Windows Server 8 Is A Radical Departure From Previous Releases 347
Julie188 writes "While the world is distracted with the Window 8 client, Microsoft is simultaneously working on Windows Server 8. At BUILD, Microsoft unveiled its next-generation server OS under heavy secrecy to a room full of analysts and product testers. WS8 is radically different than its predecessors. There's an argument to make that it's not actually Windows. The code they saw was pre-beta and an obvious attempt to put an arrow in the heart of former-softie-turned-VMware-CEO Paul Maritz. Windows 8 Server editions are to be run in Server Core format (the GUI will be optional). PowerShell has gotten an overhaul and its command list will exceed 2,300 native commandlets in Windows Server 8. Hyper-V has also been revamped and will become massively scalable in the number of VMs supported and in the size of each VM."
In related news, it appears that Java now runs on Microsoft's Azure platform.
Azure (Score:2)
Not surprised that Java runs on Azure now. Even iCloud uses Azure for their backend.
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point was that there were companies other than MS that did this. The first (and only) company I can think of that does as good as MS, is Apple
However, The only two languages I prefer Objective C to, are Perl and Lisp. Hell, I'd rather program Java than Obj C.
Re:Azure (Score:5, Insightful)
Visual Studio is great, but Eclipse is just as good as a platform. For some reason, every time I say this, I get modded down.
Re: (Score:3)
FUD
Tell Ballmer I said hi!
Re:Azure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Azure (Score:5, Insightful)
The same is true of any set of tools. Someone who takes the time to learn their IDE of choice will be more productive in it than in other environments. Your tools of choice consist of UNIX shell and the command line. This doesn't mean they're better tools, just that they're better tools for you, because you've learned to be productive in them.
Software development is mostly thinking with a bit of typing thrown in. Tools can help productivity if you're familiar with them, but ultimately what interface a tool uses (ie. CLI vs GUI) is irrelevant. What's relevant in a tool is functionality. What's relevant in a developer is skill and knowledge of their chosen tools.
Re:Azure (Score:4, Insightful)
I think before you make judgement on this, perhaps you owe it to yourself to learn it first, or at least watch someone who knows what they are doing (if you can find someone).
Re: (Score:2)
If VS "sucks" for C++, I'm not sure what works well. Probably nothing. Have any suggestions?
(It certainly doesn't have the level of support that C# has, but IMO VS works way better for C++ than anything else I've tried. In particular, I think it generally works way better than Emacs + Bash + GCC + etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Win8 dev preview (which includes VS 11) is out, have a look at what it does for C++. There are a lot of IDE improvements there specifically in that department.
Re: (Score:3)
Objects are shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux shells still pass data as text, when passing objects would make so much more sense and give a lot more options
Sorry, but no, passing data as objects sucks.
Text is the one and only universal interface. Passing data as objects limits you to one system. If you have powershell objects you need a powershell environment to use them.
When I want to get data from a website into my database text is the only format that both sides understand. Putting it into more general terms, when I want to get data from X to put it into Y text is the only format that both sides understand.
I can scan and OCR text from old books and newspapers. I can print text. I can edit text in any machine from a PDP-11 to a smart phone. When I'm limited to a slow and/or high latency connection text is the only format that works. I can use vi to edit a data file in a remote Unix system using a 300 bps modem if I need to. I can speak text on a phone for someone else to type it at the other end.
When I'm managing an important system that *must* keep running under emergency situations only text will do.
Object oriented system administration is bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Text is merely a special case of object-oriented data passing. There's really no reason the data cannot be marshalled to text at the endpoints (both on the way into, and out of, powershell).
After all, in most situations what passing text is, is marshalling the data in every application, both on the way in and on the way out. The program is under no obligation to keep it in textual form within its own processing and for many applications that would be absurd.
