Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20855 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-01 12:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-01-16 15:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-01 12:23 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-01 16:40 -0500
Re: single instance Robert Tomsick <robert+usenet@tomsick.net> - 2013-01-03 01:20 -0500
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-03 00:55 -0800
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-03 19:31 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-03 19:49 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-03 19:56 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-04 12:18 -0500
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-04 10:22 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-04 13:44 -0500
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-04 11:03 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-04 14:12 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-05 21:56 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 19:22 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:23 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 20:43 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:47 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 20:51 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:24 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 20:46 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:58 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 21:08 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 21:19 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 21:31 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 21:41 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 22:00 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 22:11 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-07 00:23 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-24 18:20 -0500
Re: single instance Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-01-06 21:39 -0600
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-07 00:30 -0500
Re: single instance lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-07 08:53 +0000
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-24 18:18 -0500
Re: single instance lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-02-25 08:31 +0000
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-24 18:17 -0500
Re: single instance Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 17:32 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 20:47 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:53 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 21:01 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-05 21:59 -0500
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 19:34 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:00 -0500
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-03 07:12 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-03 09:56 -0800
Re: single instance Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-01-03 21:05 +0000
Re: single instance Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-01-03 22:08 +0000
Re: single instance "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: single instance Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-01-05 17:43 +0000
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-05 09:49 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-05 13:02 -0500
Re: single instance Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-01-05 20:29 +0000
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-05 19:07 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-06 20:04 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-05 21:40 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-05 22:10 -0500
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-05 19:49 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-05 23:09 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 11:00 -0500
Re: single instance Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-06 09:41 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-06 20:41 -0500
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-15 22:51 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-15 23:12 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-15 23:49 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-15 23:16 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-15 23:52 -0800
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-16 08:46 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-16 10:46 -0800
Re: single instance markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-01-16 13:01 -0800
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-16 17:10 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-15 23:50 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-16 00:13 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-16 02:48 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-16 07:28 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-16 10:46 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-16 16:53 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-16 23:44 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-17 07:03 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-17 14:25 -0800
Re: single instance Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-17 16:31 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-17 22:11 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-17 22:36 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-16 13:34 -0500
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-16 08:45 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-16 13:29 -0500
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-16 17:14 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-16 20:20 -0500
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-16 23:52 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-17 01:44 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-18 01:47 -0800
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-18 20:50 -0800
Re: single instance Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-20 00:53 -0800
Re: single instance Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-20 12:00 -0800
Re: single instance Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2013-01-20 13:33 -0800
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-02-24 18:12 -0500
Re: single instance Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-20 21:33 -0500
Re: single instance "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-01-06 13:34 +0000
Re: single instance Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-01-04 10:26 -0800
Re: single instance Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> - 2013-01-04 14:04 -0500
Re: single instance stledger@lanl.gov - 2013-01-16 14:51 -0800
Re: single instance stledger@lanl.gov - 2013-01-16 15:09 -0800
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 20:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50ea2bd7$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21101 |
On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>> >>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>> >>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>> some flavor of Unix? >> >> Yesterday. > > What operating system was it? OpenVMS > Do you think your experience at all typical > of the general population? No. But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make them non-existing. >>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky >>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. :P) >> >> Well - iOS is an OS. >> >> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's. >> >> DOS did not have PID's. > > DOS also lacked multitasking. > > And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances > of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? Yes. But we are discussing PID. >>> 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that >>> *aren't* fairly POSIXy anymore? >> >> There are not that much point in not counting iOS. > > See above. > >> iOS is POSIXy! > > That, if true, just works in my argument's favor. Specifically yes. Generally it confirms that you state information as fact when it is not. >>> 4. And before you bring up some obscure legacy OS on some archaic mainframe >>> that some large banking institution in some obscure corner of the world >>> is still using to run some old bit of business logic for which they've >>> long since lost all the source code, recall that the context here is >>> *development of some new software*. Nobody sane develops *new* software >>> for clunkers like that -- they develop it for their farm of Unix servers >>> or their ten thousand cubicle boxen running Windows, even if maybe it >>> uses some network to get some service from the legacy mainframe. >> >> New code still get developed for mainframes. >> >> And sane developers develop software for the platforms >> they get paid to develop for. > > I said "nobody sane", not "nobody". :) Read. >> But nothing of this really matters. A feature being support by all >> common platforms and a feature being platform-agnostic are two >> different things. > > All common platforms is necessary, and in practice sufficient. Your > strictly-exact notion of "platform-agnostic" is so restrictive as to be > meaningless -- what would compile and run on both Windows 8 and Babbage's > difference engine? Congratulations you have realized that "platform-agnostic" is pretty difficult to achieve. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 21:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcdam6$h0g$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21107 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>> >>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>> >>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>> some flavor of Unix? >>> >>> Yesterday. >> >> What operating system was it? > > OpenVMS > >> Do you think your experience at all typical >> of the general population? > > No. > > But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make > them non-existing. It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's imminent. In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. If you get specific requests to make it work on OpenVMS, then maybe consider OpenVMS. Anyway I find it hard to imagine OpenVMS doesn't have something rather PID-like, and likely there's even a POSIX-compliant get PID call supported just to make porting C programs easier. After all, they'd know that a lot of functionality is being coded for other systems, much of it C code that assumes POSIX and needs little more than that to make it work there too, so there's a big upside and little downside to supporting common POSIX calls when developing an OpenAnything. >>>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky >>>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. :P) >>> >>> Well - iOS is an OS. >>> >>> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's. >>> >>> DOS did not have PID's. >> >> DOS also lacked multitasking. >> >> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances >> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? > > Yes. > > But we are discussing PID. In the context of controlling concurrent instance count. >>>> 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that >>>> *aren't* fairly POSIXy anymore? >>> >>> There are not that much point in not counting iOS. >> >> See above. >> >>> iOS is POSIXy! >> >> That, if true, just works in my argument's favor. > > Specifically yes. > > Generally it confirms that you state information as fact when it is not. OK, now you've devolved into more or less explicitly calling me a liar, to my face and in a public venue. That's crossing a line. Rest deleted unread. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 21:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50ea30d2$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21112 |
On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>> >>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>> >>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>> >>>> Yesterday. >>> >>> What operating system was it? >> >> OpenVMS >> >>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>> of the general population? >> >> No. >> >> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >> them non-existing. > > It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for > waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously > disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not > theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering > unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's > imminent. > > In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. > If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian > population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. That is what people in general use. But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. > Anyway I find it hard to imagine OpenVMS doesn't have something rather > PID-like, and likely there's even a POSIX-compliant get PID call supported > just to make porting C programs easier. After all, they'd know that a lot > of functionality is being coded for other systems, much of it C code that > assumes POSIX and needs little more than that to make it work there too, so > there's a big upside and little downside to supporting common POSIX calls > when developing an OpenAnything. OpenVMS has PID. But your claim that everybody uses the most common platforms are still untrue. >>>>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky >>>>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. :P) >>>> >>>> Well - iOS is an OS. >>>> >>>> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's. >>>> >>>> DOS did not have PID's. >>> >>> DOS also lacked multitasking. >>> >>> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances >>> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? >> >> Yes. >> >> But we are discussing PID. > > In the context of controlling concurrent instance count. Not really. The discussion was whether one could rely on being able to get PID. The answer is that you can not. The fact that the question triggering the question is not relevant in the negative cases does not change that. To transform it to Java: whether Oracle will add the ability to get PID in standard Java library does not depend on what Roedy may use it for. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 21:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcdc1g$ii1$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21115 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday. >>>> >>>> What operating system was it? >>> >>> OpenVMS >>> >>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>> of the general population? >>> >>> No. >>> >>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>> them non-existing. >> >> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >> imminent. > > >> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. > > You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. > > That is what people in general use. Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F suffices for that. > But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all > platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then we're all fucked. :) >> Anyway I find it hard to imagine OpenVMS doesn't have something rather >> PID-like, and likely there's even a POSIX-compliant get PID call supported >> just to make porting C programs easier. After all, they'd know that a lot >> of functionality is being coded for other systems, much of it C code that >> assumes POSIX and needs little more than that to make it work there too, so >> there's a big upside and little downside to supporting common POSIX calls >> when developing an OpenAnything. > > OpenVMS has PID. > > But your claim that everybody uses the most common platforms are > still untrue. Which claim was that? MID? I don't remember making such a claim. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 21:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50ea35be$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21117 |
