Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CA City Mulls Evading the Law On Red-Light Cameras

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the wrong-on-so-many-levels dept.

Government 366

TechDirt is running a piece on Corona, CA, where officials are considering ignoring a California law that authorizes red-light cameras — cutting the state and the county out of their portion of the take — in order to increase the city's revenue. The story was first reported a week ago. The majority of tickets are being (automatically) issued for "California stops" before a right turn on red, which studies have shown rarely contribute to an accident. TechDirt notes the apparent unconstitutionality of what Corona proposes to do: "The problem here is that Corona is shredding the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, the right to a trial by jury. By reclassifying a moving violation... to an administrative violation... Corona is doing something really nefarious. In order to appeal an administrative citation you have to admit guilt, pay the full fine, and then apply for a hearing in front of an administrative official, not a judge in a court. The city could simply deny all hearings for administrative violations or schedule them far out in advance knowing full well that they have your money, which you had to pay before you could appeal."

cancel ×

366 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ahhh (5, Funny)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | about 5 years ago | (#29537023)

That slashdot outage was terrible. I almost got some work done..

Re:Ahhh (1)

davmoo (63521) | about 5 years ago | (#29537075)

work

We do not allow filthy words like this to be used in here. :-)

Re:Ahhh (1)

iCodemonkey (1480555) | about 5 years ago | (#29537105)

OMFG that's terrible. Almost working, you have my sympathy.

lolpost kthx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537025)

lolpost kthx

Re:lolpost kthx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537177)

Go to school.

Re:lolpost kthx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537345)

But cats sleep 16 hours a day. That only leaves 8 hours to be a lolcat making lolposts. No time for school!

direct CPU-CPU interconnects; Transputer? (0, Offtopic)

dltaylor (7510) | about 5 years ago | (#29537039)

Anyone else ever do any development on the Inmos Transputer?

The ones I used had four relatively high-speed serial links for message-passing between CPUs.

I suppose that something similar could be done with AMD CPUs on their high speed bus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer [wikipedia.org]

Re:direct CPU-CPU interconnects; Transputer? (3, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 5 years ago | (#29537087)

Imagine what might have happened if this actually got momentum behind it and we never went through the stagnation that is DOS/Windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Transputer_Workstation [wikipedia.org]

--
BMO

Re:direct CPU-CPU interconnects; Transputer? (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#29537691)

Imagine what might have happened if this actually got momentum behind it and we never went through the stagnation that is DOS/Windows.

I think i just came a little.

Re:direct CPU-CPU interconnects; Transputer? (4, Informative)

FCh (150904) | about 5 years ago | (#29537091)

Transputers had 4 HW links -- those are probably the easiest part to replicate in current processors.
The difficult part is the threading model: Transputers had their own thread model. Scheduler was hardwired in silicon, together with a couple of dedicated instructions. SW could not tell the difference between a local and a remote communication. Efficient, but not very flexible in terms of OS architecture.

Re:direct CPU-CPU interconnects; Transputer? (1)

Henk Poley (308046) | about 5 years ago | (#29537319)

The transputer programming model had the major problem that CPUs could only talk to their neighbours. So your software had to do all the marshaling when data needed to go several hops. This adds uhm, quite a bit of code.

weird (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537045)

This is an open source project, and just from some brief looks at the source they are using grub as the boot loader. This might be a new beginning for microsoft research.

Re:weird (2, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 5 years ago | (#29537071)

Maybe it's because it's not just Microsoft who's working on that project. The other half of the team is from ETH Zurich Systems Group: http://www.systems.ethz.ch/ [systems.ethz.ch] .

Re:weird (3, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 5 years ago | (#29537101)

Not so weird really

Firstly, this is a collaboration with ETH Zurich, not exclusively a Microsoft project, and secondly, the OS isn't available under any existing license. to quote:

Excluding some third-party libraries, which are covered by various BSD-like open source licenses, Barrelfish is released under the following license (also included in the download):

Copyright (c) 2007, 2008, 2009, ETH Zurich and Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

  1. * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  2. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  3. * The names of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

It's great that this source will be open for study, at least at this early stage, but it's very likely to be locked away under copyright and/or patents by the time it becomes useful.

