More stuff axed from Longhorn

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Bling-Bling, Jun 11, 2005.

  1. Bling-Bling

    Bling-Bling Guest

    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?sid=05/06/10/1956234&from=rss


    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, Jun 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bling-Bling

    Chris Hope Guest

    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?sid=05/06/10/1956234&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?

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
     
    Chris Hope, Jun 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bling-Bling

    Chris Hope Guest

    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?sid=05/06/10/1956234&from=rss


    Heh - I liked this quote from the /. discussion:

    "What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    using businesses want to move? All of the technology that was supposed
    to be Longhorn isn't Longhorn anymore."

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
     
    Chris Hope, Jun 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Bling-Bling

    xray spex Guest

    "Bling-Bling" <> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.06.10.23.15.42.431957@TRACKER...
    > 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?sid=05/06/10/1956234&from=rss
    >
    >
    > 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."
    >


    Another poorly-researched news article from Slashdot. This is from an
    interview at
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/windowsnet/wnet_120704.mspx
    and was published on December 24th 2004:

    MSFT James Truher (Expert):
    Q: Will MSH V1.0 be done before Longhorn?
    A: Monad will ship as a feature of Exchange 12 in 2H06 (target).Monad will
    ship in Windows after that. Release vehicle is undefined. Monad will support
    WS03 SP1, XP SP2, Longhorn.
     
    xray spex, Jun 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Bling-Bling

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:26:40 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:

    >> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/10/1956234&from=rss

    >
    > Heh - I liked this quote from the /. discussion:
    >
    > "What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    > using businesses want to move? All of the technology that was supposed to
    > be Longhorn isn't Longhorn anymore."


    Yeah - good eh.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Computers are like air conditioners -- they stop working properly if you
    open WINDOWS
     
    Bling-Bling, Jun 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Bling-Bling

    thing Guest

    Bling-Bling wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:26:40 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/10/1956234&from=rss

    >>
    >>Heh - I liked this quote from the /. discussion:
    >>
    >>"What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    >>using businesses want to move? All of the technology that was supposed to
    >>be Longhorn isn't Longhorn anymore."


    MS will stop supporting 2000 then XP......so businesses will have no
    choice but to suffer the pain and $ loss.....

    > Yeah - good eh.
    >
    >
    > Bling Bling
    >


    Its fast becoming a DRM lock down and visual makeover and nothing more.
    An early shot of it I saw looked like a poor relation to OSx 10.3/4 So
    why wait you could get it today just buy a Mac, or even next year on an
    Intel CPU....

    One has to wonder what exactly MS is spending its programmers time
    on......wait, we've been there......DRM lockdown and a fancy look........

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Bling-Bling

    AD. Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:

    > I thought they only just announced that new command shell the other day
    > and that it would take 3 to 5 years to implement.


    Nah it's not a newly announced thing, I remember seeing articles about
    monad nearly a year ago now. It does look like a seriously cool shell -
    the coverage calling it bash like is underrating it.

    > 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?


    From memory I think they hired some open source devs from the Perl and
    Haskell communities for this one.

    The reason they take so long is they tend to want to tightly integrate
    everything with everything else, and with everything growing in
    complexity this gets harder and harder.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jun 11, 2005
    #7
  8. On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:24:29 +1200, someone purporting to be Chris Hope
    didst scrawl:

    > Bling-Bling wrote:
    >

    *SNIP*
    > 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?

    Not only that, there are so many OSS examples they can utilise. Most of
    them implemented under the BSD licence, so MS won't even have to go to the
    trouble of re-writing them, they can just change the OS hooks and be done
    with it.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Jun 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Bling-Bling

    Murray Symon Guest

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:24:29 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:

    [snip]
    >
    > 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?


    Yes, but the programmers get their specifications from the PHB's ...

    refer:
    http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/the_characters/index.html#boss

    ;-)

    Murray.
     
    Murray Symon, Jun 11, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <d8d7je$b14$>,
    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?sid=05/06/10/1956234&from=rss

    >
    >Heh - I liked this quote from the /. discussion:
    >
    >"What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    >using businesses want to move? All of the technology that was supposed
    >to be Longhorn isn't Longhorn anymore."


    Longhorn => Shorthorn => ??

    Shorterhorn?
    Hornless?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Bling-Bling

    Peter Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:
    > Heh - I liked this quote from the /. discussion:
    > "What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    > using businesses want to move?"


    security updates
     
    Peter, Jun 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Bling-Bling

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:58:14 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >>"What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    >>using businesses want to move? All of the technology that was supposed to
    >>be Longhorn isn't Longhorn anymore."

    >
    > Longhorn => Shorthorn => ??
    >
    > Shorterhorn?
    > Hornless?


    Windoze Dehorned. :eek:)


    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, Jun 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Bling-Bling

    thing Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > Chris Hope wrote:
    >
    >>Heh - I liked this quote from the /. discussion:
    >>"What will Longhorn include that will make Windows 2000 or Windows XP
    >>using businesses want to move?"

    >
    >
    > security updates
    >
    >



    So you pay for the updates....no such thing as a free lunch is
    there.........

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 11, 2005
    #13
  14. Bling-Bling

    Shane Guest


    >
    > So you pay for the updates....no such thing as a free lunch is
    > there.........
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing



    that concept has always made me laugh
    If I buy a car, and its later discovered that the parts supplied with it are
    wonky, the manufacturer is expected to replace or repair the fault at their
    expense
    If I buy the license to use an OS.. I am expected to pay for shoddy work
    contained within??????
    Now bearing in mind OS'es are huge, theres bound to be errors in the code,
    and to replace or repair the code is negligible ( apart from getting that
    fix to each and every user of that OS)
    but I _still_ dont see why I should be expected to pay for it (they supplied
    shoddy product in the first place after all)
    </rant>
    --
    Hardware n: Parts of a computer you can kick
     
    Shane, Jun 11, 2005
    #14
  15. Bling-Bling

    thing Guest

    Shane wrote:
    >>So you pay for the updates....no such thing as a free lunch is
    >>there.........
    >>
    >>regards
    >>
    >>Thing

    >
    >
    >
    > that concept has always made me laugh
    > If I buy a car, and its later discovered that the parts supplied with it are
    > wonky, the manufacturer is expected to replace or repair the fault at their
    > expense
    > If I buy the license to use an OS.. I am expected to pay for shoddy work
    > contained within??????
    > Now bearing in mind OS'es are huge, theres bound to be errors in the code,
    > and to replace or repair the code is negligible ( apart from getting that
    > fix to each and every user of that OS)
    > but I _still_ dont see why I should be expected to pay for it (they supplied
    > shoddy product in the first place after all)
    > </rant>


    I agree.

    However, theoretically MS is not charging for a patch, but after a
    certain date you have to upgrade or get no new patches....

    A car warrantee is not indefinate.....

    I think it is a sign that the IT industry is still immature, as it
    matures expect more.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 12, 2005
    #15
  16. On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:05:07 +1200, someone purporting to be thing didst
    scrawl:

    > Shane wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > However, theoretically MS is not charging for a patch, but after a
    > certain date you have to upgrade or get no new patches....
    >
    > A car warrantee is not indefinate.....
    >

    *SNIP*
    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.
    We're still seeing recalls for early-90s cars for brake and steering
    faults, for example. Certainly any car manufactured in 2000 would be up
    for recall if there were serious flaws, but MS are casting Win2K to the
    wind.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Jun 12, 2005
    #16
  17. 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...?
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 12, 2005
    #17
  18. Bling-Bling

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:45:52 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > Certainly any car manufactured in 2000 would be up
    > for recall if there were serious flaws, but MS are casting Win2K to the
    > wind.


    And rightly so!

    Micro$oft should, however, permit people who hold valid licences of
    Micro$oft Windows to freely upgrade their copy off Windows to the latest
    currently available - a la "apt install system upgrade", or however apt is
    used.


    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, Jun 12, 2005
    #18
  19. 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.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Jun 12, 2005
    #19
  20. Shane wrote:
    >>So you pay for the updates....no such thing as a free lunch is
    >>there.........
    >>
    >>regards
    >>
    >>Thing

    >
    >
    >
    > that concept has always made me laugh
    > If I buy a car, and its later discovered that the parts supplied with it are
    > wonky, the manufacturer is expected to replace or repair the fault at their
    > expense
    > If I buy the license to use an OS.. I am expected to pay for shoddy work
    > contained within??????
    > Now bearing in mind OS'es are huge, theres bound to be errors in the code,
    > and to replace or repair the code is negligible ( apart from getting that
    > fix to each and every user of that OS)
    > but I _still_ dont see why I should be expected to pay for it (they supplied
    > shoddy product in the first place after all)
    > </rant>


    nice rant, although a little odd, considering that updates are free, for
    the expected life of the product, just like wonky car parts.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 12, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Neil

    OT: more Free stuff

    Neil, Apr 6, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    599
    Bigus Di©kus
    Apr 8, 2006
  2. princess

    free wallpapers, Msn Stuff and many more.

    princess, Jun 4, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    686
    princess
    Jun 4, 2007
  3. princes

    free wallpapers, Msn Stuff and many more.

    princes, Jun 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    princes
    Jun 4, 2007
  4. Suzy

    More newbie stuff --WPA key at computer end

    Suzy, Jan 2, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    774
  5. Big

    More AMD stuff to weep over..

    Big , Sep 22, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    652
    Andrew
    Sep 25, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page