Becaise goin open source would add to the headaches of maintaining the code. Now, instead of a stable code base that they can manage and understand, they have one that anyone can change. Now, when a customer has a problem with program X, they have a new set of potential problems
hmm, how does Linus prevent stupid people from messing up his kernel? How does Netscape prevent stupid people from messing up their Netscape 6? IBM could open source OS/2 and then only accept reasonable and tested patches. IBM could then release their official IBM branded and tested OS/2++ kernel.
Linux's extension to the GPL is to allow non-GPL binary kernel modules. Running non-GPL applications is NOT a problem with Linux. The problem is that the GPL is somewhat ambiguous about the definition of "linking" with GPL code. To remove this ambiguity, Linus declared that loading non-GPL kernel modules at runtime (a kind of "linking") is a-okay.
If Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows, don't you think it would have been used in an early version of Windows, say Windows 3.1 or 95? Micrsoft presumably use the BSD TCP/IP stack as a building block like they used Spyglass web browser to create IE. But it is Windows 2000 and no previous version of Windows that shares BSD's TCP "fingerprints". Why would Microsoft steal BSD's TCP/IP stack now? Do you think BSD's TCP/IP stack is thread-safe like the NT kernel? Probably not (yet).
There are some research operating systems (such as University of Washington's Opal, I think) that use a single address space for all user processes. That does not mean there is no process protection (like Windows 9x), just that the the processes share the same address space. Each process still has its own page table (I believe), but the CPU's TLB doesn't need to be flushed because the mappings are still valid for all processes. Of course you run out of VM real quick, so this is only viable for 64 bit computers.:-)
Even if it looked like you, because picture alone is not positive ID in most states. That is why we have a thing called a drivers license and state ID cards. A picture alone is not positive ID, because you wouldn't be able to prove if it was you, your brother, your twin.
How is a driver's license anything other than a picture ID? Why couldn't my twin brother get away with using my driver's license?
IIS has had kernel code since IIS 1. IIS used to bluescreen NT if it received an unexpected DNS response. Now that is the great "advantage" of a kernel-based application.
Why is running Tux inside the kernel so great? IIS has had a kernel module since IIS 1.0. And Microsoft got hell when it moved NT's graphics code into the kernel in NT 4.0.
This reminds me of a joke my CS professor made about operating system research: the "endo-kernel". Microkernel researchers try to move OS features from the kernel to userspace processes for extra protection and modularity. Other researchers (such as UW's SPIN OS and now Tux) move application "modules" from userspace into the kernel to boost performance. So now the "endo-kerenl" OS will be upside-down: OS running in userspace processes for protection, but applications running in kernel space for performance!;-)
I believe the is "software crisis" is a farce. People have been declaring a software crisis since the 1960s. Without a "crisis", snakeoil peddlers would have no MBAs to buy their wimpy $25,000 application servers or dynamic objected structured architecture modeling foobar chart solutions.
What people mostly call a software crisis is usually a problem with project management or ever-changing requirements. Look at the capabilities and performance of today's software compared to that of ten years ago. It's pretty amazing.
Linux's super high performance numbers are from using Tux in the kernel. The new X15 userspace web server is neck-in-neck with Tux because it uses the Tux code that has been merged into Linus' mainstream kernel. Is X15 portable? Can you run X15 on Solaris or BSD without removing use of Linux's non-portable zero-copy APIs and other Tux kernel code?
A FIFO VM?!?!? How stupid can you get? LIFO is much better, and while not really achievable, you can come closer than FIFO using a mark & sweep-like system (or perhaps there are better algorithms today).
Why is FIFO so stupid? FIFO is an approximation of LRU. NT uses a variation of local FIFO page replacement policy for MP x86 and all Alphas, but a Unix-like clock replacement policy for UP x86.
LIFO would be a particularly bad replacement policy because program executables are designed to have code and data locality. If the OS swaps in a code page, you don't want it to swap out that same page. You'll swap the entire page back into RAM when your program tries to execute the next instruction!:-(
WaitForMultipleObjects, you mean, every single semaphore and mutex call is an OS call now? No 10-20 cycle mutex grabs when there's no contention?
Win32 mutexes and semaphores are kernel calls because they are named objects. That is, they can be used to synchronize threads in different processes. If you only care about threads in your local process, then use CRITICAL_SECTIONs. They are fast.
