True, but it must be remarked that ale in those days had a measly 2% alcohol in it; children drank from their mothers breast until they could safely drink that, or milk. Which, at least in the countryside, there was in large supply as well. On top of that, water from the rivers was in more mountainous and faster flowing areas safe to drink - occasional outbreaks of cholera notwithstanding. No industrial revolution meant no pollution in the rivers. And don't forget there are springs and other such places where ground water surfaces. Also quite safe. Lastly, don't underestimate the capability of your sputum and stomach acid to deal with those little fuckers.
This is a discussion website. Just thought I'd mention it. When writing posts that are such universes of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, you shouldn't be surprised when you get essentially zero replies. But then again, that doesn't seem to be your objective at all - you just like to hear yourself speak, I suppose. Aw, that was ugly, but I hope you get my meaning - leave some room in people's heads, will you ?
I thought the biggest galaxy was that one that covered about thirty degrees of the night sky all around, yet was invisible to naked eye - whatever happened to that story ?
The US federal government probably has restrictions on relying on foreign technology for security (I know we do on stuff that is made anywhere in the Anglosphere;-)
I'm not of the global-warming alarmists, but if you take stuff from a layer that's beneath you, and you pump it to a layer that's above you (which is what you do with coal, oil, uranium, and geothermal power plants) then you always change something in the environment. You displace heat. Or potential heat. Or waste products from heat. In other words, there's no way that this has no impact on the environment, it just has a lot _less_ impact on the environment.
There was this Russian dude who had analysed the visio format well enough that one could make an app for it, but I've lost the link (and yes, I've tried Googling). Does anyone know it ?
The question wasn't about how the compiler slams things together, I thought. The question was whether lock+inspect+unlock is cheaper/safer/more elegant than formulate request/wait for response.
I used to use Gentoo at the old job, and am now back at Fedora where I work. Sysadmins really would like you to use windows, but they don't care that much; they simply state that you're on your own when you don't use windows. Outlook was a bit of a thing, though everyone who runs exchange these days, runs OWA too. The plugin for evolution isn't entirely bug-free though, and refuses to reconnect when something bad happens.
Also, that powerpoint replacement in OO works, but it's heavy, much heavier than powerpoint on the CPU, or so it seems. People here like to produce database schemas in Visio (yeah, I know) and that _is_ a problem; I need a virtual windows desktop for that. I tried running visio under wine and it works; it just crashes when they give me their documents.
Lastly, windows logon - isn't there some tool out there that plugs into IIS on the one side, and allows you to change your windows network password over the web ? Or better still (and not use IIS); something that does the same in apache (do they use LDAP ?) ?
Can anyone tell me why there is a "[sic]" in that above quote? There don't seem to be any spelling/grammatical mistakes in the sentence. It was 'enjouyed' or something, originally.
So I've read your presentation and while I agree that monolythic kernels certainly have their advantages (freedom), and that I think the main argument against them (bloat depending on Moore's law) is hypocritical because mach doesn't perform until Moore's law catches up with it, your arguments against Mr Tanenbaum are one-sided and don't cut it: IPC within the kernel _is_ reliable because the other process is near and its liveliness can be checked. That's what T. meant when he said that Linus' argument against using IPC in kernel space isn't germane. It's perfectly valid criticism. Also, T. thinks that sharing structures is a bad idea. With which, when you have a MT (interrupt driven) system, I agree. However, if can somehow iteratively queue these interrupts, having one monitor of a structure at a time isn't bad at all. This just shows Linus and T. thinking differently. That bit about Linus 'not being OO' was a bit below the belt, but it was also a little bit OT for T. to mention; I don't recall Linus expressing himself about OO programming, and I don't think it's relevant to making kernels; be it Linux or MINIX. Lastly, 'T. doesn't respond' etc.; did he have to ? Maybe he didn't read that particular post at all. Your bias is showing too much overall, methinks.
Are there no modifications possible of standard filesystem code, say ext2, to create an append-only filesystem ? You can pass O_CREAT but not O_TRUNC to a open(2) call, and you cannot do lseek(2) (or you can do lseek, but only to EOF, or you can do lseek, but only to read - as soon as you write, your pointer moves to EOF). It could also be a mount option next to read-only and read-write. Then, once a month, under four eyes only, you copy the lot to a tape/DVD/paper/your mom's forehead, remount in read/write mode and wipe, and remount in append mode.
Ok, but at that point you have already called their constructors, so you have a list. Just working down that same list calling all the destructors doesn't seem that much of a problem.
