Cars still have the same towing connections. Look under your's, it is a heavy ring set in the front of the axle or "frame".
The car doesn't care whether it is being towed by a horse or another car.
Unfortunately I became recently acquainted with mine. The ring is actually in the trunk with the spare tire and jack, to be screwed into place when needed, when pulled onto the flatbed tow truck. Its only installed for the tow to avoid it being damaged during normal driving and bottoming out.
... not even re-silkscreening, just outright selling P2-450Mhz but when you got it, it had a large passive heatsink, turns out it's a P2-300Mhz....
The Pentium 75 Mhz was the real rebranding/remarking king due to its often successful "overclocking". The story goes something like this. There is a single production line for the Pentiums of speeds ranging form 75 to 120 Mhz. Intel tests the chips at 75, 90 and 120 Mhz to determine the speed an individual chip is capable of running at. Note that these tests are far beyond what over clockers can do, often involving specialized hardware probes and such. Normally chips are tested until they fail and branded for the highest speed that they properly executed at. However when orders for Pentium 75 exceeded inventories the testing was abbreviates, chips were only tested at 75 and branded and sold as such if the test was successful. These chips were never tested at 90 or 120 Mhz and many of these chips would have successfully passed testing and been branded at these higher speeds had they been tested at these speeds. The Pentium 75 became legendary for overclocking, and remarking by third parties.
x86 instructions, are in fact, decoded to micro opcodes, so the distinction isn't as useful in this context.
Actually it is. Modern performance tuning has a lot to do with cache misses and such. CISC can allow for more instructions per cache hit. The strategy of a hybrid type design, CISC external architecture and RISC internal architecture definitely has some advantages.
That said, the point of RISC was not solely execution speed. It was also simplicity of design. A simplicity that allowed organization with less money and resources than Intel to design very capable CPUs.
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
Arizona tried to ignore 55 and not enforce it in certain areas where they thought higher speeds were appropriate and safe. The feds got annoyed and tried to cut highway funding for Arizona. So Arizona started enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. A friend got pulled over and received a ticket, not for speeding -- a moving violation that would put points on his drivers license and raise his insurance rate, but for "improper use of finite resources" -- an infractions that did not show up on one's driving record. In other words he received a ticket for "wasting gas" not speeding.
What the fuck are you talking about. libertarians...
such trash. much moron.
You are mistaken. President Kennedy, although he may not have been President yet, once warned about local and state governments accepting federal money. He expressed concern that federal money may bring federal meddling and control over local affairs. In particular he was speaking about education.
Most Democrats and Republicans agreed with Kennedy's opinion. I think the general consensus at the time was to use federal money only for one time expenses, like the construction of a school, but not for ongoing expenses like maintenance of the school or teacher salaries.
So that real horses can take "immediate physical traction" of the vehicle if necessary.
You have no idea how punishing the roads were in the early days of the automobile, how often cars broke down or became hopelessly mired in mud or snow. In rural states, the horse was still in the towing business as late as 1940.
In 1919 Lt Col Eisenhower, yes the later Supreme Allied Commander of WW2 and the 1950s President of the US, led a convoy of 24 vehicles from the east coast to the west coast. 9 vehicles were lost, 21 men were injured and unable to continue.
.. So that real horses can take "immediate physical traction" of the vehicle if necessary.
Joking aside, early cars broke down frequently and the horse was a very common towing option. In these early days people didn't necessarily drive themselves, many paid their mechanic to act as their driver. If a person drove themselves they were probably a hobbyist mechanic.
... the IRS has decide to only allow gains, not losses...
Realized net gains and net losses. I believe virtual coin losses can be applied against virtual coin gains, even the IRS would not be so insane as to not allow this. I expect the problem is applying net virtual coin losses against regular income. The issue also appears with stocks, only up to $3,000 of realized net losses can be applied against regular income if I remember correctly.
Every US based bitcoin user is going to be asked about their bitcoin activities... by the IRS since the IRS has figured out how to tax bitcoins, as an asset.