Re:weird (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | about 5 years ago | (#29537449)

MS Research is like a research university for all intents and purposes; they basically have academic latitude. Of course by the time the product reaches market it will be made, um..."better".

Re:weird (3, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | about 5 years ago | (#29537479)

MS Research is like a research university for all intents and purposes; they basically have academic latitude. Of course by the time the product reaches market it will be made, um..."better".

That's exactly it. MS Research is very much like a university except that their projects rarely make it out into the public in any meaningful and open way.

I'm not begrudging MS keeping their projects to themselves, just pointing out that there is a fairly key distinction to be made here.

Messages eh? (3, Funny)

negRo_slim (636783) | about 5 years ago | (#29537051)

It's WM_PAINT all over again.

Re:Messages eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537277)

what about WM_ERASEBKGND - its far easier to use

Re:Messages eh? (0)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 5 years ago | (#29537475)

It's WM_PAINT all over again.

Sure, but does it have WM_VARNISHED messages?

Database-like approach to track hardware available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537055)

Finally, an OS that wont slow down when it's been completely compromised.

Grand Central Dispatch? (0, Flamebait)

sympathy3k21 (1574255) | about 5 years ago | (#29537063)

So MS has a whole prototype OS for something Apple threw into their $30 maintenance update almost as an after-thought? Great. Wake me up when they do something interesting. Also if you RTFA it looks like its basically just a MS-funded research project for a few peoples' master thesis. Even more yawn. Get this story out of here.

Re:Grand Central Dispatch? (0, Offtopic)

0ld_d0g (923931) | about 5 years ago | (#29537247)

$30 maintenance update

Since you seem to be a kind of a OSX Fanboi.. maybe you know this: Why did they add an anti-malware scan to the OS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard#Changes_and_improvements [wikipedia.org]

Re:Grand Central Dispatch? (1, Offtopic)

M-RES (653754) | about 5 years ago | (#29537337)

To check for malware brought in through security holes opened by running virtual machines, hehehe ;)

Re:Grand Central Dispatch? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537339)

Because... even OSX can't protect you from stupid. There's not a pill you can take.. or a book you can read.

Just wait till major linux distros start including one, if that market share ever perks up above the uber-geek demographic.

Re:Grand Central Dispatch? (0, Offtopic)

plastbox (1577037) | about 5 years ago | (#29537509)

What do you mean? There are many pills that cure stupidity! Potassium cyanide, saxitoxin.. You can't force people to take a pill though, but simply removing the warning labels on all potentially dangerous products would go a long way towards curing stupidity.

Re:Grand Central Dispatch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537637)

You can't force people to take a pill though, but simply removing the warning labels on all potentially dangerous products would go a long way towards curing stupidity.

Just put a "Do not take these pills" label on them.

Re:Grand Central Dispatch? (3, Informative)

heffrey (229704) | about 5 years ago | (#29537667)

Clearly you have no idea what GCD is.

what article? (0, Offtopic)

Errtu76 (776778) | about 5 years ago | (#29537065)

I'm so happy /. is back up again, i will even positively comment on microsoft articles! Now after more than an hour i can finally pretend to work again, instead of having to do the real thing.

As if any of this will see the light of day. (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 5 years ago | (#29537067)

3 "New Architechture" operating systems.

Microsoft is getting more like the old Xerox and IBM every day.

Xerox PARC: Create industry changing new technology that we hear about but never see. Never release.
IBM of the 1980's: Fat, lethargic, bureaucracy driven.
Microsoft right now: Both.

I'm still waiting for Cairo.