You're even implying that when you talk about OC
Re:Azure (Score:5, Insightful)
You're lucky -- this is the first time in two weeks I don't have mod points. Are you Ballmer's grandson or something? Do you even know what an "object" is? MS's poo-pooing of text is one of the worst things about MS and one reason so many of us stay away. Text is human-readable, binary is not. If you're passing "objects" as text and your code goes kerflooey you can examine what was passed and easily figure out what went wrong. Not so with binary blobs. Mind explaining why you think passing binary makes more sense and gives more options?
Have you ever used a single program that didn't come from Redmond? Your posts all make it sound like MS is the best thing since sliced bread, when most of us are fond of saying "the day MS makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they start making vaccuum cleaners" (Well, personally I think Excel is the best spreadsheet and MS mice weren't too bad, and I'd take an Xbox over a Sony any day).
BTW, freeAVG just told me to reboot (I haven't got Linux on this box yet). Ironically, I don't mind rebooting Linux because it comes back exactly like I left it, but I never have to reboot. If I reboot Windows I have to restart every open program, yet I have to reboot every few days because something needed updating. Tell your dad to fix this, OK? And tell him to get rid of that God damned registry!
MS is easy to use if you don't know what you're doing. Those of us who have been computing for decades find MS products maddeningly annoying -- the "Redmond way or no way" syndrome.
I don't like Gnome, but IMO KDE is a far superior interface than Windows.
Now I have to brush my teeth after biting that shilly troll. Ugh!
Re:Azure (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't open a notepad and write a simple program (let's say a dialog with a panel, a few text boxes and buttons) without an IDE in a language of your choice, then how good a programmer are you?
Get rid of mental clutches and start using your brain is my advice. You'd be surprised how much you can learn if your tool doesn't stifle you.
But this is just the first step. Learning more advanced things, how to search effectively, bend and transform code or text in general to your will, create mini reports of things you are interested in (some of the most basic things like class outline, or call hierarchy are dedicated views in most IDEs, but there are other things you might be interested in that are not) and are all learning aids. And the best thing is this knowledge and tools are applicable and transferable to any kind of programming task, whereas most IDE users would not even consider learning or programming a language their IDE does not support.
Re:Azure (Score:5, Insightful)
Get rid of mental clutches and start using your brain is my advice.
Because memorizing API's is what makes a good programmer? Spare me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spend a lot of time in the bathroom, do you?
How is this a radical departure? (Score:3, Insightful)
These just sound like incremental improvements. I'm not complaining but adding extra commandlets and features isn't a "radical departure". Plus, the GUI is optional on the current version of Windows Server.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not optional in the true sense of the word, the system boots up and initialises its video drivers, a window manager and then displays a graphical login prompt. After logging in, you still have a window manager and now have a cli based interface running in a window.
A true non gui environment would have a full screen cli interface in text mode (i.e. no unnecessary loading of video drivers), and this interface would also be available over a serial console (serial consoles work much better remotely on slow
Not all video chipsets have a text mode (Score:2)
A true non gui environment would have a full screen cli interface in text mode (i.e. no unnecessary loading of video drivers)
Which would require the hardware to support a text mode. Not all video chipsets on all platforms do. But if only enough driver is loaded to support a terminal emulator, and the operating system still supports old-skool serial consoles, I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of, but if I remember right, Server 2008 core (without the gui) is missing Powershell, which is a massive hinderance to maintaining it..
BUT THEY ALWAYS SAY THAT! (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon, Bill, do you really expect us to fall for that AGAIN?
(Of course, some will... I'm depressed now...)
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, Bill, do you really expect us to fall for that AGAIN?
Lucy, football, Charlie Brown. It must be fall.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I was yelling at the little icon to the right of the article, Mister Pedantic.
Re:BUT THEY ALWAYS SAY THAT! (Score:4, Funny)
FYI, that icon to the right of the article is not Mister Pedantic, it's Bill Gates.
-- 77IM
O.o (Score:2)
Someone in Redmond realized that a server doesn't necessarily need a GUI???
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They realized it a few years, but it looks like they are now thinking about making it mandatory.
See "Windows Server Core"
the circle is complete (Score:2)
VMS -> WNT -> W2K -> W2003 -> W2008 -> VMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Getta Byte, Getta Byte, Getta Byte Byte Byte!