When you have 'goto', and 'return', what's so difficult about implementing exceptions in vanilla C ? Even in APIs - you just 'goto' some point that sets a flag and returns, and the 'trying' API-using caller checks the flag upon return. If the namespaces don't clash, it's not a problem at all !
Yours is a very good post. Shame that you did so anonymously. I would like to add that I think the overall sentiment here on slashdot (well, mine anyway) is that it's a shame that _nowhere_ on these lists does Linus come off as anywhere near apologetic. As others have pointed out: a valuable kernel developer was lost through rudeness and incomplete information gathering and apparent cronyism and petty politics, and in the development process we all support (that of open source over the internet), that is something that should be avoidable and avoided. Why wasn't it ?
Oh and don't come back to me and say he can fork the kernel - he can make his own distribution - he can come back when there is a specialized distro which does allow for pluggable scheduling. The fact remains that a superior solution at this point in time was rejected over an inferior one, that the developer of the inferior one suffered from NIH-syndrome and made vague claims of other people's hard work and twisted and turned which made it look almost like he was trying to revise history, and that the developer of the superior solution walked away frustrated.
Open source lost a little bit - the process needs revision IMHO. And Linus should issue some kind of statement that he is at least a little bit sorry.
Right clicking doesn't get you a printed CD inside a nice smelling jewel case though, and government control of printing presses was mostly relinquished by the middle of the twentieth century. Printers (the contraptions, that is) these days are much more nefarious; they print yellow dots on your paper to identify you.
Commercial grade copies made by the public have always been possible to make a few years after the medium came about that the originals were made in. PCs didn't change that trend - people are inventive, curious and resourceful. That's why governments put printers under control (not the contraptions, the people), and made _them_ responsible for not breaking any laws (of copyright, vulgarity, counterfeiting, etc.). Luckily, there were always countries about with less severe, or different laws. IIRC, Ulysses was printed in France first, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it must be remarked that ale in those days had a measly 2% alcohol in it; children drank from their mothers breast until they could safely drink that, or milk. Which, at least in the countryside, there was in large supply as well. On top of that, water from the rivers was in more mountainous and faster flowing areas safe to drink - occasional outbreaks of cholera notwithstanding. No industrial revolution meant no pollution in the rivers. And don't forget there are springs and other such places where ground water surfaces. Also quite safe. Lastly, don't underestimate the capability of your sputum and stomach acid to deal with those little fuckers.
This is a discussion website. Just thought I'd mention it. When writing posts that are such universes of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, you shouldn't be surprised when you get essentially zero replies. But then again, that doesn't seem to be your objective at all - you just like to hear yourself speak, I suppose. Aw, that was ugly, but I hope you get my meaning - leave some room in people's heads, will you ?
I thought the biggest galaxy was that one that covered about thirty degrees of the night sky all around, yet was invisible to naked eye - whatever happened to that story ?
The US federal government probably has restrictions on relying on foreign technology for security (I know we do on stuff that is made anywhere in the Anglosphere ;-)
Yes.
I'm not of the global-warming alarmists, but if you take stuff from a layer that's beneath you, and you pump it to a layer that's above you (which is what you do with coal, oil, uranium, and geothermal power plants) then you always change something in the environment. You displace heat. Or potential heat. Or waste products from heat. In other words, there's no way that this has no impact on the environment, it just has a lot _less_ impact on the environment.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but my current set of bookmarks is limited to this:
http://www.redferni.uklinux.net/visio/
and:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/vsdump/
And I'm sure there was a third one, one that went even further, but I've lost him.
There was this Russian dude who had analysed the visio format well enough that one could make an app for it, but I've lost the link (and yes, I've tried Googling). Does anyone know it ?
The question wasn't about how the compiler slams things together, I thought. The question was whether lock+inspect+unlock is cheaper/safer/more elegant than formulate request/wait for response.
I used to use Gentoo at the old job, and am now back at Fedora where I work. Sysadmins really would like you to use windows, but they don't care that much; they simply state that you're on your own when you don't use windows. Outlook was a bit of a thing, though everyone who runs exchange these days, runs OWA too. The plugin for evolution isn't entirely bug-free though, and refuses to reconnect when something bad happens.
Also, that powerpoint replacement in OO works, but it's heavy, much heavier than powerpoint on the CPU, or so it seems. People here like to produce database schemas in Visio (yeah, I know) and that _is_ a problem; I need a virtual windows desktop for that. I tried running visio under wine and it works; it just crashes when they give me their documents.
