Re: A CSP model for Java threads

[tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lawrence Dickson)]

All,
   This may be off-topic but it could be important for somebody...

>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:36:19 +0200
>From: Oyvind Teig <Oyvind.Teig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Bryan Scattergood <bryan@xxxxxxxx>
>Cc: P.H.Welch@xxxxxxxxx, jeremy.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>        java-threads@xxxxxxxxx, occam-com@xxxxxxxxx, michael@xxxxxxxx
>In-Reply-To: <199908101107.MAA08189@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: A CSP model for Java threads
>
>Bryan Scattergood of Formal Systems wrote:
>
>> better under FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris86 than under Windows on the same
>> hardware.
>
>99% of the developers here use networked PC's running Win95, Win98
>or NT. Installing Linux and rebooting to perform FDR checks isn't
>very attractive.

My 18 year old son Tom can install, and has installed, a dual boot
Linux/Windows system in less than an hour, using a standard and supported
Linux distribution (Red Hat). Hundreds of Linux enthusiasts worldwide
can presumably match this performance.

Our experience is that the hour is gained back in a few days in time
saved that would be devoted otherwise to Windows hangs and reboots. Linux
supports Windows fss (VFAT) and networking (Samba) so normally you don't
even have to boot Windows, just munch on the data.

>
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:36:19 +0100 (BST)
>From: Bryan Scattergood <bryan@xxxxxxxx>
>To: Oyvind.Teig@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>CC: P.H.Welch@xxxxxxxxx, jeremy.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>        java-threads@xxxxxxxxx, occam-com@xxxxxxxxx, michael@xxxxxxxx,
>        bryan@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: A CSP model for Java threads
>
>Oyvind,
>
>[Apologies to both lists for the off-topic material.
>I'll try to make this my last reply before taking this off-list.]
>
>> 99% of the developers here use networked PC's running Win95, Win98
>> or NT. Installing Linux and rebooting to perform FDR checks isn't
>> very attractive.
>
>So you put a Unix box somewhere on the network and access it using X
>or Vnc.[1] A suitable box costs a fraction of the licence price.

The dual boot Linux box costs zero above what a Windows-alone box might
cost. (Well, to be fair, maybe a few dollars extra for a bigger disk.)
The OS costs zero, unlike commercial Unices. You'll find your Linux box
taking over a lot of networking related tasks from the Microsoft boxes,
because the code is cleaner and faster and can be understood.

I can see no reason ever to wait for an NT version of anything if a
Linux version already exists. This is based on over a year of full-time
experience.

By the way, we need a GPL occam compiler for Linux... or do we already
have one?

Larry Dickson