Nothing of .Net in Longhorn? 479
turnitover writes "We've been waiting for Longhorn before we really get on the .Net train, but should we bother at all? According to Mary Jo Foley at Microsoft Watch, Longhorn won't be based on .Net at all. Foley, who's usually right on target, calls this MS's 'dirty little secret'." From the article: "We're guessing that Microsoft will maintain that nothing has changed-that no one ever promised that the .Net Framework 2.0 would be the foundation for Longhorn. But developer types we've been chatting with seem to find this update a newsworthy revelation."
asdf (Score:5, Informative)
the key here is the word knowledge: "longhorn builds on
which could possibly be construed differently than "longhorn builds on
who knows? maybe i'm reading too much into it..
Re:asdf (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, Windows in general is an example of why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.
Re:asdf (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, Windows in general is an example of why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.
Honestly, do we even need an example to justify why you should be able to club marketing reps to death?
Re:asdf (Score:5, Funny)
Re:asdf (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why you should be able to club marketing reps to death.
After working as a programmer for 6 years I have heard a lot of marketing hype through brochures, white papers, and information seminars and I have come up with this principal: "Never promise that a task can be done based on what documentation or white papers say."
When a new API, IDE, framework or whatever is realeased I try building a small prototype, or test application, and only after first hand experience do I promise a project manager that it can be done. Otherwise I tell him that this new technology represents an unknown that could (is likely to) throw our timeline out of whack
Re:asdf (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:asdf (Score:5, Funny)
Not that building critical elements upon instabilities has ever stopped them before, of course.
Re:asdf (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget, Solaris utterly sucked until Sun forced its developers off of SunOS -- it didn't get better until the developers actually had to work with it.
Am I dreaming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, I am shocked that anyone seriously thought they would write an OS on top of a virtual machine. Writing core OS functions on top of a virtual machine is pure lunacy. Crazy talk. La la la...
Remember when people made fun of M$ for using C++ in WinNT? Ok so times have changed but that doesn't mean that you write perfomance sensitive code that will be used by billions of people on top of an interpreter. Consider the cost/benifit ratio of the extra development effort. After all, they are writing th
Re:asdf (Score:3, Insightful)
Kernels need to be small and efficient. Could you imagine someone criticizing the Linux kernel for not being written in Java?
Re:asdf (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:asdf (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't /have/ to use WinFX but you better believe Win32 will be depricated in a subsequent version.
Oh sure, they just deprecated win16 for 64 bit windows. Why're they going to run off and deprecate the bulk of their installed base? If you have to rewrite your crappy old custom windows apps, maybe you'll start looking at mac.
Re:asdf (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that people at MS have had difficulty doing a number of operating system "things" in
This is no shocker to anybody whose done any extensive
Have you for instance:
1) Written a device driver
2) Written memory management
3) Manually changed context
Now, you may say "oh, but that's all automagic," which is where you are wrong. If you are writing an OS, you need to do these things. Developers on MS have been trying to use
Not only should it not be surprising, but MS shouldn't be picking up any flack over it. Really, it is quite discrediting to the free software community to brow-beat MS over every move that they make. If you are going to have a pricipal, you really need to apply it with an even hand.
This comment wasn't directed entirely at the parent. Honestly, I see mostly MS users here discussing this... which is also an interesting commentary on Free Software.
Re:asdf (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should all software be written in one or another language/platform?
Re:asdf (Score:5, Insightful)
Not long ago, Microsoft launched a big PR effort, touting the superiority of proprietary software development, and specifically windows over linux. Why? Because with Microsoft, you get a 3 year road map. A single entity is in control of where the technology is headed and where it'll be in a few years. They implied that open source development has no control, no known future. FUD, emphasis on the "U" for Uncertainty.
Turns out, Longhorn is very late and lacking in many of the interesting new features that were promised. The 3 year road map turned out, in reality, to be more wishful thinking and vapor than some dependable scheduled release of upcoming technologies. The supposed advantage of depending on proprietary, rather than risking business plans on the uncertain future of linux and free software, turned out to be just empty promises.
THAT is why plenty of people should be "picking" on Microsoft. They made promises. They spread FUD, specificly claiming their future was reliable because they made dependable promises while the competition generally did not.