On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>> >>>>> What operating system was it? >>>> >>>> OpenVMS >>>> >>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>> of the general population? >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>> them non-existing. >>> >>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>> imminent. >> > >>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >> >> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >> >> That is what people in general use. > > Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and > covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you > want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F > suffices for that. You need to decide what you want to talk about. If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. If you want to consider something else the say what it is. >> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. > > If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then > we're all fucked. :) Yes. So please stop claiming that getting PID can be done platform agnostic. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 22:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcddo7$krk$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21119 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>>> >>>>>> What operating system was it? >>>>> >>>>> OpenVMS >>>>> >>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>>> of the general population? >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>>> them non-existing. >>>> >>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>>> imminent. >>> > >>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >>> >>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >>> >>> That is what people in general use. >> >> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >> suffices for that. > > You need to decide what you want to talk about. > > If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for > Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. > > If you want to consider something else the say what it is. What about "the vast majority of non-singletasking machines it's likely to encounter, given it doesn't have an unusual specialized problem domain, and that it can fairly easily be made to support"? >>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >> >> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >> we're all fucked. :) > > Yes. Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 22:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50ea3ced$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21126 |
On 1/6/2013 10:00 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What operating system was it? >>>>>> >>>>>> OpenVMS >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>>>> of the general population? >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>>>> them non-existing. >>>>> >>>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>>>> imminent. >>>> > >>>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >>>> >>>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >>>> >>>> That is what people in general use. >>> >>> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >>> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >>> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >>> suffices for that. >> >> You need to decide what you want to talk about. >> >> If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for >> Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. >> >> If you want to consider something else the say what it is. > > What about "the vast majority of non-singletasking machines it's likely to > encounter, given it doesn't have an unusual specialized problem domain, and > that it can fairly easily be made to support"? Sure. But the fact that "the vast majority" is most relevant is pretty trivial. >>>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >>> >>> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >>> we're all fucked. :) >> >> Yes. > > Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. The fact that a platform agnostic OS features do not exist proves that I am right. You can not get PID in a platform agnostic way. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-07 00:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcdm45$v08$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21129 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:11:39 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/6/2013 10:00 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What operating system was it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OpenVMS >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>>>>> of the general population? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>>>>> them non-existing. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>>>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>>>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>>>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>>>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>>>>> imminent. >>>>> > >>>>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>>>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>>>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >>>>> >>>>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >>>>> >>>>> That is what people in general use. >>>> >>>> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >>>> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >>>> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >>>> suffices for that. >>> >>> You need to decide what you want to talk about. >>> >>> If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for >>> Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. >>> >>> If you want to consider something else the say what it is. >> >> What about "the vast majority of non-singletasking machines it's likely to >> encounter, given it doesn't have an unusual specialized problem domain, and >> that it can fairly easily be made to support"? > > Sure. > > But the fact that "the vast majority" is most relevant is > pretty trivial. Then why are you harping on and on endlessly about it? >>>>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>>>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >>>> >>>> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >>>> we're all fucked. :) >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. > > The fact that a platform agnostic OS features do not exist > proves that I am right. > > You can not get PID in a platform agnostic way. Using your very rigid definition of "platform agnostic", you can't do anything in a platform agnostic way, not even add two and two. Using a *useful* definition of "platform agnostic" -- say "runs on anything that has an ANSI-compliant C compiler for it" or "runs on anything that has a JLS-compliant JVM for it" -- it could conceivably be another story. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 18:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <512aa048$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21133 |
On 1/7/2013 12:23 AM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:11:39 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/6/2013 10:00 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>>>>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >>>>> >>>>> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >>>>> we're all fucked. :) >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. >> >> The fact that a platform agnostic OS features do not exist >> proves that I am right. >> >> You can not get PID in a platform agnostic way. > > Using your very rigid definition of "platform agnostic", you can't do > anything in a platform agnostic way, not even add two and two. Using a > *useful* definition of "platform agnostic" -- say "runs on anything that > has an ANSI-compliant C compiler for it" or "runs on anything that has a > JLS-compliant JVM for it" -- it could conceivably be another story. ANSI C does require a PID. And specifying it in Java can not help implement in it Java. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 21:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <kcdg1k$33b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21117 |
On 1/6/2013 8:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and > covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you > want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F > suffices for that. As someone who has worked with cross-platform native projects, I will truthfully say that covering all Unixes can be much harder than just OS X, since OS X uses different graphics libraries, filesystem conventions, desktop environment APIs, and even a different linker/loader than the most common Unix-based varieties. >> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. > > If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then > we're all fucked. :) Low-level platform details--like filesystems--are surprisingly different, even between platforms claiming to confirm to POSIX; that's why there exists massive libraries to try to paper over these differences. Even where there are standards, there are cases where some implementations purposefully ignore them (the NFS atomic file creation issue is a famous one). -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-07 00:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcdmgu$vl8$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21130 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:39:27 -0600, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 