--
BMO

Re:As if any of this will see the light of day. (4, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | about 5 years ago | (#29537203)

If you believe that barrelfish, midori and singularity are "new technology" then you don't have a clue about what has been done in the tech world. Microkernels? Done. OSs based/written in managed code? Done. Capabilities-based OSs? Done. What Microsoft is doing is reimplementing old concepts on Microsoft's own technology (C#, CIL, etc) and then using the test code that has been produced by those projects as a marketing tool. So when Windows is known to be plagued with security bugs and, therefore, viruses... Well, here comes Microsoft's marketing division clamouring this new singularity project, armed with it's press release which announces that Microsoft is building from the ground up an OS entirely devoted to security. Very convenient to dispel criticisms but still very irrelevant. So when Windows is known to have lacklustre support for multi-processor/multi-core systems... Well, here comes Microsoft's marketing division clamouring this new barrelfish project, armed with it's press release which announces that Microsoft is building from the ground up an OS entirely devoted to multi-core systems. Once again, very convenient to dispel criticisms but still very irrelevant. After all, although they announce so many of these research projects, all Microsoft is able to dump into the market is a series of Windows NT clones. So why is this even news?

Re:As if any of this will see the light of day. (1)

2Bits (167227) | about 5 years ago | (#29537415)

Well, if Microsoft's new OS can handle multi-core, multi-processor transparently for the applications, and if all the developers need to do is to recompile their apps on the new system, and voila, everything is transparently distributed across the cores/processors, then I'll be the first one to welcome it.

Multi-core/processor programming is hard. The thing I found quite elegant in Erlang is that it makes it so transparent that you don't even think about it. Imagine an OS with a "normal-looking" set of library that can handle all the hard works transparently. I'd say, bully to them.

Re:As if any of this will see the light of day. (1)

crmarvin42 (652893) | about 5 years ago | (#29537687)

The big problem with MS's experimental OS's is that they never make it to production. IIRC all of the OS's they've ever actually sold were Purchased from someone else (or outright copied in the case of DOS), and then 'extended'. To my knowledge, none of their experimental OSs have ever actually see production, and I have little reason to believe that they ever will.

Re:As if any of this will see the light of day. (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 5 years ago | (#29537523)

What I was pointing out was what you're jumping down my throat about.

Indeed, didn't I say I was still waiting for Cairo? Yes, I believe I did.

Please take a fuckin' chill pill and say hello to your new status.

Burning karma because I have it to burn.

--
BMO

Re:As if any of this will see the light of day. (1)

FooBarWidget (556006) | about 5 years ago | (#29537621)

Dude, it's just a research project, not a product sold by the marketing department. Just friggin look at the website!

efficient use of multicore hardware... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537093)

...but still can't handle modern web standards.

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537297)

Nothing has 'efficient use of multicore hardware'.

As far as I'm aware no compiler can take a single program and split it over multiple cores in any useful way.

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (1)

SlashWombat (1227578) | about 5 years ago | (#29537353)

Hasn't anyone noticed that on current hardware, this message passing scheme is almost useless, as the memory is still shared on multicore devices. Any large array of devices without shared memory are generally Linux clusters, where the message passing occurs down the ethernet ports, so it sounds like M$ are researching how to compete more than anything else. (Or perhaps they intend to be patent trolls at some time in the future.)

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537357)

have you ever written anything in CUDA?

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (2, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | about 5 years ago | (#29537465)

Yeah turns out this problem is really hard and, depending on how you formalize it, uncomputable. What it boils down to is that the system needs to know how long it will take to run a program on itself and how long it will take to spin it off into another thread.

Sound familiar? It should; that's halt.

Of course, approximating it well is an interesting research problem in language theory, but I wouldn't expect a general purpose system in actual production use any time soon. Even doing it in a pure, strongly typed language will be extremely difficult; implementing one for something like Java/C[++] will be far harder. And of course the ultimate win is doing it to machine code.

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (0, Flamebait)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#29537311)

modern web standards

You know that look your parents gave you when you said something really stupid but they didn't want to correct you because you weren't old enough for the truth? Well, that's how everyone is looking at you right now.

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (1)

ndege (12658) | about 5 years ago | (#29537519)

why is this modded flamebait!? Is it because Jurily spoke for you by saying "everyone"? Whatever.

The difficulty with "the web" or "modern web standards" is that the problems aren't primarily technical in nature. The problems are a political, emotional, or philosophical struggle...involving different technologies (not even taking into account corporate/patent greed).

As far as I can tell, the problems involved with developing standards for data exchange are not simply a mathematical problem waiting for the right insights or proofs to be solved.

