Why on earth would Microsoft want anything to do with Linux?
I wonder how this will affect the bbses and Linux as a whole.
Microsoft has been working with Linux and other open source projects for several years. Also plenty of apps for Android. Why wouldn't they want to?
Why on earth would Microsoft want anything to do with Linux?
to install non-Microsoft web browsers & other competing software on
their PCs). For a long time, it would have been unheard of for
Microsoft to do anything to support Linux.
Re: Re: Microsoft’s Linux Kernel
By: Captain Obvious to The Millionaire on Sat Feb 01 2020 06:56 pm
In the past, Microsoft often tried to fight the competition. From a business standpoint, I think it was understandable they wouldn't want to support Linux or other forms of competition. I've heard Microsoft would make deals with PC OEMs in the 90s that required them to buy a license for Windows for every PC they sold, even if they'd include a different OS on some of their PCs. I'd heard of other seedy tactics they did to try to encourage OEMs to favor Windows
more than other operating systems and Microsoft more than other software vendors (such as disallowing OEMs to install non-Microsoft web browsers & other
competing software on their PCs). For a long time, it would have been unheard
of for Microsoft to do anything to support Linux.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
True. For good or bad though they've supported different products (Office for Mac for example) if only to pull people into their ecosystem.
Or maybe they want to spy on us like they did in the DOS days with our BBSes. You never know with them. When Microsoft becomes nice, watch out. They have a plan cooking.
How did Microsoft spy on us using BBSes? I don't remember ever hearing anything about that.
I wonder how this will affect the bbses and Linux as a whole.
How did Microsoft spy on us using BBSes? I don't remember ever hearing anything about that.
I've heard Microsoft Office for Mac has typically not had feature parity with the Windows version. I remember reading about how the Mac version lacked some features that the Windows version had.
Tinfoil hats make great antennas for broadcasting back to the
mothership's satellite constellation.
The Millionaire wrote to Nightfox <=-
Or maybe they want to spy on us like they did in the DOS days
with our BBSes. You never know with them. When Microsoft becomes
nice, watch out. They have a plan cooking.
How did M$ "spy on us" in the DOS days?
Can you please provide a reference/citation that backs that claim
up?
... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)
The Millionaire wrote to Gamgee <=-
How did M$ "spy on us" in the DOS days?
Can you please provide a reference/citation that backs that claim
up?
Microsoft wanted to spy on us so they put the internet browser
out there.
Yeah, it did. Always lagged behind the Windows version. My understanding is that since 2016 feature parity is much closer. IDK. Other than
working on a couple of iMac's when I was doing tech support for an ISP
in the late '90s I don't have much experience with them.
Re: Re: Microsoft?s Linux Kernel
By: Captain Obvious to The Millionaire on Sat Feb 01 2020 06:56 pm
Microsoft has been working with Linux and other open source projects for?
several years. Also plenty of apps for Android. Why wouldn't they want to
In the past, Microsoft often tried to fight the competition. From a business
standpoint, I think it was understandable they wouldn't want to
support Linux
or other forms of competition. I've heard Microsoft would make deals
with PC
OEMs in the 90s that required them to buy a license for Windows for
every PC
they sold, even if they'd include a different OS on some of their PCs.
I'd
heard of other seedy tactics they did to try to encourage OEMs to
favor Windows
more than other operating systems and Microsoft more than other
software
vendors (such as disallowing OEMs to install non-Microsoft web
browsers & other
competing software on their PCs). For a long time, it would have
been unheard
of for Microsoft to do anything to support Linux.
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: Captain Obvious to Nightfox on Sat Feb 01 2020 08:22 pm
True. For good or bad though they've supported different products (Office
for Mac for example) if only to pull people into their ecosystem.
I've heard Microsoft Office for Mac has typically not had feature
parity with
the Windows version. I remember reading about how the Mac version
lacked some
features that the Windows version had.
Nightfox
Why on earth would Microsoft want anything to do with Linux?
vendors (such as disallowing OEMs to install non-Microsoft web browsers & >> otherRe: Re: Microsoft?s Linux Kernel
By: Captain Obvious to The Millionaire on Sat Feb 01 2020 06:56 pm
In the past, Microsoft often tried to fight the competition. From a business
standpoint, I think it was understandable they wouldn't want to support Linux
or other forms of competition. I've heard Microsoft would make deals with PC
OEMs in the 90s that required them to buy a license for Windows for every PC
they sold, even if they'd include a different OS on some of their PCs. I'd >> heard of other seedy tactics they did to try to encourage OEMs to favor >> Windows
more than other operating systems and Microsoft more than other software >>
competing software on their PCs). For a long time, it would have been >> unheard
of for Microsoft to do anything to support Linux.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
Or maybe they want to spy on us like they did in the DOS days with
our BBSes.
You never know with them. When Microsoft becomes nice, watch out.
They have a
plan cooking.
Nightfox wrote to Captain Obvious <=-
I've heard Microsoft Office for Mac has typically not had feature
parity with the Windows version. I remember reading about how the Mac version lacked some features that the Windows version had.
Spectre wrote to tenser <=-
I heard that only works if you turn your hat upside down like a dish :)
It's gotten better, but I remember big differences between Outlook/Entourage and Lync. Word, Excel and Powerpoint have been pretty good.
Things changed when Ballmer finally caved and resigned. Satya Nadella
has a way more pragmatic view on things and from what I understand, it took Nadella to start at Microsoft for the company to release their already finished iOS version of Office to the App Store. Ballmer
wouldn't allow it.
Do you mean Exchange? Or is Entourage something else (perhaps I haven't heard of it)?
Ballmer was such a clown. I struggle to find useful things he
contributed to. Imagine a world without Ballmer's negative influences...where do you think we'd be today?
On 02-02-20 20:07, Joacim Melin wrote to Nightfox <=-
I think Microsofts work with Linux and their ownership of Github is a sincere attempt to do good and to work with everybody. Hell, Linux even runs really, really well both in Azure and in Hyper-V if you want to go that route.
How did M$ "spy on us" in the DOS days?
Can you please provide a reference/citation that backs that claim
up?
How did M$ "spy on us" in the DOS days?
Can you please provide a reference/citation that backs that claim
up?
Microsoft wanted to spy on us so they put the internet browser out there.
Why on earth would Microsoft want anything to do with Linux?
What does God need with a starship?
As much as I've lived through the "Evil Microsoft" days of the 90s, I do get the feeling that Microsoft today are much more pragmatic and see their future being in working with open source and Linux. That vision suits me too, I much prefer a heterogenous world where I can use the platform that best suits a specific task, rather than having to settle on a specific OS to make things work together.
On 02-02-20 22:47, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Some part of me doesn't fully trust Microsoft, and I wonder what
they're up to.
I'll wait and see if they really want to get along with Linux and such
or if they're up to something.
Things changed when Ballmer finally caved and resigned. Satya Nadella hasa way
more pragmatic view on things and from what I understand, it took Nadellato
start at Microsoft for the company to release their already finished iOS version of Office to the App Store. Ballmer wouldn't allow it.
I think Microsofts work with Linux and their ownership of Github is asincere
attempt to do good and to work with everybody. Hell, Linux even runsreally,
really well both in Azure and in Hyper-V if you want to go that route.
the "only" thing missing is an updated, modern version of Skype for Business but that's probably not happening since they are putting alltheir
efforts in to Teams these days (for which the Mac client is pretty greatif you
try to forget it's an Electron app with all that brings to the table..).
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Feb 02 2020 12:03 pm
Do you mean Exchange? Or is Entourage something else (perhaps I haven't Ni>> heard of it)?
Entourage was the sorta-Outlook-like mail client that Office for Mac
came with
before they created an Outlook app.
Things changed when Ballmer finally caved and resigned. Satya Nadella
has a way more pragmatic view on things and from what I understand, it
took Nadella to start at Microsoft for the company to release their
already finished iOS version of Office to the App Store. Ballmer
wouldn't allow it.
Ballmer was such a clown. I struggle to find useful things he
contributed to.
Imagine a world without Ballmer's negative influences...where do you
think
we'd be today?
