“Last week’s announcement of the changes in Longhorn were interesting: the backporting of Avalon and the removal of WinFS from the mix. It was clear that the only way to get Avalon adopted was by backporting it in some capacity to older OSes.” Read Miguel’s take on Longhorn’s delays here.
Longhorn’s Delays according to de Icaza
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
remember osx.0? something like avalon/quartz is far too big, far reaching, and complex to debug and optimize properly in a reasonable amount of time. i would say a usable avalon at v2 is being optimistic, i would say version 3 or 4.
Dont you thinks Miguel is talking about EVERYTHING this days ????
El que mucho abarca poco aprieta Miguel
Ignacio
All this coming from someone who is directly involved and getting payed by Novell(who is competeing against Microsoft) with development and promotion of GnomeDE and Mono. You have gotta love Spin Doctoring.
If you believe there is no bias in his statement, I have some great affordable oceanside real estate for sale in Neveda, trust me.
if you read the article, you didnt understand it. miguel has a bias (like everyone else in the world), but his arguments were well thought out and technically sound.
and if you want spin doctoring, ask yourself why you think microsoft steadily pushing back its release schedule and dropping key features is a good thing.
Thanks for the insight. You’re a master of the obvious. If you can find someone without any bias on this planet, I’ll sell you that oceanside Nevada property back to you at twice the price.
Microsoft has realised just how hard it is to make a third generation display model (like Mac OS X). Apple had to put a lot of work into the already functional NeXT display engine (which was excellent when they got it) to get it to where it is today. It’s a huge project and Microsoft has to worry about more than just making it – they need to worry about it working with everything that is currently out there and they want the new stuff written in it to be backward compatible with the previous stuff. This is quite a task. It took Apple/NeXT many years to create what is Mac OS X 10.3 and Microsoft is realising how much work it was.
No bias? Well, he’s biased just like everybody walking on this planet. I was actualy surprised with his answers. Miguel always praises Longhorn and .NET (and he’s being bashed for that fact too). There’s always Longhorn this, Longhorn that in his answers and posts. Miguel always was biased, but towards M$ and Longhorn unlike this article.
Microsoft has realised just how hard it is to make a third generation display model (like Mac OS X).
When will people realise that OSX just took the quickest and most visible ways to get here where it is. Both Cairo and Avalon are way of the scale. Tiger will be the first version that should get the first impressions (yes, impressions only) of them, but they will be directed towards developers only and not exposed in any piece of OSX 10.4.
Besides, it’s much easier to do results when you support very limited hardware.
>>Dont you thinks Miguel is talking about EVERYTHING this days ????
He’s someone who knows his stuff and that people listen to – it’s a case of supply and demand. Plus, it’s nice to have a community leader willing to speak his mind on things instead of shying back since it gives more of an idea of what he’s all about.
umm, ATI and Nvidia are pretty much the GFX card industry, sure there is Matrox, but for most systems you have Nvidia and ATI (and intel in the cheap systems. MS has to support, essentially, all of 2 more chipsets out of the box. the rest can make cards that are VESA compliant and give you a driver install disk for the high end features.
the fact of the matter is that Apple built a system up over 5-6 years (that time period includes the development period of the Beta product) and MS has been looking at it from that perspective as well but rather than build an initial system that provides some features and well written code, they tried to do a Whole enchilada approach. hmm, harder than they expected.
It’s a good idea to have .Net open source implementations, but Microsoft is not ready to give up their developers.
Once they get Avalon out, they can work out the remaining issues, and the pressure is already out there, on whoever is trying to be compatible with them.
The good news is that people are getting tired of trying to catch up with Microsoft, and are just living their lifes on unix like systems.
M$ has had one bad thing in the way they do this big versions. Its the biggest flaw in everything they do. Apple is nice that they make a version update every year but they shouldnt charge so much to upgrade. M$ will do just fine with the grapic stuff they usualy do it likly wont be the best but oh well it will be a lot better then XP.
…sorta like how Microsoft has given up trying to catch up to Apple, and Windows users are just living their lives on a three year old operating system?
/me trolls better
Windows does have some features better then apple in xp. maybe one or two. but for the most part if i had 3k to blow i would get a sweet mac
i never finished a thought
for the most part the apple os is nicer then windows
thats kinda what i had in mind
Who the hell cares what he thinks about Longhorn? He isn’t involved with the project!
I do.
who the hell cares what he thinks about Longhorn? he isn’t involved with the project!
I do.
who are you to care you hide under the name anonymous
give the guy a break. after all he’s doing his share to prevent microsoft locking us into its grip forever.
No, he’s fragmentating the Linux developer community with a half-assed rip-off of a Java clone.
He should be pimping SWT, if he want’s developers to be able to create feature rich, native applications.
SWT ROCKS!
“who the hell cares what he thinks about Longhorn? he isn’t involved with the project!
“I do.
“who are you to care you hide under the name anonymous”
Add my name to the folks who care what Icaza says. He obviously knows what he is talking about. He does a good job tying Microsoft’s efforts at vendor lock-in with the nearly impossible task given the Avalon team to produce a timely Avalon for both Longhorn and XP.
I also like his comments about some things taking time. Eventually, Microsoft may produce something good, Icaza seems to think so, but it will take a while. Meanwhile, Apple and the GNU move on.
yeah, swt rocks, but we have no fully free and functional java implementation, the api is just too massive. on the other hand, we have a full GPLd .net implementation. since there is no real hope of a free java any time soon, the arguement isnt java vs .net, its whether or not we should be using technology patented by microsoft in gnome.
First it was “Longhorn will be out in 2003”.
Then it was “We won’t do WinFS over the network.”
Then it was “Longhorn will be out in 2006.”
Then it was “We won’t do WinFS in the first release.”
Next it will be “We won’t do Avalon in the first release.”
Then it will be “We won’t do WinFS at all.”
Then it will be “We won’t do Avalon at all.”
Then it will be “We won’t do Longhorn at all. Get our brand-new Windows XP Reloaded Service Pack 3 Plus!”
Then it will be “Wait for the next Windows release! It will be dynamite!”
Same old FUD Gates has been using for twenty-five years.
The bottom line: Windows is now so bloated and so out of control that they can’t even add features in less than ten years, let alone security and reliability.
They just said it will take them TEN YEARS to make Windows secure! (After pissing away $37 billion of their R&D money in a one time stock prop scheme!)
Yeah, right. What that really means is, “We couldn’t care less about security. We’re just trying to keep you hooked into our cash cow by promising we’ll do better ‘next time’.”
You cannot seriously compare OSX to what Microsoft is doing. Apple doesn’t have to support a gazillion hardware implementations out there. Apple doesn’t give a damn about backward compatibility, while Microsoft’s reason for success is fanatical devotion to the legacy base. And most importantly, Apple has no plan to own the computing world, and so their development is not marketing driven in the way Microsoft is. Microsoft must consider things not just on technical grounds, but on how it will help them maintain/extend their monopoly control… and that’s a whole different universe of difficulty… it’s like juggling 50 balls at once… Apple only has to juggle two at most.
That said, instead of ragging on Miguel who may be right or may be wrong, lets ask: what is does this latest development with Avalon mean for linux and open source in general? I’m interested in any intelligent/knowledgable person’s opinion, and Miguel is one of the most qualified (biased or not). So let’s quit with the silly name calling and silly comparisons to OSX.
Having coded a bunch of custom controls on Avalon in build 4074 for a pet project, I can claim he’s quite a bit misguided on some points, especially around the API. But whatever.
Full .NET? I didn’t think that Code Access Security had been implemented yet and there would be “something working (experimental, not secure) for the 1.2
release.”
http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-list/2004-April/019647…
Has this changed?
“You cannot seriously compare OSX to what Microsoft is doing. Apple doesn’t have to support a gazillion hardware implementations out there.”
OSX supports a multitude of Nvidia and ATI cards, which covers a majority of used video cards (although not a moajority of manufacturers, such as Intel and Matrox). A lot (actually most) of the work of writing drivers is done by the chip or card manufacurers, not M$. Talk to them, this is not a factor in the comparsion between Mac OSX and Longhorn. Other than video cards, the rest of the “gazillion hardware implementations” is not a factor in this question
“Apple doesn’t give a damn about backward compatibility, while Microsoft’s reason for success is fanatical devotion to the legacy base.”