... and the hype continues... (Score:2)
.
"The world"? Probably the funniest thing I read all day.
Catch up (Score:2)
And with that Windows catches up with the late 70's. :P
feature creep? (Score:2)
its command list will exceed 2,300 native commandlets
Holy fuck. I don't even know how to process that number of commands to remember.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thats how PowerShell works, too...
2300 "commands" really means there are a few hundred objects with some number of operations you can take on them, and you do so by chaining them together like named pipes. Imagine, if you will, that every config file on your Unix system was an object that you could pipe commands in and out of. That's how you have to compare it to Unix.
So, in some ways its easier. Rather than having to do piping through grep/sed/whatever to switch some setting in a config file, you just call
Re: (Score:2)
so every config file object inherits an interface with grep/sed/whatever on it?
it better, or i'm going to have to hack around it
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the simplicity of those 20 commands revolve around the everything-as-a-file architecture of *nix though.
I'm sure the 2300 commandlets involve everything from interacting with files to registry settings to services...
Would it have been so hard for them to deprecate the registry interface by making it look like a folder to the command line?
Services could technically be placed in the same boat using file links: (I have to confess, I don't know if this is even possible in *nix. It's pretty much off th
Re: (Score:2)
Would it have been so hard for them to deprecate the registry interface by making it look like a folder to the command line?
Registry actually looks like a folder to Powershell command-line, since about Vista/Win2008 server times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For comparison, English has about 500,000 words.
Re: (Score:2)
name them
Re: (Score:2)
powershell is an object oriented command-line shell based on introspection so you can always know the command available on the object you have selected using the get-command call so 2300 commands is not that bad if they are not 2300 globally visible commands.
Re: (Score:3)
But it assumes the command name is sufficient to understand what it operates on.
Probably 70% as useful as "man -k" ever was.
Radical departure... (Score:2)
... by turning a PC into an oversized, user-unfriendly smart phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Focus of Win8 is on developer productivity (Score:2)
MS has put a lot of effort into developer productivity in Windows 8, especially when crossing boundaries between the client, server, and cloud. Visual Studio is now buttressed with a new version of Expression Blend that edits both HTML5 and XAML. The editor has a live preview that lets you navigate a site with an inboard browser, then dive into the code on a single rendered element, even if it is dynamically generated. Likewise, there are new remote debugging tools that lets the developer go from a runni
Hyper-V improvements are somewhat appealing. (Score:2)
Their claims of performance enhancements seem promising and I think the Live Storage Migration feature could really come in handy.
Of course I won't jump on board right away, but it's definitely something I'll try to get a hold of to set up in a test environment.
I am amused (Score:3)
Every time there's a new article about Windows/Microsoft anything, ever, no matter what the subject 90% of the posts try and just poo-poo it. In the meantime, the real world will (normally) pick the right tool for the job and ignore the petty politics & gripes that gets in the way of real discussion which seems to be common-place here.
IMHO Windows does try to "be" linux as Linux is so flexible as to run on anything from $20 routers to incredably scalable multi-CPU servers. There is some overlap of course, by largely the two technologies service different needs IMO.
So calm down kids, we can all be friends, see? Some of us like MS toys, some of us prefer others. Let's try and not flame-war each other ok?
Re:Server cold war (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't saying anything about linux, however this is a direct attack against linux and unix in general
Its real competition, not "an attack". This is a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
On Slashdot, competing with Linux is an "attack" and makes you evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think PowerShell is a lot closer to the ideal shell for today than Bash is (and I'm typing this on Linux). PS is kind of maddening to use because of some things like the tab completion differences (I've tried to give it a fair shot, but I really don't like it) and the god-awful "terminal emulator" that it runs in.
