>Heck, it might even incite some changes around here - >like moderators being able to see submitted stories and rank them. Once > a story hits a threshold, it makes the main page...
Respectfully disagree. I've worked in two big companies so far (Siemens and BMW) and what fascinates about OS development is that is in general the best way I've seen so far to make sure that all (or most) decisions are made on a technical, not a political, basis. IANAKH, but I suppose there are political issues in kernel development. However, these are really small compared to the idiocy in some decisions I've seen in corporate environments. I think the problem is that in large hierarchies, the decision who becomes the manager is usually a _political_ decision. Not so in the OS world, where someone gets accepted as a leader only if he can convince the people he wants to lead...
- No penises: OK - Not so many ego problems: My mileage does vary here. Just one example: Almost all the girls I know tell me it's awful to work in a place with just other women and no men around, because that leads to a lot of bitching and politics.
The main problem, however, would be that having chicks around would pump up the egos of all the males. *sigh*, we (that is, all of us, women as well) just haven't left the caves for very long...
> For example, in Germany if you are a team leader, your employees expect you to know _everything_ and always have an answer to any situation, even if it isn't the correct answer.
Where did you get that impression? I'm currently doing a PhD at BMW and enjoy the atmosphere there because everyone knows and accepts that the team leader usually _doesn't_ know the answer until his team has informed him what they think the answer is, which is the reason why the employees at BMW have a lot of freedom in doing their work the way _they_ think it should be done.
Does that mean that NT has a transaction filesystem??? I'd be _very_ impressed.... But no, while typing this I realised it can't be. I'm using an NT machine at work and it randomly calls Scandisk (or NTs equivalent of that) at startup ever since I had to abort an Office 2000 installation (no, I always shut down the machine properly, it was _only_ a failed installation attempt). That's not what you would expect from a transaction filesystem, is it? Well, it's probably not even what you'd expect from a _real_ OS, whatever the FS is.
That's a similar argument as "Open Source? What for, _I_ am not going to read or modify the source code anyway!" The point is that someone else can do it for you, in this case the distributor is the one who should apply the patch for the non-hardcore-hackers.
Personally I don't mind patches either. However, there is a problem with patches: You can never know whether the kernel will still work properly once you've applied 2 or more patches... That's why it is important that often-used patches get integrated into the official kernel, if ReiserFS became part of Linux, this would make room for me to apply some other patch without having to fear instabilities.
This is not new! Lasers have been used for cooling atoms for years now. Maybe these people managed to introduce some new tweaks that make this system more efficient or whatever, but that's only of interest for experts in that field. And for all those asking "What is it good for?": There are lots'n'lots of experiments which need atoms cooled down to nearly 0 Kelvin. And these experiments are needed to better understand quantum mechanics. And we need a better understanding of quantum mechanics to be able to build even smaller and faster CPUs in the future, as quantum mechanical effects (like tunneling of electrons through isolators) are already showing up in today's microprocessors. And I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me in this area could give you dozens of other examples where laser cooling has practical impacts. But, as I said, this story is not news and hence deserves to be trolled to death.
The BMW engines will use electromagnetic actuation, not the electrohydraulic one this article is talking about. The effect is the same: Exact electronic control of the valve timing.
It can be implemented and it is going to be implemented RSN. I'm working at BMW and I've seen the prototypes which they've been running for more than a year now. There are still some minor problems, but basically it already works, they're just not going to take it into series development until this kind of engine beats "traditional" engines in all important aspects. BTW, high RPM's are, of course, a problem, but none which couldn't be overcome. And, it's not the OS or the processor which need more than 12 volts (who the fuck told you that???), it's the steering of the valves! When I saw this article I thought "2007? WTF?". You're gonna be able to buy cars with this kind of engine in about 2 or 3 year's time!!!
Perhaps "open standards" would be more precise in this case. The internet would never have caught on like this if IPv4 had been owned and exploited by some corporation.
Although I haven't been on the net for long, from what I know the internet has always been in constant state of change. And I think it always will be (at least for some years to come). And, btw, the internet is also EMail, ICQ, IRC, Napster...
So the USA is the place where your freedom is protected best? I guess that's why they have that non-US section in debian or why you're not allowed to compile OpenSSL in the US with the same compiler options you can use elsewhere?
Thousands of people have mentioned it here, but I'll say it anyway: Have a look at FreeNet! It's purpose is the same, it's code is almost production quality and I'm sure they could use some of your ideas for future versions (and you could surely use some of theirs). And, most of all, I'd personally love to see these two efforts joined together.
