Bluefish HTML Editor

[Paul]

https://bluefish.openoffice.nl/index.html
When I say "web pages" I mean standard HTML/CSS and not the
ecmascript bullshit that dominates large portions of the web.
"But we need your help! There is nobody looking after the windows installer
and the OXS installer is out of date."
Oh boo hoo hoo. Big fucking deal. Microslop/Apphole does not deserve
such a magnificent tag editor so just let those ports languish. Concentrate
on GNU/Linux only.
In fact, all FOSS programmers should withhold their software from
Microslop/Apphole and deliver GNU/Linux versions only. In this way,
more people will be forced to use GNU/Linux.
I certainly do not make my software available to Microslop/Apphole.

[Picture]

Loading Image...

*******

It used to be, the battlefield was the applications.

Today, the battlefield is the operating system.

Microsoft has hired Poettering. Why ?

When Microsoft did WSL2 and WSLg, the graphics stack (pretty complicaated
and includes Terminal Services), that went from stuttering to smoother
in only a week or so. The tuneup interval; was extremely fast.
it hints that there is a crack team (not the usual
level of doofus) working on their Linux efforts.

When Microsoft "donates" a fully function NTFS driver to kernel.org,
what is Linus going to do ?

I fired up a Ubuntu 24.04.1 USB stick the other day, was attempting
to use file sharing, when all of a sudden, a dialog appears on the
screen "informing me of the windows permissions on the share". I
was gob-struck. Since when does Linux do stuff like that ? That
crosses the line, and tells me that Canonical is now Microsofts Bitch.
Right after that, I booted my Linux Mint USB stick, and no such dialog
appeared and I was able to access the storage in question, with no
dialogs of that sort appearing. So at least Linux Mint has not fallen for
this trite approach.

By doing that, Ubuntu is now on my "stuck-off" list. Not to be used any more.
That (finally) crossed the line.

That is the beachhead. Embrace and Extend. The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.

*******

Now, enjoy your editor and... go back to sleep.

Paul

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Paul
I fired up a Ubuntu 24.04.1 USB stick the other day, was attempting
to use file sharing, when all of a sudden, a dialog appears on the
screen "informing me of the windows permissions on the share". I
was gob-struck. Since when does Linux do stuff like that ? That
crosses the line, and tells me that Canonical is now Microsofts Bitch.
Right after that, I booted my Linux Mint USB stick, and no such dialog
appeared and I was able to access the storage in question, with no
dialogs of that sort appearing. So at least Linux Mint has not fallen for
this trite approach.
By doing that, Ubuntu is now on my "stuck-off" list. Not to be used any more.
That (finally) crossed the line.
That is the beachhead. Embrace and Extend.

Or, as some put it: "Embrace, extend, extinguish."

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Paul
The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.

Like their mobile phone software eh?

[Paul]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Paul
The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.

Like their mobile phone software eh?

They don't have to be good at anything.

They always seem to end up with a pile of money.

There are all sorts of theories as to how Linux
is "impervious to assault". I'm not so sure.
It will depend on the community to save it.

Paul

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

There are all sorts of theories as to how Linux is "impervious to
assault". I'm not so sure.

Microsoft started out trying “extinguish” (remember “Linux is a cancer”?),
and failed miserably. Now it is forced to try to make Windows more
compatible with Linux.

They always seem to end up with a pile of money.

Windows isn’t quite as profitable as it once was. Exhibit A: declining
quality of updates, with further patches often needed to fix bugs in prior
patches. Exhibit B: trying to move to an adware/rentware model, to squeeze
more revenue out of it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Paul

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Paul
The rot is now visible
for all to see. And Microsoft has the money, the deep pockets,
that others adopting Linux, did not have. Nothing will really
stand in their way, from a business perspective. They can shovel
coal underneath that, until it's well and truly burned to a crisp.

Like their mobile phone software eh?