Seriously, this is no joke. As an asset you will be expected to declare a gain or loss on the coins you used to purchase that cup of coffee. The gain or loss with respect to the change of value between the day you received those coins and the day you used them in the purchase.
This is why it is incredibly important whether the IRS considers bitcoins to be a currency or an asset. As an asset the reporting requirements would seem to become similar to that of buying, selling and trading stocks. Its not at all like spending dollars.
Actually I have a background in writing low level kernels, in porting c runtime environments to these custom environments. I know about memory management from the hardware up.
Then how could you possibly have confused operating system level memory management with garbage collecting? I am not sure that I would want you working on the Linux kernel, certainly not on the core.
Only you are mixing alloc/new and garbage collection. My point is that whether an operating system offers malloc/new or garbage collection (manual or automatic memory management) to its applications is irrelevant. In either case it ultimately drills down to a kernel, and this drilling down to a kernel is irrelevant to the applications. The application code could care less if the kernel is linux, bsd, mach, hurd, etc... The kernel is as abstract and as irrelevant to the application code as the hardware itself.
What I don't have is an overly narrow concept of operating systems, a viewpoint stuck on some quiz once taken in an operating system class that expected a student to regurgitate a 1970s list of OS components.
The term "operating system" was recently coopted by marketdroids and PHBs who have not got the faintest clue of what a timer wheel is, to mean something convenient for Apple and Google's respective business plans. Please go get any operating system text, including a recent one, and you will find that the classic meaning of "operating system" is still the only one taught in the schools that produce our kernel engineers.
Your are wrong. Even Andrew Tanengaum says that the definition of an operating systems is fuzzy because it does several different things. Abstracts the hardware, manages resources and provides an API that application programs are written for. That operating systems have evolved and the simple kernel/user mode distinction of years past no longer works. That it is legitimate to define an operating system from both bottom up and top down perspectives. You are simply taking a narrow bottom up perspective, and a further narrowed monolithic perspective on top of that. Android provides an API, it manages memory (automatically), it schedules threads, it performs I/O, etc. Android fits one of Tanenbaum's definitions of an operating system. Tanenbaum specifically refers to Java-based operating systems.
Android is no less of an OS for delegating some low level operations to the host linux kernel than a microkernel based OS that delegates some low level functions to its microkernel.
You seem not to grasp the scale, power or subtlty of "some low level operations" that Android relies on the operating system for.
You guess wrong yet again. Its not the utility of the kernel that matters. Its the visibility of the kernel, the necessity of one particular kernel. Linux is an implementation detail under Android. Android could be ported to use a different POSIX based kernel and applications would not know or care. Why? Because Android is an operating system from an application perspective.
Debian is no longer an OS when it delegates low level functions to HURD?
Debian is referred to by Debian developers as a "distribution". That is exactly what Android is, nothing more and nothing less.
That is an amusing dodge. What developer's call their software only matters when it fits your narrow definition.
Your definition of an OS is quite narrow, overly so.
manage memory
Check. Android's Java runtime environment does this for applications.
It is a safe bet that you have never had anything to do with operating system design or implementation. Apparently, you do not understand even elementary principles of operating system memory management. So... according to you, how does Java manage the process page tables? It is people like you who make the world save for marketdroids.
Actually I have a background in writing low level kernels, in porting c runtime environments to these custom environments. I know about memory management from the hardware up.
What I don't have is an overly narrow concept of operating systems, a viewpoint stuck on some quiz once taken in an operating system class that expected a student to regurgitate a 1970s list of OS components.
Android is no less of an OS for delegating some low level operations to the host linux kernel than a microkernel based OS that delegates some low level functions to its microkernel. Is Debian no longer an OS when it delegates low level functions to HURD?
Ballmer's probably a step up from quite a few people career academics in the business field.
Many professors in MBA programs are not career academics. My marketing professor spent the first ten years of his career as an electrical engineer. The professor in my new product development class had been a mechanical engineer. We made heavy use of statistics and mathematical modeling in his class, I was very pleasantly surprised. My entrepreneurship professor had launched five successful startups in the medical industry. All these and some other professors had real jobs, moved into management, got an MBA and eventually decided to get a PhD and teach.