If there's a public backlash and negative PR, well, they deserve it. If they gave everyone unrealistic expectations, that was their own doing. Absent their history of bashing linux for lacking their 3 year planning, I might buy into your assertion that they deserve a break and a little understanding for falling short of overly ambitious plans. But their prior conduct, spreading FUD... not just by word of mouth, but with massive advertising dollars, acusing their competition of not having solid plans for the future, casts their failure to meet their own plans in an entirely different light.
The truth is they consistently fail to meet their own goals. Yet some people STILL buy into the "nobody is managing open source future development, so it's unpredictable and has uncertain future". When will these gullible people finally realize Microsoft regularly over promises and under delivers, that their supposedly superior planning is just a big sham?
Maybe, if instead of giving them a break, we all instead continue to reinforce Microsoft's the well-deserved reputation for vaporous plans and late delivery, it'll put the damper on their hypocritical FUD ?
Re:asdf (Score:4, Interesting)
However, Microsoft also has an extrodinary history of actually delivering what they promised to (eventually). People thought that Windows 95 was technically impossible, but they shipped it. People thought NT5 (2000) would never see the light of day. Even Cairo 's announced features mostly shipped, in bits and pieces. Historically, you could take a MS product plan to the bank, which kept customers loyal to MS's direction.
That Longhorn seems to be proceeding so aimlessly and as such a soft target indicates a management breakdown. They used to be quite good with delivering large projects up there -- did the talent cash out?
Re:asdf (Score:4, Informative)
However no one _ever_ said the the longhorn kernel would be re-written in
So Why .NET? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is
Instead, the
Okay, but will Avalon be a core system in Longhorn? The new file system is out, and some of the early discussion from Microsoft indicated that Avalon might be 'out' until after the first version of Longhorn ships.
I use Microsoft products and am really getting confused about their software roadmap.
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now we know
If Avalon might or might not be in Longhorn, and Longhorn isn't
D
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Longhorn "be" WinFS? Man, go do some reading before you post. WinFS is a file system that's been in development for almost 10 years. Longhorn was supposed to finally implement it. Avalon is the UI subsystem of Longhorn, and yes, it will be in Longhorn, you're just spreading uncertainty with your crap that you "swear you read it wasn't". Don't post that crap without a link.
Go read MSDN if you want to find out what longhorn is. It's about the most useful development reference on the internet, right up there with the php site.
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to ask a really serious question here - What exactly is the .Net strategy? I ask this question because people ask me what .Net is, and after all this time all I can only tell them is that it's given us a new programming language similar to Java. Forget the FUD, what is .Net really? I'm not looking for a link to MSDN. I'm looking for is a single concise statement about the technology. For example, I could say that managed code is "a replacement for traditional programming techniques that focuses on eliminating mistakes made by novice programmers thereby improving program stability and security". Is there such a one-liner for the .Net strategy?
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, just like Java, .NET programming removes a whole lot of things from the programmers hands, which certainly makes for fewer mistakes (strongly typed, memory management, etc) but does force developers to leave the .NET framework and use (for instance) C++ to write a device driver (coming full circle on why an OS using only .NET isn't currently possible)
Java uses a virtual machine, .NET uses a CLR (not quite as virtual, more an API on a machine), so I think if you wanted to come up with a one liner for .NET, you should come up with one for Java and then simply append the words "... in order to take over the world."
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Informative)
.NET is the name MS gave its goal of making interoperable systems very simple so you can easily and seemlessly have multiple systems on any platform all working together. This isn't just a MS goal, but
Now why call this
The other issue was MS didn't really have any way to accomplish this ".NET strategy" when they came up with it. Luckily, I've never had to try SOA or web services with the VS6 family of tools, but I know those who have and said while it is possible, its one of the more painful things to try. So they needed new tools to enable this strategy. Hense, the
As part of the
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:4, Informative)
What
There was no way to do that with VB6 and there was no way to make C++ pretty enough to get people to mass-adopt it. Let's face it, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. (No offense to all you C++ geeks, it's just that for writing a screen and a report for the accounting department, C++ is a bit of overkill).
Anyway, the folks at MS were working on some third-generation messaging stuff and also saw the benefits of managed code in the Java world. So they're not stupid and they spend $5 or $6 billion per year on doing new suff. Out of this came the CLI, the CLR, C#, and in parallel, web services.
