You keep bringing this up, these "for anybody?" or "NOBODY needs this?" kind of comments. It's not that nobody has a use for it, it's that not enough people have a use for it to result in much in the way of generally available products.
Most corporations would rather you use a separate device entirely, and most end-users don't have the need.
The use-case you're describing is pretty narrow. It does not seem to justify the cost of designing and producing what you describe.
More to the point, if these corporations trust virtualization to run their secured production servers (and by-and-large, they do) why would they not trust it for end-user devices? It is much cheaper and less complex to install a hypervisor on commodity hardware than it is to manage the dual-architecture device you are describing.
Especially for something that does not need to be that performant.
It would be complex because you are doubling the number of general-purpose computers in the product. It would be huge because you'd have to make room for the added hardware. I'm not gonna comment on stupid, because that's subjective here.
You are adding (at minumum):
The SOC
cable/bus routing for the SOC
A USB-Aware, multi-monitor KVM for the SOC
Cooling/ventilation considerations for the SOC
WIFI antenna or harware switching component for the WIFI antenna
Same for Bluetooth
Power management components (shared battery connections, or a separate battery, power/reset button switching/sharing, acpi component sharing [e.g. closed lid], shared or separate battery/power monitoring) for the SOC
Signal/interference considerations for the SOC
Audio port switching for the SOC
Storage for the SOC (for installing the software you want to use on the insecure side)
This would result in one or more of:
Increased footprint (to make room for the above)
Reduced performance (as additional/better main system components are crowded by SOC components)
Increased power consumption (to keep the SOC always-on, so that you can simply switch back and forth)
Increased maintenance (more complex systems are more breakage prone, and harder to repair, you'd have to do software maintenance on both systems)
It's not that NOBODY would benefit, but not enough people would benefit from a secondary SOC integrated into their laptop(clearly you would benefit), it's that not nearly enough people would benefit from this for any laptop manufacturer to design, test, produce and market this. This would be a very niche market, and most people would be better served by entirely separate devices.
Buy an old laptop (an older one with plenty of room in the shell)
Gut it.
Buy a nice ARM single-board computer (for your main OS, windows 10 for ARM since you mentioned win10)
Buy a raspberry Pi for your secondary OS.
Buy a cheap KVM switch, gut it.
Get some batteries, a charging unit, etc.
Have fun soldering.
choices, that doesn't make them good choices.
No memory protection, run everything in ring 0?
Great, assuming I am a perfect programmer, and only ever run my own code.
This only works at all because there is no networking support and no third party applications.
So, looking at the list of "What can we learn if we are only willing to listen?"
Installation - Installation is quick and easy. Boot completes in a second.
Because there's no hardware support, there's little to initialize. Since everything runs at ring 0 (essentially, in the kernel) there's very little to process management. Calling this a plus is kind of like saying cutting off your legs is a great way to lose weight.
You can make an argument that feature-bloat is a bad thing, and that simplification would be valuable to users, but this is not that argument.
Shell/File Explorer - why would I *want* a custom, c-like, language for my shell? The shell is where I launch things, or do quick and dirty scripting at the most. If I want to develop applications, I'm happy to open a separate dev environment, if it means I don't have to apply C syntax to every command I run.
Hypertext - It looks like a reinvention of.docx, without the compression or any concept of security (don't click any doldoc links you didn't write yourself).
Hardware and Security - none and none. You cannot spin this into a positive.
...that none of the people arguing that we should see the movie make the case that in supporting Orson Scott Card (who vehemently opposes gay marriage) we would also be supporting Harrison Ford, who supports them.
No. Go reread the article - he uses terms like "any means necessary" and "If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die." That's not encouraging voting. That's something else.
Also, again If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
And, by the way, whether you like it or not, twenty years ago the position you now find so offensive was the standard position for almost all Americans.
No. It was not. Twenty years ago, the standard position for almost all Americans might have been that gay marriage should not be allowed. If that was all this was, I might even see the movie. The issue I have is with this.
I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
That's Orson Scott Card saying that if gay marriage is ever legalized he will act to the best of his ability to destroy the US government.
You misunderstand by thinking that I think all bigotry is equal.
I don't care how sensitive his fiction is, if he essentially threatens armed revolt over the issue I have issues with supporting him in any way. As far as I know, he's never retracted those sentiments.
This also makes his "it's moot" statement ring all the more false, because it's at this point he would (if his prior article is at all honest) begin using his resources for really dangerous and objectionable things.
1) Feel free to organize a boycott of those writers, producers, directors and actors. If that limits your viewing options, that's the price you pay. People boycotting Card are willing to pay that price.