As I have heard spoken of human relationships, "its complicated" :)

Re:efficient use of multicore hardware... (1)

CisJokey (1625407) | about 5 years ago | (#29537653)

Oh my god stop that. Even If the had implemented the complete standard. IE 6 and 7 do not. There are concepts on Microsoft Operating Systems, which are called "backwards compatibility" and "Long Term Support" maybe you understand this. I agree with you that a Linux User accepts it when you have to relink/compile the stuff for the newest kernel updates. But this is not true for Windows Users, if you like it or not. IE6 was released 27. August 2001. Even if they had implemented all the stuff that time, they will not break compatibilty only because there is a newer spec out. And they will not copy the renderengine for every version of the new W3C standard to avoid that.

Queue the Microsoft OS Jokes (3, Funny)

Pikoro (844299) | about 5 years ago | (#29537113)

Making jokes for this OS should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel...

Re:Queue the Microsoft OS Jokes (3, Funny)

ZackSchil (560462) | about 5 years ago | (#29537477)

Yes, we wouldn't want to be subjected to more than one at a time.

Re:Queue the Microsoft OS Jokes (1)

ndege (12658) | about 5 years ago | (#29537529)

Da Dom-ching ... you know, a pun is a terrible thing to waste.

Re:Queue the Microsoft OS Jokes (1)

macbuzz01 (1074795) | about 5 years ago | (#29537743)

Making fun of using the wrong cue by a Microsoft basher is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Uhm... (2, Funny)

BarrelFish (989344) | about 5 years ago | (#29537115)

I'm at loss for words... I want to thank my mom, the cat, the postman, my cousin Gill - all those wonderful persons/animals/entities that made this possible. 'Cept Frank. Screw you, Frank.

Re:Uhm... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537187)

I'm at loss for words... I want to thank my mom, the cat, the po..hold on a second, ima let you finish but microsoft has developed one of the best operating systems of all time!!!

Genuine innovation (4, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about 5 years ago | (#29537119)

Say what you want about Microsoft, but their research division does a hell of a lot of genuine innovation.

This is an important problem area for future software systems, great that alternative approaches are being looked at. More power to them.

Re:Genuine innovation (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537179)

Say what you want about Microsoft, but their research division does a hell of a lot of genuine innovation.

I don't think so. I'll give them credit for trying really hard and for having a huge budget though.

Can you give a few examples of really original research? Everything I've seen was either trivial or a rehash of old mainframe ideas. Not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with old mainframe ideas but it's hardly 'genuine innovation'.

Re:Genuine innovation (1)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#29537283)

.net is their only real innovation that comes to mind. I think you are over playing the innovation card though, MS's real strength is in their ability to take technologies and make them easy to use, consistent and reliable.

they know exactly what people want and they cater to it, which is what OSS still doesn't get after much posturing.

Re:Genuine innovation (4, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537333)

.net is their only real innovation that comes to mind.

In what way is .net an innovation? It's not an innovation without being new in some way.

MS's real strength is in their ability to take technologies and make them easy to use, consistent and reliable.

No. Their real strength is marketing, sales, strongarming hardware suppliers, and consumer ignorance. Their software isn't easier to use or more consistent than anything else and it certainly isn't more reliable. Actually it is shockingly unreliable.

Ever had to deal with active directory? Chain crashes of multiple machines do happen and application level errors often cause a blue screen and leave no logs to indicate what went wrong. In big environments bugs like that cost a few million a day and they happen every day. Companies pay a fortune just to cover things like that up, it happens everywhere.

Ever seen a virus wipe out over a thousand production servers in a day? I have on windows but never on anything unix based.

Re:Genuine innovation (2, Interesting)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537457)

Wow, that's some heavy shit you've been smoking.

Ease of use is their no 1 selling point, no one comes even close. If there were easily deployable and maintainable alternatives to their products they would at least start penetrating the small business market, which is where easy & cheap are the king.

Ever wonder why Random Small Company uses Windows stack all the way when they don't _really_ need full blown Active Directory, Exchange & SQL Server? It is not because they're stupid and don't know better. It's because it is _cheaper_ to deploy & maintain SBS with 5 licenses and have Joe The Point & Click Administrator come show them how to click their way through 10 scenarios they'll need to handle than to look for, employ and be afraid of Linux (or whatever) Guru, not to mention that they'll need to retrain everyone from Office stack to whatever combination they'd need. And what for? Have you even seen what is the price of Small Business Server?
As I said, not even close.