They don't have to be good at anything.
They always seem to end up with a pile of money.
There are all sorts of theories as to how Linux
is "impervious to assault". I'm not so sure.
It will depend on the community to save it.

The community is largely funded by corporations who themselves decided
they would rather pay to have a 'free' Linux, than pay to have Unix or
Microsoft licences on every product. IBM et all pay millions into Linux
development

The IBM PC set the standard - it was published and everyone copied it.
Result was an industry standard architecture.

If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

People don't want to pay for operating systems any more. The *only*
place Microsoft hangs on is the desktop, and desktop sales are now more
or less commercial. Not many average dudes buy a desktop when they can
have a fondleslab or a big fuck off 'rob me' mobile phone...

Only hardcore gamers

Nothing of any real significance has come out of Microsoft for ages.

It is really a cash cow now. It will dwindle and get sold off. Gates has
his billions.

Post by Paul
Paul

[chrisv]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)

I guess the 68000 was also an option...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by chrisv

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

The original Unix ran on less that 128K RAM
Original PC was up to 256 K RAM IIRC

You couldn't run MSDOS on 16K RAM!

A basic text only Linux would run OK on 128K

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
The original Unix ran on less that 128K RAM

Remember, other OSes were more efficient than that, because they were
mostly written in assembly language. Unix, being written in C, was larger
and slower.

[Paul]

Post by chrisv

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.

The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The 68000 apparently had the address lines to operate 16MB of memory.
But at the time, our 68000 design had 128KB on it. The thing was,
DRAM was its own worst enemy at the time, a super-crude technology,
intended to make engineers jump from a second floor window. It's a good
thing we only had 128KB, at the time. The DRAM chips could only withstand
-0.5V of undershoot. Once a genius in the DRAM industry, figured out a way
to allow the undershoot to be -2.0V, that is when DRAM began to be more practical.
Our system was a "cost be damned" prototype, so I feel we would have had
more memory, if who ever designed it, had wanted to add more. (The machine was
a freaking disaster, and FCC part 15, it would have blown the front end off
the test instruments - I took a machine home, and it wiped out all television
reception. We had a lot to learn back then, about emissions.)

Loading Image...

By 1987 or 1991, I expect there was enough memory, for a person
to have aspirations. I don't think you could easily rush Linux
out the door earlier. Maybe you could have done your first version
on a mainframe. They had core memory.

Paul

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Paul

Post by chrisv

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088
was the 68008.

...

[Paul]

Post by Paul

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.

At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.

But good things come from following the theme. In this article,
is a description of Torvalds early equipment. And partially
why he was inclined to work on Linux. It was the poor quality
of the stuff that was coming on the machines he was buying :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_QL # A thing that used the 68008

"Linux

Linus Torvalds has attributed his eventually developing the Linux kernel,
likewise having pre-emptive multitasking, in part to having owned a Sinclair QL
in the 1980s.

Because of the lack of support, particularly in his native Finland, Torvalds
became used to writing his own software rather than relying on programs written
by others.[28] In part, his frustration with Minix, on the Sinclair,[29] led,
years later, to his purchase of a more standard IBM PC compatible on which he
would develop Linux.

In 'Just for Fun', Torvalds wrote, "Back in 1987, one of the selling points of
the QL was that it looked cool", because it was "entirely matte black, with a
black keyboard" and was "fairly angular". He also wrote he bought a floppy controller
so he could stop using microdrives, but the floppy controller driver was bad,
so he wrote his own. Bugs in the operating system, or discrepancies with the
documentation, that made his software not work properly, got him interested in
operating systems.

"Like any good computer purist raised on a 68008 chip," Torvalds "despised PCs",
but decided in autumn 1990 to purchase a 386 custom-made IBM PC compatible,
which he did in January 1991.
"

I think you can see there, how that over-developed the muscles in his middle finger.

Paul

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Paul

Post by Paul

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.

At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.

Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Paul

Post by Paul

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.

At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.

Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford

[Mark Lloyd]

On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:34:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[snip]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Carlos E.R.
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford

I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Carlos E.R.
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford

I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I remember the "Twister" format you could use on the Atari ST to speed up
floppy copy.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Carlos E.R.
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford

I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
went for bigger.

Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked
for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested
several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the
time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it
did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them
as such in the FAT.

I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

[Paul]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Carlos E.R.
Millions of people bought the 8088: the original IBM PC and its clones
used it. Interestingly, the Amstrad PC used the 8086. And Olivetti, but
dunno if all models.

My PC clone had an NEC V20 and a hard drive of a monumental 20MB IIRC.
It was all I could afford

I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I went for bigger.
Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them as such in the FAT.
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)

The head on that drive, has probably welded itself
to the surface of the platter. Drives back then
did not have plastic landing ramps, like they do today.

There is nothing wrong with turning it on, but it could
damage or rip the head off it. It doesn't have to end well.

If you turn it on and hear a "strange noise", just put it
back in the box. No one will know.

Paul

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

Post by Paul

Post by Carlos E.R.
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)
The head on that drive, has probably welded itself to the surface of the
platter. Drives back then did not have plastic landing ramps, like they
do today.

So you'd rather have it in "somewhat better condition" and completely
useless than take a chance that you can get some use out of it?

[snip]
--
91 days until the winter celebration (Wednesday, December 25, 2024
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

[Paul]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Paul

Post by Carlos E.R.
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

It's better to leave the unit in the cardboard box :-)
The head on that drive, has probably welded itself to the surface of the
platter. Drives back then did not have plastic landing ramps, like they
do today.

So you'd rather have it in "somewhat better condition" and completely
useless than take a chance that you can get some use out of it?
[snip]

You need to collect statistical information on the survival rate
of stiction drives from that era. I don't know what the chemistry
possibilities are, for head-to-platter contact for a couple decades.

I have a stiction drive here. It needed a tap on the side of the
drive housing, to release the head and allow the spindle to spin.
You could say, this practice made me <cough> nervous. Because
if you hit it too hard, you could be doing long term damage.
That drive is five feet from me right now, and hasn't been powered
for 25 years. What "chemistry" has been going on in there ? Does
the platter lube suffer breakdown over time ? Dunno. You might not
ever be able to separate the heads from the platter, in a glove box,
without ruining the heads, and needing to replace the head assembly.

Drives with landing ramps, I have no problem with you starting one
of those. I regularly test my old 4GB IDE drive, and it still works
like a champ. I had a 2GB drive fail, a Barracuda 32550N, and the
head lock failed on that drive, destroying the heads and gouging
the platter. They didn't use the head lock idea (solenoid design)
for very long. At a guess then, anything 4GB or more capacity,
is likely perfectly safe to test at your convenience. But a
150MB-250MB drive ? Primed failure material. Already needed to be
whacked to make it work, on a daily basis. Hardly good gambling
odds. Like betting on the pony with three legs, at the track :-)

Paul

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by Paul
I have a stiction drive here. It needed a tap on the side of the
drive housing, to release the head and allow the spindle to spin.

I had one of those. The housing was pretty solid, so I needed
to give it a whack with a screwdriver handle.

Post by Paul
You could say, this practice made me <cough> nervous. Because
if you hit it too hard, you could be doing long term damage.

I certainly would consider replacing such a drive, or at least
not storing anything on it that wasn't thoroughly backed up.

One day I visited my wife's office. One of her cow orkers
has having trouble bringing up her Mac. I recognized the
problem as stiction, popped the case open, and tapped the
cover of the hard drive with a fingertip. The cow orker's
initial state of panic was quickly replaced by relief when
the drive spun up. I strongly suggested she take a backup
and consider replacing the drive. I don't know whether she
ever did - people rarely do...

[Mark Lloyd]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:51:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Mark Lloyd
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
went for bigger.