Agreed! We've got a pretty explosive mixture here: - The economy is changing drastically: whereas the old economy is based on production of physical goods where reproduction costs clearly top out development costs and reproduction requires capital assets (factories), the new (software) economy features practically zero reproduction costs and development that can be done by anyone who can afford a computer. I believe in (philosophical) materialism, so I think the political structures of society just mirror the economical structures of power. When economy changes this drastically, it is not unlikely that so does society at large. - We have a new technological elite that is generally at least critical towards authoritarian structures (as represented by the suits) - the new technology will make non-hierarchical organization structures possible at large (think about it, non-hierarchical structures, like markets, for example, are generally more efficient than hierarchical ones (like the planned economy in the former so-called communist countries), especially when dealing with adoption to rapidly changing conditions)
Now, when FreeNet kicks off, there will surely be attempts to fight it (making it illegal, possibly trying to filter it, which would be, AFAIK, only possible with serious restrictions placed on virtually the entire net), and the more they'll try, the more people in this technological elite will be seriously pissed off....
Where all this is going? Who knows. But the next couple of years will be interesting.
You're absolutely right. I've heard this stupid It's-from-M$-therefore-it-will-destroy-all-competi tors-even-if-it's-crap argument a lot of times recently, and it just didn't happen. WinCE is one example, that lame attempt at an MP3-replacement (what was it called again?) is another.
People will eventually realize that M$'s market power isn't quite as big (anymore?) as they expected, and that's gonna be a big problem for M$, because their market power often is the only reason why people by their software...
This has been THE most insightful article I have read on MacOS X so far. It's one of the first where someone actually tried to USE MacOS X, and not just toy with it for a while and go "Hey, this looks kewl!".
The most interesting bit for me was how he complained about the dock. I always felt a bit suspicious about the dock, and the article just told me why... I sincerely hope Apple is going to change this in the near future.
Another thing that was interesting (and sad) is that Apple apparently doesn't want to make it's OS themeable. This brings up the "GUI standardization" issue again that has been discussed a lot recently. My opinion is: Force different applications to have a similar, standardized interface, but don't force different users to have the same standardized interface.
Just look at Gnome, for example. It's closest equivalent to the dock would be the panel, which is configurable enough that it can meet most user's ideas about a usable UI. I, for example, have three docks, one for launching applications (with buttons for those I need most frequently and the others in menus), one for switching between different windows and one with various status informations like CPU load etc. (ok, I could live without this one...). They're all corner panels and have auto-hide enabled.
This is MY idea of a productive panel... now, try to reach this level of customization on the Mac... or even Windows.
The article features that old anti-UNIX argument again: that it's design hasn't changed for so many years (and therefor is outdated - that's what these people usually want to suggest).
The Windows design is still changing - in a desperate attempt to bring the virtues that UNIX has featured for a long time to Windows.
The MacOS design is currently being completely revised to be based on - UNIX!!!!
IMHO, the reason why UNIX isn't changing much anymore is that it does all the things it's supposed to do very well. Just like sharks - biologists say they've hardly evolved for millions of years now - because they fill their biological niche perfectly, there's nothing to be improved anymore!
What was that clever sig again? "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it - poorly!" (or something along these lines
Actually, in a way, we already ARE seeing past into the very beginning: Ever heard of the background noise we've got all around us? Scientists believe that it's a remainder of the big bang. So that's what it was like in the very beginning: NOISY! (As if we couldn't have guessed:-))
Yes, it's feasible, at least in principle. There have already been prototypes for this (which also used organic LEDs, BTW). Basically, when you switch from LCDs to organic LEDs which you can place on plastic, you're almost there. However, there are still a couple of problems with OLEDs to be solved (for example, the first prototypes had a very limited lifespan, the organic materials decomposed very quickly).
(IANAP either, but...) you're absolutely right. What's more: virtually every light-emitting technology we've got doesn't involve chemical reactions. LCD backlights, regular LEDs, neon lights, regular light bulbs... and apart from the light bulbs all of these emit light because electrons are dropping from a higher energy state to a lower.
Isn't this one of the big things UCITA is all about? And with american states racing to be the first to implement and enforce UCITA, they WILL be enforced!
Slashdot Mirror
>Heck, it might even incite some changes around here -
>like moderators being able to see submitted stories and rank them. Once
> a story hits a threshold, it makes the main page...
