Well, while we are getting rid of the old OS, so all the applications need to be recompiled anyway, lets switch to the Mill Computing Platform. Why? Number one feature for an OS, there is no such thing as a ring zero. All applications, including the kernel, run at the same pace.
Now, couple that with all the benefits of the Mill Architecture.
* Next, lets start with seL4 as the Kernel, as the only mathematically proven, verified bug free kernel*. * Add Vulkan as the only Graphic API, * Switch to ZFS for large clusters of Hard disks, * Switch to an SSD optimized Filesystem for appropriate hardware, * Add different flavors for the OS. seL4 has this idea that the OS interface is simply made up in how applications pass information. So, you can setup a Windows passing scheme, a Genode passing scheme, a gaming specific passing scheme, an OS X passing scheme and so on and so forth. You can then have applications written directly to the metal, or locked to one particular scheme.
Yes, I know that it doesn't work quite like this, but we are dreaming, aren't we?
* Yes, this assumes no bugs in the verification and all that jazz.
Well, I would imagine he wants the GNU stuff to be able to be swapped out for newer versions without breaking OS X at ever OS update. Or maybe he wants the GNU compiler to be included again. Or maybe he wants the GNU tools to be first class citizens, instead of slowly being fazed out for applications written by Apple.
Then again, maybe he wants the Linux kernel, with the GNU license, instead of the Apple License the Darwin (which is not FreeBSD, though it has some shared history). Or maybe he wants a kernel that wasn't forked from BSD at the time the were trying to create a micro kernel by tacking things on. Or maybe I am just guessing, and I don't know what he wants.
The viral part is forcing you to use the same license. If the GPL were the only option available, it would be very free compared to closed source licenses. Since it is competing with the likes of the BSDs and MITs of the world, it is one of the most restrictive licenses. It forces you not just to use its license with its own source code, but also with others source code, to which the original developer doesn't necessarily have any claim.
The problem with this argument is if someone forks my project, and publishes it under a newer license, I can no longer accept changes back into my codebase. If I did, I would be forced to use the new license, making the GPL doubly viral, cannibalizing its own license to spread its viewpoint. This is the reason Linus made the Linux kernel GPL2 only.
Unfortunately, this doesn't fix those type of bugs, because they aren't bugs. It also cannot patch a program without the sourcecode, at least not by itself.
What you really want is to use one of these project that translate executable code into, say, c or c++, and from there you could try to do this, if it runs on those systems and can handle anything other than x86 code.
In fact, you are correct. The article clams they don't have to have the source, but that is only partly true. The recipient, the program that has a bug, must have the source code. The donor, the program that does not suffer from the bug, does not need to have the source code. And this is perhaps the interesting part.
So, say you are creating an open source Office program, and you obviously need to open.doc files. You have mostly everything working, but now you have this one file that crashes your program, but doesn't crash Office. Instead of spending the time to find it, CodePhage allows you to point it at your source code, and at Office, and it will build an internal set of debug like codes of each program. You need to run it on your code with a working example file, then run it with the non working file, it will figure out what you are doing, then it will open the same file with Office, find out if you are doing something out of order or if there is a check you aren't running, and the article describes in a little more detail how it works, though not the nitty gritty. It then modifies your source code, and runs it again, and see if the changes fix it, if not it will continue until it does.
The say in general the bugs they tested were fixed in 20 to 90 minutes.
Why couldn't they just schedule a scan at shutdown and/or startup? The computer could be set to startup a few minutes before the employee comes in, or the employee could just be told to click the shutdown and then just leave.
Spybot S&D has a whitelisting function that allows it to skip whitelisted functions. Its not that hard, you can use the timestamp on the file, or compare the file hash if it looks like it has been changed.
By doing this with at least the files that are not accessible to normal users, and using a limited account, you can mitigate a lot of this.
I am still waiting to see the part were this was anything more than a promotional and inspiration design from AMD. Nowhere has AMD said they are going to sell this, or any, boxed PC.
You can install a clean install of the Insider Builds, then upgrade and have an activated version of Windows 10. That is the exact wording that was used in the blog. It simply stated you had to be running an Insider Build, and when you upgraded, Windows 10 would be activated. No other requirement.
Most GPUs are not currently able to fully utilize 8x PCI-E 2.0, so this is fine for current gen cards with last years OS. DX12 and Vulkan may change things a bit, however.
However, there are projects underway to optimize general purpose instructions, i.e. the Mill CPU designs found at millcomputing.com. They are designing a cpu from the ground up that can process up to 33 instructions per cycle, trying to get the performance per watt of a DSP with the flexibility of a General Purpose CPU.