But I strongly feel that if the Linux folks would take a step back and acknowledge that it's no longer 1970, they'd see that have programs set up to pass objects around instead of tex
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, for all of that, the SH-variants have an enormous body of code behind them. I'm willing to concede there are aspects of Powershell that might be desirable, but it's a fucking nightmare to code in, and for scripting, I don't really want to code anyways. The whole point behind sh and all its children wasn't so that you could have some full blown programming language, but rather that you could automate tasks, and at that, the sh family works remarkably well, and has done so for decades.
I have no pr
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a nightmare to you because you are familiar with bash etc and you are not familiar with PS.
I still don't understand why you are hating PS for having more functionality that you need. If it didn't do some particular task, then you'd be all over it for being incomplete or lacking or not up to production standards, but now it does everything you need and more and you still find something to complain about?
Your problem is simply that PS is not BASH, not that PS sucks in any way, but because all you kn
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying get rid of powershell, I'm saying put a native variant of a shell scripting language that has been around for longer than Bill Gates has been in the computer industry. That way, there is a proper choice.
Re: (Score:2)
But I strongly feel that if the Linux folks would take a step back and acknowledge that it's no longer 1970, they'd see that have programs set up to pass objects around instead of text can be hugely beneficial.
The advantage here being...? It sounds like a cool feature, but what would I be doing where I would actually want to have object oriented programming in my shell?
Re: (Score:3)
It might come in handy, I suppose, in processing XML-based configs, but those still make a pretty small chunk of all the conf files in existence. For any heavy duty processing like that you always have awk or Perl if you want a full-blown language. Heck, I remember writing a ten or fifteen line awk script that processed some weirdo mainframe style inventory list of about 100,000 items into a csv file using awk.
The issue here, I think, is that *nix doesn't really use objects at all for base OS interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
"Does it start at column 40? No? 45? No? How' bout 43?"
What exactly have you been doing with your shell? I have never had anything that approaches this sort of problem; on a few occasions I wind up forgetting which of a handful of columns from the output of "ps" or "ls -l" is the one I want to sort by. Even if you wind up having dozens of columns, I fail to see how object oriented programming is going to help you, since you are still stuck having to remember dozens of fields for whatever class you are dealing with.
Parsing file names in particular is... "interesting". It's basically never worth it to get it actually correct,
Do you have an actual example that you co
Re: (Score:2)
Crap, I using *nix variants like Xenix that didn't even have the GNU toolset, and was based on older variants, and I've never had that problem. I've done a LOT of text processing under various *nix variants, and to be honest with you, I've actually dropped Windows compiles of tools like awk, sed and Perl into my servers just to get the level of processing power those tools can provide.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give us an example of where you would need this in a *nix environment. Something specific here.
Re:Server cold war (Score:4, Interesting)
I just don't understand why Microsoft can't just make a good BASH variant for Windows, so us folks who administrate heterogeneous networks can create a common stock of admin scripts, and a common scripting language to do them in. Microsoft still can't get over the fact that it isn't the only boy in town in the server world, and making proper integration tools, as opposed to trying to force itself on us at every turn, should take precedence.
Yes, I know there's Cygwin, but it's huge and a major pain in the ass and I consider the ugliest of hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Their answer is doing all kinds of convoluted stuff in WS-MAN. They don't grasp the concept of simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Coz if they did MS would sue, sue and sue again.
Anyway, what's wrong with bash then?
Re:Server cold war (Score:4, Interesting)
Coz if they did MS would sue, sue and sue again.
Pure FUD. The PowerShell specification was released under the Community Promise [msdn.com] specifically so it could be implemented on other platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some reason that PowerScript is needed on *nix, which has a tool set far beyond anything Microsoft has ever produced.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That you Baghdad Bob? We love you! [welovethei...nister.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because bash and by extension the bourne shell came first, and has already been the standard on pretty much every OS except windows. There are already a large number of people familiar with it, and a large number of already written scripts for it.
That's like me creating a non standard power socket carrying a non standard voltage, and then demanding that you install it in your house and replace all the existing appliances you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Because bash and by extension the bourne shell came first, and has already been the standard on pretty much every OS except windows. There are already a large number of people familiar with it, and a large number of already written scripts for it.
