System.net.ftpwebrequest Upload the Operation Has Timed Out.
I beloved old applied science as much as the next techno-geezer, simply come up on, information technology wasn't all wonder and goodness. Afterward we're done reminiscing about the good quondam days of operating systems, let'south reflect on the bad old days of operating systems equally well. Later all, the bad times are still with united states — even in 2009, there are however some wretched operating systems out at that place.
In historical order, from oldest to newest, here's my own personal listing of the pinnacle (bottom?) 10 OS stinkers.
OS/360, 1964
No, no, I'thousand non talking about the later versions of OS/360 that some of us used on IBM 360 mainframes back in the belatedly '60s and early on '70s. For its mean solar day, information technology was fine. Indeed, my very commencement operating system was an OS/360 descendant with TSO (Time Sharing Option) running on top of it.
What I'm talking about is the very first version of OS/360 — the one that led its project manager, Fred Brooks, to write The Mythical Human being-Calendar month, his classic book on how software evolution fails. That outset version of OS/360, to paraphrase Brooks, came in tardily, had flaws in its control programs, required more than retentiveness than planned, was over budget by several times the original estimate, and, oh yeah, it was slow too.
On the other hand, we did get a archetype book on how not to develop software, which included such nuggets as "Adding manpower to a late software project makes information technology later on." Brooks likes to describe information technology every bit a software programmer's Bible, considering "everybody reads it, simply nobody does annihilation near it." As the residuum of this tale shall reveal, he was right.
ITS (Incompatible Timesharing System), tardily 1960s
What can 1 say virtually an operating arrangement written in Dec PDP-6 and PDP-x associates language that supported one mono-example, six-character filename … per directory? (Yes, you read that right: Each file resided in its own dissever directory.) And security was nil — for example, no passwords were required, and you lot could log into anyone'south active session and practice pretty much anything y'all wanted with information technology.
What's amazing is that despite existence an incredible pain to utilize and with no security whatsoever, ITS actually was an important operating system in its day. While it was eventually forced out by the rise of Unix, many programs however in apply today, such as the Emacs editor and the Lisp language, got their get-go on ITS.
For more on ITS and the early days of computer hackers, check out Steve Levy's classic book, Hackers. You'll find it entertaining and agreeable, and you'll be very glad you didn't have to use ITS.
GNU Hurd, launched in 1983, even so incomplete
Ever wonder why some people refer to Linux as GNU/Linux? The official explanation is that Linux is merely an Os kernel that relies on GNU software to brand a complete operating system. GNU was announced in 1983 as a future replacement operating system for Unix, to exist made up entirely of free software.
Merely later more than than 25 years in development, GNU remains incomplete: Its kernel, Hurd, has never really made it out of the starting blocks. (I'll refer to the complete Bone as "GNU Hurd" to avert confusion with other GNU software.) Almost no ane has actually been able to apply the OS; it's really more a set of ideas than an operating system.
And that'south why I'1000 naming GNU Hurd equally one of my top x stinker operating systems — because after a quarter century, information technology has still failed to deliver on its promise of an entirely costless Unix replacement. By incorporating ideas and software from GNU (and other sources such as Minix and BSD Unix), on the other hand, Linux has stepped in to pick up GNU Hurd's slack, providing an advanced operating system that is set up to use correct at present, in numerous distributions.
I, for one, am non willing to wait another 25 years for a chimera. Could we please only drop the dream of the GNU Hurd OS as an thought whose time volition never come up?
Windows ane.01, 1985
Microsoft's first attempt at a graphical user interface for MS-DOS was, in a give-and-take, dreadful. It was ugly, it shipped two years late and even then didn't work well. And besides, at that place wasn't anything that would run on it anyway. Windows applications really didn't go going until Windows 2.03 showed up two years later.
Adding insult to injury, by the fourth dimension Windows 1 was launched, the Mac was already offer the far superior System two.1. That Mac OS included AppleTalk networking, PostScript press with the offset LaserWriter printer and the first sophisticated PC-based file system: Hierarchical File Organisation. In that location was no comparison.
MS-DOS 4.0, 1988
It'south not like Microsoft was still spending much time in 1988 getting MS-DOS right. The earlier versions of the operating system actually weren't bad for their day; MS-DOS 3.3 was actually quite practiced.
Merely then forth came MS-DOS iv.0. Oh, it was horrid. Programs broke on it as regularly as clockwork. You'd be in the heart of a task, and your plan would simply freeze upwardly completely. Nothing this bad was seen once again until Windows' Bluish Screen of Death.