I don't think Internet Explorer was spyware.. It always seemed to me that Microsoft purposefully made Internet Explorer not follow web standards
On 02-02-20 20:07, Joacim Melin wrote to Nightfox <=-
I think Microsofts work with Linux and their ownership of Github is a
sincere attempt to do good and to work with everybody. Hell, Linux even
runs really, really well both in Azure and in Hyper-V if you want to go
that route.
As much as I've lived through the "Evil Microsoft" days of the 90s, I
do get
the feeling that Microsoft today are much more pragmatic and see their future
being in working with open source and Linux. That vision suits me
too, I much
prefer a heterogenous world where I can use the platform that best
suits a
specific task, rather than having to settle on a specific OS to make
things
work together.
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: Vk3jed to Joacim Melin on Mon Feb 03 2020 10:44 am
As much as I've lived through the "Evil Microsoft" days of the 90s, I dor
get the feeling that Microsoft today are much more pragmatic and see thei
future being in working with open source and Linux. That vision suits me
too, I much prefer a heterogenous world where I can use the platform that
best suits a specific task, rather than having to settle on a specific OS
to make things work together.
Some part of me doesn't fully trust Microsoft, and I wonder what
they're up to.
I'll wait and see if they really want to get along with Linux and
such or if
they're up to something.
Things changed when Ballmer finally caved and resigned. Satya Nadella has
a way
more pragmatic view on things and from what I understand, it took Nadella
to
start at Microsoft for the company to release their already finished iOS
version of Office to the App Store. Ballmer wouldn't allow it.
I think Nadella did a lot of things right. Ballmer was stuck in the
90s ...
I think Microsofts work with Linux and their ownership of Github is asincere
attempt to do good and to work with everybody. Hell, Linux even runsreally,
really well both in Azure and in Hyper-V if you want to go that route.
They also support FreeBSD in Azure. There was some major bug when I
tried it
some year
ago, which was fixed in upstream FreeBSD, but was still in the FreeBSD image on
Azure.
Microsoft's support was a nightmare. Super friendly, but couldn't understand
the issue
and constantly tried to find some solution in their support database
that
didn't have
anything to do with the issue. After many many many emails (and
banging my head
on
the desk) it finally was forwarded to the real developers at Microsoft
(not the
outsourced support in india that drove me nuts). They just opened an
issue in
the
bug tracker and fixed it within a couple of hours.
the "only" thing missing is an updated, modern version of Skype fortheir
Business but that's probably not happening since they are putting all
efforts in to Teams these days (for which the Mac client is pretty greatif you
try to forget it's an Electron app with all that brings to the table..).
Right, it's not hapoening.
"Microsoft has announced that it is retiring the Skype for Business
Online
service,
giving users until the end of July, 2021 to continue using it. After
this date,
the
online version of Skype for Business will no longer be available for users."
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: The Millionaire to Gamgee on Sun Feb 02 2020 06:46 am
An internet browser, like a web browser? Did Microsoft make such a browser for
DOS? Or are you referring to early versions of Internet Explorer?
I don't think Internet Explorer was spyware.. It always seemed to me that Microsoft purposefully made Internet Explorer not follow web standards properly
because they knew they had the majority of the web browser market for a while;
web site developers would ensure their site worked with Internet Explorer, and
often web sites wouldn't work properly with other web browsers, forcing people
to use Internet Explorer much of the time. People using non-Windows machines were out of luck with that. I'm glad browsers like Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome came around and gained popularity and turned things around.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: Gamgee to The Millionaire on Sun Feb 02 2020 07:52 am
How did M$ "spy on us" in the DOS days?
Can you please provide a reference/citation that backs that claim
up?
Maybe it's how they tracked those emails Bill Gates sent saying
Microsoft would
give people money for forwarding the email.
It's funny that you brought up that point. Bill Gates was in court in the 90's for trying to make sure no 3rd party developers creating any software for Windows except Microsoft which caused a big fury over it. Realplayerwas
one of the developers involved in the case. Bill lost because the judge inthe
case concluded that any developer could create software for any OS and wasnot
restricted to one particular OS only.