This is already reality. Look at Kuro5hin!
Cheers for the advice. However, how can a broken registry entry make NT think the FS needs to be checked?
Respectfully disagree.
I've worked in two big companies so far (Siemens and BMW) and what fascinates about OS development is that is in general the best way I've seen so far to make sure that all (or most) decisions are made on a technical, not a political, basis. IANAKH, but I suppose there are political issues in kernel development. However, these are really small compared to the idiocy in some decisions I've seen in corporate environments.
I think the problem is that in large hierarchies, the decision who becomes the manager is usually a _political_ decision. Not so in the OS world, where someone gets accepted as a leader only if he can convince the people he wants to lead...
- No penises: OK
- Not so many ego problems: My mileage does vary here. Just one example: Almost all the girls I know tell me it's awful to work in a place with just other women and no men around, because that leads to a lot of bitching and politics.
The main problem, however, would be that having chicks around would pump up the egos of all the males.
*sigh*, we (that is, all of us, women as well) just haven't left the caves for very long...
> For example, in Germany if you are a team leader, your employees expect you to know _everything_ and always have an answer to any situation, even if it isn't the correct answer.
Where did you get that impression? I'm currently doing a PhD at BMW and enjoy the atmosphere there because everyone knows and accepts that the team leader usually _doesn't_ know the answer until his team has informed him what they think the answer is, which is the reason why the employees at BMW have a lot of freedom in doing their work the way _they_ think it should be done.
Does that mean that NT has a transaction filesystem??? I'd be _very_ impressed....
But no, while typing this I realised it can't be. I'm using an NT machine at work and it randomly calls Scandisk (or NTs equivalent of that) at startup ever since I had to abort an Office 2000 installation (no, I always shut down the machine properly, it was _only_ a failed installation attempt).
That's not what you would expect from a transaction filesystem, is it?
Well, it's probably not even what you'd expect from a _real_ OS, whatever the FS is.
That's a similar argument as "Open Source? What for, _I_ am not going to read or modify the source code anyway!"
The point is that someone else can do it for you, in this case the distributor is the one who should apply the patch for the non-hardcore-hackers.
Personally I don't mind patches either.
However, there is a problem with patches: You can
never know whether the kernel will still work
properly once you've applied 2 or more patches...
That's why it is important that often-used patches
get integrated into the official kernel, if ReiserFS became part of Linux, this would make room for me to apply some other patch without having to fear instabilities.
This is not new! Lasers have been used for cooling atoms for years now. Maybe these people managed to introduce some new tweaks that make this system more efficient or whatever, but that's only of interest for experts in that field.
And for all those asking "What is it good for?": There are lots'n'lots of experiments which need atoms cooled down to nearly 0 Kelvin. And these experiments are needed to better understand quantum mechanics. And we need a better understanding of quantum mechanics to be able to build even smaller and faster CPUs in the future, as quantum mechanical effects (like tunneling of electrons through isolators) are already showing up in today's microprocessors. And I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me in this area could give you dozens of other examples where laser cooling has practical impacts.
But, as I said, this story is not news and hence deserves to be trolled to death.
The BMW engines will use electromagnetic actuation, not the electrohydraulic one this article is talking about. The effect is the same: Exact electronic control of the valve timing.
It can be implemented and it is going to be implemented RSN. I'm working at BMW and I've seen the prototypes which they've been running for more than a year now. There are still some minor problems, but basically it already works, they're just not going to take it into series development until this kind of engine beats "traditional" engines in all important aspects.
BTW, high RPM's are, of course, a problem, but none which couldn't be overcome. And, it's not the OS or the processor which need more than 12 volts (who the fuck told you that???), it's the steering of the valves!
When I saw this article I thought "2007? WTF?". You're gonna be able to buy cars with this kind of engine in about 2 or 3 year's time!!!
Perhaps "open standards" would be more precise in this case. The internet would never have caught on like this if IPv4 had been owned and exploited by some corporation.
Although I haven't been on the net for long, from what I know the internet has always been in constant state of change. And I think it always will be (at least for some years to come).
And, btw, the internet is also EMail, ICQ, IRC, Napster...
So the USA is the place where your freedom is protected best? I guess that's why they have that non-US section in debian or why you're not allowed to compile OpenSSL in the US with the same compiler options you can use elsewhere?
Try again.
Sorry, I didn't want to shout at you. It was a typeo (B instead of BR...)
And, yes, I'll use the Preview button next time.