32MB was the largest partition size supported by the early version of
FAT16 (16-bit sector count * 512-byte sector size). The disk could be
larger, but then you'd need more partitions.

The drive I had was actually a little larger than the maximum, so I could
create a small second partition.

BTW, there is a later version of FAT16 with a 32-bit sector count.

Post by Carlos E.R.
Yes, I remember the low-level format thing. The program in my case asked
for an interleave factor, and there was a recommendation for 3. I tested
several values, and something like 12 got double speed. Amazing at the
time. There was also a table of bad sectors to enter manually, but it
did not work right because the format found bad sectors and marked them
as such in the FAT.
I still have that machine, should still run. Walk.

--
91 days until the winter celebration (Wednesday, December 25, 2024
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Mark Lloyd
I had a V20 too, and (at least where I bought it) I could get a 30MB (RLL)
for only $20 more than the 20MB. It was one where you could still do a
low-level format. Enter DEBUG and a command like "G=C000:000C". I first
got Spinrite because it could change the interleave,

I had an Amstrad PC 1512 DD, ie, dual floppy. I later bought a HD
mounted on a card, 32 megs which apparently was the maximum that could
be done. Friends of mine had a 10MB HD and complained it was full. So I
went for bigger.

32MB was the largest partition size supported by the early version of
FAT16 (16-bit sector count * 512-byte sector size). The disk could be
larger, but then you'd need more partitions.

Which must be the reason, when I applied a compression driver, to use
two partitions.

...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Paul

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088
was the 68008.
...

FSVO 'equivalent' :-)

[Paul]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Paul

Post by The Natural Philosopher
If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
I guess the 68000 was also an option...

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.
The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.
...

FSVO 'equivalent' :-)

You pick processor families, by their decorator colours.

Once I saw this, I just had to have one.

Loading Image...

The colour really does make a difference. The white one is obviously better...

Loading Image...

The TMS9900 only drew 1 watt, so you didn't need a cooler, and
got to enjoy the shiny white finish.

Paul

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
People don't want to pay for operating systems any more. The *only*
place Microsoft hangs on is the desktop, and desktop sales are now more
or less commercial. Not many average dudes buy a desktop when they can
have a fondleslab or a big fuck off 'rob me' mobile phone...
Only hardcore gamers
Nothing of any real significance has come out of Microsoft for ages.
It is really a cash cow now. It will dwindle and get sold off. Gates has
his billions.

Any major future dwindling of M$ won't be due to Windows losing
dominance, since it's already down to just 12.8% of their revenue
in 2022:
https://businessquant.com/microsoft-revenue-by-product

Money-wise they're mainly a "cloud" company now, selling services
that may often run on Linux. In fact they're making contributions
to Linux kernel development now, so it really is a brave new world:

Microsoft Engineer Sends Rust Linux Kernel Patches For In-Place
Module Initialization
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Rust-In-Place-Module-Init

[clinker]

Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.

OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

[Joel]

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

Windows and Linux each have ongoing markets for themselves, as does
Apple, sure something else can crop up but it's reinventing the wheel
at some point, what Linux shows in how it got its name is that one
person can make a kernel if he has the window of opportunity -
Torvalds may have thought of it more as a personal project with the
new hardware, at first, but it turned into the real thing. Really a
genius guy.
--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Paul]

Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no one remembers it.

Writing OSes isn't much of a barrier.

Convincing people to use them, and selling the
OS to the populace, is a lot harder.

A round figure for an OS, is about $150,000,000 will
get you an OS. A file manager. And a calculator :-)
What more do you need, really. The calculator has
to have tiny characters for the keys, and gobs of
white space. See ? I can even write the requirement
spec for you.

Paul

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.

most things are *possible*

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

There is evidence that Linux itself is getting bloated, and in need of
the same 'back to basics' approach that Linus dud 30 years ago.

There is certainly space for something like FreeRTOS to make headway in
the embedded space.