2) Card's call for 'tolerance' after his intolerance (advocating revolution over the legalization of gay marriage can hardly be viewed as tolerant of gay people) has a definite element of hypocrisy.
Personally, I think his use of the word 'tolerance' in this instance was purely a rhetorical ploy, but still hypocritical one.
Despite my support for gay marriage, the answer to your question is, fundamentally, "yes".
"OK" is an interesting word, because it being "OK" would imply that I thought it was "OK" to oppose equal rights in the first place. But for the purposes of this discussion let's set this aside. If you disagree as strongly with (for example) JK Rowling as I disagree with Orson Scott Card, then by all means boycott her books and movies.
I'm not sure why this is even a question.
maybe those that don't support gay marriage SHOULD boycott directors and producers that vocally do?
I don't think they should, but that would be their right if they felt strongly enough.
I have gay friends and family members who would like to be able to get married.
I don't see how not wanting to give money to someone who
1) uses their wealth and societal influence to try and make that impossible and, in fact,
2) advocates for overthrowing the government if they were allowed to do so (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html)
make me unreasonable.
Why do you want to punish people for their opinion in a way that has nothing at all to do with the opinion?
You do realize that this is how nearly all punishment works, right? If someone commits assault, we imprison them. We don't assault them back.
Crimes are rarely punished in any way relating to the crime itself. It's not practical or tenable.
Why?
Because that's the way it works. I am not given the option of doing so in a way that directly relates to his opinion. And it's not, strictly speaking, about punishing him anyway. It's about my personal responsibility for what I spend my money on. If a local restaurant owner hosts dog fights in his spare time, I'm not going to buy his burgers, despite the lack of relation between the two. It's not just about buying a movie ticket - I want to live in a particular kind of world (one where people who think revolution is the appropriate reaction to two men getting a marriage license) are less successful and where more tolerant people are more successful. So I spend a little money toward buying that world.
If you insist on seeing it in pure capitalistic term: Orson Scott Card is a brand of fiction. As the primary representative of that brand, Orson Scott Card the man alienated me, and many people like me, from his brand. If I choose to take my business elsewhere, and encourage others to do the same, what is that other than capitalism at work?
I don't think taking my business elsewhere based on the conduct of the businessman is at all unreasonable. I don't see how not buying stuff from person X infringes on his free speech either. He's no more entitled to have his movie see than I am to have mine seen. Not that I have one...
OK, here's my view -
The company is not profitable yet, so the chances that it is paying a high salary are not good.
Your boss is asking salaried employees to work uncompensated overtime, routinely, 'until the company is profitable'.
1) The company being 'profitable' is a vague term - does he mean the first quarter that the company makes even $0.01 above costs? Or what? Does VC, etc, count toward income for 'profitability'?
2) He is not promising future compensation, just vaguely implying that hours will go back to normal after the company is profitable. Which could be years...
3) Even any vague implications about future compensation are just that - vague, and merely implications. Not bankable promises.
4) Even if the team is naive enough to agree to this, you can't bank on them remaining so.
Go to the team and ask how they feel about working that extra time with no promises of any reward or compensation. If your staff are gun-ho enough about the company to be completely unfazed by the idea, then it's not a problem until apathy or exhaustion set in. Otherwise, the following points need to be raised.
So I would tell your boss the following -
1) If he wants extra work from his people, he needs to be very careful not to abuse their generosity. He definitely needs to understand that generosity is exactly what this would be.
2) He needs to understand the impact this could have on retention - I would definitely expect an increase in turnover.
3) He needs to understand the impact on recruitment - people who can get a better deal elsewhere will not want to work there.
4) The impact on both of these would not end when the company became profitable - by then they could have a reputation. It's common practice to ask people at a company what it's like to work there, and this kind of thing is generally a mark against.
5) This will negatively impact the team's view of the company as well - quality may suffer not only from exhaustion, but apathy. Morale is not just "happy workers do better work" but "unhappy or angry workers may even be actually obstructionist". Keep in mind that employees (myself, for example) do not necessarily parse the difference between "what the company needs" and "what boss X wants" along the same lines as management.
6) Since they have no stock or ownership of the company, they have a very limited personal interest in whether the company does well - making it a situation where it's unpaid overtime or lose the job would indeed make me work the overtime... for just as long as it took me to find another job. He's asking them to make a personal sacrifice without a personal stake.
So I would tell him that if all of those potential losses are worth the short-term gains of more rapid feature development, then this is feasible... but that the gains will rapidly drop off, and may not manifest as quickly as he would like given the resentment this is likely to cause, and may be entirely eliminated or even overtaken by any potential increase in turnover. I would also ask him what motivation he expects you to be able to provide to the team to do free work.