Some classes were taught by non-PhD's like Balmer, adjunct professors. Business law was taught by an actual practicing attorney. Negotiations was taught by a sitting federal judge.
There were some career academics, but those were generally for classes that were major academic disciplines, economics (micro and macro classes) and math (stats class) for example.
However the MBA isn't a Science based study but a research/practical based study. MBA program is a lot about reading case studies and working to find better solutions.
An MBA is not like other Master's degrees. One does not delve deeper into on particular field and do research.
An MBA program is an overview of all the pieces of an organization. It covers statistics, organizational behavior (of people, psychology stuff), accounting, strategy, product development, operations, marketing, leadership, etc. Few of the students are coming from an accounting background, many are in fact coming from science and engineering backgrounds.
An MBA program doesn't change you, if you were a software engineer going in you are still one going out. However you are now a software engineer who understands the perspective and concerns of those in accounting, marketing and operations and you can now communicate with them more effectively and are more likely to persuade them.
... If anything Steve is the textbook example on how an MBA brought zero growth to Microsoft, and destroyed not only two biggest cash cows in history, Windows & Office...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...: "Under Ballmer's tenure as CEO, Microsoft's annual revenue surged from $25 billion to $70 billion, while its net income increased 215 percent to $23 billion, and its gross profit of 75 cents on every dollar in sales is double that of Google or International Business Machines Corp.... These gains came from the existing Windows and Office franchises, with Ballmer maintaining their profitability, fending off threats from cheaper competitors such as GNU/Linux and other open-source operating systems and Google Docs."
Ballmer defenders like to point out the stock value and revenue numbers, which is valid, however Ballmer's reign ended Microsoft's dominance in mindshare and allowed their monopoly to essentially break up.
Mindshare dominance was temporary. And achieving it in the first place was not purely Microsoft's doing. The screwups of their competitors (Apple - Mac OS, IBM - OS/2) factored into this greatly. For example Apple's numerous errors in the late 80s and early 90s. Similarly Apple's getting things right is more recent years helped to end MS mindshare dominance. For example Apple switching to Intel and allowing Windows onto their hardware. This alone doubled Apple's market share. Windows was a necessity for many users, but by moving from a "choose one or the other" model to a "you can have both" model Apple exposed millions more to Mac OS X and got a greater piece of mindshare.
That's the consumer side, now the server side. Servers were historically UNIX. Companies were grudgingly looking at Windows based servers due to ever increasing costs of traditional UNIX boxes and the increasing performance of PC hardware. Just as traditional UNIX vendors are starting to feel some heat Linux enters the scene. Linux ran on the same PC hardware as Windows and since it is UNIX-based (in a technical sense if not legal sense) many companies felt more comfortable with it, moving from one UNIX platform (traditional vendors) to another UNIX platform (Linux).
No company's dominance lasts forever. A CEO that can not only see the company survive but substantially grow during such an end to dominance does deserve some credit.
Your definition of an OS is quite narrow, overly so.
Hint: manage hardware at a low level
Android delegates this to the host. Is a microkernal based OS not an OS merely because it delegates the hardware interface away?
presenting a uniform interface for applications
Check. Android does this.
manage memory
Check. Android's Java runtime environment does this for applications.
schedule execution
Check. Android does thread scheduling for applications.
enforce security constraints
Check. Android enforces security constraints on applications.
All of this done by Linux, and not the Android libraries...
As I said, Android is hosted by Linux. The fact that some Linux code is ultimately called is largely meaningless. Much of it is probably stdio or POSIX. From an application's perspective Android is the OS. Apps are unaware of Linux, even many native apps that use C/C++ via the NDK. They merely use stdio or POSIX. If Android were ported to BSD the vast majority of apps would not know or care.
A desktop customized version of Android (complete with a real desktop) is still based on Linux (at least Google's fork of it)...
Android is not based on Linux. Android is **hosted** on Linux, it is really its own operating system. Most Android apps are Java and have zero interaction with Linux, they only use Android. As for apps that have some native code (c/c++ via NDK) they are usually using legacy c/c++ code that is not Linux based and/or they are using operating system calls that are POSIX based not Linux based.