But the thing is, again from my perspective, as a user, not a developer
of operating systems, is that what you want - and IBM, Red Hat etc
understand this - is a reliable secure bug free platform on which to
write applications that is easily ported to whatever hardware is available.

And in that context 30 years of development beats a new kid on the block
every day.
The reason we don't like Windows is because it costs money at every
turn, and is there to screw the last red cent out of its users. A new
windows would flop. Indeed the old windows is flopping.

It shows all the characteristics of a cash cow company - everything is
monetized.

Linux is like C. It has its issues, but everyone understands them
everyone can program in it and it works well enough. And it doesn't need
licenses to be paid to use it.

And sometimes its easier to fix bugs in it than to rewrite it in Rust etc.

[chrisv]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.

most things are *possible*

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

We also had Amigas and Atari ST's, before it become impractical to
compete with the Wintel juggernaut on the desktop.

If Micro$oft could push all of those (at least somewhat) established
platforms out of the market, what chance does a newcomer have?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
But the thing is, again from my perspective, as a user, not a developer
of operating systems, is that what you want - and IBM, Red Hat etc
understand this - is a reliable secure bug free platform on which to
write applications that is easily ported to whatever hardware is available.
And in that context 30 years of development beats a new kid on the block
every day.

It's almost impossible to come from behind, in these markets.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by chrisv

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

We also had Amigas and Atari ST's, before it become impractical to
compete with the Wintel juggernaut on the desktop.
If Micro$oft could push all of those (at least somewhat) established
platforms out of the market, what chance does a newcomer have?

The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't
so busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off
bigger salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.

[Lester Thorpe]

Post by Charlie Gibbs
The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't
so busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off
bigger salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.

Who gives a flying fuck about 50-year-old computing. That shit
is long dead and buried so why the need to resurrect the stench?

The future, and present, is GNU/Linux/FOSS/FreeBSD.

Keep your comments progressive and keep your nostalgia up
your fucking ass where it belongs.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't so
busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off bigger
salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.

The Amiga made a giant leap in hardware capability, then stood still as
competitors surpassed it. For example, the Apple Mac was able to improve
its hardware with minimal breakage in app compatibility, because of its
good software abstractions. Whereas Amiga apps had to work directly with
the hardware, so that hardware could not be improved without breaking
those apps.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...

You mean the obsolete, unsupported, proprietary MS-DOS or DR-DOS, or the
Open Source, still being developed, FreeDOS?

Post by The Natural Philosopher
There is evidence that Linux itself is getting bloated, and in need of
the same 'back to basics' approach that Linus dud 30 years ago.

It’s just as modular as it always was. You can even build it for certain
architectures that completely lack memory protection.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Linux is like C. It has its issues, but everyone understands them
everyone can program in it and it works well enough. And it doesn't need
licenses to be paid to use it.
And sometimes its easier to fix bugs in it than to rewrite it in Rust etc.

You do know that the Linux kernel is accepting Rust code now, don’t you?

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
Windows existence as it is known today.

most things are *possible*

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
no one remembers it.

DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
software, or load/download programs with a stub.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
Windows existence as it is known today.

most things are *possible*

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
no one remembers it.

DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is
to load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
software, or load/download programs with a stub.
Well you could in theory kick the processor into 'large' mode and use a

lot more memory

[Lars Poulsen]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is
to load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem
with MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in
the software, or load/download programs with a stub.
Well you could in theory kick the processor into 'large' mode and use a
lot more memory

In the mid 1980s, my group was building a small communications
appliance. We built a single-board PC and used a DOS clone as our
bootloader. But booting from floppy was slow as molasses, until I wrote
a small TSR (terminate-and-stay-resident) extension that hooked the BIOS
read call and buffered a track at a time. Simple and efficient.

Later, we built at larger, modular system. We found it more economical
to buy a Taiwanese PC motherboard than to roll our own system package.
We put a DOS Extender to good use (80386 in 80286 protected mode). The
multitasking part of KA9Q was in there somewhere.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and
Windows existence as it is known today.

most things are *possible*

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as
no one remembers it.

DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...When all you want is to
load a single tasked application that talks to custom hardware...

Makes sense. I worked in that sector in the 90's. The only problem with
MsDOS was the small memory available. We had to use overlays in the
software, or load/download programs with a stub.

I remember the damned overlays when writing a Turbo C "GUI" (a la ncurses).

I later worked on a large MASM project where you had to load the correct
64k bank when calling a function. Painful.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- attributed to Bill Gates

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.

Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.

Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?

They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.

I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking), then
offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.

I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there was
one in version 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI

I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Carlos E.R.
Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.

All I can recall of LabWindows is that it was a poor attempt to recreate
the Macintosh-only LabView on Microsoft-compatible PCs.

Remember the Mac II and successors had NuBus for their expansion bus at
the time, which offered higher performance for connecting instrumentation
than anything available in the Microsoft-compatible world, until PCI came
along.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Carlos E.R.
Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.

All I can recall of LabWindows is that it was a poor attempt to recreate
the Macintosh-only LabView on Microsoft-compatible PCs.

Labview was available on Dos/Win. We used it, too.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Remember the Mac II and successors had NuBus for their expansion bus at
the time, which offered higher performance for connecting instrumentation
than anything available in the Microsoft-compatible world, until PCI came
along.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.

Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?

They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.
I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking), then
offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.
I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there was
one in version 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI
I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.

Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had, if
all it was running was your own code talking straight to the Bios or the
hardware.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by The Natural Philosopher
Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had ...

The problem was the convoluted x86 addressing architecture. And what
happened when you had more than 640 KiB of memory.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Carlos E.R.

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

The only problem with MsDOS was the small memory available.

Isn’t that why DOS extenders were invented?

They had to be compatible with the set of libraries you used, and your
application. Most of ours used LabWindows, probably version 1 or 2.
Maybe 3? I don't remember.
I used a stub program that run the menu (and initial data taking),
then offloaded itself and called another exe with the next section.
I don't remember using a dos extender with it. Wikipedia says there
was one in version 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LabWindows/CVI
I remember it used basic or C. I switched to C with Borland C.

Since MSDOS was less an operating system than a program loader, there
was no problem whatsoever in using all the memory the machine had, if
all it was running was your own code talking straight to the Bios or the
hardware.

All the memory was 640 KB, even if the machine had 8 meg.

[Lester Thorpe]

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.

We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.

GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.

But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
of Hurd was something of a mistake.

Hurd is still alive, if not kicking, however:

https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.

Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
and not beer).

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Lester Thorpe

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.

We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.
GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.

Not "OS"... it's "kernel".

Post by Lester Thorpe
But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
of Hurd was something of a mistake.
https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.
Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
and not beer).

The Hurd mentality :-)

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Lester Thorpe

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.

We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.
GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.

Not "OS"... it's "kernel".

Post by Lester Thorpe
But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
of Hurd was something of a mistake.
https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.
Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
and not beer).

The Hurd mentality :-)

Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
in Rust.

[Lester Thorpe]

Post by Chris Elvidge
Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
in Rust.

Why Rust?

Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.

C is the ultimate and only programming language.

But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.

All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
hopeless programming "expertise."

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Lester Thorpe

Post by Chris Elvidge
Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
in Rust.

Why Rust?
Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.
C is the ultimate and only programming language.
But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.
All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
hopeless programming "expertise."

I'm of the theory that all programmers should know how to create resources and
dispose of them the instant they are not needed.

- Via auto scope
- Via constructors and destructors
- Via malloc() and rigorous calls of free()
- Fsck garbage collection (for the most part)

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by clinker
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

It wasn’t impervious to hacks. I remember reading the original programming
manual, and noticing about four different ways to crash or hang the
system.

[vallor]

Post by clinker
Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
existence as it is known today.
OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
one remembers it.

Is it 64-bit yet?