Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Jan 2011 22:09 UTC
Windows And this is part two of the story: Microsoft has just confirmed the next version of Windows NT (referring to it as NT for clarity's sake) will be available for ARM - or more specifically, SoCs from NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments. Also announced today at CES is Microsoft Office for ARM. Both Windows NT and Microsoft Office were shown running on ARM during a press conference for the fact at CES in Las Vegas.
Thread beginning with comment 456416
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: BC
by lucas_maximus on Fri 7th Jan 2011 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: BC"
Member since:

Oh yes they are. Each and every one of the claims I have made in this discussion is a verifiable fact.

No they are not ... they are an opinion. You make circular arguments. Circular arguments have a fundamental problem and you just don't see it.

I am a project engineer by profession, leading projects which develop and deploy bespoke software. I have many years of experience. We supply source code to our customers.
OK, so? I do happen to have many years of engineering experience at leading development teams.

Don't believe it for a second. You linked me (in another discussion) to using C# binding for GTK when I said I will use Visual Studio and .NET because it works. This is crazy ...

You also said "What is soo special about source code" (in another discussion) ... if you lead software development teams you would know the sweat, blood and tears it takes to make a decent product and also the amount of money.

I also give my source code to my customers .. however in my contract states they may not disclose to 3rd parties else unless they ask for my permission. If they have their own developers they can work on it. Most customers are happy about this ... they pay extra if they want to own it.

BTW, I have made no claim that "open sourcing everything is a cure to all software problems". That is your strawman argument. My claim here is only that users who stick to a self-imposed policy of only installing open source software will be guaranteed that their system never is compromised by malware. If you are going to argue against what I am saying, then this is what you must argue against. Friendly advice ... don't make up something I did not say, and argue against that ... doing that will get you nowhere.

It is inferred in every post you make ... most people "read between the lines". It is certainly obvious to me, and other I have spoke to about your posts on OSNews.

And I think you are even more biased, you have no idea how to assess technical matters, and you simply do not heed what experienced people are telling you. How does this help the actual discussion?

I assess technical matter everyday. I think though decisions on a logical basis almost everyday of my life.

However you have an "open source" agenda that skews your thinking.

Also in software engineer experience only counts for so much ... and it not only me who thinks this ... The author of Code Complete also agrees with me, one of the best books on Software Engineering ever written.

Edited 2011-01-07 22:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: BC
by lemur2 on Sat 8th Jan 2011 12:32 in reply to "RE[7]: BC"
lemur2 Member since:

Also in software engineer experience only counts for so much ... and it not only me who thinks this ... The author of Code Complete also agrees with me, one of the best books on Software Engineering ever written.

I didn't say I was a Software Engineer, I am a Systems Engineer.

Software is but one part of a system.

The type of systems my teams engineered are Cockpit Procedures Trainers (CPT) and Flight Training Devices (FTD). These indeed take a number of years to build, and there is much blood, sweat and tears to go into it. A decent FTD may use as many as twenty PCs to drive various simulated cockpit screens and the outside world visuals and other player tactical simulations.

This represents a bucketload of software and hardware all integrated together into a complex system. It is actually more complex than the aircraft being simulated.

Perhaps this might give you a feel for the scope of such a project:

Having said that, a full-feature A grade movie takes just about as much effort, and that venture is protected only by copyright.

Anyway, back to software ... if one's team had to write the entire software from whoa to go, it would be impossible (the final software deliverable occupies about 20 CDs, and even that uses common components such as the same OS on most machines). The airframe would reach end of life before the simulator on which to train the pilots was ready.

The best approach to providing software for a complex system is to use as much as possible of what already works and is proven.

For example, for the outside world graphics subsystems, we sometimes used this solution:

The point is that even though this solution is based on open source, we still paid for it, and we still paid about twenty software engineers to integrate with it and write aircraft-specific parts of the FTD software, and it was still part of an overall engineering solution, and money was still made on the deal by both us and Concurrent. To re-use open source solutions for components of the overall system was better for us, better for our customer, better for the whole life-cycle cost (including software maintenance) of the solution because the customer got all the source code, and we got the FTD product out the door at about the same time as the real aircraft was first comissioned.

Where is the problem?

Edited 2011-01-08 12:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: BC
by lucas_maximus on Sat 8th Jan 2011 14:46 in reply to "RE[8]: BC"
lucas_maximus Member since:

Problem is that you are like a broken record.

Reply Parent Score: 2