Now the lights started going off. They knew they had security problems and they also knew that the business world had moved past the point where adhoc VB6 systems were acceptable. The business world was adopting Java because it came with serious thinkers and sound architectures (stable, secure, and fast).
So as MS does, they adapted to the needs of the business world. They pushed their new toys to that end. But the thing that makes
This is why Sun failed to steal the VB6 crowd away from MS. They never understood that if you create a great IDE, developers will come. Eclipse has proven this theory, although too late to damage
In summary,
At the end of the day, I can say that my job is vastly easier now than it was 5 years ago.
That's what
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here are some of the problems with COM:
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Informative)
Huh?
Well no. [microsoft.com] If it is I've made a pretty good living the last 2-3 years building functional web and GUI apps for clients using vaporware.
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Interesting)
The question was, if the
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's important to note that for any Microsoft idea to flourish it needs support from two arenas - the external public development community and the internal Microsoft development community. While there have always been a lot of folks at Microsoft (including Bill) who will tell you that managed code is the way to go, there is also a huge community of developers at Microsoft who still believe that lightweight code is the best and that managed code sucks at the k
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other breaking "news" MS Office is still written in C++ (the vast majority of it anyway). Longhorn is not a complete re-write of Windows, its just a new version. Sure a lot of the new tools/applications/etc are written in
Re:M$-serfs are so pathetic (Score:2)
If you are doing the hiring, I would hope that at that point you will have learned to write in complete sentences.
I don't understand your hostility. The guy is making a living. I assume that you 'like' IBM because it supports open source. Not long ago that 'support' for IBM would have been heresy to open computing advocates.
Now open source programmers worship at the feet of people who work for IBM. I would hire the guy even if (and a pretty *big* if at this point) Micros
So are dumbasses (Score:2)
Re:So are dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, I have, except that logic dictates that code that constantly executes under a VM will be slower than code that is JIT compiled and then runs as native code.
All major Java JVMs do JIT compilation, and then run the result as native code. Even better, most of them (especially Sun's) do run-time execution analysis prior to JIT compilation so that when they compile to native they can make better optimization decisions than a static compiler or "normal" JIT compiler can do.
.NET has no advantage over Java in this respect. I'd expect Java to have the advantage, actually, given the maturity of its JVMs.
Re:M$-serfs are so pathetic (Score:2)
What ever shall I do!
An Anonymous Coward won't hire me in the future!
My life is over!
I'm sorry, I'll go back to my binary editor and hand massage machine code from now on, cause I REALLY NEED YOUR JOB.
Jackass.
Re:M$-serfs are so pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
So Why Java? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So Why Java? (Score:2)
I had no idea that Sun dominated the desktop market.
Imagine my confusion on that point.
Re:So Why Java? (Score:2)
Re:So Why Java? (Score:3, Informative)
JDS is currently available as a complete Linux OS, or a Desktop option for Solaris Sparc/x86/AMD64.
Oh, and BTW: Sun has been integrating Java with Solaris for a very long time. Previous versions of Solaris had man
Is .NET another Microsoft vaporware? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll speculate that the rationale is going to break down into technical and business dimensions.
Technically, if it's such a fat sow that its wallowings make it uncompetitive, they may want to use faster core libraries.
If backwards compatibility is too painful to do in
Business-wise, if too much openness for C-octothorpe WRT Mono is seen as watering down the Windows brand, then that may also be a reason to slow down.
The C
Re:Is .NET another Microsoft vaporware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I got that impression from folks in our shop who code
If
Re:Is .NET another Microsoft vaporware? (Score:3, Interesting)
If there is no
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, so is Microsoft.
Re:So Why .NET? (Score:2)
Maybe because doing so is not good design, and there is no competitive reason to overrule the engineers.
Is
Well, what do you mean? The framework? The CLI and CLR? They all exist and are being used by real people. The branding initiative? Well, what did you expect?
.Not ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:.Not ? (Score:2)
Re:.Not ? (Score:3, Informative)
Somewhat Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Somewhat Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
MS seem to change things on a whim, and without a thought for people trying to maintain apps on their platforms. Anyone'd think they were the only game in town...
I wonder what the opposite is of a self fulfilling prophecy?
