🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:39:36 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>> 
>> > Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>> > bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>> 
>> I would take that proposition more seriously if there were some reasonable way 
>> to connect a GeForce GTX 1080 to a Raspberry Pi 3.
>> 
>> I'm afraid that Parkinson's Law ensures that there are still plenty of people 
>> for whom even the Raspberry Pi 3 is merely interesting and amusing, while they 
>> salivate at the arrival of chips like the Ryzen 2700 X.
>
>...for my own part, while the Ryzen 2700 without the X, and perhaps a GeForce 
>GTX 1050 (without even the Ti) might be what I'll build my next system with, 
>what has me really excited is the NEC SX-Aurora Tsubasa... even in its modest 
>A100-1 "personal" configuration.

Why?  What code do you personally use that can't be handled by a
Pascal?

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 1:50:14 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >...for my own part, while the Ryzen 2700 without the X, and perhaps a GeForce 
> >GTX 1050 (without even the Ti) might be what I'll build my next system with, 
> >what has me really excited is the NEC SX-Aurora Tsubasa... even in its modest 
> >A100-1 "personal" configuration.

> Why?  What code do you personally use that can't be handled by a
> Pascal?

I say it's the sort of thing I find exciting. I don't expect to ever own a Ferrari either.

John Savard

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 1:50:14 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >...for my own part, while the Ryzen 2700 without the X, and perhaps a GeForce 
>> >GTX 1050 (without even the Ti) might be what I'll build my next system with, 
>> >what has me really excited is the NEC SX-Aurora Tsubasa... even in its modest 
>> >A100-1 "personal" configuration.
>
>> Why?  What code do you personally use that can't be handled by a
>> Pascal?
>
>I say it's the sort of thing I find exciting. I don't expect to ever own a Ferrari either.

I learned to drive stick in one.  To be honest, you aren't missing
much.  Hard to stall though.

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
> ARM processors?

> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?

Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86 orientation - it 
has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it doesn't offer the ability to run 
all those old applications...

apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/

John Savard

On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>> ARM processors?
> 
>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
> 
> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86 orientation - it
> has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it doesn't offer the ability to run
> all those old applications...
> 
> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
> 

So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.

People can come up with all sorts of excuses why my opinion is wrong (in 
their estimation), but I may still have my own opinion... I am allowed 
my opinion.  Thanks so much for that!

(People may believe whatever they want...  that's the usual thing that 
happens anyway, regardless of ant contradictory facts.)

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>> ARM processors?
>> 
>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>> 
>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86 orientation - it
>> has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it doesn't offer the ability to run
>> all those old applications...
>> 
>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>> 
>
>So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
>Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
>IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.

Like ARM64?

Alpha may have been a 64-bit processor, but it was hardly
programmer-friendly.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 02:30:02 -0500, Charles Richmond
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

>On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>> ARM processors?
>> 
>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>> 
>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86 orientation - it
>> has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it doesn't offer the ability to run
>> all those old applications...
>> 
>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>> 
>
>So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
>Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
>IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>
>People can come up with all sorts of excuses why my opinion is wrong (in 
>their estimation), but I may still have my own opinion... I am allowed 
>my opinion.  Thanks so much for that!
>
>(People may believe whatever they want...  that's the usual thing that 
>happens anyway, regardless of ant contradictory facts.)

No news about Windows being portable.  NT started out as a portable
OS.  It was ported to less and less as time went on, mostly due to
lack of interest.  It ran on the Alpha at one time, but nobody much
cared.

In any case, you can get Windows from Microsoft for the Raspberry Pi,
for free.

On 21/06/2018 00:07, J. Clarke wrote:


> In any case, you can get Windows from Microsoft for the Raspberry Pi,
> for free.

But not a full OS version of windows like most of the other OSes 
available on the pi.
PiWindows is a minimalist version to run embedded IoT-style software.

I'm still happy to stick to linux on the pi

Andy

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:07:15 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It ran on the Alpha at one time, but nobody much cared.

	Motorola cared (at least one large bit of it) did and had even had a
division wide desktop standard based on NT on Alpha[1] (they didn't want to
buy processors when they were busy making them) all planned and just about
to roll out when Microsoft announced the end of the Alpha port.

[1] We tried really hard to make it Linux and StarOffice but Star Division
wouldn't say in writing that StarOffice would handle any MS document,
Microsoft would say that Office would. Testing that showed the opposite did
not trump words on a contract.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 21/06/2018 00:07, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> No news about Windows being portable.  NT started out as a portable
> OS.  It was ported to less and less as time went on, mostly due to
> lack of interest.  It ran on the Alpha at one time, but nobody much
> cared.

