> Well - iOS is an OS.
>>
>> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's.
>>
>> DOS did not have PID's.
>
> DOS also lacked multitasking.
>
> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances
> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say?

Yes.

But we are discussing PID.

>>> 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that
>>> *aren't* fairly POSIXy anymore?
>>
>> There are not that much point in not counting iOS.
>
> See above.
>
>> iOS is POSIXy!
>
> That, if true, just works in my argument's favor.

Specifically yes.

Generally it confirms that you state information as fact when it is not.

>>> 4. And before you bring up some obscure legacy OS on some archaic mainframe
>>> that some large banking institution in some obscure corner of the world
>>> is still using to run some old bit of business logic for which they've
>>> long since lost all the source code, recall that the context here is
>>> *development of some new software*. Nobody sane develops *new* software
>>> for clunkers like that -- they develop it for their farm of Unix servers
>>> or their ten thousand cubicle boxen running Windows, even if maybe it
>>> uses some network to get some service from the legacy mainframe.
>>
>> New code still get developed for mainframes.
>>
>> And sane developers develop software for the platforms
>> they get paid to develop for.
>
> I said "nobody sane", not "nobody".

Read.

>> But nothing of this really matters. A feature being support by all
>> common platforms and a feature being platform-agnostic are two
>> different things.
>
> All common platforms is necessary, and in practice sufficient. Your
> strictly-exact notion of "platform-agnostic" is so restrictive as to be
> meaningless -- what would compile and run on both Windows 8 and Babbage's
> difference engine?

Congratulations you have realized that "platform-agnostic" is
pretty difficult to achieve.

Arne

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:53:33 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/6/2013 8:47 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>> In the context of making a process not run in multi-instances, on iOS
>> you've already won, so it is indeed irrelevant to consider it.
>
> But this subthread is not about how to ensure only
> one instance.

Don't be ridiculous.

--
Hexapodia is the key insight.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it,
>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising
>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that
>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely.
>>>>>
>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic.
>>>>
>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone
>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or
>>>> some flavor of Unix?
>>>
>>> Yesterday.
>>
>> What operating system was it?
>
> OpenVMS
>
>> Do you think your experience at all typical
>> of the general population?
>
> No.
>
> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make
> them non-existing.

It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for
waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously
disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not
theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering
unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's
imminent.

In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS.
If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian
population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. If you get specific
requests to make it work on OpenVMS, then maybe consider OpenVMS.

Anyway I find it hard to imagine OpenVMS doesn't have something rather
PID-like, and likely there's even a POSIX-compliant get PID call supported
just to make porting C programs easier. After all, they'd know that a lot
of functionality is being coded for other systems, much of it C code that
assumes POSIX and needs little more than that to make it work there too, so
there's a big upside and little downside to supporting common POSIX calls
when developing an OpenAnything.

>>>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky
>>>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. )
>>>
>>> Well - iOS is an OS.
>>>
>>> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's.
>>>
>>> DOS did not have PID's.
>>
>> DOS also lacked multitasking.
>>
>> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances
>> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say?
>
> Yes.
>
> But we are discussing PID.

In the context of controlling concurrent instance count.

>>>> 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that
>>>> *aren't* fairly POSIXy anymore?
>>>
>>> There are not that much point in not counting iOS.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> iOS is POSIXy!
>>
>> That, if true, just works in my argument's favor.
>
> Specifically yes.
>
> Generally it confirms that you state information as fact when it is not.

OK, now you've devolved into more or less explicitly calling me a liar, to
my face and in a public venue. That's crossing a line.

Rest deleted unread.
--
Hexapodia is the key insight.

On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it,
>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising
>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that
>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone
>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or
>>>>> some flavor of Unix?
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday.
>>>
>>> What operating system was it?
>>
>> OpenVMS
>>
>>> Do you think your experience at all typical
>>> of the general population?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make
>> them non-existing.
>
> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for
> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously
> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not
> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering
> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's
> imminent.
>
> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS.
> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian
> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze.

You mean consider Windows and MacOS X.

That is what people in general use.

But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all
platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms.

> Anyway I find it hard to imagine OpenVMS doesn't have something rather
> PID-like, and likely there's even a POSIX-compliant get PID call supported
> just to make porting C programs easier. After all, they'd know that a lot
> of functionality is being coded for other systems, much of it C code that
> assumes POSIX and needs little more than that to make it work there too, so
> there's a big upside and little downside to supporting common POSIX calls
> when developing an OpenAnything.

OpenVMS has PID.

But your claim that everybody uses the most common platforms are
still untrue.

>>>>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky
>>>>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. )
>>>>
>>>> Well - iOS is an OS.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's.
>>>>
>>>> DOS did not have PID's.
>>>
>>> DOS also lacked multitasking.
>>>
>>> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances
>>> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> But we are discussing PID.
>
> In the context of controlling concurrent instance count.

Not really.

The discussion was whether one could rely on being able to
get PID.

The answer is that you can not.

The fact that the question triggering the question is not
relevant in the negative cases does not change that.

To transform it to Java: whether Oracle will add the ability
to get PID in standard Java library does not depend
on what Roedy may use it for.

Arne

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it,
>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising
>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that
>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone
>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or
>>>>>> some flavor of Unix?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> What operating system was it?
>>>
>>> OpenVMS
>>>
>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical
>>>> of the general population?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make
>>> them non-existing.
>>
>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for
>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously
>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not
>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering
>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's
>> imminent.
> >
>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS.
>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian
>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze.
>
> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X.
>
> That is what people in general use.

Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and
covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you
want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F
suffices for that.

> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all
> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms.

If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then
we're all ****ed.

>> Anyway I find it hard to imagine OpenVMS doesn't have something rather
>> PID-like, and likely there's even a POSIX-compliant get PID call supported
>> just to make porting C programs easier. After all, they'd know that a lot
>> of functionality is being coded for other systems, much of it C code that
>> assumes POSIX and needs little more than that to make it work there too, so
>> there's a big upside and little downside to supporting common POSIX calls
>> when developing an OpenAnything.
>
> OpenVMS has PID.
>
> But your claim that everybody uses the most common platforms are
> still untrue.

Which claim was that? MID? I don't remember making such a claim.

--
Hexapodia is the key insight.

On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it,
>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising
>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that
>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone
>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or
>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>> What operating system was it?
>>>>
>>>> OpenVMS
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical
>>>>> of the general population?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make
>>>> them non-existing.
>>>
>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for
>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously
>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not
>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering
>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's
>>> imminent.
>> >
>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS.
>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian
>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze.
>>
>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X.
>>
>> That is what people in general use.
>
> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and
> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you
> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F
> suffices for that.

You need to decide what you want to talk about.

If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for
Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is.

If you want to consider something else the say what it is.

>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all
>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms.
>
> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then
> we're all ****ed.

Yes.

So please stop claiming that getting PID can be done platform
agnostic.

Arne