Wrong. You can still use systems from 1998 with OSX and software from even further back. Systems from 1998 chokes on XP (not to mention Longhorn). No points
“And most importantly, Apple has no plan to own the computing world, and so their development is not marketing driven in the way Microsoft is.”
Thats right, they just want to make the best possible hardware and software. And they suceed suprisingly well. Apple probably gets 10 times more out of every R&D dollar spent than M$. Why?
“Microsoft must consider things not just on technical grounds, but on how it will help them maintain/extend their monopoly control… and that’s a whole different universe of difficulty… it’s like juggling 50 balls at once… Apple only has to juggle two at most. ”
From a tecnical standpoint they almost juggle the same number of balls, Apple just happens to have better juggling balls and are able to keep them in the air longer. As to why M$ drops so many of theirs, it has to do with corporate politics and their development model, for it is shure as hell not because their developers are less skilled!
“You cannot seriously compare OSX to what Microsoft is doing. Apple doesn’t have to support a gazillion hardware implementations out there.”
Microsoft doesn’t either, thats why modern OSes uses some form of HAL. Leave it to the hardware manufacturers to write the drivers. Do you seriously think Microsoft has the manpower to write for the thousands of configurations out there?
“Apple doesn’t give a damn about backward compatibility, while Microsoft’s reason for success is fanatical devotion to the legacy base.”
Everyone realises the importance of legacy, the question is what can and can’t be kept around, Apple dropped serial and Nubus support for the first implementation of OS X, that was basically it. Then for the thousands of applications that didn’t move forward with onto Carbon or Cocoa development they implemented the classic. One of the most seamless transitions you will ever see.
“Apple has no plan to own the computing world, and so their development is not marketing driven in the way Microsoft is. Microsoft must consider things not just on technical grounds, but on how it will help them maintain/extend their monopoly control”
Apple is a corporation, they all want to own the market because that’s how they can maintain profits and longevity. They are using different methods to get there but they are all for the same methods. Or do you not remember the “Apple is dying/irrelevant/lame horse” statement that pops up in PC World once a year.
I’m sure that all these features will be, eventually put into windows releases. Apple did a pretty good job during there release schedule (which for Tiger, will be the final annual system upgrade for a while). While everyone would like to have all these things now, someone realised (accounting?) the cost to implement these things would be out of reach for most PC users. Would you rather buy a $1000 OS with the things all the bells and whistles, or get one for $129 knowing the next version will have even more and still fit in your budget.
“If you believe there is no bias in his statement, I have some great affordable oceanside real estate for sale in Neveda, trust me.”
He likes to do things that make other people’s work compatable or interoperable or somewhat work-alike to Microsoft. If that’s the case, he must be in some kind of contact with Microsoft people on some level or another.
That would be a great way to learn the above quoted approach, wouldn’t it?
Being a former, strong advocate for Microsoft, and seeing the way they became such con-artists, I feel reasonably self-confident here.
Go over to news.com and look at all the articles lately about Microsoft and “commercial” music. Then ask yourself who’s kissing who’s what.
>Miguel is one of the most qualified (biased or not). So let’s quit with the silly name calling and silly comparisons to OSX.
——
This particular thread is in response to miguel’s article which says:
>When it comes to operating system releases, I believe that Apple has found the sweet spot: a combination of best practices from the industry and best practices from the open source world. In addition to this, the versioning setup that Apple ships for the Frameworks seems to be pretty good on the surface.
————–
RTFA
my apologies, not full, but very, very close.
Wrong. You can still use systems from 1998 with OSX and software from even further back. Systems from 1998 chokes on XP (not to mention Longhorn). No points
ROTFL! Yeah buddy you fire up OS X on a first gen eMac or G3 box and tell me its *usable*. The only reason people do it is because they don’t want to drop the cash on a new mac.
A PC from 1998 ? I wouldn’t use such an outdated piece of shit myself. Throw some RAM in and I’m sure you could get XP running on one, but why bother ? You can build a modern PC for dirt cheap these days.