Well, FORTRAN was also created before C, and has been a standard for a long time before C appeared. But, sometimes there really is a better way to do things.
In any case, if you want bash on Windows, it has been available for ages in MSYS or Cygwin. Portable scripts will still be a chore because of e.g. filesystem differences, though.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still trying to figure out what good it would do. Powershell, like its antecedents (WMI, Vbscript, etc.) is accessing exposed elements of the Windows API and various APIs for other systems like Active Directory and Exchange. *nix has never had those particular problems, because it's always stuck to a minimalistic approach.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out what advantage a powershell-like shell would do in a *nix system.
Re: (Score:3)
Not needing to do text parsing on the results of commands?
I find PowerShell's use of an actual object model as opposed to text streams to be quite convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they do tthat....why bother with windows, when there are more mature Unix type OSes out there?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Powershell is not a replacement for bash, but for perl, python, or whatever other scripting language you like. Bash is a UI with some programming features thrown in to make it more powerful. Powershell is a programming language with some UI features thrown in as an afterthought.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Power shell can be good but..
I used PS scripts to build an 8 node cluster on 2008R2 Datacenter core for a HyperV project. It was interesting and the MS stuff was not hard to figure out and replicate. The problem was getting the other required vendor software and drivers properly installed and configured on the servers. We have HP servers connected to EMC SANs. The HP NIC teaming tools, Navisphere, Powerpath, our monitoring software etc.. was NOT as easy to get on there and configure without a GUI. Som
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you have even used PowerShell, you just want to hate on it because it's Windows-based and that "ooh Windows admins must be stupid!" line makes it even more visible. The hard col
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is fine for hobbyist stuff and some real work, but the real world still uses Windows Server a lot.
The real world uses Linux and other Unix variants. While Windows may be fine for print servers and other non-critical business functions, no-one in ther right mind puts a Windows server up on the Internet where it can be attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I forgot to check the user ID before I posted. If I'd realised it was him I'd have ignored it.
Re: (Score:3)
> how do you connect to a remote PC with bash and run your commands there? Oh, you can't. With PowerShell you can easily do that.
man ssh
specifically the part about "if command is specified, it is executed on the remote host instead of a login shell".
Your move, chief.
Re: (Score:2)
So why do you assume I'm some Linux geek who runs a home network in his basement? I've been in this business for over 20 years, and have set up and administered networks all the way to LANManager-based networks running Lantastic and Windows for Workgroups, as well as Xenix, FreeBSD and Linux systems, not to mention NT 3.51/4/Windows 2000/Server 2003/Server 2008, along with Exchange 95/2003/2007, and currently have a network with eight servers divided between six locations, with AD domains and in particular
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not a Microsoft employee.
Yes, you are. If you are not Microsoft employee, you work for some astroturfer-for-hire outfit that works for Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
"Best tool for the job" assumes infinite budgets to pay for it. I'd probably be less allergic to Windows if I had unlimited budgets, but I don't, and worse, even if I got a big budget to move a bunch of the stuff I do now over to Windows, in five or six years when Microsoft is clearly pushing for upgrades, I get to spend that all over again.
Our main file server is running Samba. Not because Samba's better than Windows. In a lot of ways, it's a big pain in the ass, and Posix ACL mapping to Windows ACLs is
Re:Server cold war (Score:4, Informative)
50% is a made up number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems [wikipedia.org]
You won't find 50% here for MS, except the revenue counting channel, which doesn't count OS' properly that you don't have to buy.
Re: (Score:3)
I really doubt you're using the best tools for your jobs. You didn't even know that you can connect into UNIX machines remotely. You have no credibility in a discussion about servers or networking.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the complexity, dumping users, especially windows users who have little or no CLI experience into a powerful environment like powershell is not a good approach.. Especially when it's something completely new, rather than a logical extension of something users will already have been familiar with.
Bash is simple yet flexible, and builds on the bourne shell which has been around for many years... You don't need to learn anything new in order to get on with it, and bash is very good for the major
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just flabbergasted by 2300 "commandlets" in PowerShell... they couldn't abstract and simplify the system enough to reduce that?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using any OS permissions system just to set up access for one or two users, then you're doing it wrong. I've literally seen guys who have set up server shares where folders and files have permissions for individual users.
