[Simh] Simh on Windows - long startup delays and long shutdowndelays

[Gregg Levine]

On Dec 17, 2007 1:43 AM, Eric Schmucker
<Eric.Schmucker at verizonbusiness.com> wrote:
> I just don't accept the argument that MS employees are sitting around
> thinking of ways to lock programmers into their OS and tools. I don't want
> to start an argument about this since it's very off-topic and I don't feel
> that strongly about it. But I've seen many situations where MS made a good
> technical decision that was best for Windows programmers and people
> complained that it must have been for some evil purpose.
>
> To a large degree our individual views on the broad range of technology out
> there are influenced by the environment that we grew up on. I started on
> RSTS/E (Basic+) and then VAX/VMS for many many many years. My whole view on
> what makes sense architecturally was solidified from the examples in the VMS
> system and library APIs.
>
> So my first exposure to the C RTL and then Unix certainly didn't impress me.
> I would never use those kind of APIs if I had a choice. You can tell when
> world class developers architected a system/API and when it was written by
> beginners.
>
> Ouch. I think I may be attracting anger from some people (Unix fans) and I'm
> sorry for that. I just wanted to add my support to the idea that if you grew
> up on an OS like VMS, avoiding calls like fopen() is second nature.
>
> The fact that Simh runs on so many systems is quite a feat and I respect and
> praise all the developers who make it possible. But I don't envy them trying
> to use the C RTL calls whenever possible to make it portable.
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com]
>
> On Behalf Of Villy Madsen
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:40 PM
> To: simh at trailing-edge.com
> Subject: [Simh] FW: Simh on Windows - long startup delays and long
> shutdowndelays
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Villy Madsen [mailto:Villy.Madsen at shaw.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:28
> To: 'Toby Thain'
> Subject: RE: [Simh] Simh on Windows - long startup delays and long
> shutdowndelays
>
> I wouldn't really call it a security issue - what it really is (from my
> perspective) a wake-up to the fact that file locking should be built into
> the
> operating system - not left as an add on to be added by the programmer.
>
> fopen does not support the concept of setting permissions on the file.
>
> fopen_s locks the file and allows no other application to have access to it.
> There is a another call that allows sharing of the file...  (An additional
> point
> is the the idea of the returned value from the call being an status code
> rather
> than the file pointer is also (from my perspective) an improvement.  Rather
> VMSish I think).
>
> I am not a great fan of uSoft, but in this case I think that they did the
> right
> thing.  Come-up with something that adds some control over file operations.
> The
> issue is of course that C grew out of *ix, and since *ix doesn't support
> file
> locking, then of course there was no need to address the concept in C.
>
> I grew up on VMS, I couldn't fathom how anyone could have written (or for
> that
> matter continue to use) a system that didn't support file and record locking
> (ok
> record locking really is dependent upon RMS - which I guess we could think
> of as
> an add-on) as an integral part of the OS.
>
> As far as adding it to SimH, there is a lot of OS dependent code in SimH
> right
> now - another conditional within scp_fio should not be a big deal..
>
> In the event,  I am not sure that the change fixes the problem in it's
> entirety
> - only time will tell..
>
> Villy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com]
> On
> Behalf Of Toby Thain
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 10:05
> To: Thomas Pfau
> Cc: SIMH List
> Subject: Re: [Simh] Simh on Windows - long startup delays and long
> shutdowndelays
>
>
> On 16-Dec-07, at 3:01 PM, Thomas Pfau wrote:
>
> > Davis Johnson wrote:
> >> The basic difficulty is that fopen() is standard. I had never heard
> >> of
> >> fopen_s() so I did a little googling and, so far as I can tell,
> >> fopen_s is a Microsoft invention, not part of any standard.
> >> From my limited experiences with the latest Visual Studio, it would
> > appear that Microsoft has declared half the standard C RTL as
> > deprecated claiming some kind of security problems.  I think it's
> > really about lock-in.  If they can come up with new versions of
> > standard functions and make you think you need to use them for
> > security's sake, they can keep you from easily porting your program to
> > another platform.
>
> I think you're on to something...
>
> --Toby
>
> > I fail
> > to see the security issues they raise for most of the functions
> > they've replaced.
> >

Hello!
Actually Eric, you are only half way there. Most of the people I've
met at the conferences they sponsor, are capable people who do know
their way in and out of a PC's basic (crappy of course) OS.

But they look at a big system and think it's extinct. So they create
software that won't be portable, and will never be.

Ideally they are their own worst enemy.

And I suppose there are people like what are currently insulting,
stuffed in out of the way places inside that firm.
-- 
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature was once found posting rude
 messages in English in the Moscow subway."