If he's not willing to deal with the long-term (and short-term) consequences for the short-term gain, or he can't provide a satisfactory answer to the motivation question, then tell him it's not feasible, because you'd lose more than you'd gain, and he's going to have to pay actual money to increase output.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep bringing this up, these "for anybody?" or "NOBODY needs this?" kind of comments. It's not that nobody has a use for it, it's that not enough people have a use for it to result in much in the way of generally available products.
Most corporations would rather you use a separate device entirely, and most end-users don't have the need.
The use-case you're describing is pretty narrow. It does not seem to justify the cost of designing and producing what you describe.
More to the point, if these corporations trust virtualization to run their secured production servers (and by-and-large, they do) why would they not trust it for end-user devices? It is much cheaper and less complex to install a hypervisor on commodity hardware than it is to manage the dual-architecture device you are describing.
Especially for something that does not need to be that performant.
You are adding (at minumum):
This would result in one or more of:
It's not that NOBODY would benefit, but not enough people would benefit from a secondary SOC integrated into their laptop(clearly you would benefit), it's that not nearly enough people would benefit from this for any laptop manufacturer to design, test, produce and market this. This would be a very niche market, and most people would be better served by entirely separate devices.
Although, really, either a VM, dual-boot, or an entirely separate physical system are all far better solutions.
Buy an old laptop (an older one with plenty of room in the shell) Gut it. Buy a nice ARM single-board computer (for your main OS, windows 10 for ARM since you mentioned win10) Buy a raspberry Pi for your secondary OS. Buy a cheap KVM switch, gut it. Get some batteries, a charging unit, etc. Have fun soldering.
No memory protection, run everything in ring 0?
Great, assuming I am a perfect programmer, and only ever run my own code.
This only works at all because there is no networking support and no third party applications.
So, looking at the list of "What can we learn if we are only willing to listen?"
Installation - Installation is quick and easy. Boot completes in a second.
Because there's no hardware support, there's little to initialize. Since everything runs at ring 0 (essentially, in the kernel) there's very little to process management. Calling this a plus is kind of like saying cutting off your legs is a great way to lose weight.
You can make an argument that feature-bloat is a bad thing, and that simplification would be valuable to users, but this is not that argument.
Shell/File Explorer - why would I *want* a custom, c-like, language for my shell? The shell is where I launch things, or do quick and dirty scripting at the most. If I want to develop applications, I'm happy to open a separate dev environment, if it means I don't have to apply C syntax to every command I run.
Hypertext - It looks like a reinvention of
Hardware and Security - none and none. You cannot spin this into a positive.
Yes. Epecially in IT where lots of consoles for machines without conventional 'heads' run as a java applet in a webpage hosted on the controller.
...that none of the people arguing that we should see the movie make the case that in supporting Orson Scott Card (who vehemently opposes gay marriage) we would also be supporting Harrison Ford, who supports them.
How is my decision to eat less Chik-Fil-A different from your decision to eat more?
No. Go reread the article - he uses terms like "any means necessary" and "If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die." That's not encouraging voting. That's something else.
Also, again
If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
And, by the way, whether you like it or not, twenty years ago the position you now find so offensive was the standard position for almost all Americans.
No. It was not. Twenty years ago, the standard position for almost all Americans might have been that gay marriage should not be allowed. If that was all this was, I might even see the movie. The issue I have is with this.
I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
That's Orson Scott Card saying that if gay marriage is ever legalized he will act to the best of his ability to destroy the US government.
You misunderstand by thinking that I think all bigotry is equal.
I don't care how sensitive his fiction is, if he essentially threatens armed revolt over the issue I have issues with supporting him in any way. As far as I know, he's never retracted those sentiments.
This also makes his "it's moot" statement ring all the more false, because it's at this point he would (if his prior article is at all honest) begin using his resources for really dangerous and objectionable things.
1) Feel free to organize a boycott of those writers, producers, directors and actors. If that limits your viewing options, that's the price you pay. People boycotting Card are willing to pay that price.
2) Card's call for 'tolerance' after his intolerance (advocating revolution over the legalization of gay marriage can hardly be viewed as tolerant of gay people) has a definite element of hypocrisy.
Personally, I think his use of the word 'tolerance' in this instance was purely a rhetorical ploy, but still hypocritical one.
Despite my support for gay marriage, the answer to your question is, fundamentally, "yes".
