?

Log in

No account? Create an account
brad's life [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Windows 2000 ... *sigh* [Nov. 29th, 2000|11:49 am]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|, , ]

It seems that the more I use Windows 2000, the more I hate it. Same with anything, actually.... the more I learn about Linux, Perl, web programming, MySQL ... hate them all. Come to think of it, there's very few implementations of anything that I really like.

Anyway, today's win2k silliness: I'm on a machine at school right now, a P3-766 or something, with 256 MB of ram... normally these machines fly, almost as fast as my win2k machine at home. Right now it's chugging along slower than a 486 with 16 mb of ram running win98. My keystrokes are delayed by a couple seconds as I type this. I check task manager and winlogon.exe is taking 99% CPU. I can't kill it because "This is a critical system process. Task Manager cannot end this process." Stupid Windows.

When will Microsoft make a reliable operating system?
LinkReply

Comments:
From: (Anonymous)
2000-11-29 12:00 pm (UTC)
reboot!

things should be fine for a couple minutes after that.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 12:02 pm (UTC)

Re:

guess how often I reboot my linux box at home, or the LJ server? NEVER.

you shouldn't have to reboot an operating system. that's just weak.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2000-11-29 12:42 pm (UTC)
i know. just a little attempt at humor. i am pretty sick of rebooting my home computers several times a day.i have heard good thinks about linux, but i don't know enough to try that at home yet. it seems microsoft trys to blame other software writers for writing poor code and that is why it doesn't work. but i have just as many if not more problems with office, etc. also many of the programs written were possibly written with microsoft's programming/development software. so they can't really blame others before they get their act together.

i am just trying to bring some humor to our unfortunate situation. believe me... i agree with you on this. you seem to be doing a pretty darn good job with the tools you were given. good work and thanks.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ekashp
2000-11-29 02:14 pm (UTC)
They made a pretty reliable operating system a long time ago, though I imagine you were too young to use it much - It was called MS-DOS. They also wrote the original Xenix, which was OK, but they sold it off to SCO. Every OS they've released since that time has gotten progressively worse, not better, IMHO.
Whoops - I just terribly dated myself, didn't I ?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 02:18 pm (UTC)

Re:

Too young to use MS-DOS? No way.

I learned to program on an Apple ][. I later used MS-DOS version 2.0 and every version up from there.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_ff928
2000-11-29 11:28 pm (UTC)

Xenix ok?

I respectfully must beg to differ. When MS licensed the AT&T UNIX source code, and ported it over to the 8086/8 in the late 70s, it was with the implicit understanding that the lack of any real memory protection would make it a novelty OS at best (at least, that's what common sense dictates.)

The very fact that they didn't even try to use the (granted, limited) protected mode availability on the 286, and the (granted, quirky) protected mode features on the 386, showed that they weren't taking the development of a true multiuser OS seriously, at least in regards to Xenix.

SCO saved Xenix, at least to some extent, by supporting the 286 and the 386.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ekashp
2000-11-29 02:22 pm (UTC)

And shame on you for your sacrelege!
Hate Linux and PERL and MySQL ?
If you don't like Linux, fix it.
If you don't like PERL, use C. (not C++)
And if you don't like MySQL, realize that it's
much better than paying homage to Oracle, which may just be the real Evil Empire. (Ellison even looks more evil than Gates). Most real mission critical stuff is written utilizing Berkley DB...

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 02:29 pm (UTC)
If you don't like Linux, fix it.

There isn't one thing broken with Linux that can be indentified and fixed. It's the lack of policy and consistency amongst all the subsystems that make up a Linux box. Because all those pieces are ancient and written each with different design goals and philosophies. There's no coherence. Each program has its own config file, different way to daemonize it, different logging mechanism, etc... It's sick. And nobody's in a position to set policy because everybody likes doing stuff their own way. There's no good solution.

I still love Linux more than I hate it. I'm just complaining.

If you don't like PERL, use C. (not C++)

I love Perl. I just recognize that many aspects of the language are sick and wrong. I use them, but I know I shouldn't.... there are languages that implement the same things cleaner. (use pragma fields... wtf? why not a struct?) I actually like C++, but that too is sick. Java's cool. Python looks promising.

And if you don't like MySQL, realize that it's
much better than paying homage to Oracle,


I'm going to start playing with PostgreSQL more... I've heard it's making progress.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ekashp
2000-11-29 02:38 pm (UTC)
Java is only cool until you start hitting it hard in a production evironment. Remeber your rant from a little while ago about CPU utilization ? Java is a good excuse for faster CPUs, I've seen it eat Sun Ultras for lunch, and they're supposed to be the preferred platform. I'd much rather have binaries from good portable C code.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_ff928
2000-11-29 11:35 pm (UTC)

Java

Being a systems programmer, you'd rarely find me rush to the defense of a Java solution. However, I think that a distinction should be drawn between Java as a language, and Java as an implementation.

As a language, Java has got object orientation right. I'd use it if I had to write a lot of OOP programs (too heavy on the heap for my kind of work), and if it allowed me to dabble in pointer arithmetic. It's done away with C++'s terrible multiple inheritance nonsense, and has proposed an elegant and scalable model of single inheritance with interface implementations.

As an implementation, the JVM is absolutely terrible. But in some bizarre way, you get exactly what you're expecting, given that it's a virtual machine by definition. If you have hardware to throw at it, need to use a true OOP language, and your focus is on the rapidity of development, and cleanliness of your codebase, use Java. For speed and performance, don't.

After all, it's all about picking the right tools for the job...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 11:42 pm (UTC)

Re: Java

I agree with you completely.

Java the language, the platform, the JVM, and the security model are all different. So many people like to confuse them and blame one of their shortcomings on the others.

I've been talking about rewriting LiveJournal in Java, if I can get it fast enough. I've been meaning to play with gcj ... I'm wondering how fast the binaries can get. Python's also a possibility .... I'd like to preserve all my Perl code (which is actually very clean, for perl), but mod_perl and the Perl object system is just too ugly. I've written a few Perl classes for livejournal and it's just ugly looking. I'd also like to get a little lower-level than Perl often times, and I think Java would be a happy medium.... I don't want to go to C++. As a bonus with Java, if third parties want to license the system, I could provide them with just the class files.

All right... I'm rambling.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seadawg
2000-11-29 03:01 pm (UTC)

PHP

Have you ever thought of using PHP instead of Perl? I've been trying to decide which is "better": PHP or Perl? They both are a lot alike, can do quite a bit, and can be pretty fast. Right now I only use Perl because of BML. I can't decide though... some people swear by Perl and others swear by PHP... ohh the dilemmas... what do you think?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 03:03 pm (UTC)

Re: PHP

PHP's unsuitable for any project as far as I'm concerned because any non-web based code that I need to write to maintain the site (for LJ, there is a lot) would have to use a different library of functions, since PHP can't run offline.

Or maybe it can, but in a hackish sort of way if it does.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seadawg
2000-11-29 03:07 pm (UTC)

Re: PHP

hehe... running a cron job using wget "localhost/maintience.php" would be rather lame, so I guess that is true. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whitaker
2000-11-29 10:33 pm (UTC)

Re: PHP

i've seen web sites that do that... i'm just like, WTF?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: niko
2000-11-29 03:36 pm (UTC)
What do you think of QNX?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 04:47 pm (UTC)

Re:

I won't use anything that 7 people use. :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ahze
2000-11-29 09:26 pm (UTC)
you should try it , you got an extra box? or harddrive?
its actuall a very nice system , theres just no damn software for it. but alot of unix programs will compile on it , and X will run on it also(its XF86 3.3.5 ...but blah..) and you can run X programs in there gui . I dont remember what its called but it kick's X's ass. but thats not saying alot there is it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 09:27 pm (UTC)

Re:

yeah, i got an extra box.
maybe i'll tinker with it.
there IS an LJ client for it, after all. :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ahze
2000-11-29 09:26 pm (UTC)
btw , its a pretty small download too.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whitaker
2000-11-29 10:39 pm (UTC)
My experience with PostgreSQL so far is that it's pretty nice. Seems fast enough, of course I have no idea how it would hold up under a heavy load like LiveJournal. I'm hoping it will. :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: erik
2000-11-29 05:00 pm (UTC)
Windows 2000 is reliable, it's just inefficient.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 05:05 pm (UTC)

Re:

Reliable? How so? My home win2k locks up every other day or so. The winlogin.exe got into a loop and consumed 99% of CPU.... doesn't sound too reliable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: erik
2000-11-29 05:12 pm (UTC)
We already established that your locking up is probably due to your video card. We all have to deal with the fact that Windows 2000 is very NOT hardware-compliant. My video card works fine, and Windows 2000 has NEVER locked up on me (yet!). If and when it does I will be right besides you, bitching. But as of now, my uptime is long, and it's incredibly responsive, even after sitting idly for hours upon hours. My only problems are two-fold:

Still can't get the damn LPT1 port to work. I could give a hoot about the COM3 port.. I don't use it, but I need my LPT port for printing.

I can't figure out Windows' password protection.. whenever people try to connect to my PC they get the stupid \\reverend\ipc$ share, which I don't know how to get rid of. I've tried making shares, but it just doesn't work for other people in the house.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bradfitz
2000-11-29 05:13 pm (UTC)

Re:

I'm not so convinced it's my video card. It didn't start doing that until a few weeks ago... I ran win2k with this video card for several months without problems, and this past week it's been great.

The fact that it's sometimes very nice and sometimes buggy as hell is what scares me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: peterb
2000-11-30 02:54 am (UTC)
This doesn't strike you as being standard issue windows stuff?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: skeets
2000-11-30 03:34 pm (UTC)

Beh!

All I can say is this: After using Windoze ME for a few weeks, you'll appreciate 2k a lot more. :ppp Of course, I was able to run my old machine for weeks on a single boot with Win2k, so I'd probably have a lot less to complain about.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)