An IO Completion Port is just a thread pool blocked on a counted semaphore to call select() or WaitForMultipleObjects(). If you set the initial semaphore count to the number of processors, then the OS scheduler should efficiently pin each thread processing a select/WFMO event to its own processor.
the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"] The argument from authority requires that I say "I'm an authority so you should believe me."
This statement is implied when your Bible study teacher pronounces that the Bible is "literally true". Without proof, the reader is supposed to accept the word of the Bible study teacher and the Bible as undeniable, authoritative fact.
"Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor " "Observational selection" is a valid counterattack to an argument only where you can show that any stated criteria for exercising judgement are not being properly or consistently applied. I stated my criteria. I believe I'm adhering to it.
In the above, your Bible study teacher is using Observational Selection to state the everything in the Bible is fact, except for those details that are not facts. Who chooses which details are facts and which are "metaphors"? If I disproved any particular Bible detail, your Bible study teacher would choose to selectively relabel that "literal truth" an "obvious metaphor". Would this Bible study teacher accept the disproof of any non-metaphoric Bible without claiming (in retrospect) that it was actually a metaphor?
"Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots " [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument] An ad hominem attack requires that there be someone who is attacked. The quote above didn't attack any immediately identifiable person or group.
I disagree. Someone is clearly being attack: followers of "literalism and legalism". The Bible study teacher is clearly attacking anyone that disagrees with his slippery metaphoric interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible study teacher is not attacking those "self-important idiots" and is instead claiming that there are some people that "you just shouldn't listen to" (as you state), then he is instructing his students to ignore logic and turn a deaf ear to anyone that might offer a new analysis of his argument. Instead of using the scientific method to reason for themselves, his students are asked to return to the warm bosom of the unquestionable Bible.
Now, if you'd called it a straw man argument, you might have had a point.
Actually, a straw man argument would be when the disprover restates the other person's argument in a overly simplified, easily disproved way. So I don't think the Bible study teacher's original argument was a straw man.
btw, thanks for taking the time to respond clearly and intelligently to some random post on Slashdot.:-) It's been fun. You should definitely check out Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World : Science As a Candle in the Dark. It's full of fun arguments and counter-arguments that I think you might enjoy.
"Everything in the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"] except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor [Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses)]. In this case, of course God created the world in 7 days - 7 of His days [Special pleading (typically referring to god's will)]. From our point of view, 7 of His days looks like a mighty long time. Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument] furiously engaged in competitive but highly transient mental masturbation."
If the universe is not allowed to be created "out of nothing", then where did God come from? Is God allowed to be created "out of nothing"? Oh, he always existed? Then why can't the universe have always existed? There is some thought that the Big Bang was not an isolated event and that the universe expands and contracts cyclically.
Check out Corbin Motors' Sparrow. It's a electric one-seater that costs about $14,900. It looks like something from a Richard Scarry book!;-) It comes with a CD player and because it's small enough to be classified as a "motorcycle", DMV registration costs are cheaper and you can use motorcycle lanes and parking spots!
I've seen two in real-life. There's also a Corbin Motors showroom in San Francisco.
Now I am not going to argue that porn is wrong. (Although I do believe that only warped and sick individuals would seek to degrade God's gift to mankind by commercializing it).
What is our Great Nation coming to when even pr0n has become commercialized?? I prefer free pr0n by amateurs.
Do you mind if I call you "Phred Phuhreenoh"? I'm sure that's what your parents had in mind. Here's the simple fact: names are defined by the way they are said, not by the way they are written.
gcc and Sun's compiler will have different bugs. You wouldn't release a product without testing it, so you should always use the "final" tools. Look at how many gcc bugs Linux hits each week. Compiler bugs are usually subtle, so you'll need lots of test-hours to adequately QA your product.
I know some developers who always compile with full optimizations and don't even use their compiler's debug symbols and features when compiling. They test what they ship. There are some compiler bugs that only show up in optimized builds.
Slashdot Mirror
Becaise goin open source would add to the headaches of maintaining the code. Now, instead of a stable code base that they can manage and understand, they have one that anyone can change. Now, when a customer has a problem with program X, they have a new set of potential problems
hmm, how does Linus prevent stupid people from messing up his kernel? How does Netscape prevent stupid people from messing up their Netscape 6? IBM could open source OS/2 and then only accept reasonable and tested patches. IBM could then release their official IBM branded and tested OS/2++ kernel.
