Multitasking is *not* rocket-science. There are good and bad ways to do it, for sure, but none of the major OSs do it badly. iOS departed the furthest from the orthodox desktop paradigm in an attempt to control user experience, but Android is pretty much your normal multitasking with some agressive app hibernation built in. None of them do anything fantastical. Win8's multitasking is Android multitasking is Win8's multitasking. Oh, they have a slightly different UI.
Doesn't a faraday cage only work for the frequency for which it was designed? I'm thinking here that you can still fry the electronics inside a cage by operating at a frequency that the cage isn't designed for.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean Windows 8 is solid. Just because a tiny portion of the market has been given exclusive access does not mean that the OS is solid.
Never got this. What on earth makes you think that Win8's multitasking is actually any better? Is it because you can get to the next open app with a nice gesture instead of a buton?
The DSD (Defence Signals Directorate) are the ones in Australia who would vet this equipment - they already do it for all equipment used by ASIO, ASIS and other secretive organisations here. The other thing to remember is that it was the DSD that told the Government not to trust Huawei's hardware. Now they get to have a good look at the code without the need to reverse engineer.
Yep, the issue with constantly pushing forwards and looking for the next new thing means that you can periodically make a bad choice. Shuttleworth, while some of his descisions haven't been the best, has been instrumental in pushing the Linux desktop to where it is today. Linux has never enjoyed so many desktop users. That brings good and bad, but its still an overall positive.
I'm not sure you understand - even if I did talk to Linus about microkernels it would not answer the question I asked you. You still haven't answered my question.
I think the best way to resolve this problem is to have judges who are driven by common sense within the bounds of the law. Forget making more rules - we need people who can see through the smoke and mirrors and can rise above the layers upon layers of stupidity and pass justice in its true form.
Ah, so you're a linux desktop user of past releases? Slackware + Ubuntu/Kubuntu have been the ones I have tried too. And before Web 2.0 I spent most of my time on the FreeBSD command line using lynx! Wasn't maintainable though if I wanted to be involved in the WWW. =D
Just to help out your posts for future benefit (the ones that are concrete, verifiable, & undeniable facts as per your post: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3189435&cid=41672457), it is worth noting that the second item on that list (NASDAQ) is misleading. Firstly, the comparisons are incorrect since they're not talking about the same transaction method (TPC-C vs TPC-E: http://www.siemon.com/uk/white_papers/08-03-03-latency.asp) and secondly, NASDAQ actually runs Linux for all the real market transactions (http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/open-source/3246835/london-stock-exchange-linux-record-breaking-system-faces-new-challengers/) - they do this at over a million transactions per second (approximately 1,390,000 a second - please note that this is a bit faster than 65,000 per second). It's worth noting that nearly all exchanges run Linux for their core trading platform - that doesn't mean Linux is perfect though!
As you can see, Microsoft lauds the low latency of their new system (340 microseconds), but did you know that the latency of NASDAQ's Linux system is under 40 microseconds? That is unfortunately a huge difference in the Trade world: http://www.nasdaqomx.com/technology/marketplacesolutions/trading/
Anyway, I think there are OS's out there that can do better than both Windows and Linux in this area, but that's another discussion. I haven't got time to check all of your other links to verify that they are indeed all concrete, verifiable, & undeniable facts, but I'll leave that to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. You'll note that DSD gives quite low security ratings to CISCO equipment.
Multitasking is *not* rocket-science. There are good and bad ways to do it, for sure, but none of the major OSs do it badly. iOS departed the furthest from the orthodox desktop paradigm in an attempt to control user experience, but Android is pretty much your normal multitasking with some agressive app hibernation built in. None of them do anything fantastical. Win8's multitasking is Android multitasking is Win8's multitasking. Oh, they have a slightly different UI.
To the tune of half a million dollars? Open your eyes, son.
Another serious question:
Doesn't a faraday cage only work for the frequency for which it was designed? I'm thinking here that you can still fry the electronics inside a cage by operating at a frequency that the cage isn't designed for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-116
Awesome! Slashdot has introduced a real time Google Wave style commenting system.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean Windows 8 is solid. Just because a tiny portion of the market has been given exclusive access does not mean that the OS is solid.
Replacing in-use files is no more a stability and security nightmare than replacing them at boot. You're merely delaying the same effect.
Are you saying that 8bit and 16bit music is dead? ;)
With not-metro slapped on top.
Never got this. What on earth makes you think that Win8's multitasking is actually any better? Is it because you can get to the next open app with a nice gesture instead of a buton?
The DSD (Defence Signals Directorate) are the ones in Australia who would vet this equipment - they already do it for all equipment used by ASIO, ASIS and other secretive organisations here. The other thing to remember is that it was the DSD that told the Government not to trust Huawei's hardware. Now they get to have a good look at the code without the need to reverse engineer.
This may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still poor code - and, in the long run, a poor choice.
You only need to look as far as the current cyberwar going on around the planet to see the fruits of such stupid descisions.
Horrid. But true. And as much as you can try and tell your next potential employer that your previous ones were liars, it comes down to your word.
Yep, the issue with constantly pushing forwards and looking for the next new thing means that you can periodically make a bad choice. Shuttleworth, while some of his descisions haven't been the best, has been instrumental in pushing the Linux desktop to where it is today. Linux has never enjoyed so many desktop users. That brings good and bad, but its still an overall positive.
About 13 posts above you attempted to answer my question but you didn't - as you have already stated. So, you still haven't answered my question.
Yeah, I know that. But it still doesn't answer my question. You're not very good at this are you.
You still haven't answered my question: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3189435&cid=41677587
I'm not sure you understand - even if I did talk to Linus about microkernels it would not answer the question I asked you. You still haven't answered my question.
No, sorry, that doesn't answer my question in any way whatsoever. You still haven't answered my question.
I think the best way to resolve this problem is to have judges who are driven by common sense within the bounds of the law. Forget making more rules - we need people who can see through the smoke and mirrors and can rise above the layers upon layers of stupidity and pass justice in its true form.
Still didn't answer my question.
I guess you didn't answer my question.
Which suggestion did I go back on, sorry?
Ah, so you're a linux desktop user of past releases? Slackware + Ubuntu/Kubuntu have been the ones I have tried too. And before Web 2.0 I spent most of my time on the FreeBSD command line using lynx! Wasn't maintainable though if I wanted to be involved in the WWW. =D
Just to help out your posts for future benefit (the ones that are concrete, verifiable, & undeniable facts as per your post: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3189435&cid=41672457), it is worth noting that the second item on that list (NASDAQ) is misleading. Firstly, the comparisons are incorrect since they're not talking about the same transaction method (TPC-C vs TPC-E: http://www.siemon.com/uk/white_papers/08-03-03-latency.asp) and secondly, NASDAQ actually runs Linux for all the real market transactions (http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/open-source/3246835/london-stock-exchange-linux-record-breaking-system-faces-new-challengers/) - they do this at over a million transactions per second (approximately 1,390,000 a second - please note that this is a bit faster than 65,000 per second). It's worth noting that nearly all exchanges run Linux for their core trading platform - that doesn't mean Linux is perfect though!
But I'm not attacking Microsoft Windows! I'm just helping you clear some things up. For example, the last semi-major stock exchange to use Windows was this one: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2010/dec10/12-15directedgepr.aspx
As you can see, Microsoft lauds the low latency of their new system (340 microseconds), but did you know that the latency of NASDAQ's Linux system is under 40 microseconds? That is unfortunately a huge difference in the Trade world: http://www.nasdaqomx.com/technology/marketplacesolutions/trading/
Anyway, I think there are OS's out there that can do better than both Windows and Linux in this area, but that's another discussion. I haven't got time to check all of your other links to verify that they are indeed all concrete, verifiable, & undeniable facts, but I'll leave that to you.