Microsoft is a big shit deals company, but it's sounds like fanatic scream.
Okay, take a look for the arguments.
The first of all and generally people says - "hey, solution from microsoft are totally used and it tells that it's a better solutions" - it's a typical disunderstanding about technology and marketing targeted *only* for domination and "big money must came to us totally". We're can compare non-IT products, but products that really depends on the technologies, in example - every day used thing A. What are you doing before the "big bought" ? You compare the avialable things on the market, what are principles of your choose? Generally you looking for a better look&feel, after this you are look for the functionality, price, quality etc ... Are you sure on this? I don't sure, the first you spamed via the advertisment and marketing action like - "hey look at this, it's a used by everyone, it's better ..." and for more than 60 percent this thing will be preffered on your choose.
The same deal are applicable for the IT market, the end-user (non proffesional) will choose the product that has a more advertisment and if advertisment and marketing will be more aggressive the customer will be more targeted to the product. So, imaginate that a millions end-users attacked via the aggressive marketing, theirs don't thinking about functionality, there are thinking "if an advertisment is so sounds good, then product is good too". It's not a problem of the end-users it's a just big lack for bad business. Microsoft uses this way, it's mean that they don't improve the new features, stability, innovation and via intercepting the whole market they are kill all the ways to get the another concurrents, following this way the new thing in the business came - "Why we should to do something new and better if our products are buying ?". There are no concurrents and if there are coming to the market the microsoft killing its via the agressive marketing and brow up the set of the myth like "in the foo OS no stable, no features, it's a bad - choose our ones", or following with the another way - just buying another companies and closing the projects (remember Xenix for example).
But if you can see there are no fundamentally changes on the microsoft products long the many years. New GUI? New incompatible within formats? New animations? New installation programs? it's a things just for emulating that they doing something - for customers, otherwise customers didn't buy the new products and didn't pay for the microsoft.
But there are some limitations, the first leak of this business strategy that world contains not only end-users, the second leak is that selling products an ugly, the third leak that anyway microsoft must support their products, in short words I mean that there are many professional people that can analyze with system methods exiting solution and tell - "hey! folks! it's a big piece of shit!" and they are will be right. The other thing it's a critical industry that includes an industry automatic systems, science research that needs no for good GUI or pretty looks pooks, they are need for stable and featured product, that has a functionality, it's a 24x7 servers, embedded systems, industrial system, computer clusters, distributed networks, and other critical systems.
In this case microsoft will never shift out other, better solution from this segments. But thinks, that segments has a new innovations and for working with them end-user need have a features and new functionality, but microsoft doesn't do it or do it too slowly and ugly (remember when microsoft approved the tcp/ip stack and improve network support for their products and how it's ugly implemented for the current time). Microsoft sets a technology brake for others including developers, end-users, science, etc ...
But it cannot be eternal process, and now microsoft marketing department know about it, but there doesn't follow via the right way - the right way is a perform a better solutions in a products, compare win 200 with win xp - do you something new, excluding GUI look ? There are nothing, take a look for vista_ something new, excluding poor resource using and new GUI ? The answer is no, so why the microsoft will lay to the customers that linux is bad, that linux is old, that price of the linux solution is big - okay okay, but what the things are microsoft can offer for exchanging unixes ? There are nothing.
Think deeper, microsoft will die or redirected to the support and porting their products to the linux and get this segment.
Questions?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Microkernels: the bad or good ?
Last days I've summarized my opinions about different architectures of the operating systems kernels such as classic monolitic kernel, as an exokernel and microkernel.
Summarizing, all concepts have a self weak points and we're need to select a better solution that will correlating a perfomance, stability and security.
In this case I take a look to the microkernel architecture.
The some myth with the microkernels:
- Low perfomance, do you ready to loss just 5-10% of perfomance switching to the stable OS? I think your reply is yes. Many systems use there resources for the overloaded interface or architecture addons that trying to do a best stability. In example a nooks layer in the linux kernel, or solution from the microsoft research - singularity, that not so good, because it's takes points from the perfomance and look like an ugly addon to the worth architecture.