Thousands of people have mentioned it here, but I'll say it anyway: Have a look at FreeNet! It's purpose is the same, it's code is almost production quality and I'm sure they could use some of your ideas for future versions (and you could surely use some of theirs). And, most of all, I'd personally love to see these two efforts joined together.
We've got a pretty explosive mixture here:
- The economy is changing drastically: whereas the old economy is based on production of physical goods where reproduction costs clearly top out development costs and reproduction requires capital assets (factories), the new (software) economy features practically zero reproduction costs and development that can be done by anyone who can afford a computer. I believe in (philosophical) materialism, so I think the political structures of society just mirror the economical structures of power. When economy changes this drastically, it is not unlikely that so does society at large.
- We have a new technological elite that is generally at least critical towards authoritarian structures (as represented by the suits)
- the new technology will make non-hierarchical organization structures possible at large (think about it, non-hierarchical structures, like markets, for example, are generally more efficient than hierarchical ones (like the planned economy in the former so-called communist countries), especially when dealing with adoption to rapidly changing conditions)
Now, when FreeNet kicks off, there will surely be attempts to fight it (making it illegal, possibly trying to filter it, which would be, AFAIK, only possible with serious restrictions placed on virtually the entire net), and the more they'll try, the more people in this technological elite will be seriously pissed off....
Where all this is going? Who knows. But the next couple of years will be interesting.
http://members.tripod.de/cnstat/brief/brief2-2000. html f 2-2000.html r ief2-2000.html l
http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~mbhb/kbst_brief/brie
http://www.netzgeschmack.de/brief/
http://www.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE/~prefec2/b
http://www.ba-horb.de/~stju/index.html
http://athene.owl.de/~hauke/linux/brief2-2000.htm
Just shows that you can't take stuff like that off the net. The question is, however, how many people will be able to find any of these mirrors?
People will eventually realize that M$'s market power isn't quite as big (anymore?) as they expected, and that's gonna be a big problem for M$, because their market power often is the only reason why people by their software...
The most interesting bit for me was how he complained about the dock. I always felt a bit suspicious about the dock, and the article just told me why... I sincerely hope Apple is going to change this in the near future.
Another thing that was interesting (and sad) is that Apple apparently doesn't want to make it's OS themeable. This brings up the "GUI standardization" issue again that has been discussed a lot recently. My opinion is: Force different applications to have a similar, standardized interface, but don't force different users to have the same standardized interface.
Just look at Gnome, for example. It's closest equivalent to the dock would be the panel, which is configurable enough that it can meet most user's ideas about a usable UI. I, for example, have three docks, one for launching applications (with buttons for those I need most frequently and the others in menus), one for switching between different windows and one with various status informations like CPU load etc. (ok, I could live without this one...). They're all corner panels and have auto-hide enabled.
This is MY idea of a productive panel... now, try to reach this level of customization on the Mac... or even Windows.
The article features that old anti-UNIX argument again: that it's design hasn't changed for so many years (and therefor is outdated - that's what these people usually want to suggest).
The Windows design is still changing - in a desperate attempt to bring the virtues that UNIX has featured for a long time to Windows.
The MacOS design is currently being completely revised to be based on - UNIX!!!!
IMHO, the reason why UNIX isn't changing much anymore is that it does all the things it's supposed to do very well.
Just like sharks - biologists say they've hardly evolved for millions of years now - because they fill their biological niche perfectly, there's nothing to be improved anymore!
What was that clever sig again?
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it - poorly!"
(or something along these lines
Actually, in a way, we already ARE seeing past into the very beginning: Ever heard of the background noise we've got all around us? Scientists believe that it's a remainder of the big bang. So that's what it was like in the very beginning: NOISY! (As if we couldn't have guessed :-))
Yes, it's feasible, at least in principle. There have already been prototypes for this (which also used organic LEDs, BTW). Basically, when you switch from LCDs to organic LEDs which you can place on plastic, you're almost there. However, there are still a couple of problems with OLEDs to be solved (for example, the first prototypes had a very limited lifespan, the organic materials decomposed very quickly).
(IANAP either, but...)
you're absolutely right. What's more: virtually every light-emitting technology we've got doesn't involve chemical reactions. LCD backlights, regular LEDs, neon lights, regular light bulbs...
and apart from the light bulbs all of these emit light because electrons are dropping from a higher energy state to a lower.
Isn't this one of the big things UCITA is all about? And with american states racing to be the first to implement and enforce UCITA, they WILL be enforced!