When someone says *backwards compatability* in regards to Apple they aren’t talking about hardware. They are talking about software, which to some degree holds true.
>>Complexity: The Avalon API has a very large surface area. To get an idea, the Button class is number 11 on the inheritance chain with ButtonBase, ContentControl, Control, FrameworkElement, UIElement, RetainedVisual, Visual, DependencyObject, UIContextObject and Object as its base class.
The implementation details transpire everywhere, and approach that I believe is a bad idea: there is little or no encapsulation of things.
Avalon is clearly not fully cooked, at least it was not a few months ago when simple things like keyboard manipulation were not fleshed out. My feeling is that large changes are still required.
Ignoring Standards: I understand why someone would invent their own version of SVG or their own version of CSS: those standards can be difficult to implement, and growing your own version is a lot simpler than having to adapt an existing model to a new model.
————————————
If there were a DNCP: DotNetCommunityProcess these kind of bad design hacks wouldn’t get into the product!
– I Don’t Understand why Microsoft needs to build another version of SVG and CSS.
Possibliiy their programmers aren’t up to the task seems the more logical explanation rather then there being a Microsoft Conspirency.
– This is why I believe Microsoft needs a JCP. This crap wouldn’t be put out if either: Microsoft Management actually knew anything about Computer Science or there was a JCP that could stop half-assed implementations coming out of Microsoft’s development shop.
Here’s my bias, I’m in an Enterprise shop, I’ll have to use this crap when it comes out.
And damn it, ( S&P 500 Index ), I’m a gosh darn Share Holder!
The real point is M$ developers shouldn’t be making THEIR job easier.
They should be making MY job easier.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/
Here’s a simple example:
Windows Media video is Supposed to be cross-platform.
Asp.Net was supposed to produce HTML that was cross-platform.
Microsoft has Business Partners depending upon Windows Media format to be cross platform. However, this great software house can’t even write asp.net pages to Deliver two cross-platform solutions, On Their Own Web Site.
This page will now download the video to anything but IE on Windows.
Are these people Capable of Enterprise Solutions?
I think not.
As a programmer in an Enterprise shop,
I have to recommend software that
1) Works
2) Works in a cross platform environment.
I can’t depend on Microsoft to do that.
Having coded a bunch of custom controls on Avalon in build 4074 for a pet project, I can claim he’s quite a bit misguided on some points, especially around the API. But whatever.
Please elaborate on how Miguel is mistaken? No offense but I would take Miguel’s word for it before some anonymous person on the web. If you expect anyone to believe you over him please cite some examples.
A PC from 1998 ? I wouldn’t use such an outdated piece of shit myself. Throw some RAM in and I’m sure you could get XP running on one, but why bother ? You can build a modern PC for dirt cheap these days.
Well you’re missing out then. I have several computers from around that time and they run perfect with Linux installed. I use openoffice, evolution, firefox, and a bunch of other resource intensive applications without even upgrading from the stock configuration. In fact I am typing this from a 700Mhz/256MB laptop. Those computers may be useless with XP but they have a lot of potential with Linux.
Well you’re missing out then. I have several computers from around that time and they run perfect with Linux installed. I use openoffice, evolution, firefox, and a bunch of other resource intensive applications without even upgrading from the stock configuration. In fact I am typing this from a 700Mhz/256MB laptop. Those computers may be useless with XP but they have a lot of potential with Linux.
uh no I’m not missing out. I don’t need anything that slow. 1998 was the time of the Pentium2 at up to 450 Mhz. Thats ancient history.
700 Mhz. is actually quite usuable with XP, esp if you have 256 megs of RAM or better. Win2000 will fly on a system like that.
“700 Mhz. is actually quite usuable with XP, esp if you have 256 megs of RAM or better. Win2000 will fly on a system like that. ”
XP will actually do better than 2k just because of the precaching stuff. You just have to have good video drivers so XP doesn’t lag with the shadows and fades!
(700mhz/256mb ram really is very powerful, I can outperform the average p4 2.4ghz actually, just because a p3 is so well-designed
)