Lastly, windows logon - isn't there some tool out there that plugs into IIS on the one side, and allows you to change your windows network password over the web ? Or better still (and not use IIS); something that does the same in apache (do they use LDAP ?) ?
Can anyone tell me why there is a "[sic]" in that above quote? There don't seem to be any spelling/grammatical mistakes in the sentence. It was 'enjouyed' or something, originally.
So I've read your presentation and while I agree that monolythic kernels certainly have their advantages (freedom), and that I think the main argument against them (bloat depending on Moore's law) is hypocritical because mach doesn't perform until Moore's law catches up with it, your arguments against Mr Tanenbaum are one-sided and don't cut it: IPC within the kernel _is_ reliable because the other process is near and its liveliness can be checked. That's what T. meant when he said that Linus' argument against using IPC in kernel space isn't germane. It's perfectly valid criticism. Also, T. thinks that sharing structures is a bad idea. With which, when you have a MT (interrupt driven) system, I agree. However, if can somehow iteratively queue these interrupts, having one monitor of a structure at a time isn't bad at all. This just shows Linus and T. thinking differently. That bit about Linus 'not being OO' was a bit below the belt, but it was also a little bit OT for T. to mention; I don't recall Linus expressing himself about OO programming, and I don't think it's relevant to making kernels; be it Linux or MINIX. Lastly, 'T. doesn't respond' etc.; did he have to ? Maybe he didn't read that particular post at all. Your bias is showing too much overall, methinks.
Are there no modifications possible of standard filesystem code, say ext2, to create an append-only filesystem ? You can pass O_CREAT but not O_TRUNC to a open(2) call, and you cannot do lseek(2) (or you can do lseek, but only to EOF, or you can do lseek, but only to read - as soon as you write, your pointer moves to EOF). It could also be a mount option next to read-only and read-write. Then, once a month, under four eyes only, you copy the lot to a tape/DVD/paper/your mom's forehead, remount in read/write mode and wipe, and remount in append mode.
Yeah, but I'd rather be tossing cash with a pornstar than tossing salad with a sergeant.
The WIN32 API is a moving target; it gets extended with every version of windows. The original poster isn't completely wrong.
These people have way too much time..
Ok, but at that point you have already called their constructors, so you have a list. Just working down that same list calling all the destructors doesn't seem that much of a problem.
When you have 'goto', and 'return', what's so difficult about implementing exceptions in vanilla C ? Even in APIs - you just 'goto' some point that sets a flag and returns, and the 'trying' API-using caller checks the flag upon return. If the namespaces don't clash, it's not a problem at all !
I'm not sure that for the usually simple task of command line processing, I'd like to learn a whole new lex/yacc syntax thingy.
... End users don't compile kernels. Seriously, dude, WTF ?!Yours is a very good post. Shame that you did so anonymously. I would like to add that I think the overall sentiment here on slashdot (well, mine anyway) is that it's a shame that _nowhere_ on these lists does Linus come off as anywhere near apologetic. As others have pointed out: a valuable kernel developer was lost through rudeness and incomplete information gathering and apparent cronyism and petty politics, and in the development process we all support (that of open source over the internet), that is something that should be avoidable and avoided. Why wasn't it ?
Oh and don't come back to me and say he can fork the kernel - he can make his own distribution - he can come back when there is a specialized distro which does allow for pluggable scheduling. The fact remains that a superior solution at this point in time was rejected over an inferior one, that the developer of the inferior one suffered from NIH-syndrome and made vague claims of other people's hard work and twisted and turned which made it look almost like he was trying to revise history, and that the developer of the superior solution walked away frustrated.
Open source lost a little bit - the process needs revision IMHO. And Linus should issue some kind of statement that he is at least a little bit sorry.
Right clicking doesn't get you a printed CD inside a nice smelling jewel case though, and government control of printing presses was mostly relinquished by the middle of the twentieth century. Printers (the contraptions, that is) these days are much more nefarious; they print yellow dots on your paper to identify you.
Commercial grade copies made by the public have always been possible to make a few years after the medium came about that the originals were made in. PCs didn't change that trend - people are inventive, curious and resourceful. That's why governments put printers under control (not the contraptions, the people), and made _them_ responsible for not breaking any laws (of copyright, vulgarity, counterfeiting, etc.). Luckily, there were always countries about with less severe, or different laws. IIRC, Ulysses was printed in France first, for example.
'I sense years of silent seething.'
What a beautiful sentence. Can I borrow it sometimes ?
The first woman poet was Shakespeare, man ! Or was it Marlowe ?