"OK" is an interesting word, because it being "OK" would imply that I thought it was "OK" to oppose equal rights in the first place. But for the purposes of this discussion let's set this aside. If you disagree as strongly with (for example) JK Rowling as I disagree with Orson Scott Card, then by all means boycott her books and movies.
I'm not sure why this is even a question.
Good for you!
Why does that mean I have to? Or that I can't encourage others not to?
maybe those that don't support gay marriage SHOULD boycott directors and producers that vocally do? I don't think they should, but that would be their right if they felt strongly enough. I have gay friends and family members who would like to be able to get married. I don't see how not wanting to give money to someone who 1) uses their wealth and societal influence to try and make that impossible and, in fact, 2) advocates for overthrowing the government if they were allowed to do so (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html) make me unreasonable. Why do you want to punish people for their opinion in a way that has nothing at all to do with the opinion? You do realize that this is how nearly all punishment works, right? If someone commits assault, we imprison them. We don't assault them back.
Crimes are rarely punished in any way relating to the crime itself. It's not practical or tenable.
Why?
Because that's the way it works. I am not given the option of doing so in a way that directly relates to his opinion. And it's not, strictly speaking, about punishing him anyway. It's about my personal responsibility for what I spend my money on. If a local restaurant owner hosts dog fights in his spare time, I'm not going to buy his burgers, despite the lack of relation between the two. It's not just about buying a movie ticket - I want to live in a particular kind of world (one where people who think revolution is the appropriate reaction to two men getting a marriage license) are less successful and where more tolerant people are more successful. So I spend a little money toward buying that world.
If you insist on seeing it in pure capitalistic term: Orson Scott Card is a brand of fiction. As the primary representative of that brand, Orson Scott Card the man alienated me, and many people like me, from his brand. If I choose to take my business elsewhere, and encourage others to do the same, what is that other than capitalism at work?
I don't think taking my business elsewhere based on the conduct of the businessman is at all unreasonable. I don't see how not buying stuff from person X infringes on his free speech either. He's no more entitled to have his movie see than I am to have mine seen. Not that I have one...
OK, here's my view - The company is not profitable yet, so the chances that it is paying a high salary are not good. Your boss is asking salaried employees to work uncompensated overtime, routinely, 'until the company is profitable'. 1) The company being 'profitable' is a vague term - does he mean the first quarter that the company makes even $0.01 above costs? Or what? Does VC, etc, count toward income for 'profitability'? 2) He is not promising future compensation, just vaguely implying that hours will go back to normal after the company is profitable. Which could be years... 3) Even any vague implications about future compensation are just that - vague, and merely implications. Not bankable promises. 4) Even if the team is naive enough to agree to this, you can't bank on them remaining so. Go to the team and ask how they feel about working that extra time with no promises of any reward or compensation. If your staff are gun-ho enough about the company to be completely unfazed by the idea, then it's not a problem until apathy or exhaustion set in. Otherwise, the following points need to be raised. So I would tell your boss the following - 1) If he wants extra work from his people, he needs to be very careful not to abuse their generosity. He definitely needs to understand that generosity is exactly what this would be. 2) He needs to understand the impact this could have on retention - I would definitely expect an increase in turnover. 3) He needs to understand the impact on recruitment - people who can get a better deal elsewhere will not want to work there. 4) The impact on both of these would not end when the company became profitable - by then they could have a reputation. It's common practice to ask people at a company what it's like to work there, and this kind of thing is generally a mark against. 5) This will negatively impact the team's view of the company as well - quality may suffer not only from exhaustion, but apathy. Morale is not just "happy workers do better work" but "unhappy or angry workers may even be actually obstructionist". Keep in mind that employees (myself, for example) do not necessarily parse the difference between "what the company needs" and "what boss X wants" along the same lines as management. 6) Since they have no stock or ownership of the company, they have a very limited personal interest in whether the company does well - making it a situation where it's unpaid overtime or lose the job would indeed make me work the overtime... for just as long as it took me to find another job. He's asking them to make a personal sacrifice without a personal stake. So I would tell him that if all of those potential losses are worth the short-term gains of more rapid feature development, then this is feasible... but that the gains will rapidly drop off, and may not manifest as quickly as he would like given the resentment this is likely to cause, and may be entirely eliminated or even overtaken by any potential increase in turnover. I would also ask him what motivation he expects you to be able to provide to the team to do free work. If he's not willing to deal with the long-term (and short-term) consequences for the short-term gain, or he can't provide a satisfactory answer to the motivation question, then tell him it's not feasible, because you'd lose more than you'd gain, and he's going to have to pay actual money to increase output.