They have plans alright. MSSQL is already on Linux and it's just a question of time before Exchange Server and Sharepoint is too. Their future revenue isn't in the server operating system itself, it's in the services and the applications running on top of the server OS and my guess is that they learned something when buying Hotmail all those years ago and continously failed to replace the FreeBSD servers it ran on with Windows Server until they increased the number of servers with a factor of ten or something to that effect. In short - they can save money in their Azure / Office 365 infrastructure by moving stuff to Linux and still offer their services on top of it.
It's funny that you brought up that point. Bill Gates was in court in the 90's for trying to make sure no 3rd party developers creating any software for Windows except Microsoft which caused a big fury over it. Realplayer was one of the developers involved in the case. Bill lost because the judge in the case concluded that any developer could create software for any OS and was not restricted to one particular OS only.
Ballmer basically continued to do what Gates had been doing for all those years, because it works. What Ballmer, and Gates to some extent, failed to
I can see how companies might want to continue using Microsoft Exchange and such but run it on a Linux server.
On 02-03-20 09:59, Joacim Melin wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Back when I was a tech journalist, Microsoft invited me over for a week
in Redmond. This was back in 2003. There they presented their plans for their server and enterprise stuff for the next ten years. Some of us invited thought it was very impressive but also very blue-sky stuff and doubted whether Microsoft would actually pull it off. But they did -
they delivered on most if not all of the plans presented there. Another strong memory from that trip was how humble they where. They asked what
we who followed the tech sector closely thought about things and really took notes and asked follow-up questions. I can
only speak for myself when I say that I understodd they where
basically pumping us for information, which was OK because we where
doing the same thing to them, but I came away with a totally different view on them as a company.
My point with these two stories is that corporations do care sometimes, and as Apple has continued to stray away left and right to find new revenue sources as
the iPhone sales has started to decline (which they have succeeded
with) Microsoft is being humble. I mean, who would have thought they
would publish the entire source code for a major enterprise such was Windows Terminal on Github? It's refreshing and even if I'm still a
Unix nerd at heart I've started to use Windows 10 more and more and for the most part I like it.
On 02-03-20 11:38, Nightfox wrote to Joacim Melin <=-
I can see how companies might want to continue using Microsoft Exchange and such but run it on a Linux server.
On 02-03-20 11:45, Nightfox wrote to The Millionaire <=-
From what I remember, that was not exactly the heart of the case.. Microsoft wants people to develop software for Windows, because having software available
for an operating system increases its usefulness, which would make
people want
to use it. If Microsoft was the only developer allowed to make
software for Windows, software developers would have to make software
for other operating systems, and the available software for Windows
would be limited. One of the reasons Windows remains popular is
because there is so much software developed for it. If that amount of software was developed for Mac OS or Linux, for instance, that's what a lot people would be using instead.
I think you're partially correct though. From what I remember, the lawsuit against Microsoft in the 90s was an anti-trust lawsuit, where Microsoft wanted to force only certain software out of the market. Web browsers was one such thing - The issue to the courts was that
Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows and tried to force/encourage people to use Internet Explorer rather than other web browsers.
That would be me. While Windows Server is a much improved beast nowadays, I prefer the Linux approach of exposing complexity and letting the sysadmin deal with it, rather than the Windows way of trying to hide complexity behind a GUI.
That's what killed OS/2 - lack of software available. Once Windows went 32 bit, OS/2 could no longer run current Windows software, and by this time, most vendors weren't providing OS/2 ports of their applications, so OS/2 languished.
That's what forced me to switch to Windows in the mid 1990s.
More software is being developed for Linux these days, though a lot is still Windows only. However, I keep seeing more and more Linux software out there, from commercial vendors, as well as open source and freeware ones.
Yes, I believe IE was a big part of the anti trust issue. At one stage, Microsoft did try to integrate IE into the desktop, IIRC.
I thought the server versions of Windows didn't really have much of a GUI. We had some Windows Server machines at my last job, and it seemed
it was pretty much just a minimal GUI that only let you open command prompt windows. Ideally I thought a totally server OS wouldn't
have a GUI at all..
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: The Millionaire to Gamgee on Sun Feb 02 2020 06:46 am
An internet browser, like a web browser? Did Microsoft make such a browser >> for
DOS? Or are you referring to early versions of Internet Explorer?