Linux is just a host for Android. It could be replaced with some other POSIX compliant OS and the vast majority of Android apps would not know or care.
No. Android is hosted on Linux, not based on Linux, very big difference there.
... Notice how my binary applications run on *very* many Android devices without recompilation, even when I write in C using the NDK
Most Android apps are pure Java and do not use the NDK. Those that do are often using legacy C/C++ code that is not Linux specific, many OS calls are actually POSIX calls so they are not really Linux specific either. Again, linux is just the current host environment. Most apps don't care, even many apps using native code via the NDK.
The device market does nearly nothing for Linux as a consumer brand, nearly nothing for the promotion of FOSS. People don't see the Linux embedded in their router, they don't see and can't even get to the Linux that hosts Android on their phones. Most Android developers don't even touch or see Linux during development.
I've been using Linux part-time for twenty years. I build my own desktops so its been easy to build systems that are compatible between windows and linux.
However laptops have always been very troublesome. I have figured out a solution. Buy a chromebook and install Linux on it.
"Personal Computers" not "computers". We also had mainframe, minicomputers and workstations that were pretty good at running multiple programs in parallel.
Farming today is nothing like farming was in the 1980's. I left the farm in 1983...
That's about the time my university got its first microcomputer lab. The lab was put together by the agriculture department. Mostly Apple//e. Apparently there was a lot of farm management and planning software in existence. And I'm not talking financial accounting. Thing like planning crop rotations, planting, harvesting, watering, minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use, etc.
I was a CS major but I helped them set up the lab so they let me use it.
Personally, I prefer to pull my plow by a team of Rottweilers, like some redneck ancient Roman farmer.
Roman farmers would have used oxen, horses and mules just like US farmers of the 1800s. The dogs were for security and hunting, and of course doubled as family pets, just like today.
Slashdot Mirror
Cars still have the same towing connections. Look under your's, it is a heavy ring set in the front of the axle or "frame". The car doesn't care whether it is being towed by a horse or another car.
Unfortunately I became recently acquainted with mine. The ring is actually in the trunk with the spare tire and jack, to be screwed into place when needed, when pulled onto the flatbed tow truck. Its only installed for the tow to avoid it being damaged during normal driving and bottoming out.
... not even re-silkscreening, just outright selling P2-450Mhz but when you got it, it had a large passive heatsink, turns out it's a P2-300Mhz ....
The Pentium 75 Mhz was the real rebranding/remarking king due to its often successful "overclocking". The story goes something like this. There is a single production line for the Pentiums of speeds ranging form 75 to 120 Mhz. Intel tests the chips at 75, 90 and 120 Mhz to determine the speed an individual chip is capable of running at. Note that these tests are far beyond what over clockers can do, often involving specialized hardware probes and such. Normally chips are tested until they fail and branded for the highest speed that they properly executed at. However when orders for Pentium 75 exceeded inventories the testing was abbreviates, chips were only tested at 75 and branded and sold as such if the test was successful. These chips were never tested at 90 or 120 Mhz and many of these chips would have successfully passed testing and been branded at these higher speeds had they been tested at these speeds. The Pentium 75 became legendary for overclocking, and remarking by third parties.
x86 instructions, are in fact, decoded to micro opcodes, so the distinction isn't as useful in this context.
Actually it is. Modern performance tuning has a lot to do with cache misses and such. CISC can allow for more instructions per cache hit. The strategy of a hybrid type design, CISC external architecture and RISC internal architecture definitely has some advantages.
That said, the point of RISC was not solely execution speed. It was also simplicity of design. A simplicity that allowed organization with less money and resources than Intel to design very capable CPUs.
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
Arizona tried to ignore 55 and not enforce it in certain areas where they thought higher speeds were appropriate and safe. The feds got annoyed and tried to cut highway funding for Arizona. So Arizona started enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. A friend got pulled over and received a ticket, not for speeding -- a moving violation that would put points on his drivers license and raise his insurance rate, but for "improper use of finite resources" -- an infractions that did not show up on one's driving record. In other words he received a ticket for "wasting gas" not speeding.
