Microsoft formally names Windows 7 release date

[Tommy]

crock, crock and more crock. Links were added because after 30 years, users said "enough... we want a feature like this so that we don't have to either duplicate files everywhere, or copy them around so that they appear where the app wants them rather than where we want them, etc." Nothing to do with porting from unix to windows. One does _not_ need links to port. Links are a convenience. One that unix has had from the get-go. As is an intelligent process scheduler, good VM management, high-performance file systems, etc...

I don't think Microsoft gets symbolic links. Have you heard about the new feature in Windows 7 called 'Libraries'? Basically, Microsoft reinvented the way symbolic links work except it's not done at a file system level. It's a new abstraction layer that is design to look like a folder and act like a folder except that it's not a folder as you cannot add files to it, change file permissions etc. In the Libraries folder you will see your standard folders that you see in your home directory, music, videos, documents etc. But with Libraries you can add 'folders' that point to other locations on your file system therefore making it more convenient for users to get to files they frequently use. Just like symbolic links.

But here's the problem, existing software is not Libraries aware. I tested MS Office 2003 on Win7 and when I tried to open a file under the libraries folder in the file dialog box, it returned an error! In other words, Office 2003 is not 'Libraries' aware. However, if your program uses the standard file dialog prompt, it will return the physical path of the file when the user selects a file under the libraries folder. So most programs will probably work ok with libraries, but it may confuse the average user because the path will be different to the one they selected. If you have written your own file dialog prompt, then it may have issues when a user tries to open a file under libraries. I have no idea why Microsoft did it this way. It seems to do exactly what symbolic links do except with added incompatibility issues. If Microsoft used symbolic links instead, then almost nobody would have to worry about making their software 'Libraries' aware.

[bob]

crock, crock and more crock. Links were added because after 30 years, users said "enough... we want a feature like this so that we don't have to either duplicate files everywhere, or copy them around so that they appear where the app wants them rather than where we want them, etc." Nothing to do with porting from unix to windows. One does _not_ need links to port. Links are a convenience. One that unix has had from the get-go. As is an intelligent process scheduler, good VM management, high-performance file systems, etc...

I don't think Microsoft gets symbolic links. Have you heard about the new feature in Windows 7 called 'Libraries'? Basically, Microsoft reinvented the way symbolic links work except it's not done at a file system level. It's a new abstraction layer that is design to look like a folder and act like a folder except that it's not a folder as you cannot add files to it, change file permissions etc. In the Libraries folder you will see your standard folders that you see in your home directory, music, videos, documents etc. But with Libraries you can add 'folders' that point to other locations on your file system therefore making it more convenient for users to get to files they frequently use. Just like symbolic links.

But here's the problem, existing software is not Libraries aware. I tested MS Office 2003 on Win7 and when I tried to open a file under the libraries folder in the file dialog box, it returned an error! In other words, Office 2003 is not 'Libraries' aware. However, if your program uses the standard file dialog prompt, it will return the physical path of the file when the user selects a file under the libraries folder. So most programs will probably work ok with libraries, but it may confuse the average user because the path will be different to the one they selected. If you have written your own file dialog prompt, then it may have issues when a user tries to open a file under libraries. I have no idea why Microsoft did it this way. It seems to do exactly what symbolic links do except with added incompatibility issues. If Microsoft used symbolic links instead, then almost nobody would have to worry about making their software 'Libraries' aware.

How much cleaner is unix. Everything is accessed as a file, devices like printers and modems, real files, even pipes to other processes if you so choose. Links are invisible to programs. Permissions are much better defined. With SETUID you give me a way to write a specific application that only modifies part of a file, and then let only specific users execute that application. Any other attempt to modify the file fails miserably. So flexible. So old. Still so superior to everything else.

[Peter Skinner]

How much cleaner is unix. Everything is accessed as a file, devices like printers and modems, real files, even pipes to other processes if you so choose. Links are invisible to programs. Permissions are much better defined. With SETUID you give me a way to write a specific application that only modifies part of a file, and then let only specific users execute that application. Any other attempt to modify the file fails miserably. So flexible. So old. Still so superior to everything else.

Are you using the new Fedora 11? Or are you still using OpenSuSE?

I am just biding my time to download the DVD of Fedora 11 to give it a shot.

[Aleks Peshkov]

I am using my laptop only for web browsing and for programming hobbies. I use only Firefox and an ICQ client. No games, no Word/Excel, no Photoshop. And I had Linux box (pure, without Windows dual boot) at free Red Hat Linux days...

Tried Fedora 9 and pre Fedora 10, but when I made a clean install of Fedora 10 final and it crashed X Window at boot time. Bye-bye Fedora, I am not a free beta-tester anymore.

I observe negative usability experience with simple tasks in Linux: adjusting drivers for trackpoint and power management. Plus all Linux ICQ clients I have seen are visually horrible.

I use Vista x64 on my last Lenovo SL500 laptop. Yes, I used XP many years. No, I do not feel that XP is more stable or resource efficient then Vista. No, I am not going to spend my time on Windows 7 until I will get a new laptop "designed for Windows 7".

Linux will get chances again in my eyes, but as of now it is still an underdog even for ex-Linux user with programmer's mentality.

Russian anecdote from cold war epoch:
Americans stole building instructions of a new Russian military aircraft bomber. They tried to build one following instructions again and again, but got only a rail-way locomotive. When Americans ask, Russian engineers answered: you build all right, but forget the very last instruction: "handle with a file after construction".

[Norm Pollock]

Russian anecdote from cold war epoch:
Americans stole building instructions of a new Russian military aircraft bomber. They tried to build one following instructions again and again, but got only a rail-way locomotive. When Americans ask, Russian engineers answered: you build all right, but forget the very last instruction: "handle with a file after construction".

I missed something. Either I don't "get it" which is quite possible or something is lost in translation. Would you mind explaining?

[bob]

How much cleaner is unix. Everything is accessed as a file, devices like printers and modems, real files, even pipes to other processes if you so choose. Links are invisible to programs. Permissions are much better defined. With SETUID you give me a way to write a specific application that only modifies part of a file, and then let only specific users execute that application. Any other attempt to modify the file fails miserably. So flexible. So old. Still so superior to everything else.

Are you using the new Fedora 11? Or are you still using OpenSuSE?

I am just biding my time to download the DVD of Fedora 11 to give it a shot.

I've been using Fedora 10. Fedora 11 was released yesterday and I have it downloaded. Will probably try to install it on my laptop Friday to evaluate, but initial reports have been _exceptionally_ good, especially their meeting and exceeding their goal of a 20 second boot to login process... Most are reporting 15 seconds or so on decent hardware.

[Aleks Peshkov]

Russian anecdote from cold war epoch:
Americans stole building instructions of a new Russian military aircraft bomber. They tried to build one following instructions again and again, but got only a rail-way locomotive. When Americans ask, Russian engineers answered: you build all right, but forget the very last instruction: "handle with a file after construction".

I missed something. Either I don't "get it" which is quite possible or something is lost in translation. Would you mind explaining?

Russian airplanes are in fact old steam locomotives without custom manual tuning.

I meant that Linux is superior in technology, but not user ready product out of the box.

[bob]

Russian anecdote from cold war epoch:
Americans stole building instructions of a new Russian military aircraft bomber. They tried to build one following instructions again and again, but got only a rail-way locomotive. When Americans ask, Russian engineers answered: you build all right, but forget the very last instruction: "handle with a file after construction".

I missed something. Either I don't "get it" which is quite possible or something is lost in translation. Would you mind explaining?

Russian airplanes are in fact old steam locomotives without custom manual tuning.

I meant that Linux is superior in technology, but not user ready product out of the box.

I'm not sure I get your meaning.

Linux (Fedora anyway) come with a simple install process that you can customize if you want, or you can take the defaults if you prefer. You get a ready-to-run web browser (firefox). They come with openoffice which gives you a microsoft-word compatible word processor, plus the usual microsoft-excel, powerpoint, etc applications. You get a C compiler installed. An excellent windowing system with more features than windows and a better look and more customizable things.

The only down-side to linux is that you can't run microsoft software without a little effort to configure wine or acquire vmware or whatever.

And you get all of that at zero cost. Not a $1,000 total cost and that is being conservative by the time you buy windows, and office and visual studio.

[Aleks Peshkov]

I as most users already have a license for Windows shipped with a new notebook. How much does it cost I do not know. I have no options to buy Lenovo Thinkpad without it. Microsoft offers Word/Excel viewers and Visual Studio Express for free.

I do not need Microsoft Office nor Adobe Photoshop. I do not use webcams or any USB modems or printers. All I want to be able to have trackpoint, touchpad, screen backlight and hardware buttons work as they do in Windows without magic. I do not talk about GNOME, wine or minors applications. I talk about basic kernel and basic X Window System functionality.

WTF? I am as average user not a kernel hacker. Instructions to fix bootstrap/X.org behavior made obsolete rapidly as the Linux community trying to make heavy locomotive fly like a fly.

Fedora 10 final dies at boot time while Fedora 9 and Fedora 10 pre did not. Ubuntu 8.10 run stable, but 9.04 again have funny bugs on routine 2008 year Centrino laptop with Intel graphics bugs here and there.

[bob]

I as most users already have a license for Windows shipped with a new notebook. How much does it cost I do not know. I have no options to buy Lenovo Thinkpad without it. Microsoft offers Word/Excel viewers and Visual Studio Express for free.

I do not need Microsoft Office nor Adobe Photoshop. I do not use webcams or any USB modems or printers. All I want to be able to have trackpoint, touchpad, screen backlight and hardware buttons work as they do in Windows without magic. I do not talk about GNOME, wine or minors applications. I talk about basic kernel and basic X Window System functionality.

WTF? I am as average user not a kernel hacker. Instructions to fix bootstrap/X.org behavior made obsolete rapidly as the Linux community trying to make heavy locomotive fly like a fly.

Fedora 10 final dies at boot time while Fedora 9 and Fedora 10 pre did not. Ubuntu 8.10 run stable, but 9.04 again have funny bugs on routine 2008 year Centrino laptop with Intel graphics bugs here and there.

I have a dell D620 laptop, intel core2 duo 2.0ghz. Built in 802.11a/b/g wireless, bluetooth, synaptics touchpad, the little j-stick IBM came up with between the ghb keys on the keyboard, plus the usual multimedia control buttons for volume, mute, battery meter and all the rest.

I installed Fedora 10 using the gnome desktop. When installation was over, everything worked. Period. The network manager icon would let me choose from any wireless network the wireless interface could see, it remembers the SSID and WEP key for each once you enter them (which you have to do on _any_ system anyway). My bluetooth mouse only required turning on, and hitting the connect button on the bottom, the bluetooth manager popped up and asked if I wanted to connect. I chose "always connect" and it connects every time I boot the thing. The volume buttons work. The mute buttons work. The various "hidden keys" such as brightness adjustment, flipping to the external monitor port, hibernate, standby, etc all work. Took no action on my part. The USB driver works. I've plugged in jump drives, USB floppy (laptop only has a DVD-RW drive), USB corded mouse, etch. They all work with no action required except to use them. My DVD-RW works perfectly. Recording. Data or music. My 1440x900 screen resolution. All works perfectly. Right out of the box. What more could you ask for? You don't need to be a kernel hacker or anything else. That's all urban legend with today's distributions. The only non-functional thing on my laptop is the "wifi-finder" that did not work under windows either.