Linux's extension to the GPL is to allow non-GPL binary kernel modules. Running non-GPL applications is NOT a problem with Linux. The problem is that the GPL is somewhat ambiguous about the definition of "linking" with GPL code. To remove this ambiguity, Linus declared that loading non-GPL kernel modules at runtime (a kind of "linking") is a-okay.
If Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows, don't you think it would have been used in an early version of Windows, say Windows 3.1 or 95? Micrsoft presumably use the BSD TCP/IP stack as a building block like they used Spyglass web browser to create IE. But it is Windows 2000 and no previous version of Windows that shares BSD's TCP "fingerprints". Why would Microsoft steal BSD's TCP/IP stack now? Do you think BSD's TCP/IP stack is thread-safe like the NT kernel? Probably not (yet).
so Bill Gates is an evil ghost? Blinky, perhaps?
There are some research operating systems (such as University of Washington's Opal, I think) that use a single address space for all user processes. That does not mean there is no process protection (like Windows 9x), just that the the processes share the same address space. Each process still has its own page table (I believe), but the CPU's TLB doesn't need to be flushed because the mappings are still valid for all processes. Of course you run out of VM real quick, so this is only viable for 64 bit computers.
Even if it looked like you, because picture alone is not positive ID in most states. That is why we have a thing called a drivers license and state ID cards. A picture alone is not positive ID, because you wouldn't be able to prove if it was you, your brother, your twin.
How is a driver's license anything other than a picture ID? Why couldn't my twin brother get away with using my driver's license?
IIS has had kernel code since IIS 1. IIS used to bluescreen NT if it received an unexpected DNS response. Now that is the great "advantage" of a kernel-based application.
Why is running Tux inside the kernel so great? IIS has had a kernel module since IIS 1.0. And Microsoft got hell when it moved NT's graphics code into the kernel in NT 4.0.
;-)
This reminds me of a joke my CS professor made about operating system research: the "endo-kernel". Microkernel researchers try to move OS features from the kernel to userspace processes for extra protection and modularity. Other researchers (such as UW's SPIN OS and now Tux) move application "modules" from userspace into the kernel to boost performance. So now the "endo-kerenl" OS will be upside-down: OS running in userspace processes for protection, but applications running in kernel space for performance!
I believe the is "software crisis" is a farce. People have been declaring a software crisis since the 1960s. Without a "crisis", snakeoil peddlers would have no MBAs to buy their wimpy $25,000 application servers or dynamic objected structured architecture modeling foobar chart solutions.
What people mostly call a software crisis is usually a problem with project management or ever-changing requirements. Look at the capabilities and performance of today's software compared to that of ten years ago. It's pretty amazing.
At first glance, I thought you had recommended Firefox, starring Clint Eastwood.
I agree. Solaris does have l33t name. Much kewler than SunOS or Phreex!
Linux's super high performance numbers are from using Tux in the kernel. The new X15 userspace web server is neck-in-neck with Tux because it uses the Tux code that has been merged into Linus' mainstream kernel. Is X15 portable? Can you run X15 on Solaris or BSD without removing use of Linux's non-portable zero-copy APIs and other Tux kernel code?
A FIFO VM?!?!? How stupid can you get? LIFO is much better, and while not really achievable, you can come closer than FIFO using a mark & sweep-like system (or perhaps there are better algorithms today).
:-(
Why is FIFO so stupid? FIFO is an approximation of LRU. NT uses a variation of local FIFO page replacement policy for MP x86 and all Alphas, but a Unix-like clock replacement policy for UP x86.
LIFO would be a particularly bad replacement policy because program executables are designed to have code and data locality. If the OS swaps in a code page, you don't want it to swap out that same page. You'll swap the entire page back into RAM when your program tries to execute the next instruction!
WaitForMultipleObjects, you mean, every single semaphore and mutex call is an OS call now? No 10-20 cycle mutex grabs when there's no contention?
Win32 mutexes and semaphores are kernel calls because they are named objects. That is, they can be used to synchronize threads in different processes. If you only care about threads in your local process, then use CRITICAL_SECTIONs. They are fast.