And when it gets close, MS will start giving SBS for free. Can't beat them on price. You have to beat them on easy.

Re:Genuine innovation (2, Informative)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537511)

Ease of use is their no 1 selling point

Indeed. It's a selling point, but that doesn't make it true. It's just what their marketing claims and what people that don't really know IT believe because they have little other information on which to base their choices.

You claim it's easier to deploy windows and I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm saying is that total cost of ownership, including additional costs like downtime are higher with windows in almost every case and in many cases they are a great deal higher. Losing the use of email or losing a few websites at an unexpected time is something customers will notice and will judge you on. Losing your whole user authentication system in the middle of a business day can cost a fortune. It might just make the difference between profit and bust.

I never said people that use windows are stupid. In most cases they just stick to what they know and what the adverts tell them they should use. They believe any companies who sells stuff thats used so widely has to be good, sadly that is bad reasoning.

Re:Genuine innovation (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537591)

I agree with you that running an infrastructure operation doesn't allow for fuckups, but that is not a market where they are a clear cut leader. What I was talking about is cheap, easy, good-enough market.

TCO is an interesting metric and something a lot of non technical management types can relate to. However, very few people, at least in small business market, look at it as _total cost_.
What TCO stands for there is 'how much will it cost me to buy it, get it running, train my people to use it and how much will I have to pay yearly, either in support contract fees or in permanent position salary, to keep it running', i.e. 'how much money should I budget for it _this year_?'

If you look at this closely, whether your support personnel have to fuck with the system on daily basis, or just check it up occasionally, it doesn't matter, cause it's all included in running costs. However, getting it running and training employees are significant costs few are willing to pay for up front. The point that support costs can potentially go down with a more robust system is also lost, and frankly never is a very strong point in such a dynamic field.

Re:Genuine innovation (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537533)

Besides you didn't answer the question.
In what way is .net an innovation?

Or don't you have that section in your pro-microsoft copy and paste script?

Re:Genuine innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537563)

It's an easily deployed QT clone! Everyone in IT knows this! Nobody but uber-geeks run QT anywhere! It's not overhead it's a feature!

Re:Genuine innovation (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537579)

I never said .NET is an innovation.

Re:Genuine innovation (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 5 years ago | (#29537619)

Chain crashes of multiple machines do happen and application level errors often cause a blue screen and leave no logs to indicate what went wrong.

Can you provide details on how to replicate this behaviour ?

Ever seen a virus wipe out over a thousand production servers in a day? I have on windows but never on anything unix based.

Can you provide details on how it managed to do so ? Vectors, ACL misconfigurations, etc ?

Re:Genuine innovation (4, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 5 years ago | (#29537193)

By Genuine Innovation you mean "doing stuff Sun was doing well over a decade ago?" Sounds pretty innovative to me.

Re:Genuine innovation (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537213)

By Genuine Innovation you mean "doing stuff Sun was doing well over a decade ago?" Sounds pretty innovative to me.

I think the 'Genuine Innovation' bit comes in when they lie about having done it first in some huge expensive marketing campaign.

Re:Genuine innovation (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 5 years ago | (#29537661)

I think the 'Genuine Innovation' bit comes in when they lie about having done it first in some huge expensive marketing campaign.

Can you provide an example of this ?

you FAIL it. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537133)

another fo7der. 20 for a 8oment and

so... (1, Insightful)

Skizmo (957780) | about 5 years ago | (#29537141)

"...specifically for multicore environments."

Mr.Gates, this is what we expected from Windows 7.

Big companies CAN'T change direction (4, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about 5 years ago | (#29537155)

Microsoft is far to big to change direction. They are a marketing company trying to wring every last penny out of windows and related tools. They have never been a technology company and trying to change now will do nothing but burn vast sums of money. Windows is obsolete and they know they have to replace it but they will never be able to come up with anything better.