Oh, and we've had POSIX ACLs for how long now?
Re: (Score:3)
Your chances of already knowing bourne shell, which has been around for many years are much higher than knowing powershell which is a lot newer, and not an extension of anything existing.
You have chmod for traditional permissions, and setfacl/getfacl for advanced permissions (ACLs), you can use these same commands/functions for files, configuration (which are also files) and device drivers (which have files in /dev).
On windows you only have advanced permissions, and no simple option. You then have a set of
Re: (Score:2)
> The hard cold truth is that Windows Server is used on around 50% of servers
Yeah? where did you pull that number from?
> Linux is fine for hobbyist stuff and some real work
'some' real work? are you kidding me? You're right. Hobbyist stuff. The same hobbyist stuff that's been paying my bills for over 12 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
My top issue is that while PowerShell does a better-than-most job at having powerful capabilities *without* the syntactic burden of an equivalent language (like Python/Perl), it *still* (necessarily) compromises somewhat. The fancy piping sometimes has unanticipated oddness in certain scenarios (easiest example, do 'ps', looks sane enough, now, do 'ps|cat', and suddenly you see the hard-to-manage man behind the curtain that can crop up in various situations). In general, it's largely able to work due to M
Re: (Score:3)
Your argument is literally "Powershell sucks compared to bash because it's more than I need."
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that link to an unmaintained build whose latest file is from 2000.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it seems like Microsoft sees VMware as its actual competition [itworld.com].
Re: (Score:3)
And I still can't quite figure out how exactly VMWare is a threat to MS. VMWare made it easier for shops to run more MS servers by combining them.
Besides how long is it going to take MS to release the next server OS with the features they are advertising?
I hope in the long run they do VMs like they do Terminal Servers. MS isn't putting Citrix out of business by providing some basic TS capabilities built into the product. If you need more then what MS provides then you go to a vendor that goes beyond the b
Re: (Score:2)
And I still can't quite figure out how exactly VMWare is a threat to MS
Because MS makes money on licensing OS shipped pre-installed on machines. New servers are so powerful that partitioning makes sense, and VMWare is now an alternative OS to Windows Server when you order a new server. VMWare is actually a customized Linux + virtualization tools. The tools & services shipped with with VMWare have started exceeding the classic definition of VM host, they now have partitioned Java containers running directly on the host. In a short time, they'll have native VMWare business a
Re: (Score:3)
And I still can't quite figure out how exactly VMWare is a threat to MS
They're doing something in the computer field and it's popular and not Microsoft. Look at the Zune - why did Microsoft need to be in the music player business? Only because Apple was and succeeding and they were jealous. How much time and energy did they waste on that?
Granted, they seem to be less viscous without Gates around to throw fits about stuff like this.
Re: (Score:2)
*hands the troll a bone*
Windows has been perfectly intuitive for me. Moreso than MacOS. I found Ubuntu and FreeBSD more intuitive than MacOS, sadly. Admittedly with FreeBSD, I had someone point me to the handbook first thing. What is "most intuitive" very much depends on the user.
Oh, and I didn't need to install cards for printers on any of them. Usually I don't even need to download drivers separately (unless you count installing CUPS in FreeBSD).
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, desktop versions will be more pad-like than windows-like.
Server version with "GUI optional" implies you install the GUI package and get on with your workstationy stuff.
As for 7 to 8, it looks like a whole new paradigm. Windows 7 is still, in look and feel, a windows-on-a-desktop-analog GUI in the Xerox PARC mold. The pad paradigm is a whole new kettle of fishsticks, even if you're using a mouse and keyboard instead of your digits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse than that: They're copying OS/2, which they helped write. (OS/2 could boot to a non-GUI text console for servers and ATMs.)
Heck, they're copying one of their own SAFE MODE boots.
Or maybe, They're copying DOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)