I don't think Internet Explorer was spyware.. It always seemed to me that >> Microsoft purposefully made Internet Explorer not follow web standards >> properly
because they knew they had the majority of the web browser market for a >> while;
web site developers would ensure their site worked with Internet Explorer, >> and
often web sites wouldn't work properly with other web browsers, forcing >> people
to use Internet Explorer much of the time. People using non-Windows >> machines were out of luck with that. I'm glad browsers like Mozilla Firefox
and Google Chrome came around and gained popularity and turned things around.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
It?s funny that you brought up that point. Bill Gates was in court in
the
90?s for trying to make sure no 3rd party developers creating any
software
for Windows except Microsoft which caused a big fury over it.
Realplayer was
one of the developers involved in the case. Bill lost because the
judge in the
case concluded that any developer could create software for any OS
and was not
restricted to one particular OS only.
On 02-03-20 11:38, Nightfox wrote to Joacim Melin <=-
I can see how companies might want to continue using Microsoft Exchange
and such but run it on a Linux server.
That would be me. While Windows Server is a much improved beast
nowadays, I
prefer the Linux approach of exposing complexity and letting the
sysadmin deal
with it, rather than the Windows way of trying to hide complexity
behind a GUI.
As for stability, Windows has certainly caught up in that department,
I
elieve.
Re: Re: MicrosofLinuLinux Kernel
By: Vk3jed to Nightfox on Tue Feb 04 2020 01:47 pm
That would be me. While Windows Server is a much improved beast nowadays,
I prefer the Linux approach of exposing complexity and letting the
sysadmin deal with it, rather than the Windows way of trying to hide
complexity behind a GUI.
I thought the server versions of Windows didn't really have much of a
GUI. We
had some Windows Server machines at my last job, and it seemed it was pretty
much just a minimal GUI that only let you open command prompt windows.
Ideally
I thought a totally server OS wouldn't have a GUI at all..
On 02-03-20 09:59, Joacim Melin wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Back when I was a tech journalist, Microsoft invited me over for a week
in Redmond. This was back in 2003. There they presented their plans for
their server and enterprise stuff for the next ten years. Some of us
invited thought it was very impressive but also very blue-sky stuff and
doubted whether Microsoft would actually pull it off. But they did -
they delivered on most if not all of the plans presented there. Another
strong memory from that trip was how humble they where. They asked what
we who followed the tech sector closely thought about things and really
took notes and asked follow-up questions. I can
only speak for myself when I say that I understodd they where
basically pumping us for information, which was OK because we where
doing the same thing to them, but I came away with a totally different
view on them as a company.
I think that was around the time when Microsoft started to change
their
approach for the better. It took me a while to warm to them, but
these days, I
certainly have a lot more trust than I had in them 20 years ago, when
their
strategy was "Embrace and extend", to take existing standards and technology
and extend them so that completing implementations were incompatible.
IE was
notorious in those days, and the number of websites (including many government
ones) that required IE was appalling. :(
Today, bery few sites are heavily browser dependent. The odd one may require
Chrome or Firefox, but that's not common now.
My point with these two stories is that corporations do care sometimes,
and as Apple has continued to stray away left and right to find new
revenue sources as
Well, they have to, to some extent, to be able to make sustainable
profits.
Looking after customers is good business sense.
the iPhone sales has started to decline (which they have succeeded
with) Microsoft is being humble. I mean, who would have thought they
would publish the entire source code for a major enterprise such was
Windows Terminal on Github? It's refreshing and even if I'm still a
Unix nerd at heart I've started to use Windows 10 more and more and for
the most part I like it.
I quite like Windows 10, and have just setup Ubuntu under WSL on it.
In time,
this may make a PC redundant, because I can use WSL for my desktop
Linux stuff
(via a Windows X server). I'm already doing this, as the Linux
desktop is on
the other side of the house, but moving to WSL looks like making X
more
responsive - no network lag, I can use localhost. ;)
This brings back memories of using CoLinux on Windows XP 15+ years
ago, but WSL
is much better integrated than CoLinux.