1/6/2013 8:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >> suffices for that. > > As someone who has worked with cross-platform native projects, I will > truthfully say that covering all Unixes can be much harder than just OS > X, since OS X uses different graphics libraries, filesystem conventions, > desktop environment APIs, and even a different linker/loader than the > most common Unix-based varieties. > >>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >> >> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >> we're all fucked. :) > > Low-level platform details--like filesystems--are surprisingly > different, even between platforms claiming to confirm to POSIX; that's > why there exists massive libraries to try to paper over these > differences. Even where there are standards, there are cases where some > implementations purposefully ignore them (the NFS atomic file creation > issue is a famous one). Well, yes, if you try to make it work even on platforms that flagrantly violate the relevant standards, then you're going to have problems. Making a program that will work on systems that claim to support relevant standards even if they in fact violate those standards is, in general, AI complete; it's equivalent to making it work on arbitrary systems, since a system that claims to follow, but violates, a standard is, when the opcodes hit the CPU, no different from one that didn't even claim to follow any standard at all. And no system, short of a human programmer's brain, is known that's smart enough to port some code (itself, or something it's acting as an installer for) to an arbitrary and novel system. So the best you can typically do is program for a standard being respected, and expect the code to be prone to fail on a system where the standard is violated. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <lipskathekat@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-07 08:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xcCdnY69XO9zEXfNnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #21101 |
On 07/01/13 01:46, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>> Windows supports, most likely. [snip] > DOS also lacked multitasking. > > And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances > of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? Classic ... now watch him wriggle out of that one lipska -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 18:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <512a9fc7$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21142 |
On 1/7/2013 3:53 AM, lipska the kat wrote: > On 07/01/13 01:46, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to >>>>>> have it, >>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be >>>>>> surprising >>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX >>>>>> call that >>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. > > [snip] > >> DOS also lacked multitasking. >> >> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances >> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? > > Classic ... now watch him wriggle out of that one You mean that you could not see the irrelevancy of that?? Yuck! Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 08:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y5OdnZaFaezBvLbMnZ2dnUVZ8vOdnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #22495 |
On 24/02/13 23:18, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/7/2013 3:53 AM, lipska the kat wrote: >> On 07/01/13 01:46, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to >>>>>>> have it, >>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be >>>>>>> surprising >>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX >>>>>>> call that >>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >> >> [snip] >> >>> DOS also lacked multitasking. >>> >>> And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent >>> instances >>> of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? >> >> Classic ... now watch him wriggle out of that one > > You mean that you could not see the irrelevancy of that Am I in a time warp ... "Scotty, warp factor 11 NOW" "She cannae take it Captain" lipskaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.............. -- Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 18:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <512a9fa4$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21101 |
On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky >>> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. :P) >> >> Well - iOS is an OS. >> >> It is possible to develop an OS without PID's. >> >> DOS did not have PID's. > > DOS also lacked multitasking. > > And lacking multitasking makes the issue of multiple concurrent instances > of a single program rather moot, wouldn't you say? Sure. But whether the OS has a PID concept or not is a question beyond the specific usage. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 17:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <714a4931-beae-481c-b865-8093fd7c99ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #21083 |
Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone > using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or > some flavor of Unix? Happens all the time. > 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky > iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. :P) No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples. > 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples. > *aren't* fairly POSIXy anymore? > > 4. And before you bring up some obscure legacy OS on some archaic mainframe No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples. Java runs today on some of your "archaic" mainframes. > that some large banking institution in some obscure corner of the world Large *and* obscure? -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 20:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcd9ga$fie$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21098 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 17:32:58 -0800 (PST), Lew wrote: > Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >> some flavor of Unix? > > Happens all the time. > >> 2. How would you develop an OS without the concept of a PID? (No, the sucky >> iPhone "OS" doesn't count, since it DOESN'T MULTITASK. :P) > > No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples. > >> 3. Does anyone tend to make OSen (iPhone "OS" again does not count) that > > No True Scotsman. Throw away ahead of time all the valid counterexamples. In the context of making a process not run in multi-instances, on iOS you've already won, so it is indeed irrelevant to consider it. But thanks for playing. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 20:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50ea2a9e$0$283$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #21103 |
On 1/6/2013 8:47 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > In the context of making a process not run in multi-instances, on iOS > you've already won, so it is indeed irrelevant to consider it. But this subthread is not about how to ensure only one instance. This subthread is about whether there are or should be a platform agnostic to get PID. An iOS is perfectly valid in that context. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Twirlip of the Mists <twirlip@killfile.me.now.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-06 21:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kcda9q$gao$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #21105 |
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:53:33 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 1/6/2013 8:47 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> In the context of making a process not run in multi-instances, on iOS >> you've already won, so it is indeed irrelevant to consider it. > > But this subthread is not about how to ensure only > one instance. Don't be ridiculous. -- Hexapodia is the key insight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-05 21:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50e8e88c$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #20944 |
On 1/4/2013 12:18 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:56:37 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote: >> It is important to keep in mind that even this approach is not 100% >> reliable. UDP messages are not guaranteed delivery, > > This is loopback interface we're talking about, not the wild wild internet. Which does not contradict Peters statement. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web