For the next 5 Years? Typescript. Typescript runs on node.js, IS Javascript, the next ECMA version of it at least, and is supported by Microsoft, so it will be supported for at least 5 Years. Since it is the next version of Javascript, It compiles to all the current browsers, and can be used with current Javascript libraries.
If you like Visual Studio, 2013 has first class support for it.
Combining this with, say, Web Components such as Polymer from Google, or Bricks from Mozilla, for the front end of your system, will allow you to future proof your application in the one language the web by definition will support.
(I cannot foresee the future, but I BELIEVE that Javascript will stay as part of the web standard, even if the standards committee were ever to decide to add another language, such as Google is hoping for with Dart.)
(I would like to say Dart, but for a large application, it will be harder to find coders that are familiar with it, versus Typescript, which at worst can be written by decent Javascript Developers.)
For me, I find myself running Windows in a virtual machine. (I am on a Mac.) By having the virtual machine in a different window, I can full screen the VM, and simply switch quickly between the two machine states. This allows me the full screen feel on Windows, and I find it feels cleaner to switch between the two types of desktops.
Now, for everyday programs, I can use the desktops to organize the way I work. I like to read in full screen, with no distractions such as pictures and other windows. So when learning how to use new tools, I put manuals, and tutorials off to their own screen. I put background music, and other things I need to run in the back ground all on one screen, then I don't have to look at them cluttering my Dock, and they are not in my way on screen. (Here's looking at you Spotify/iTunes.)
Then, when I am doing any type of creative work, Photoshop, Maya, they all need as much real estate they can get. Giving them their own screen makes quite a bit of sense.
Not to put too fine a point on my browser usage, I use tabs like the dickens. Now, I may have 60 tabs open at once, but they don't display well on one window. I break them up into groups depending on what they are for. They then get their own screen, and are more useful to me.
Not everyone will use screens like that, but it does help my workflow, so I do.
Wait, Google doesn't have any C/C++ developers?! But, how do they contribute to projects like LLVM and Linux. How did they create the Native Client for Chrome?
There abilities just went up by major points in my book!
So, just to throw a wrench into the mix, yeah, it might be nice to throw some money at a company for doing a job, a the Indian government has no obligation to fund a company that exist solely as an entity in another country. In fact, the idea that companies in one country can't copy off of countries in another country is quite ridiculous. Why? Until recently, there has not been enough trade to make it matter.
Remember the first priority of a government is its people. We see again and again that people will get rid of their government when the government does not please its people. This is why we get the government we deserve, because we let it stand.
All governments that implement a patent style system have the power, if not the authority, to take over patents for use for the public good. Yes, it is even built into the authority of the American patent system.
Now, personally, one human life is worth 10billion times the money all companies that have ever existed and will ever exist will ever have total. So I hav no problem with this if, and only if, this results in lives saved. Why? Lets look at the actual consequences. Presumably, if this company can make a profit off of this medicine, then so could Bayer. Bayer will not stop selling the drug at the higher prices elsewhere, unless they are forced to compete by other governments doing the same thing.
Now, will doing this across the board stifle inovation? Not really. If the companies don't do the research, governments will. in fact, governments are usually willing to research diseases that don't have enough sufferers to interest companies to research them.
You mean it works like real life? If I want to change the oil in my car, I have to do a little work. If I don't I have to pay? I guess that makes sense.
There is no direct path to an ebook format. Those that are using it thus far, need to use calibre, and then fixing any mistakes, to make the files useful.
Copyright came into existence for a reason. It was intended to replace the old system of patronage of the arts, that didn't distribute the art, so much as keep it in a cage, and let it out to play every now and then.
Now, we do need reform, since the current system has led back to that exact same system of patronage. Meet your new masters, they are just like your old masters.
I propose that a copyright cannot be sold. The singer always has the rights to a performance, and can only lease that to companies for set periods of time. This would fix a lot of the wrongness of the current system, if we apply it across the board.
Also, by definition, a company cannot own patents, or copyrights, only rent them from people. I would much rather the scientist that invented something get a patent, and allow companies to use it.
I beg to differ, there are street racers that actively encourage kids to street race,which I classify as bad driving. However, they ussually end up being able to handle cars better than I. Wait, who are we protecting again?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, while we are getting rid of the old OS, so all the applications need to be recompiled anyway, lets switch to the Mill Computing Platform. Why? Number one feature for an OS, there is no such thing as a ring zero. All applications, including the kernel, run at the same pace.
Now, couple that with all the benefits of the Mill Architecture.