What the fuck are you talking about. libertarians... such trash. much moron.
You are mistaken. President Kennedy, although he may not have been President yet, once warned about local and state governments accepting federal money. He expressed concern that federal money may bring federal meddling and control over local affairs. In particular he was speaking about education.
Most Democrats and Republicans agreed with Kennedy's opinion. I think the general consensus at the time was to use federal money only for one time expenses, like the construction of a school, but not for ongoing expenses like maintenance of the school or teacher salaries.
So that real horses can take "immediate physical traction" of the vehicle if necessary.
You have no idea how punishing the roads were in the early days of the automobile, how often cars broke down or became hopelessly mired in mud or snow. In rural states, the horse was still in the towing business as late as 1940.
In 1919 Lt Col Eisenhower, yes the later Supreme Allied Commander of WW2 and the 1950s President of the US, led a convoy of 24 vehicles from the east coast to the west coast. 9 vehicles were lost, 21 men were injured and unable to continue.
.. So that real horses can take "immediate physical traction" of the vehicle if necessary.
Joking aside, early cars broke down frequently and the horse was a very common towing option. In these early days people didn't necessarily drive themselves, many paid their mechanic to act as their driver. If a person drove themselves they were probably a hobbyist mechanic.
... the IRS has decide to only allow gains, not losses ...
Realized net gains and net losses. I believe virtual coin losses can be applied against virtual coin gains, even the IRS would not be so insane as to not allow this. I expect the problem is applying net virtual coin losses against regular income. The issue also appears with stocks, only up to $3,000 of realized net losses can be applied against regular income if I remember correctly.
Every US based bitcoin user is going to be asked about their bitcoin activities ... by the IRS since the IRS has figured out how to tax bitcoins, as an asset.
Seriously, this is no joke. As an asset you will be expected to declare a gain or loss on the coins you used to purchase that cup of coffee. The gain or loss with respect to the change of value between the day you received those coins and the day you used them in the purchase.
This is why it is incredibly important whether the IRS considers bitcoins to be a currency or an asset. As an asset the reporting requirements would seem to become similar to that of buying, selling and trading stocks. Its not at all like spending dollars.
Actually I have a background in writing low level kernels, in porting c runtime environments to these custom environments. I know about memory management from the hardware up.
Then how could you possibly have confused operating system level memory management with garbage collecting? I am not sure that I would want you working on the Linux kernel, certainly not on the core.
Only you are mixing alloc/new and garbage collection. My point is that whether an operating system offers malloc/new or garbage collection (manual or automatic memory management) to its applications is irrelevant. In either case it ultimately drills down to a kernel, and this drilling down to a kernel is irrelevant to the applications. The application code could care less if the kernel is linux, bsd, mach, hurd, etc ... The kernel is as abstract and as irrelevant to the application code as the hardware itself.
What I don't have is an overly narrow concept of operating systems, a viewpoint stuck on some quiz once taken in an operating system class that expected a student to regurgitate a 1970s list of OS components.
The term "operating system" was recently coopted by marketdroids and PHBs who have not got the faintest clue of what a timer wheel is, to mean something convenient for Apple and Google's respective business plans. Please go get any operating system text, including a recent one, and you will find that the classic meaning of "operating system" is still the only one taught in the schools that produce our kernel engineers.
Your are wrong. Even Andrew Tanengaum says that the definition of an operating systems is fuzzy because it does several different things. Abstracts the hardware, manages resources and provides an API that application programs are written for. That operating systems have evolved and the simple kernel/user mode distinction of years past no longer works. That it is legitimate to define an operating system from both bottom up and top down perspectives. You are simply taking a narrow bottom up perspective, and a further narrowed monolithic perspective on top of that. Android provides an API, it manages memory (automatically), it schedules threads, it performs I/O, etc. Android fits one of Tanenbaum's definitions of an operating system. Tanenbaum specifically refers to Java-based operating systems.