They could develop new and better OS's at a fraction of their current research costs by simply giving cash to universities to do the work and keeping their hands off the projects. Sadly they can't think like that.

Re:Big companies CAN'T change direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537491)

Who says they can't think like that? The problem is not their ability to conceive, but their ability to implement. And the resistance will not come exclusively from inside, but rather primarily from their existing customer base. Who doesn't want change. Really they (or even we!) don't.

This is a common problem for most industries, and why sudden start-ups can appear to take advantage of things that the bigger companies ignored.

They're not hamstrung by their existing customer base or past investments.

Re:Big companies CAN'T change direction (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537651)

I guess I shouldn't reply to this one but since you already exposed me as MS shill, what the hell...

In what way(s) is Windows obsolete and which competitor(s) are more advanced in each particular case?

Joking aside, I manage IT for a fairly large internet based "small business" (80-100 employees, couple thousand online clients, real time operations). We use pretty much everything, and I am willing to try whatever new comes along. There are places I go for cheap, there are places I go for easy, and of course there are places I go for fucking rock solid and gimme two of them.

Windows + various MS Servers has its place and while it is definitely _not cheap_ once you start to grow, nor is it extremely robust (talking about OS here, SQL Server never, ever, failed me), it covers a lot of ground.

Re:Big companies CAN'T change direction (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537659)

That should be BUT what the hell, but what the hell... :)

Re:Big companies CAN'T change direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537663)

Microsoft is far to big to change direction. They are a marketing company trying to wring every last penny out of windows and related tools. They have never been a technology company and trying to change now will do nothing but burn vast sums of money. Windows is obsolete and they know they have to replace it but they will never be able to come up with anything better.

They could develop new and better OS's at a fraction of their current research costs by simply giving cash to universities to do the work and keeping their hands off the projects. Sadly they can't think like that.

New and better OS's... what, like ubuntu? Or is Windows 7 that bad it doesn't qualify as "better"? How come they are just a marketing company, but they manage to produce a product that actually works with a wireless LAN? And without having to edit conf files as root and rebuild the kernel. If you want to see a large company which is built on marketing and which wraps its mediocre products in DRM to wring every last penny out of you, look no further than Apple.

As for giving cash to universities, why do you think they almost give away their software to students? It might not be a grant per se, but it ensures that today's students become tomorrow's Microsoft users. Granted a lot of them will just turn into the sort of clown that goes aah at the inclusion of a ribbon in their fave word processing program, but some of them will go on to do development work using products they are familiar with.

Re:Big companies CAN'T change direction (3, Insightful)

7 digits (986730) | about 5 years ago | (#29537723)

I am always amazed that people can be both assertive and utterly wrong. I despise Microsoft, for a variety of reason, but that isn't a reason to be blind at their qualities:

> Microsoft is far to big to change direction.

Internet, WindowsNT, XBox are counter examples. Microsoft is one of the most agile company out there. A lot of dead [wikipedia.org] / moribond [wikipedia.org] companies [wikipedia.org] and a lot of [wikipedia.org] products [wikipedia.org] are there to serve as a warning to others [google.com] .

> They have never been a technology company

I beg to differ [amazon.com] . It is possible to argue that their are not a technology company anymore, but not that they never were

> They could develop new and better OS's at a fraction of their current research costs by simply giving cash to universities to do the work and keeping their hands off the projects

To build an OS that they would get no benefits of ? Wtf? And why does MS would need a new OS ? What is wrong with the current OS model ? They need better apps, they need better subsystems, they need to remove cruft and to clean up stuff, but the core OS is still fine for its uses and can be improved by evolutions.

They just need Microsoft Research for a few things, mainly:
* To prevent people working here from working elsewhere, where they could create and apply disruptive technology.
* To get ideas that may or may not integrated into products (given the origins of the talking paperclip, the latter may be better)
* To have a better time-to-market IF they needed to produce something due to some disruptive tech appearing from competitors

Giving cash to university and keeping their hands off the projects obviously wouldn't make any sense

amused... (5, Funny)

madenglishbloke (829598) | about 5 years ago | (#29537189)

Please tell me I'm not the only one amused by the whole "best built on Debian or Ubuntu, 'cos thats what we use" part of the README...