* Next, lets start with seL4 as the Kernel, as the only mathematically proven, verified bug free kernel*.
* Add Vulkan as the only Graphic API,
* Switch to ZFS for large clusters of Hard disks,
* Switch to an SSD optimized Filesystem for appropriate hardware,
* Add different flavors for the OS. seL4 has this idea that the OS interface is simply made up in how applications pass information. So, you can setup a Windows passing scheme, a Genode passing scheme, a gaming specific passing scheme, an OS X passing scheme and so on and so forth.
You can then have applications written directly to the metal, or locked to one particular scheme.
Yes, I know that it doesn't work quite like this, but we are dreaming, aren't we?
* Yes, this assumes no bugs in the verification and all that jazz.
Well, I would imagine he wants the GNU stuff to be able to be swapped out for newer versions without breaking OS X at ever OS update. Or maybe he wants the GNU compiler to be included again. Or maybe he wants the GNU tools to be first class citizens, instead of slowly being fazed out for applications written by Apple.
Then again, maybe he wants the Linux kernel, with the GNU license, instead of the Apple License the Darwin (which is not FreeBSD, though it has some shared history). Or maybe he wants a kernel that wasn't forked from BSD at the time the were trying to create a micro kernel by tacking things on. Or maybe I am just guessing, and I don't know what he wants.
That sounds better than you think. I wonder has anyone thought to port Vulkan to 64bit freedos.
The viral part is forcing you to use the same license. If the GPL were the only option available, it would be very free compared to closed source licenses. Since it is competing with the likes of the BSDs and MITs of the world, it is one of the most restrictive licenses. It forces you not just to use its license with its own source code, but also with others source code, to which the original developer doesn't necessarily have any claim.
The problem with this argument is if someone forks my project, and publishes it under a newer license, I can no longer accept changes back into my codebase. If I did, I would be forced to use the new license, making the GPL doubly viral, cannibalizing its own license to spread its viewpoint. This is the reason Linus made the Linux kernel GPL2 only.
The article did mention checking to see if things were being done out of order, I would think this could be expanded toward race conditions.
Unfortunately, this doesn't fix those type of bugs, because they aren't bugs. It also cannot patch a program without the sourcecode, at least not by itself.
What you really want is to use one of these project that translate executable code into, say, c or c++, and from there you could try to do this, if it runs on those systems and can handle anything other than x86 code.
In fact, you are correct. The article clams they don't have to have the source, but that is only partly true. The recipient, the program that has a bug, must have the source code. The donor, the program that does not suffer from the bug, does not need to have the source code. And this is perhaps the interesting part.
So, say you are creating an open source Office program, and you obviously need to open .doc files. You have mostly everything working, but now you have this one file that crashes your program, but doesn't crash Office. Instead of spending the time to find it, CodePhage allows you to point it at your source code, and at Office, and it will build an internal set of debug like codes of each program. You need to run it on your code with a working example file, then run it with the non working file, it will figure out what you are doing, then it will open the same file with Office, find out if you are doing something out of order or if there is a check you aren't running, and the article describes in a little more detail how it works, though not the nitty gritty. It then modifies your source code, and runs it again, and see if the changes fix it, if not it will continue until it does.
The say in general the bugs they tested were fixed in 20 to 90 minutes.
Why couldn't they just schedule a scan at shutdown and/or startup? The computer could be set to startup a few minutes before the employee comes in, or the employee could just be told to click the shutdown and then just leave.
Spybot S&D has a whitelisting function that allows it to skip whitelisted functions. Its not that hard, you can use the timestamp on the file, or compare the file hash if it looks like it has been changed.
By doing this with at least the files that are not accessible to normal users, and using a limited account, you can mitigate a lot of this.
I am still waiting to see the part were this was anything more than a promotional and inspiration design from AMD. Nowhere has AMD said they are going to sell this, or any, boxed PC.
You can install a clean install of the Insider Builds, then upgrade and have an activated version of Windows 10. That is the exact wording that was used in the blog. It simply stated you had to be running an Insider Build, and when you upgraded, Windows 10 would be activated. No other requirement.
Most GPUs are not currently able to fully utilize 8x PCI-E 2.0, so this is fine for current gen cards with last years OS. DX12 and Vulkan may change things a bit, however.
Or how about HDMI over ethernet, to record loss quality streams for Twitch? Or Stream my games to a SteamOS box?
However, there are projects underway to optimize general purpose instructions, i.e. the Mill CPU designs found at millcomputing.com. They are designing a cpu from the ground up that can process up to 33 instructions per cycle, trying to get the performance per watt of a DSP with the flexibility of a General Purpose CPU.
