• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

cp foo /dev/null in windows?



<< Wow...that a clear example of Windows innovation making it MUCH easier to use. >>


It's a clear example of Windows having traits that predate modern UNIXes. It's copied over from CP/M (so are backslashes and drive letters), which, at the time DOS was first written, was far more widespread than UNIX.



<< &quot;Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually invent a Unix&quot; - ME >>


Er... they already have. At the time, it was the most widely used UNIX of all. It was cross-platfrom, it was multitasking, it had pre-emptive memory. It was called XENIX. It had products like Word for DOS ported to it, SQL Server began life on it. IIRC, it wasn't sold to end users, but licensed to OEMs instead for preinstallation. It was a bit quirky. Under pressure from AT&amp;T, who wished to consolidate the highly fragmented UNIX market, it was sold off to SCO.

MS aren't ignorant of UNIX, at all. They've been there, they've done that. They've chosen something better.
 


<< They've chosen something better. >>



Now THAT is highly questionable.
But lets not get into that old discussion 😀
 


<< Er... they already have. At the time, it was the most widely used UNIX of all. It was cross-platfrom, it was multitasking, it had pre-emptive memory. It was called XENIX. It had products like Word for DOS ported to it, SQL Server began life on it. IIRC, it wasn't sold to end users, but licensed to OEMs instead for preinstallation. It was a bit quirky. Under pressure from AT&amp;T, who wished to consolidate the highly fragmented UNIX market, [
MS aren't ignorant of UNIX, at all. They've been there, they've done that. They've chosen something better. >>




Let me translate for all the other &quot;SHEEP&quot; out there:

Ba... baaa baaaaa baaa. Ba baa baaa, ba baa baa baaa baaaa baaa BAAA ba baa. Ba baa baaaa-baaaaaa, ba baa baaaaaaaaaaaa, ba baa baa-baaaaaa baaaaa. Ba baa baaaaa BAAAA. Ba baa baaaaaaa baaa Baaa baa BAA baaaaa ba ba, BAA Baaaaa baaaa baaa ba ba. BAAA, ba baaa'a baaa ba baa baaaa, baa baaaaaaa ba BAAs baaaaaa baa baaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Ba baa a baa baaaaa. Baaaa baaaaaaa baaa BA&amp;A, baa baaaaa ba baaaaaaaaaa baa baaaaa baaaaaaaaa BAAA baaaaa, ba baa baaa baa ba BAA.

BA baaa'a baaaaaaa ba BAAA, ba baa. Baaa'aa baaa baaaa, baaa'aa baaa baaa. Baaa'aa baaaa baaaaaaaaa baaaaaa.



Let me help point out how misguided most of this is and some of the really really BIG WHOOPPERS:



<< At the time, it was the most widely used UNIX of all. >>


I am not sure what phamplet you read this out of.. most likely one you got at a recent trip to Microsoft re-education camp.. but this a really bad falsehood..

BSD UNIX is the MOST WIDELY used UNIX THEN AND NOW and probably forever...

XENIX might have been the most widely used UNIX on INTEL systems back then, but of couse there was ONLY the 386 chip and back then the total INTEL system market was just a drop in the bucket of today, so that like saying that at best a total strech of the truth past any reality, and at worst a bold faced lie. XENIX was a derivitive of SYS V - Release 3 Unix BTW, which came LONG after BSD was well established all over the world.



<< SQL Server began life on it >>


AGAIN... another example of a bold faced lie by a greatly mistaken Microsoft driod... I am sure you are much too inexperienced to know this, but SQL Server was &quot;BORN&quot; on UNIX, and was called SYBASE for many years... Microsoft purchased a license of the source code for SYBASE version 5 a few years ago, ported it from UNIX to Windows and called it SQL Server. This is a yet another example of what Microsoft calls &quot;innovation&quot; and we all call boring stealing of others work to pretend its their own invention, and sheep like you actually believe them.




<< it was sold off to SCO. >>


Actually, XENIX itself was not sold to SCO, because they had their own UNIX before XENIX was discontinued, SCO mearly purchased the XENIX business from Microsoft, because the wanted to purchase the CUSTOMER base that Microsoft seem to be sooo willing to ABANDON at the time.


 


<< Let me help point out how misguided most of this is and some of the really really BIG WHOOPPERS:
I am not sure what phamplet you read this out of.. most likely one you got at a recent trip to Microsoft re-education camp.. but this a really bad falsehood..