An IO Completion Port is just a thread pool blocked on a counted semaphore to call select() or WaitForMultipleObjects(). If you set the initial semaphore count to the number of processors, then the OS scheduler should efficiently pin each thread processing a select/WFMO event to its own processor.
the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"]
The argument from authority requires that I say "I'm an authority so you should believe me."
This statement is implied when your Bible study teacher pronounces that the Bible is "literally true". Without proof, the reader is supposed to accept the word of the Bible study teacher and the Bible as undeniable, authoritative fact.
"Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor "
"Observational selection" is a valid counterattack to an argument only where you can show that any stated criteria for exercising judgement are not being properly or consistently applied. I stated my criteria. I believe I'm adhering to it.
In the above, your Bible study teacher is using Observational Selection to state the everything in the Bible is fact, except for those details that are not facts. Who chooses which details are facts and which are "metaphors"? If I disproved any particular Bible detail, your Bible study teacher would choose to selectively relabel that "literal truth" an "obvious metaphor". Would this Bible study teacher accept the disproof of any non-metaphoric Bible without claiming (in retrospect) that it was actually a metaphor?
"Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots " [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument]
An ad hominem attack requires that there be someone who is attacked. The quote above didn't attack any immediately identifiable person or group.
I disagree. Someone is clearly being attack: followers of "literalism and legalism". The Bible study teacher is clearly attacking anyone that disagrees with his slippery metaphoric interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible study teacher is not attacking those "self-important idiots" and is instead claiming that there are some people that "you just shouldn't listen to" (as you state), then he is instructing his students to ignore logic and turn a deaf ear to anyone that might offer a new analysis of his argument. Instead of using the scientific method to reason for themselves, his students are asked to return to the warm bosom of the unquestionable Bible.
Now, if you'd called it a straw man argument, you might have had a point.
Actually, a straw man argument would be when the disprover restates the other person's argument in a overly simplified, easily disproved way. So I don't think the Bible study teacher's original argument was a straw man.
btw, thanks for taking the time to respond clearly and intelligently to some random post on Slashdot.
peace,
chris
Here's a page that discusses FreeBSD's SMP plans for 5.0. The page also claims that the target release date is Decemeber 2001.
FreeBSD SMP Project (SMPng)
Please read Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
"Everything in the Bible is literally true [Argument from "authority"] except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor [Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses)]. In this case, of course God created the world in 7 days - 7 of His days [Special pleading (typically referring to god's will)]. From our point of view, 7 of His days looks like a mighty long time. Don't get hung up on literalism and legalism. They are mere intellectual cudgels used in meaningless verbal battles between self-important idiots [Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument] furiously engaged in competitive but highly transient mental masturbation."
If the universe is not allowed to be created "out of nothing", then where did God come from? Is God allowed to be created "out of nothing"? Oh, he always existed? Then why can't the universe have always existed? There is some thought that the Big Bang was not an isolated event and that the universe expands and contracts cyclically.
Check out Corbin Motors' Sparrow. It's a electric one-seater that costs about $14,900. It looks like something from a Richard Scarry book!
I've seen two in real-life. There's also a Corbin Motors showroom in San Francisco.
well, if she reads the posts, then she will be introduced to such powers as goatse.cx.
Now I am not going to argue that porn is wrong. (Although I do believe that only warped and sick individuals would seek to degrade God's gift to mankind by commercializing it).
What is our Great Nation coming to when even pr0n has become commercialized?? I prefer free pr0n by amateurs.
ZDnet has a similar "smart tags enabled" article "Microsoft Tries To Get Smart", but your's expresses the idea much more succintly!
Do you mind if I call you "Phred Phuhreenoh"? I'm sure that's what your parents had in mind. Here's the simple fact: names are defined by the way they are said, not by the way they are written.
I guess BSD truly is freer than Linux! BSD is about giving freedom to the developers.
gcc and Sun's compiler will have different bugs. You wouldn't release a product without testing it, so you should always use the "final" tools. Look at how many gcc bugs Linux hits each week. Compiler bugs are usually subtle, so you'll need lots of test-hours to adequately QA your product.
I know some developers who always compile with full optimizations and don't even use their compiler's debug symbols and features when compiling. They test what they ship. There are some compiler bugs that only show up in optimized builds.