To save their sanity, PC users either dropped back to MS-DOS 3.three or moved to Digital Research's DR-DOS 3.41 as fast they could. Although the DR-DOS version numbers had been mimicking those of MS-DOS to bear witness like functionality, Digital Research chose to name its new 1989 version DR-DOS five.0 to prevent anyone from thinking that it had any connection with MS-DOS 4.0.
SCO Open Desktop, 1989
On the plus side, it was the first 32-bit Unix with a graphical interface. On the minus side, its nickname was Open up Deathtrap.
Open Desktop would, could, and did accident upwardly in some of the most entertaining ways I'd e'er seen. I had editors freeze up and compilers bring the entire organization to a core dump — and in that location were times I never knew which, if any, window I was actually working in.
Strangely, I was actually able to get productive work washed on Open Desktop. I suspect I might take been the only ane who managed it.
JavaOS, 1996
Desire to know a actually bad thought for an operating system? Write it in a language that's as slow as mud — every bit Java was in 1996. Notwithstanding, Sun, with some help from IBM, tried information technology anyway. JavaOS was designed to run on network computers and embedded systems.
How did it go? Well, let me put information technology to you this way: Have you ever heard of information technology? There are many well-known embedded systems: Qnx, VxWorks, Symbian, Windows CE and the list goes on. Only even in embedded operating system circles, few people accept ever heard of JavaOS.
Although several companies licensed it, the merely product I know of that used information technology commercially was Sun'south own long-forgotten JavaStation network computer. By 2006, Sun had dumped it into the "legacy system" junkyard, and that was the terminate of the Java-based operating system.
Windows Me (Millennium Edition), 2000
Until another Microsoft operating organization came along a few years ago, Windows Me was the bottom of the Windows barrel. This successor to Windows 98 SE, ranked No. 4 on PC World's list of the 25 worst tech products of all fourth dimension, tried to be both a 16- and a 32-flake operating arrangement. It worked about as well as a horse with wheels for front legs and hooves for back legs.
It was also slow, unstable and insecure. OK, so those are all traits of Windows in full general, but Me took it to an extreme. How bad was it? Microsoft sold information technology for only a little more than a year. Now, that's bad.
Lindows/ Linux XP Desktop, 2001/2006
What happens when you try to put Linux and Windows together? Nothing very good. Lindows, when it first came out in 2001, promised to let you run all Windows applications on Linux. Lindows Inc. gave upwards on that as a bad idea inside a few months. Even with Wine, a way to run Windows programs on Linux, the company couldn't get plenty Windows programs running on Lindows to sell it as a Windows replacement.
Showing that some dumb ideas won't die, Russia-based TrustVerse has also tried the "We'll be everything Windows, simply we're Linux" arroyo with Linux XP Desktop. It doesn't exercise much better with this idea than Lindows did; it does a mediocre job of running Windows applications, and its XP look and feel isn't anything to write home well-nigh. If yous really want to run Windows applications on Linux, go CodeWeavers' CrossOver Linux.
Windows Vista, 2006
You knew this one was coming. Do I really need to recount everything that's wrong with Vista — its bloat, its slowness, its hardware and software incompatibilities, its high cost, its confusing versions, its security fumbles and other ineptitudes?
Or how nearly the fact that several of its vital features wouldn't piece of work on computers bearing a "Vista Capable" sticker? Permit me share with you one early "review" of Vista:
"I chose my laptop (a Sony TX770P) because information technology had the Vista logo and was pretty disappointed that it not only wouldn't run [Aero], but more important wouldn't run [Windows] Movie Maker. … Now I have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
This review's author? Mike Nash, Microsoft'due south corporate vice president of Windows product management, in an internal electronic mail dated Feb. 25, 2007. Go argue with him, Microsoft fanboys, not me.
Need more than proof that Vista's a domestic dog? Permit'southward encounter … a tertiary of new PCs are beingness downgraded to XP, and Microsoft keeps extending the cutoff appointment for XP sales while hurrying Windows 7 to market as speedily as it tin. Woof woof.
So, there you have it, my list of stinkers. What do yous think? What are your favorite operating system losers? Do yous still use Open Desktop? How about Vista? Let me know in the article comments.
[ Tin't become enough of bygone operating systems? Run into "Gone simply not forgotten: 10 operating systems the globe left behind."]
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been writing most technology and the concern of engineering science since CP/K-80 was cutting-edge and 300bit/sec. was a fast Internet connection — and nosotros liked it! He can be reached at sjvn@vna1.com.
Note: When you purchase something after clicking links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. Read our affiliate link policy for more details.
Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/162866/worst_operating_system.html
0 Response to "System.net.ftpwebrequest Upload the Operation Has Timed Out."
Publicar un comentario