Object-oriented OS [was: Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen]

Fri Oct 26 22:32:51 CDT 2018

Ok guys, just to make things clearer, here are two pages from wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_operating_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

What I was thinking back at the time of premiere: classes, objects
derived from the classes, user able to make his own object from
system-provided class or define class of his own, or define his own
class and inherit from other class, including system-provided one.

Examples:

  - an object pretends to be a disk object, but is double-disk
    partition or zip file
  - an object pretends to be file object but in fact it is a
    composition of few different files, mapped into virtual file-like
    object (so as to avoid costly copying)
  - an object says it is a printer but is a proxy, connected via
    serial-line object to another such serial-line object on remote
    computer where the real printer sits (connected via parallel, as
    usually)
  - object with execution thread, aka active object (in 199x
    nomenclature -> aka process), can be serialized and migrated to
    another computer without big fuss either via system provided
    migration service or via (really easy to write in such setup)
    user's own
  - same active object, serialized and stored to file because I gotta
    go home and have to turn computer off, so I can resurrect it next
    morning

Plus, some kind of system programming language - I had no idea what
Smalltalk was and I still have no idea but I might have swallowed
that.

I think it was possible to have this. But, not from MS. And as time
shows, not from anybody.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:34:32PM -0700, Chris Hanson wrote:

> On Oct 20, 2018, at 10:31 AM, Tomasz Rola via cctalk
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
>          
> > Oooh. My personal recollection about w95 is that there was a lot
> > of touting before the premiere day, how advanced it was because
> > "object oriented operating system”.
[...]
> A lot of Windows 95 is implemented using COM, which is probably
> where the description of it as “object-oriented” comes from.

Well, I am not going to bet my money on this. What you wrote might be
true but I would like something, say a blog or article, in which
author shows how I can count those COM objects.

I tried to verify your statement and the earliest Windows which could
be claimed to be built from many COMs was Windows 8. But the truth is,
I have departed from Win-Win land long ago, and only use Windows when
someone wants me to unscrew a Windows laptop.

> And while I have never been a Windows user, to denigrate it as some
> sort of non-achievement given the constraints under which it was
> developed, both in terms of target systems and backwards
> compatibility, is myopic at best.

C'mon, we are not talking about windows on 8-bit computer. I think
they had loads of cash even back then and could pick from heaps of
CVs. According to ReactOS wikipage:

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

   On 1 May 2012 a 30,000 euro funding campaign was started to finance
   additional development projects.[43][44] On the end of the year
   approximately 50% of the funding goal was achieved and it was
   decided to continue the funding campaign without deadlines.

   (...) The development progress is influenced by the size of the
   development team and the level of experience among them. As an
   estimate of the effort required to implement Windows 7, Microsoft
   employed 1,000 or so developers, organized into 25 teams, with each
   team averaging 40 developers.[85] As of 2 September 2011, in the
   ReactOS entry in Ohloh, the page followed through the "Very large,
   active development team" link lists 33 developers who have
   contributed over a 12-month period and a cumulative total of 104
   present and former users who have contributed code to the project
   via Subversion since its inception.[86] In his presentation at
   Hackmeeting 2009 in Milan, ReactOS developer Michele C. noted that
   most of the developers learn about Windows architecture while
   working on ReactOS and have no prior knowledge.

With this funding and so few people those noble folks achieved quite a
lot. Do you think MS limitations were bigger?

>   -- Chris
>          

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:14:34PM +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 19:31, Tomasz Rola via cctalk
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> 
> > Oooh. [...] touting [...] "object oriented operating system" [...]
> > objection [...] scam [...]
> 
> I think the explanation for that is fairly clearly there in the history.
> 
> NT 3.1 came soon after Windows 3.
> 
> [... Chicago and Cairo ... multiplied ...]

Very true, but if someone promises and does not deliver, who is he?

And nobody makes a small print saying "this is just marketing
material, so do not count on it". If I cannot count on it, why waste
my time?

> > Nowadays, I consider W95 as very interesting subject of study - a
> > technical product of non-technical genius(es) (ok, if there were tech
> > geniuses involved in its making, I would say it does not show up).
> 
[...]
> 
> Win95 was astonishingly compatible, both with DOS drivers and apps,
> and with Windows 3 drivers, and yet it was 32-bit in the important
> places, delivered true preemptive multitasking, reasonably fast
> virtual memory, integrated networking, integrated Internet access, and
> a radical, clean, elegant UI which *every single OS after it* has
> copied.

No objection, except "everybody copied". I have seen those copies,
including Gnomes and KDEs (up to about 2014, when I gave up trying)
and considered them increasingly dysfunctional. The only thing that
was better than original Windows GUI was stability (but after
Windows2000 this one improved a lot, IMHO). And I was able to use
virtual desktops and they did not suck (while I tried few virtual
desktops on Win95 and they sucked like black hole and then some).

By virtual I mean multiple desktops on one, not remote. This was
available on Linux from day one after my first install in 199..5?
(olvwm was the name of WM). And before that, on Solaris (first olwm,
then olvwm). Later on, I switched to FVWM, because olvwm could not
deliver enough. I still use FVWM, after few years long trial of
alternatives. They became too unusable. FVWM continues to work like a
charm. What do I care if other people voluntarily push screwdrivers
through the random body cavities of their own? Hey, sounds like golden
opportunity for sharp hardware shop.

> > It
> > took a lot of manipulation and wind sniffing to make it such a big
> > success, and plenty of intellectual indolence from rivals and
> > customers.
> 
> Not really, no!
> 
> There honestly wasn't anything to compare or compete with it.

This should be a responce to your message in this other thread, but I
am not sure if I have this many time, so, as you claimed that Windows
wrote a new book of UI or something:

 :: Interface Hall of Shame / - Windows95 -
http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/msoft.htm

There are few other interesting pages there, too.

> 
> Linux was very primitive and clunky back then.

And yet I choose to use Linux harder, just because it did job, whereas
Windows could not (unless I wanted unreliable computer, and I cannot
use unreliable when reliable is available or I get flaming mad).

As a side note, I do not claim Linux is oh so the bestest of them
all. It just can do things I consider important while Windows could
not (every time I try using it in serious manner, after about hour my
index finger wants to fall off from constant mouse stimulation). And
some time ago Linux started accumulating certain fringe elements, so a
jump to another platform is necessary.

[...]
> I'm amazed as a confirmed MS skeptic that I have to defend it like
> this, I must say!

I am amazed too. Apparently you do with Windows something else than I
would, and if it works for you, I am cool.

> -- 
> Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
> Email: lproven at cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
> Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
> UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **