The Yamato's sister ship in Real Life was "Musashi", which is also sitting on the bottom of the ocean. It was sunk during the battle of Leyte Gulf IIRC. The Argo didn't have a sister ship. The Andromeda class battleships are the dual-Wave Motion Gun ships you referred to, and were constructed from the ground-up using technology that was first used to create/rebuild Argo, thanks to that hottie Starsha from Iscandar. Yeah, in my youth I was a SB addict. Every morning at 7am before junior high school we'd watch it...
Re:China IS NOT Communist
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and former East Germany was actually the "German Democratic Republic". What's in a name? It's a repressive regime who tightly control most of the economy, as much of the media as possible, and attempt to force ideology upon the masses. I am not sure that China "encourages" independent ownership of any segments of industry. Facism usually revolved around a very strong central figure (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco), whereas China's power is more in the assembly or party rather than hypercentralized. If you consider modern "communism" to mean facism led by a central assembly then so be it.
You are right, it's the applications that crash. But what the difference is is that the applications very rarely take down the operating system on a UNIX machine. On NT, you'll *often* see the BSOD signalling a dead NT kernel. Why? I'm not an expert, but from what I know the UNIX operating system has always architected stability into it's basic design. This includes abstracting the kernel from the many application layers running on the machine, such that if any of the "user level" processes die they don't affect the kernel and can be restarted. NT doesn't do this to the extent that UNIX does. In fact, there was a big stink about how MS had moved the video subsystem into the kernel in NT 4.0 (in 3.51, it was not kernel code). What did this do? It opened up the kernel to attack from any memory-leaking video driver. This is one example - I'm sure there's more. Why did MS move the video subsystem into the kernel when they *knew* this would lead to less stability? Performance. When there are fewer layers of abstraction, the performance is better. No better way than to have direct kernel code pushing the video drivers. I've noticed, and perhaps some of you also, that the video subsystem on UNIX machines is noticeably slower than NT on the same hardware. Understand that you are buying some stability for this performance penalty. Even if Xwindows crashes and you're at a shell prompt, your machine is (almost always) still happily running along, and you can restart your X session. In my mind this video architecture underlined the fact that MS was really not positioning NT for the server room, but for the desktop. Kind of like putting a nice shiny coat of paint on a '74 Buick...
Slashdot Mirror
The Yamato's sister ship in Real Life was "Musashi", which is also sitting on the bottom of the ocean. It was sunk during the battle of Leyte Gulf IIRC. The Argo didn't have a sister ship. The Andromeda class battleships are the dual-Wave Motion Gun ships you referred to, and were constructed from the ground-up using technology that was first used to create/rebuild Argo, thanks to that hottie Starsha from Iscandar. Yeah, in my youth I was a SB addict. Every morning at 7am before junior high school we'd watch it...
Yes, and former East Germany was actually the "German Democratic Republic". What's in a name? It's a repressive regime who tightly control most of the economy, as much of the media as possible, and attempt to force ideology upon the masses. I am not sure that China "encourages" independent ownership of any segments of industry. Facism usually revolved around a very strong central figure (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco), whereas China's power is more in the assembly or party rather than hypercentralized. If you consider modern "communism" to mean facism led by a central assembly then so be it.
You are right, it's the applications that crash. But what the difference is is that the applications very rarely take down the operating system on a UNIX machine. On NT, you'll *often* see the BSOD signalling a dead NT kernel. Why? I'm not an expert, but from what I know the UNIX operating system has always architected stability into it's basic design. This includes abstracting the kernel from the many application layers running on the machine, such that if any of the "user level" processes die they don't affect the kernel and can be restarted. NT doesn't do this to the extent that UNIX does. In fact, there was a big stink about how MS had moved the video subsystem into the kernel in NT 4.0 (in 3.51, it was not kernel code). What did this do? It opened up the kernel to attack from any memory-leaking video driver. This is one example - I'm sure there's more. Why did MS move the video subsystem into the kernel when they *knew* this would lead to less stability? Performance. When there are fewer layers of abstraction, the performance is better. No better way than to have direct kernel code pushing the video drivers. I've noticed, and perhaps some of you also, that the video subsystem on UNIX machines is noticeably slower than NT on the same hardware. Understand that you are buying some stability for this performance penalty. Even if Xwindows crashes and you're at a shell prompt, your machine is (almost always) still happily running along, and you can restart your X session. In my mind this video architecture underlined the fact that MS was really not positioning NT for the server room, but for the desktop. Kind of like putting a nice shiny coat of paint on a '74 Buick...