Android is no less of an OS for delegating some low level operations to the host linux kernel than a microkernel based OS that delegates some low level functions to its microkernel.
You seem not to grasp the scale, power or subtlty of "some low level operations" that Android relies on the operating system for.
You guess wrong yet again. Its not the utility of the kernel that matters. Its the visibility of the kernel, the necessity of one particular kernel. Linux is an implementation detail under Android. Android could be ported to use a different POSIX based kernel and applications would not know or care. Why? Because Android is an operating system from an application perspective.
Debian is no longer an OS when it delegates low level functions to HURD?
Debian is referred to by Debian developers as a "distribution". That is exactly what Android is, nothing more and nothing less.
That is an amusing dodge. What developer's call their software only matters when it fits your narrow definition.
Your definition of an OS is quite narrow, overly so.
manage memory
Check. Android's Java runtime environment does this for applications.
It is a safe bet that you have never had anything to do with operating system design or implementation. Apparently, you do not understand even elementary principles of operating system memory management. So... according to you, how does Java manage the process page tables? It is people like you who make the world save for marketdroids.
Actually I have a background in writing low level kernels, in porting c runtime environments to these custom environments. I know about memory management from the hardware up.
What I don't have is an overly narrow concept of operating systems, a viewpoint stuck on some quiz once taken in an operating system class that expected a student to regurgitate a 1970s list of OS components.
Android is no less of an OS for delegating some low level operations to the host linux kernel than a microkernel based OS that delegates some low level functions to its microkernel. Is Debian no longer an OS when it delegates low level functions to HURD?
Ballmer's probably a step up from quite a few people career academics in the business field.
Many professors in MBA programs are not career academics. My marketing professor spent the first ten years of his career as an electrical engineer. The professor in my new product development class had been a mechanical engineer. We made heavy use of statistics and mathematical modeling in his class, I was very pleasantly surprised. My entrepreneurship professor had launched five successful startups in the medical industry. All these and some other professors had real jobs, moved into management, got an MBA and eventually decided to get a PhD and teach.
Some classes were taught by non-PhD's like Balmer, adjunct professors. Business law was taught by an actual practicing attorney. Negotiations was taught by a sitting federal judge.
There were some career academics, but those were generally for classes that were major academic disciplines, economics (micro and macro classes) and math (stats class) for example.
However the MBA isn't a Science based study but a research/practical based study. MBA program is a lot about reading case studies and working to find better solutions.
An MBA is not like other Master's degrees. One does not delve deeper into on particular field and do research.
An MBA program is an overview of all the pieces of an organization. It covers statistics, organizational behavior (of people, psychology stuff), accounting, strategy, product development, operations, marketing, leadership, etc. Few of the students are coming from an accounting background, many are in fact coming from science and engineering backgrounds.
An MBA program doesn't change you, if you were a software engineer going in you are still one going out. However you are now a software engineer who understands the perspective and concerns of those in accounting, marketing and operations and you can now communicate with them more effectively and are more likely to persuade them.
... If anything Steve is the textbook example on how an MBA brought zero growth to Microsoft, and destroyed not only two biggest cash cows in history, Windows & Office ...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...: "Under Ballmer's tenure as CEO, Microsoft's annual revenue surged from $25 billion to $70 billion, while its net income increased 215 percent to $23 billion, and its gross profit of 75 cents on every dollar in sales is double that of Google or International Business Machines Corp. ... These gains came from the existing Windows and Office franchises, with Ballmer maintaining their profitability, fending off threats from cheaper competitors such as GNU/Linux and other open-source operating systems and Google Docs."
Ballmer defenders like to point out the stock value and revenue numbers, which is valid, however Ballmer's reign ended Microsoft's dominance in mindshare and allowed their monopoly to essentially break up.
Mindshare dominance was temporary. And achieving it in the first place was not purely Microsoft's doing. The screwups of their competitors (Apple - Mac OS, IBM - OS/2) factored into this greatly. For example Apple's numerous errors in the late 80s and early 90s. Similarly Apple's getting things right is more recent years helped to end MS mindshare dominance. For example Apple switching to Intel and allowing Windows onto their hardware. This alone doubled Apple's market share. Windows was a necessity for many users, but by moving from a "choose one or the other" model to a "you can have both" model Apple exposed millions more to Mac OS X and got a greater piece of mindshare.