- Non trivial implementation, it's sounds with smiley. On the same deal it's not a true. Just compare simply of the GNU mach microkernel with linux kernel, or minix3 with the *bsd kernel. Of couse you can said that - "the linux kernel contains a big set of the drivers for devices, filesystems etc ...", but just think how it's hard to maintain this. Microkernel haven't a large number of the source code lines, it's a simple to review it, fix and update with new things, that makes it more pretty for maintain and fixing.
Just imaginate that you have a stable and secure system with all included innovations if needed. It's like a software on your mp3/ogg player that can works stable for many times without updates and many more things that you need on the linux or m$ windows.
All kernel servers are separated from each other and device driver in example cannot down all the system, in example you are working with the big document and some device driver (for your scsi controller in example) falling off, in this case all the request in the microkernel are cached and system process reload this driver and reply the requests, and you are continuing the job thinking that nothing happened, on the classic kernels you will take a look to the kernel panic or BSoD and all your job will be lost.
In addition, did you see a good abstraction in the Operating System, where you don't think about file system location? This is a simple job for the microkernel architecture.
In example, you came to the office and turn on your notebook the system detects your placement and starting to work with the office shared filesystem, and you don't care where is it located? What I need to mount/ add the volume to do this job - I really don't care. On both systems *nix and m$ windows I need to mount a NFS volume or add the logical volume via windows network and take care with back up ones or other things.
By the way, with the microkernel you don't need to have hardcoded things that can affect your perfomance and other varios things, all is modular.
Like a postscript I want to tell you - user friendly system is a not a system with pretty look interface, it's a stable and simple system for both end-users and developers, where you don't think about system security and permanent drivers installations and rebooting.
Summarizing, all concepts have a self weak points and we're need to select a better solution that will correlating a perfomance, stability and security.
In this case I take a look to the microkernel architecture.
The some myth with the microkernels:
- Low perfomance, do you ready to loss just 5-10% of perfomance switching to the stable OS? I think your reply is yes. Many systems use there resources for the overloaded interface or architecture addons that trying to do a best stability. In example a nooks layer in the linux kernel, or solution from the microsoft research - singularity, that not so good, because it's takes points from the perfomance and look like an ugly addon to the worth architecture.
- Non trivial implementation, it's sounds with smiley. On the same deal it's not a true. Just compare simply of the GNU mach microkernel with linux kernel, or minix3 with the *bsd kernel. Of couse you can said that - "the linux kernel contains a big set of the drivers for devices, filesystems etc ...", but just think how it's hard to maintain this. Microkernel haven't a large number of the source code lines, it's a simple to review it, fix and update with new things, that makes it more pretty for maintain and fixing.
Just imaginate that you have a stable and secure system with all included innovations if needed. It's like a software on your mp3/ogg player that can works stable for many times without updates and many more things that you need on the linux or m$ windows.
All kernel servers are separated from each other and device driver in example cannot down all the system, in example you are working with the big document and some device driver (for your scsi controller in example) falling off, in this case all the request in the microkernel are cached and system process reload this driver and reply the requests, and you are continuing the job thinking that nothing happened, on the classic kernels you will take a look to the kernel panic or BSoD and all your job will be lost.
In addition, did you see a good abstraction in the Operating System, where you don't think about file system location? This is a simple job for the microkernel architecture.
In example, you came to the office and turn on your notebook the system detects your placement and starting to work with the office shared filesystem, and you don't care where is it located? What I need to mount/ add the volume to do this job - I really don't care. On both systems *nix and m$ windows I need to mount a NFS volume or add the logical volume via windows network and take care with back up ones or other things.
By the way, with the microkernel you don't need to have hardcoded things that can affect your perfomance and other varios things, all is modular.
Like a postscript I want to tell you - user friendly system is a not a system with pretty look interface, it's a stable and simple system for both end-users and developers, where you don't think about system security and permanent drivers installations and rebooting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