I did the systems programmer course for RSX11-M at the Butts Centre
in Reading in 1978 (Wowee!!!!!   40 years ago!!!!!) so could probably
remember enough to reproduce the essence of what went to make up NT.

The really clever bit, I thought at the time, was that critical
adjustments to shared memory were done with interrupts ENABLED
through the agency of $STKDPTH (sp?).

> In any case, you can get Windows from Microsoft for the Raspberry Pi,
> for free.

Really, Tell me more, especially if it offers a 64 bit version, 
something that the RPI Foundation do not intend?

On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>
>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>> ARM processors?
>> 
>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>> 
>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>> 
>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>
> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.

Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
solves itself.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> 
>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>> ARM processors?
>>> 
>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>> 
>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>> 
>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>> 
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>> 
>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
> 
> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
> solves itself.
> 

We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.

-- 
Pete

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:01:05 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:

>On 21/06/2018 00:07, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>
>> In any case, you can get Windows from Microsoft for the Raspberry Pi,
>> for free.
>
>But not a full OS version of windows like most of the other OSes 
>available on the pi.

There isn't a full OS version for that processor.  Hardware that
Microsoft sold also had a limited-functionality version of Windows.

>PiWindows is a minimalist version to run embedded IoT-style software.
>
>I'm still happy to stick to linux on the pi
>
>Andy
>

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>> 
>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>> 
>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>> 
>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>> 
>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>> 
>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>> solves itself.
>> 
>
>We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.

First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
platforms, then it is not a win.

On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>
>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>
>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>
>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>> solves itself.
>>>
>>
>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
> 
> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
> platforms, then it is not a win.
> 
What features are unique to Windows?

On 21 Jun 2018 19:24:55 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
> solves itself.

	To date Microsoft has only produced one realistic alternative to
the software I use, and they dropped XENIX decades ago.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400
Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:

> What features are unique to Windows?

	Don't go there! J Clarke's place of work has been backing themselves
into a selection of lock-in traps for decades AFAICT. Many of them involving
tight dependencies on Microsoft products. They *need* Windows and I doubt
they could get out from under (even if there was a desire) without breaking
the whole thing in the process. Mr. Clarke seems to think this is a good
thing, several of us disagree but it's not our problem and they seem happy.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 6/22/2018 2:04 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400
> Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> What features are unique to Windows?
> 
> 	Don't go there! J Clarke's place of work has been backing themselves
> into a selection of lock-in traps for decades AFAICT. Many of them involving
> tight dependencies on Microsoft products. They *need* Windows and I doubt
> they could get out from under (even if there was a desire) without breaking
> the whole thing in the process. Mr. Clarke seems to think this is a good
> thing, several of us disagree but it's not our problem and they seem happy.
> 

Rather than say "get out from under Windows", I'd put it as "extricate 
themselves from Windows"...  because here Windows *is* a trap!!!  for 
this they would need Harry Houdini instead of J. Clarke!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 21/06/2018 22:47, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
> 

That realistic alternative has always been there, for were you to
reject the system software on offer, then you could produce your own.

Neither Windows nor Linux are respectable offerings for real
computerists (as opposed to consumerist computerists) for
both are excessively bloated.

On 22/06/2018 04:39, Richard Thiebaud wrote:
>>
> What features are unique to Windows?

The Logo

.NET

Common Runtime

An inability to sort out the bugs after
nearly 25 years of the product's lifetime.

Creating a monopolistic gannet to the detriment
of computing.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>> 
>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>> 
>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC 
>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology... 
>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>> 
>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>> solves itself.
>>> 
>> 
>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
> 
> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
> platforms, then it is not a win.
> 

You may be one of the unfortunates who are locked in, but probably 80% or
so do plain vanilla stuff that's easily ported.

Of course as a mainframe guy, I never could see why companies would want to
run mission-critical stuff on glorified video game consoles anyhow.

-- 
Pete

Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>> 
>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>> 
>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>> solves itself.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>> 
>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>> 
> What features are unique to Windows?
> 

He's written upstream in some detail about his applications. I can only say
"you have my sympathy."

-- 
Pete

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 21/06/2018 22:47, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>> 
> 
> That realistic alternative has always been there, for were you to
> reject the system software on offer, then you could produce your own.