For the next 5 Years? Typescript. Typescript runs on node.js, IS Javascript, the next ECMA version of it at least, and is supported by Microsoft, so it will be supported for at least 5 Years. Since it is the next version of Javascript, It compiles to all the current browsers, and can be used with current Javascript libraries.
If you like Visual Studio, 2013 has first class support for it.
Combining this with, say, Web Components such as Polymer from Google, or Bricks from Mozilla, for the front end of your system, will allow you to future proof your application in the one language the web by definition will support.
(I cannot foresee the future, but I BELIEVE that Javascript will stay as part of the web standard, even if the standards committee were ever to decide to add another language, such as Google is hoping for with Dart.)
(I would like to say Dart, but for a large application, it will be harder to find coders that are familiar with it, versus Typescript, which at worst can be written by decent Javascript Developers.)
For me, I find myself running Windows in a virtual machine. (I am on a Mac.) By having the virtual machine in a different window, I can full screen the VM, and simply switch quickly between the two machine states. This allows me the full screen feel on Windows, and I find it feels cleaner to switch between the two types of desktops.
Now, for everyday programs, I can use the desktops to organize the way I work. I like to read in full screen, with no distractions such as pictures and other windows. So when learning how to use new tools, I put manuals, and tutorials off to their own screen. I put background music, and other things I need to run in the back ground all on one screen, then I don't have to look at them cluttering my Dock, and they are not in my way on screen. (Here's looking at you Spotify/iTunes.)
Then, when I am doing any type of creative work, Photoshop, Maya, they all need as much real estate they can get. Giving them their own screen makes quite a bit of sense.
Not to put too fine a point on my browser usage, I use tabs like the dickens. Now, I may have 60 tabs open at once, but they don't display well on one window. I break them up into groups depending on what they are for. They then get their own screen, and are more useful to me.
Not everyone will use screens like that, but it does help my workflow, so I do.
Cheers.
Wait, Google doesn't have any C/C++ developers?! But, how do they contribute to projects like LLVM and Linux. How did they create the Native Client for Chrome?
There abilities just went up by major points in my book!
O_o
So, just to throw a wrench into the mix, yeah, it might be nice to throw some money at a company for doing a job, a the Indian government has no obligation to fund a company that exist solely as an entity in another country. In fact, the idea that companies in one country can't copy off of countries in another country is quite ridiculous. Why? Until recently, there has not been enough trade to make it matter.
Remember the first priority of a government is its people. We see again and again that people will get rid of their government when the government does not please its people. This is why we get the government we deserve, because we let it stand.
All governments that implement a patent style system have the power, if not the authority, to take over patents for use for the public good. Yes, it is even built into the authority of the American patent system.
Now, personally, one human life is worth 10billion times the money all companies that have ever existed and will ever exist will ever have total. So I hav no problem with this if, and only if, this results in lives saved. Why? Lets look at the actual consequences. Presumably, if this company can make a profit off of this medicine, then so could Bayer. Bayer will not stop selling the drug at the higher prices elsewhere, unless they are forced to compete by other governments doing the same thing.
Now, will doing this across the board stifle inovation? Not really. If the companies don't do the research, governments will. in fact, governments are usually willing to research diseases that don't have enough sufferers to interest companies to research them.
You mean it works like real life? If I want to change the oil in my car, I have to do a little work. If I don't I have to pay? I guess that makes sense.
P.S. We really need sarcasm punctuation.
There is no direct path to an ebook format. Those that are using it thus far, need to use calibre, and then fixing any mistakes, to make the files useful.
Copyright came into existence for a reason. It was intended to replace the old system of patronage of the arts, that didn't distribute the art, so much as keep it in a cage, and let it out to play every now and then.
Now, we do need reform, since the current system has led back to that exact same system of patronage. Meet your new masters, they are just like your old masters.
I propose that a copyright cannot be sold. The singer always has the rights to a performance, and can only lease that to companies for set periods of time. This would fix a lot of the wrongness of the current system, if we apply it across the board.
Also, by definition, a company cannot own patents, or copyrights, only rent them from people. I would much rather the scientist that invented something get a patent, and allow companies to use it.
So we just need to "condition" kids to think for themselves, and they will be able to give informed consent?
The horror!
We might lose control.
is that why we are trying 8 year olds as adults for murder?
I beg to differ, there are street racers that actively encourage kids to street race,which I classify as bad driving. However, they ussually end up being able to handle cars better than I. Wait, who are we protecting again?