That's the consumer side, now the server side. Servers were historically UNIX. Companies were grudgingly looking at Windows based servers due to ever increasing costs of traditional UNIX boxes and the increasing performance of PC hardware. Just as traditional UNIX vendors are starting to feel some heat Linux enters the scene. Linux ran on the same PC hardware as Windows and since it is UNIX-based (in a technical sense if not legal sense) many companies felt more comfortable with it, moving from one UNIX platform (traditional vendors) to another UNIX platform (Linux).
No company's dominance lasts forever. A CEO that can not only see the company survive but substantially grow during such an end to dominance does deserve some credit.
Hint: manage hardware at a low level
Android delegates this to the host. Is a microkernal based OS not an OS merely because it delegates the hardware interface away?
presenting a uniform interface for applications
Check. Android does this.
manage memory
Check. Android's Java runtime environment does this for applications.
schedule execution
Check. Android does thread scheduling for applications.
enforce security constraints
Check. Android enforces security constraints on applications.
All of this done by Linux, and not the Android libraries ...
As I said, Android is hosted by Linux. The fact that some Linux code is ultimately called is largely meaningless. Much of it is probably stdio or POSIX. From an application's perspective Android is the OS. Apps are unaware of Linux, even many native apps that use C/C++ via the NDK. They merely use stdio or POSIX. If Android were ported to BSD the vast majority of apps would not know or care.
A desktop customized version of Android (complete with a real desktop) is still based on Linux (at least Google's fork of it) ...
Android is not based on Linux. Android is **hosted** on Linux, it is really its own operating system. Most Android apps are Java and have zero interaction with Linux, they only use Android. As for apps that have some native code (c/c++ via NDK) they are usually using legacy c/c++ code that is not Linux based and/or they are using operating system calls that are POSIX based not Linux based.
Linux is just a host for Android. It could be replaced with some other POSIX compliant OS and the vast majority of Android apps would not know or care.
Android, still based on Linux ...
No. Android is hosted on Linux, not based on Linux, very big difference there.
... Notice how my binary applications run on *very* many Android devices without recompilation, even when I write in C using the NDK
Most Android apps are pure Java and do not use the NDK. Those that do are often using legacy C/C++ code that is not Linux specific, many OS calls are actually POSIX calls so they are not really Linux specific either. Again, linux is just the current host environment. Most apps don't care, even many apps using native code via the NDK.
The device market does nearly nothing for Linux as a consumer brand, nearly nothing for the promotion of FOSS. People don't see the Linux embedded in their router, they don't see and can't even get to the Linux that hosts Android on their phones. Most Android developers don't even touch or see Linux during development.
I've been using Linux part-time for twenty years. I build my own desktops so its been easy to build systems that are compatible between windows and linux.
However laptops have always been very troublesome. I have figured out a solution. Buy a chromebook and install Linux on it.
How would you even know if it's running?
The morse code on an LED
"Personal Computers" not "computers". We also had mainframe, minicomputers and workstations that were pretty good at running multiple programs in parallel.
What does it say about condensed water vapor?
It varies. Sometimes it says beware. Other times it says that people prefer wine.
Farming today is nothing like farming was in the 1980's. I left the farm in 1983 ...
That's about the time my university got its first microcomputer lab. The lab was put together by the agriculture department. Mostly Apple //e. Apparently there was a lot of farm management and planning software in existence. And I'm not talking financial accounting. Thing like planning crop rotations, planting, harvesting, watering, minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use, etc.
I was a CS major but I helped them set up the lab so they let me use it.
Personally, I prefer to pull my plow by a team of Rottweilers, like some redneck ancient Roman farmer.
Roman farmers would have used oxen, horses and mules just like US farmers of the 1800s. The dogs were for security and hunting, and of course doubled as family pets, just like today.