I am so relieved (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am so relieved (Score:2)
Load of Bull (Score:3, Funny)
When you have an model as beautiful as COM... (Score:5, Funny)
this IS significant! (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, let me preface this post with the lol: I find it amazingly ironic that the advertisement on the Slashdot "read more" page has the Microsoft .NET ad, apparently Macro Flash.... with the hook: "If it takes eighteen months to write and integrate a new application...", [fade to next frame...], "It's not really new anymore, is it?".... the ad is for .NET!
I find Microsoft's "not eating their own dog food" rumors to be significant. Why does the rest of the world have to eat it (literally and figuratively) and not Microsoft?
More hubris from Microsoft. Apparently .NET is something Microsoft
discussed and presented and strategized around at one of Bill Gates' yearly
"meeting of the minds" at his Hood Canal retreat a number of years ago...
Former Microsoft CFO John Connors bragged on this during a one-day glad
handing session with the company I worked for at the time. He got up for a
impromptu presentation as we all worked on our .NET "labs", and described
how worked up into a slather the Microsofties were at the retreat....
describing the .NET architecture, and philosophy. He said, and I quote, "We
realized that not only had we won the battle [with .NET], but we've won the
war [against(?) the industry]".
The collective sound generated of all of the techies eyes rolling in the conference room was deafening, but the upper level management (and really, this entire session was about them getting to meet with Microsoft royalty, and cinching a sale/contract) postively glowed and nodded knowingly and smugly that they were part of this technology nirvana about to sweep the world.
I would say we're at least four or five years into this and so far what I've seen with .NET is:
So, again, the fact that by the time (and I guess we're all speculating here) Longhorn gets here if Longhorn is not largely based on and implemented with .NET says a lot for either: how difficult it really is to move
applicatioins to the .NET architecture, or, how much even Microsoft itself
believes in the technology. Neither possibility is good. Other
slashdotters feel free to offer other theories.
MS does eat their own dogfood (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of new development is done in
This is one of the primary functions of good technical management: preventing the engineers from rewriting every couple years in the latest and greatest.
Re:MS does eat their own dogfood (Score:2)
no MS product will ever be based on
Re:MS does eat their own dogfood (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MS does eat their own dogfood (Score:3, Informative)
So? PostgreSQL can run Perl stored procedures. Does this mean PostgreSQL is written in Perl? Does the fact that MS SQL Server finally happens to run a CLR interpreter mean that MS SQL Server is written in C#?
Rich.
Re:this IS significant! (Score:2, Flamebait)
I do and have been for 2 years now.
Been playing with 2.0 since beta2 was released, and am now 1 month into active development using 2.0.
I'm sorry, but you are _completely_ full of shit. So much so that it'd just be feeding a troll to try to counter all of your points.
Re:this IS significant! (Score:2, Troll)
I always hestitate to take the bait of ad hominem posts.... but, you got me thinking, so I've gone back, and I've re-read my entire post.
As for the factual parts (the visit with John Connors), I stand by the accuracy of my recall of those events.
As for the interpretation of those events (which obviously are my interpretation and subject to my bias -- however much this stems from discussions with both management and technical staff that day), I stand by my interpretation as being one reasonable view (of
Re:this IS significant! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's tiring to hear the same old slams on Microsoft every day on Slashdot. I used to hate Windows and love Linux back in college, but now, 4 years out, I've taken a more moderate approach. That is to say, I'm looking out for whichever platform allows me to get my goals accomplished (has the tools, the docs, the online community). For dumb personal reasons I always hated Java, but now I love working in
By the way, and this is not a sarcastic question because I'd like to know, how does
Re:this IS significant! (Score:5, Insightful)
THEY DID NOT RE-WRITE VISUAL STUDIO IN
Re:this IS significant! (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously all of Visual Studio hasn't been re-written in
However, where appropriate, new features being added to VS are written entirely using managed code, where it makes sense. My feature area, for
What did they expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the way Visual Studio is evolving. Of course they have a huge codebase written in C/C++, and slowly new components are being added that run on top of the
It would be plain stupid to rewrite the whole OS using
Being a
Re:What did they expect? (Score:3, Funny)
I thought delaying the shipping process was the added value to the customer...
Beating a dead horse (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary developer API, codenamed WinFX, will be a managed (.NET-based) API, meaning most Longhorn applications will be managed apps. The Avalon (graphics) windowing system and the Indigo (messaging) system are both managed, and exposed primarily to managed apps.