Re:amused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537499)

Bwahaha! Deserves to be modded up :)

Err, wouldnt it be cheaper for M$ to just buy QNX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537191)

QNX has pretty much all of this and has had it for quite awhile, I think I heard most of these buzzwords from QNX's hype campaign back in the 80s...

I've seen this before... (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | about 5 years ago | (#29537211)

It was more of a programming language than an Operating System, but ERLANG has the stuff to do multi-core, well. Using ERLANG, they've actually achieved nine nines of uptime. That works out to well under a SECOND of downtime in a year. It scales (near) linearly as the number of cores go up, IO is the limitation.

You can read all about it here. [pragprog.com] Concepts like message passing and immutability is what makes it work.

Erlang actually lets you update the program while it's running. It has extensive error recovery. It's lack of shared state means you can not only go multi-core, but multi-system over networks - invisibly.

Seriously, It's the cat's meow for ultra-high-end high-performance, industrial-grade software solutions. If I were writing a stock exchange management system, I would probably consider ERLANG.

Re:I've seen this before... (0)

turing_m (1030530) | about 5 years ago | (#29537461)

If I were writing a stock exchange management system, I would probably consider ERLANG.

Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but why wouldn't a standard RDBMS be suitable for that application?

Re:I've seen this before... (1)

Den_onda_kotten (616799) | about 5 years ago | (#29537587)

Huh? Erlang is a programming language, not a database.

Re:I've seen this before... (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537711)

You don't need nine nines for trading platforms. Every weekend can be (and often is) a happy hour for your maintenance guys.

Multicore, or clusters? (3, Interesting)

Shag (3737) | about 5 years ago | (#29537233)

It's a little hard to determine whether this is actually about discrete multicore systems, or heterogenous clusters. Sure, a single conventional machine is likely to have both CPU and GPU, but it's less likely to have x86_64, x86 and CPUs. So to some extent, I suspect heterogenous clusters. In the case of a single box, this would come across as a massive prototyping effort simply to avoid supporting an open-tracked standard (OpenCL).

Re:Multicore, or clusters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537281)

It sounds like some of both. The theory seems to be to try to pretend that all multi-core systems are clusters and write an OS based on that.

Re:Multicore, or clusters? (1)

Shag (3737) | about 5 years ago | (#29537391)

The theory seems to be to try to pretend that all multi-core systems are clusters and write an OS based on that.

Ouch.

Logically, step 1 is: Each core runs its own instance of the OS.

Yeah, let us know how that works out for you, Microsoft. :)

Windows vs Mac (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537245)

When Microsoft wonders why Mac is perceived and cool and Windows isn't take a clue from their naming conventions. Barrelfish vs Snow Leopard. Can you spot the cooler name? After Vista flopped the marketing department went out and got drunk and said "aw fuck it, we'll just call the next one Windows 7". Just kind of feels like they really aren't even trying.

Re:Windows vs Mac (1)

bostei2008 (1441027) | about 5 years ago | (#29537321)

no shit. I wince every time I have to type a path with "Documents and Settings". ..

speaking of "wince" (aka windows ce), that was not so good either...

Re:Windows vs Mac (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | about 5 years ago | (#29537451)

Time to upgrade to Vista/Win7/Server2008, then. Now it's all C:\Users\.

Application Data seems to have been renamed AppData, amongst other things... except the old directories still exist. Only if you try to access them you get an Access Denied error, so I guess they're only pretending to exist. Kludge upon kludge for backwards compatibility?

Oh well, I haven't had any problems so far.

Re:Windows vs Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537487)

i wince at having to type uppercase in path names!

Re:Windows vs Mac (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | about 5 years ago | (#29537521)

Really? I wince at not having to type any uppercase to use pathnames which clearly contain uppercase characters. Madness!

Re:Windows vs Mac (1)

aurasdoom (1279164) | about 5 years ago | (#29537545)

you don't have to type uppercase.

Re:Windows vs Mac (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 5 years ago | (#29537633)

no shit. I wince every time I have to type a path with "Documents and Settings". ..

If you insist on using the commandline, maybe you should learn some of the shortcuts ?