In theory that's true, but in practice for companies have the resources
these days to develop the software they need. Most of the significant open
source stuff these days seems to be developed by consortia funded by the
major interested users: Linux, Apache, Mozilla, etc.

> 
> Neither Windows nor Linux are respectable offerings for real
> computerists (as opposed to consumerist computerists) for
> both are excessively bloated.
> 

Hey! We agree, though for different reasons (see my note above)

-- 
Pete

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 22/06/2018 04:39, Richard Thiebaud wrote:
>>> 
>> What features are unique to Windows?
> 
> The Logo
> 
> .NET
> 
> Common Runtime
> 
> An inability to sort out the bugs after
> nearly 25 years of the product's lifetime.
> 
> Creating a monopolistic gannet to the detriment
> of computing.
> 

Isn't Mono a clone of .net? What does the common runtime do especially that
other libraries don't? (actual question, not rhetorical) As for sorting out
the bugs, name one system that's been running for a number of years that
doesn't have any number of deeply imbedded bugs. 

The logo is copyrighted.

-- 
Pete

On 22/06/2018 11:36, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
> Of course as a mainframe guy, I never could see why companies would want to
> run mission-critical stuff on glorified video game consoles anyhow.

An interesting viewpoint of the world of the PC!

On 22/06/2018 11:37, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
> Isn't Mono a clone of .net? What does the common runtime do especially that
> other libraries don't? (actual question, not rhetorical)
All the source languages link together.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
<thieba...@aol.com> wrote:

>On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>
>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>
>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>> solves itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>> 
>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>> 
>What features are unique to Windows?

BSOD.

On 22/06/2018 11:53, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> On 22/06/2018 11:36, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> Of course as a mainframe guy, I never could see why companies would 
>> want to
>> run mission-critical stuff on glorified video game consoles anyhow.
> 
> An interesting viewpoint of the world of the PC!
> 
> 
That is what most people in IBM thought until sales of PCs exceeded 
sales of mainframes.

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 22/06/2018 11:37, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>> Isn't Mono a clone of .net? What does the common runtime do especially that
>> other libraries don't? (actual question, not rhetorical)
> All the source languages link together.
> 

Sort of like all the gnu languages, the IBM mainframe languages with LE, or
all the DEC languages with the common runtime? Leave it to microsoft to
claim they invented sunshine.

-- 
Pete

On 22/06/2018 17:20, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 22/06/2018 11:53, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>> On 22/06/2018 11:36, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course as a mainframe guy, I never could see why companies would 
>>> want to
>>> run mission-critical stuff on glorified video game consoles anyhow.
>

Its also interesting that the CELL CPU which was first used in the Sony 
PlayStation is also the basis of the chips used in IBM mainframes.

In order to provide fast graphics modern Games Consoles need fast CPUs.
Much more so than a typical PC...


>> An interesting viewpoint of the world of the PC!
>>
>>
> That is what most people in IBM thought until sales of PCs exceeded 
> sales of mainframes.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
<thieba...@aol.com> wrote:

>On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>
>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>
>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>> solves itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>> 
>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>> 
>What features are unique to Windows?

The whole Component Object Model for one thing.  There may be
equivalents on other platforms but if we can't take our existing code
and plunk it onto the new system and have it work the same way then
it's a net cost for us.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:37:02 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Gareth's Downstairs Computer
><headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2018 04:39, Richard Thiebaud wrote:
>>>> 
>>> What features are unique to Windows?
>> 
>> The Logo
>> 
>> .NET
>> 
>> Common Runtime
>> 
>> An inability to sort out the bugs after
>> nearly 25 years of the product's lifetime.
>> 
>> Creating a monopolistic gannet to the detriment
>> of computing.
>> 
>
>Isn't Mono a clone of .net? 

It's an attempt at a clone.  It is still well behind the curve.

>What does the common runtime do especially that
>other libraries don't? (actual question, not rhetorical) As for sorting out
>the bugs, name one system that's been running for a number of years that
>doesn't have any number of deeply imbedded bugs. 

The CLR is similar to the JVM but it supports a wide range of
languages.  "Managed code" running on windows runs on the CLR, not
directly on the hardware.  I don't know how many Microsoft products
are written to run on the CLR--the ones written in C# and Visual Basic
will but C++ crosses boundaries.


>The logo is copyrighted.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:37:00 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>>> solves itself.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>>> 
>>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>>> 
>> What features are unique to Windows?
>> 
>
>He's written upstream in some detail about his applications. I can only say
>"you have my sympathy."