That said, the kernel is not managed; there is and always will be needs for applications that are not managed, and need direct access to the underlying hardware and OS.
I've touched on this before many times, most recently here [thecodeproject.com].
To put it in simple terms, hopefully to clear up some of the misunderstanding:
Que? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are major parts of the new functionality that are
This sounds to me to be nothing more than people who didn't understand what was going on in the first place feeling disgruntled.
"Everything in Longhorn was supposed to be written in C# and to be managed code. But managed code was going to require machines that weren't going to be available for five years or more. So now Microsoft is rewriting everything in Longhorn, the developer says.
Sounds likethis person _did_ expect the entire OS to be rewritten - and seems to think that managed code is orders of magnitude slower than C++ - yes it's slower - but it's nowhere near that much slower.
Microsoft promised to deliver Avalon and Indigo - the new windows APIs - in managed code - and they're on track to do that. They've dropped WinFS, true, but they haven't fundamentally changed direction for Longhorn at all!
Re:Que? (Score:2)
Reason why there's no .NET in Longhorn (Score:3, Informative)
One place where this is really annoying is the new Avalon vector graphics system for applications. This will no longer be included in the default install, which means that developers who want to use it in future applications will burden their users with having to stick their Windows CDs in and install the optional Avalon component before the app will work, which of course will discourage developers from using it.
The lack of
OLE! Viva .NET! (Score:5, Informative)
These MS technologies are promoted for the sake of promoting Microsoft. Every generation produces something that would be great, but the marketers and engineers are never on the same page. Microsoft succeeds by putting the marketers in charge, but they wind up baiting developers with great tech, then switching us after we're hooked. Maybe the engineers are too busy making all the legacy almost-happened technologies work at all, rather than switching to the new framework that finally sets us free.
Probably based on (Score:2)
What's The Big Deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does an O/S have to be based on an application framework?
Maybe it's *good* thing: updates to
Mark
it makes sence... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Based on Longhorn" (Score:2, Insightful)
"Longhorn won't be based on the
"...the
But Avalon and Indigo are subsets of Longhorn. So
I guess the question is: Did someone believe that EVERY SINGLE PIECE of
WinFX (Score:2, Informative)
If I recall correctly, Longhorn promised to be built on top of a new .NET API level called "WinFX".
WinFX itself is a system-level .NET library that provides application programmers with all the functionality you previously had to rely on Win32 API to get (windows messages, message pumpts, etc).
However, the thing to remember about WinFX is that WinFX does not completely replace Win32 API--it only provides a .NET callable-layer that encapsulates the Win32 API.
I would guess that at some later date (x y
Re:WinFX (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, that sounds like a really unworkable idea. Others have said how it's daft for MS to re-write code for .Net if it works fine as is. Guess what? Most of the third-party Win32 API dependant apps work fine r
Exactly which idiots were you chatting to? (Score:2)
Was someone expecting an OS that was implemented in
I think most people were expecting an OS written the way previous versions of the product, and most other OSes, are written. It would be reasonable to expect it to come bundled with a
Amazingly enough, that is exactly what it does come with, and exactly what i
Of course it isn't! (Score:3, Insightful)
Java (Score:5, Insightful)
Java is not in the core of Solaris, Linux or AIX.
Does that mean that you shouldn't use Java?
When technology ignorant people make news... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, when asked, they've repeatedly said that would NOT be the case.
What Microsoft is doing, and what they've said they would be doing since they first announced Longhorn, is to create a
In addition, some parts of Longhorn would be written using this managed API. The new Explorer.exe, for instance, is a mostly managed application.
This woman's ignorance is the real story here, not her foolish conclusions and strawman arguments.
A good decision (Score:2)
What to learn... (Score:2)
Seems like Microsoft has too many MFC programmers and not enough
Re:What to learn... (Score:3, Insightful)
While you should probably focus on Managed C++, since there are significant time savings in developing with the less byzantine .NET API (actually I suggest using C# if you can, since the advantages of C++ are largely nullified in managed code), there's an enormous amount of Win32 code out there. Unless you start working at a start up building a brand new codebase you'll probably be asked to maintain or integrate with Win32 code, so you need to learn enough to get around eventually.