Microsoft pretty much got their act together with Server 2008 R2. Then they botched it again with Server 2012 and finally did it right with Server 2012 R2 (except for the NIC Teaming which can be a common source
of problems.. works properly with Server 2016 and onwards). I run
server Server 2012 R2 on several servers at home and it's pretty much
rock solid. At work we have Server 2012 R2 and onwards and they are all behaving properly. Kudos to Microsoft.
Wireguard : A new VPN for Linux. Interesting article:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/vpns-will-change-forever-with-the-arrival-of -wire guard-into-linux/
As much as I've lived through the "Evil Microsoft" days of the 90s,
I thought the server versions of Windows didn't really have much of
MY experience with server is pretty limited, would have to have 200x mebbe ,its
have 200x mebbe
On 04 Feb 2020 at 09:21a, Joacim Melin pondered and said...
Microsoft pretty much got their act together with Server 2008 R2. Then
they botched it again with Server 2012 and finally did it right with
Server 2012 R2 (except for the NIC Teaming which can be a common source
of problems.. works properly with Server 2016 and onwards). I run
server Server 2012 R2 on several servers at home and it's pretty much
rock solid. At work we have Server 2012 R2 and onwards and they are all
behaving properly. Kudos to Microsoft.
I've worked with several former Microsofties who worked on
Windows. They're _really_ good engineers. The kernel people
working on Windows absolutely know what they're doing. To
the extent that I give them a hard time, they do have a certain
chauvinism about Windows versus other systems: they tend to
act as though Unix -- and in particular Linux -- is a toy and
Windows is technically superior (note: I'm only talking about
NT and later; win9x etc is a completely different beast). To
be completely fair and honest, that may well have been true
in 1993, but Linux caught up and surpassed Windows technically
a long time ago and they ignored a lot of the innovations in
systems like Solaris post AT&T/BSD.
From the stories I've heard, Windows was a mess for a few
reasons. First, Dave Cutler was a huge jerk and ran that
group terribly for way too long with no one reigning him in.
Second, MSFT brought in the B-team to do the GUI and for
performance reasons they pushed a lot of the frame buffer
code into the kernel, which meant you had buggy code written
by less-than-stellar engineers running in ring 0 with no
guard-rails. Third, forced compatibility with win9x
and even DOS introduced a tremendous amount of complexity
that led to instability. Basically, MS engineers would comb
the computer stores around Seattle and buy up the top 500
or so most popular Windows/DOS apps and run them on new
builds of windows. If they crashed, they'd patch windows
so that they didn't crash. The result was a plethora of ways
to do mostly the same thing like, say, opening a file, all to
handle buggy application software. Once that code got put in,
you basically couldn't take it out.
For anyone who wants to know the history of Windows, I highly
recommend the book "Showstopper", by G. Pascal Zachary. It's
a great read. In essence, Cutler was unhappy at DEC and was
poached by Bill Gates (personally) to do a next-gen OS for MS.
The result was going to be a think microkernel running on something
that wasn't the 386 (little known, but the first bring-up of
Windows wasn't on a PC, it was on a custom i860 based machine
they built in-house). Cutler et al were surprised when Gates
sprung on them a requirement to have something running on the
386 for demo at CES.
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: Vk3jed to Joacim Melin on Mon Feb 03 2020 10:44 am
As much as I've lived through the "Evil Microsoft" days of the 90s,
Here's a shout out to the memory of OS/2, Word Perfect, Novell
Netware, DR-DOS
and Geoworks. RIP.
On 02-03-20 20:40, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I thought the server versions of Windows didn't really have much of a
GUI. We had some Windows Server machines at my last job, and it seemed
it was pretty much just a minimal GUI that only let you open command prompt windows. Ideally
I thought a totally server OS wouldn't have a GUI at all..
On 02-03-20 20:46, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I heard Windows support in OS/2 also helped kill OS/2 because
developers tended
to just develop their software for Windows, resulting in few native
OS/2 applications.
Yeah, and I've even seen Linux support from big companies like Steam.
I think gaming support (via Steam & whatever else) would be very
helpful in boosting the popularity of Linux, as many people use a PC
for gaming. Years ago (around
the early 2000s), I saw a company (Loki Entertainment) that was
porting some popular Windows games to Linux, but it seems the Linux
market wasn't quite strong enough at the time and Loki disappeared.