Re:Windows vs Mac (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537597)

That's hardly fair. Safari's new javascript engine was called Squirrelfish for example (before they renamed it Nitro). Squirrelfish, Barrelfish - not a big difference if you ask me.

Apple is considered cooler because they actually release new tech instead of just bragging about it and then quietly ditching it two years later.

For example while Microsoft make a big song and dance about their new theorectical OS with efficient multicore support that they may release one day, Apple built Grand Central Dispatch into Snow Leopard and are now selling it.

In less than a year there will be several actual shipping Mac apps using this technology, probably around about the same time that Microsoft quietly drop Barrelfish and move onto something else that looks shiny.

Re:Windows vs Mac (1)

gencha (1020671) | about 5 years ago | (#29537737)

And here I was thinking it was actually called OS X. But roman numerals are SO much cooler indeed. Oh those amazing folks over at Apple, how do they never end to amaze us with their impressive marketing and their fabulous names for their operating system, thus making them far superior to everything else that is on the market. Thanks Apple!

Re:Windows vs Mac (2, Funny)

CxDoo (918501) | about 5 years ago | (#29537741)

Snow Leopard is a kind of "I'm not gay" gay name. Vista too, that's why it failed with general populace.

Windows 7 is a step in the right direction. I expect them to name the next one Windows.NT8.2.1043_X64.
That's a cool name and definitely not gay. It would also ring nice with FOSS crowd.

Looking for a good research OS (2, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 5 years ago | (#29537255)

I would like something that is a combination of Inferno/Plan9(styx is nice) and Erlang as a stand-alone OS. Throw in any other cool features for good multiprocessor and high performance clustering and fault tolerance. (Although if Erlang-like, I would like some better syntax, it's a little hairy). The idea of being able to scale to 20 million threads on one system efficiently with Erlang is intriguing, although I estimated that it would take about 48GiB of RAM to just have the stack data. But that's not so bad, it's pretty easy to find an affordable server motherboard that can accept 64GiB of RAM. (installing all that RAM is moderately expensive though)

Nice... (2)

M-RES (653754) | about 5 years ago | (#29537351)

Isn't it a shame that after all the hard work the devs put into great ideas like this at MS, once the accountants and marketers get their hands on it it comes out the doors like Vista! There's something seriously wrong with the workflow in that company...

But I think Vista was under-rated (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | about 5 years ago | (#29537559)

Vista in my eyes brought about the changes to Windows that needed to happen. It was the adolescence stage of Windows IMO, and the result is a matured Windows 7 that's hit the ground running. Sure Vista was painful at the beginning, but it shaped up and turned into a respectable OS in the end, and now W7 is bearing the fruit of that as pretty much all the reviews have stated.

Before Vista; Windows really was quite immature (and I refer more to the "Windows way" of doing things more than the tech capability) .
-Admin by default
-Firewall barely a consideration
-AV a bonus
-Automatic updates a nicety
-32bit mandatory (64bit XP was a joke)
-No DEP/ASLR/Kernel protection

Admittedly most of those were tweaked with SP2; but Vista was the first OS to have all these fixes baked in from RTM, and surprise....it broke stuff

Will it be like Singularity? (1)

bostei2008 (1441027) | about 5 years ago | (#29537375)

six years of development and a console to show....

Re:Will it be like Singularity? (1)

gencha (1020671) | about 5 years ago | (#29537747)

Well maybe someone will port X to it. And Compiz! Then it will totally rock.

0x0000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537531)

Does it run Photoshop?

A new OS by Microsoft built.... in Linux (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29537543)

In the build notes... it points that they're building it not in Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) but in recent Debian/Ubuntu distros...

What makes me think... why didn't they choose the Windows OS?

Any idea?

PD: This' not a flamewar post, it's just curious about if building 64 bits apps (OS in this case) is harder in a Windows machine rathen than in a Linux one.

I'm shocked (4, Funny)

bcmm (768152) | about 5 years ago | (#29537657)

From TFA:

This web page was brought to you by a server running Barrelfish.

At last a TFA which is actually hosted on the system it's talking about, and it refuses to break so we can make "It must be running Barrelfish" jokes. Maybe it really is efficient.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?