Don't feel too bad for me.  I'm well paid and enjoy my work.  And I
get to write lots of APL.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:38:31 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:

>On 22/06/2018 17:20, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 22/06/2018 11:53, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2018 11:36, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course as a mainframe guy, I never could see why companies would 
>>>> want to
>>>> run mission-critical stuff on glorified video game consoles anyhow.
>>
>
>Its also interesting that the CELL CPU which was first used in the Sony 
>PlayStation is also the basis of the chips used in IBM mainframes.
>
>In order to provide fast graphics modern Games Consoles need fast CPUs.
>Much more so than a typical PC...

This is true--a hardcore PC gamer will spend more than the price of a
game console on his video hardware alone.
>
>
>>> An interesting viewpoint of the world of the PC!
>>>
>>>
>> That is what most people in IBM thought until sales of PCs exceeded 
>> sales of mainframes.
>
>
>

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:38:31 +0100
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

> Its also interesting that the CELL CPU which was first used in the Sony 
> PlayStation is also the basis of the chips used in IBM mainframes.

	That was the PlayStation 3.

> In order to provide fast graphics modern Games Consoles need fast CPUs.
> Much more so than a typical PC...

	The Playstation 4 OTOH is basically a PC with an 8 core x86-64 CPU
and an AMD GPU, it even runs an OS derived from FreeBSD.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:32:48 -0400, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:37:02 -0400, Peter Flass
><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Isn't Mono a clone of .net? 
>
> It's an attempt at a clone.  It is still well behind the curve.

I am not sure about well behind. There are parts of .NET which
MS has patents on.

I think Mono does a pretty good job with those parts which are
documented and standardised.  Also technically Mono is now
owned by Microsoft.

> The CLR is similar to the JVM but it supports a wide range of
> languages.  

Well so does the JVM. Off the top of my head I can think of
Clojure, Scala, Groovy, Kotlin, Ruby, Javascript, Python, and there
are many more.  Some of which appeared well before .NET/CLR 1.0.

-- 
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
   - Douglas Adams

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
> <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>>> solves itself.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>>> 
>>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>>> 
>> What features are unique to Windows?
> 
> The whole Component Object Model for one thing.  There may be
> equivalents on other platforms but if we can't take our existing code
> and plunk it onto the new system and have it work the same way then
> it's a net cost for us.
> 

As I said, if it's working there's no money to be made by switching to
something else, even something better. 

-- 
Pete

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:04:24 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
>> <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>>>> solves itself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>>>> 
>>>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>>>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>>>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>>>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>>>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>>>> 
>>> What features are unique to Windows?
>> 
>> The whole Component Object Model for one thing.  There may be
>> equivalents on other platforms but if we can't take our existing code
>> and plunk it onto the new system and have it work the same way then
>> it's a net cost for us.
>> 
>
>As I said, if it's working there's no money to be made by switching to
>something else, even something better. 

Make a convincing case for the "betterness".  One that the people in
the trenches will buy, not one that some manager will buy.  Our
systems keep getting more and more and more complex because various
"consultants" keep convincing management that they have something
"better" than our "klunky old COBOL and APL", and so we have a half a
dozen other systems in place supporting various products.  A hundred
years from now our systems are going to be a rolling museum of a human
lifetime of computer industry fads.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:04:24 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
>>> <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>>>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>>>>> solves itself.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>>>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>>>>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>>>>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>>>>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>>>>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>>>>> 
>>>> What features are unique to Windows?
>>> 
>>> The whole Component Object Model for one thing.  There may be
>>> equivalents on other platforms but if we can't take our existing code
>>> and plunk it onto the new system and have it work the same way then
>>> it's a net cost for us.
>>> 
>> 
>> As I said, if it's working there's no money to be made by switching to
>> something else, even something better. 
> 
> Make a convincing case for the "betterness".  One that the people in
> the trenches will buy, not one that some manager will buy.  Our
> systems keep getting more and more and more complex because various
> "consultants" keep convincing management that they have something
> "better" than our "klunky old COBOL and APL", and so we have a half a
> dozen other systems in place supporting various products.  A hundred
> years from now our systems are going to be a rolling museum of a human
> lifetime of computer industry fads.
> 

It's got to be _a lot_ better to justify the cost of conversion, or else
some hardware/software upgrade has to break one of the components to force
a change.

-- 
Pete