From what I remember, Windows 98 had some IE web integration in that if you were browsing your files with Windows Explorer, you could type in a web URL in the path/address bar, and it would load the web page in the same window using IE. The IE integration was a big part of the
anti-trust case from what I remember. And I remember hearing Microsoft say that IE was so integrated into Windows at the time that they
couldn't undo it. I thought that argument was bogus because Windows 95 didn't have any IE integration at all. If Microsoft could put it in,
they could take it out. I seem to remember hearing that European
courts went further with Microsoft and forced Microsoft to separate
some things for Europe more than they did in the US.
On 02-04-20 09:21, Joacim Melin wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Microsoft pretty much got their act together with Server 2008 R2. Then they botched it again with Server 2012 and finally did it right with Server 2012 R2 (except for the NIC Teaming which can be a common source
of problems.. works properly with Server 2016 and onwards). I run
server Server 2012 R2 on several
servers at home and it's pretty much rock solid. At work we have
Server 2012 R2 and onwards and they are all behaving properly. Kudos to Microsoft.
On 02-04-20 09:28, Joacim Melin wrote to Vk3jed <=-
WSL isn't bad, but it still lacks in performance. I work a lot with a
CMS called Jekyll which requires Ruby and basically "compiles" the
entire website everytime you change or publish something. I compared
the performance in WSL and in Fedora 31 on the exact same hardware and
WSL was way behind. I hear Microsoft is improving things with WSL
though so I think they will get there this year.
On 02-04-20 10:56, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Re: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel
By: Vk3jed to Joacim Melin on Mon Feb 03 2020 10:44 am
As much as I've lived through the "Evil Microsoft" days of the 90s,
Here's a shout out to the memory of OS/2, Word Perfect, Novell Netware, DR-DOS and Geoworks. RIP.
Don't forget LANtastic, which was a small networking stack for MS-DOS and Windwos that was in direct competition with Windows for Workgroups.
I haven't done anything taxing on WSL yet, but I will keep an eye on it. I'm sure Microsoft will improve it as well.
I heard Windows support in OS/2 also helped kill OS/2 because
developers tended
to just develop their software for Windows, resulting in few native
OS/2 applications.
Yes, I've heard that too, and it makes sense, though I preferred native OS/2 apps when available. There were a couple of oddities in the Windows subsystem, especially when the uptime was getting up there. But still lightyears ahead of netive Windows 3.x. :)
On 02-05-20 07:55, ryan wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I haven't done anything taxing on WSL yet, but I will keep an eye on it. I'm sure Microsoft will improve it as well.
WSL2 runs on a hypervisor, so it's pretty damn close to bare metal. I
like it a lot.
On 02-05-20 10:52, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes, I've heard that too, and it makes sense, though I preferred native OS/2 apps when available. There were a couple of oddities in the Windows subsystem, especially when the uptime was getting up there. But still lightyears ahead of netive Windows 3.x. :)
Yes, naturally a native app is best. :)
On 02-05-20 20:02, Spectre wrote to Joacim Melin <=-
Don't forget LANtastic, which was a small networking stack for MS-DOS and Windwos that was in direct competition with Windows for Workgroups.
I never had any joy with LanTastic, I always stuck with NWLite with Artisoft's The Network Eye. That setup drove my BBS until it closed..
Joacim Melin wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Don't forget LANtastic, which was a small networking stack for MS-DOS
and Windwos that was in direct competition with Windows for Workgroups.
Don't forget LANtastic, which was a small networking stack for MS-DOS and
Windwos that was in direct competition with Windows for Workgroups.
I never had any joy with LanTastic, I always stuck with NWLite with Artisoft's
The Network Eye. That setup drove my BBS until it closed..
Spec
Joacim Melin wrote to Spectre <=-
I ran LANtastic over a parallell cable between my two computers back in the day. Not very fast of course but fun since I couldn't afford a
proper ethernet network at the time.
I ran LANtastic over a parallell cable between my two computers back in
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 18:56:22 |
| Calls: | 2,095 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,497 |