Another spooky Star Wars parallel (Score:2)
actual article (Score:2)
Java (Score:2)
(I know they're not identical. I was just making fun of how MS copied Java so much.)
Favorite Quote (Score:2)
Hmm... looks like a slow news day...
Another developer source, who asked not to be named, says he has been hearing some related hall talk.
Now that is what I call a slow news day!
In REAL news, readers of a popular web news/discussion site were reported to be disappointed that 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' would not, after
Could this be another 'trying to please everyone'? (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is, all languages, no matter how clever, complete or complicated they are, must ultimately get translated to binary code. There are so many proven and well established languages/environments out there, I roll my eyes when I hear of promises that another will beco
For those who don't read the articles (Score:3, Interesting)
So let me get this straight: it's foolish for Bill Gates to build important pieces on
Let's face it, Microsoft Windows is beginning to buckle under the weight of their own code. I don't think Longhorn will be shipped any earlier than late 2007 or early 2008. If they release Longhorn now, they will orphan the OS: Too big to be run on today's hardware, too incompatible with many critical applications, and too few business reasons to make the switch.
This is significant!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft will only really blaze new ground if they decide to screw backwards compatibility and understand that it will take a few years for people to catch on and really start using it. Unfortunately, that leaves the door open for Linux and Macs to fill the gap.
You can say whatever you want, but if you believe this isn't backtracking then you've fallen victim to the slow but steady retreat from the original campaign.
Layering will not fix a bloated OS (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just a Microsoft problem, either; Linux is acquiring exactly the same set of problems as the kernel grows and grows.
It doesn't have to be this bad.
Dave Cutler, the architect of Windows NT, tried to fix it. NT 3.51 was the last version he controlled, and the last one that looks even vaguely like a "microkernel". He once told Bill Gates "I won't pollute it [NT] with crap!" So he was taken off NT, and for NT 4, the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 team were allowed to put huge volumes of crap Win95 code in the kernel, for "compatibility". The end result is XP, which in practice is only slightly less vulnerable than Windows 95.
It's striking to run QNX [qnx.com], which is a true microkernel (about 60K of code), with drivers, file systems, and networking outside the kernel. It can run X windows, Firefox, multimedia players, and now has OpenGL. That's a demonstration that you don't need a bloated kernel. Nor do you need one that changes much. The QNX kernel changes very slowly; new capabilities are added outside the kernel, in user space. Unfortunately, QNX on the desktop is going nowhere, because there are few applications and the current marketing push is for automotive applications. Nor is QNX intended as a secure operating system, just a reliable real-time one. Despite this, it's a clear demonstration that the basic OS does not have to be big or constantly changing.
If the Hurd guys had a clue, and could write something as good as QNX, there might be some hope from that direction. But after ten years of screwing up, there's not much hope there.
Re:nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the VM can run applications in a sandbox helps.
"Until kernel designers kick the C/C++ habit, we are not going to get a decent kernel.
It's unfortunate that Java and C# (pretty decent language designs) happen to be implemented with such bloated runtimes by their main proponents. But that's not necessary: Java and C#-like languages can be implement
Re:nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know? Have you ever run any of them?
In any case, I would gladly use a kernel that ran with more overhead than, say, Linux and in return wasn't as buggy, had more functionality (what about a working and secure network file system, for example?), and was easier to hack.
[C memory management is] just a library.
And you can do the same in other HLLs.
Kernel memory management routines
Re:Layering will not fix a bloated OS (Score:3, Insightful)
The big win with a microkernel is that you don't have to patch it all the time. They're small enough you can get the bugs out. Microkernels like VM and QNX settled down into stability years ago.
I'm posting this from Mozilla on a QNX machine. QNX isn't going anywhere on the desktop, but that's a business problem, not a technical one. Desktop QNX actually w
no news there (Score:3, Interesting)
However, it looks like they are going to ship a full
All of that is pretty reasonable. Why break working code? Why alienate thousands of developers? The inclusion of
Every time I post this, it becomes funnier (Score:3, Funny)
Re:c++ (Score:5, Informative)
You misspelled C.
Re:What About Java? (Score:2)
Apologies if I misunderstood your comment, but... I've been a Visual Basic developer for 10 years (and an MCSD on the VB6 track for 4 years). What sort of longevity were you looking for in your development environment?