BSD UNIX is the MOST WIDELY used UNIX THEN AND NOW and probably forever... >>


Er. The only BSD that's a UNIX is BSDi (if that). The others aren't. UNIX is a trademark, it has very specific requirements. Those requirements are set by the OpenGroup (http://www.opengroup.org/), the trademark licensing is also performed by that group.

That hasn't always been the case; the trademark has been sold from organization to organization, but that's what's currently the case. The most widely used UNIX (as in, OS that can actually call itself UNIX) is probably Solaris.



<< XENIX might have been the most widely used UNIX on INTEL systems back then, but of couse there was ONLY the 386 chip and back then the total INTEL system market was just a drop in the bucket of today, >>


No; an awful lot of such machines were sold. The numbers were certainly dwarfed by today's numbers, but were still high. Particularly as the mainframe-type machines that also ran UNIX worked so differently (because they were so much more powerful, comparitively few of them were sold).



<< so that like saying that at best a total strech of the truth past any reality, and at worst a bold faced lie. XENIX was a derivitive of SYS V - Release 3 Unix BTW, which came LONG after BSD was well established all over the world. >>


But not on many _machines_.



<< AGAIN... another example of a bold faced lie by a greatly mistaken Microsoft driod... I am sure you are much too inexperienced to know this, but SQL Server was &quot;BORN&quot; on UNIX, and was called SYBASE for many years... Microsoft purchased a license of the source code for SYBASE version 5 a few years ago, ported it from UNIX to Windows and called it SQL Server. >>


No, that's not entirely true. They licensed Sybase's product, yes. But the first version of MS SQL Server was for XENIX. Hence, SQL Server was born on XENIX.

SQL Server 6.5 was, IIRC, the last version to contain the Sybase copyright when it started, so I assume that all the Sybase code has been removed in version 7 and 8 (2000).



<< This is a yet another example of what Microsoft calls &quot;innovation&quot; and we all call boring stealing of others work to pretend its their own invention, and sheep like you actually believe them. >>


@_@

Given that SQL Server now outperforms Sybase's product, and provides more features than it, as well as being easier to use, I honestly couldn't care less who they bought the original engine from.



<< Actually, XENIX itself was not sold to SCO, because they had their own UNIX before XENIX was discontinued, SCO mearly purchased the XENIX business from Microsoft, because the wanted to purchase the CUSTOMER base that Microsoft seem to be sooo willing to ABANDON at the time. >>


XENIX itself *was* sold to SCO. SCO continued to develop (to an extent) and support it. SCO had more than one UNIX; their aim, presumably, was to migrate XENIX users to their own OS -- but they own the copyright and the source code to XENIX. The product was rebranded SCO XENIX, and continued to be updated.

 


<< ,as well as being easier to use >>



Alot of bad things can be said about microsoft, but I think that making things easier for the average person is their main redeeming talent.

Bot
 


<<

<< SQL 7 contains 2% sybase code. >>


Out of curiosity, where is that figure from? >>



main {

run_sybase();
wait;
wait;
wait;
wait;
wait;

};
 


<<

<<

<< SQL 7 contains 2% sybase code. >>


Out of curiosity, where is that figure from? >>



main {

run_sybase();
wait;
wait;
wait;
wait;
wait;

}; >>




😀
 


<<

<< SQL 7 contains 2% sybase code. >>


Out of curiosity, where is that figure from? >>



Professional SQL Server 7.0 Programming by Robert Vieira

i just looked in my 2000 version of that book, and he took that comment out. in the 7 book he says he ran into a MS guy at a trade show or some such who told him that.

wanted to confirm it (since it could have been 10%), but i gave away my 7.0 book last week 🙁

PS its an excellent SQL server book...especially if you're not already super familiar with it and databases in general. i had done a little programming with DAO and the Jet engine before this, and i found this book indespensible. it covers EVERYTHING and starts with the basics, but still moves into very technical and advanced territory (like a pretty low level explaination of B-Trees and index functionality). extremely readable too. 🙂
 

however, the title is misleading...it only covers SQL server programming itself, not things like DAO, ODBC, etc...except to discuss the relative performance and benefits of each.

its all about programming in T-SQL and designing databases.
 

main {

run_sybase();
wait;
wait;
wait;
wait;
wait;

};


LMAO, I don't think I've laughed this hard at a thread in a long time. Way to go DaHitMan

L8R
 


<<


LMAO, I don't think I've laughed this hard at a thread in a long time. Way to go DaHitMan

L8R >>




(*Takes bow*) THANK YOU !! GOOD NIGHT! (*quickly exits room*)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top