Basically, any application that needs extremely fast response from the system itself will require realtime facilities. Take for example a factory. You can't have the machinery respond with a 2 second or even 1 second lag, or you might find your product mashed or ruined. Basically, mission critical engineering systems such as factories, machine control centers, life support systems, etc.
Anonymous Coward, before insulting me, I would suggest reading my User Profile. When you have half the skills and experience that I have, perhaps you will be in a position to talk in that manner. Until then, I believe that it is YOU who is the moron, not me.
Actually, you are wrong. When people talk about scheduling and realtime kernels, they don't talk about important factors in it - I mean, you mentioned the time limitation and what constitutes "hard realtime". I agree with that. However, what you must also understand is that in order to proliferate functional string stacks within a realtime enviroment, certain requirements must be met. The first of these is to eliminate sectioned kernel domains - in other words, the code of the kernel itself must be deterministic in that it needs to demystify dimensionalized address pointers, and in turn, disintermediate cohomologic float values.
The open source technology movement pioneered software itself. There is absolutely no discussion on this matter. Without open source there would be no software at all - propreitry software came after open source (or free software, or whatever you want to call it) - not before.
The Microsoft IntelliMouse is the only thing that springs to mind. Their product range since the early years of the company has mainly been based on stolen or imitated products. Microsoft BASIC was stolen from DEC Labs when William Gates was working there. That was their first product. The MS-DOS product was based on a system written by Tim Patterson known as the "QDOS" - Quick and Dirty OS. Their Office products were blatant imitations of existing products (WordPerfect, Lotus 123, etc). Their Windows product range introduced "innovations" into the OSes that other OSes had had for years. Propreitry standards do not count as "innovation", either. The Microsoft.DOC format and.XLS formats were only invented to prevent open document standards...Microsoft didn't want to allow you to be able to read a.DOC with a non-Microsoft product. Sorry, but your argument holds no water. You claim " I must agree with Allchin that free software and open source primarily clone existing user-facing commercial products rather than innovating in that space. "
and yet you simply ignore the fact that cloning existing products has basically been Microsoft's game plan since 1975. Oh, that and "innovating" proprietry standards in order to create a stranglehold on the market - I don't know if that actually counts as innovation though. Perhaps the only innovative thing Microsoft has produced has been a marketing and legal team second to none.
I have been thinking about starting a movement to do this. I even mentally mapped the areas of code I would being rewriting first. But when I pondered the matter further, I realized that all of the improvements and changes that I would make are things that HURD project pretty much has covered. I won't stop using GNU/Linux, but when the HURD is ready I would recommend checking it out.
Unfortunately the Linux kernel still does not comply with the principles of good kernel design highlighted in Tannenbaum's "Operating Systems Design And Implentation": the clean (and I do emphasize that that is important) implementation of a scheduler, memory managment aspects, IPC, device drivers etc. I'm not bashing the kernel though, and I do use GNU/Linux extensively....
The only solution to the Linux kernel problem is a complete rewrite of the codebase. This will ensure that no messy code is left behind and that the kernel can effectively take on modern kernel implementations, such as BeOS and QNX, and Plan 9's kernel.
The current Linux codebase is good, but for it to be great, the developers must stop patting eachother on the back and start seriously thinking about proper change control - perhaps a CVS system instead of randomly throwing out tarballs....and a proper built-in kernel debugger. (Linus himself apparently dissaproves of things like this). Sure Linus has been invaluable to the success of the Linux kernel, but in matters such as this perhaps it's time he was overruled, in order to take the kernel onto the next level.
There can't be any argument that the GPL has a political agenda behind it. People like myself, who are more interested in the code itself and the scientific/practical side of things as opposed to the politics behind it, are not interested in political agendas. The BSDL is fairly free of politics, at least to the extent that any human interaction can be. Both are "free", for some definition of the word free. These arguments are purely political. I didn't choose my OS based on the license. I chose it because it was the right tool for the job I needed to do. I would be perfectly happy to have FreeBSD available under the GPL. I would be perfectly happy to have Linux available under the BSDL. Of course, I have fallen out of favour with the BSD crowd, but still can't deny the strengths of both their code and their license... I use a variety of OS's, based on what job I need done. As far as open source licenses go, with all open source licenses, users return code to the project. This effectively voids the entire argument over which license and indeed whether a license is in fact important.
I urge the Slashdot editors to steer away from politics and focus more on technical issues. I think that the majority of intelligent Slashdotters posting to this board will agree with that. Of course there will be those trolls who oppose this and delight in starting flamewars over the GPL vs BSD vs Python license vs Apache license, but the majority of reasonable Slashdotters would prefer to focus on technical, scientific and engineering issues.
Undoubtedly Sony will be using the new up and coming system from Be, Inc known as BeIA for controlling these devices. It kinda makes sense due to the advanced technology and especially real-time technology that a venture like this would require. Great to see that companies like Be making comebacks like this.
South Africa has had this for years. A colleague of mine served on a panel advising the high court in South Africa when the Wouter Basson Chemical Warfare trial was on. This really isn't news and it proves why the US is falling behind the rest of the world in terms of social structure.
For a really advanced country as far as this sort of thing is concerned, check out the Netherlands.
I stopped porting for the BSD ports collection a long time ago. While it's a good idea, they don't give credit where credit is due - in '98 half of the ported applications in the ports tree was ported by me, Cliffton Watermore. I will not support the ports collection until my name appears on the credits - where it should.
The mathematical formulaes involved in cryptographic equations rely on pseudo-complex number generation - now, this in itself is not a problem, but the METHOD in which it is implemented is a big problem and will actually make or break encryption.
Now, how do we know whether or not the numbers are reliable insofar as cryptographics are concerned? First, is the geometry of the integer table isomorphic? If not, you are in trouble.
This is because one cannot have an operator that displays the properties of a value that is compact and admits a Kahler metric...and therefore does not project a non singular algebraic variety.
It sounds great. No doubt about that. Maybe even worth the price if it really can run Linux binaries through LxRun. I dunno about that, though. What about X11 compatibility? The article claims it has built in X functionality. How complete is this? Could you run heavy duty Linux apps, like StarOffice and Netscape for Linux?
How difficult would it be to port a heavy duty app - not a small open source app like GNU bash or wget, or GNU tar - but a truly heavy duty application like Apache, or BIND? These are Industrial Strength Apps that people need and use daily, and if they aren't ported....well....(trails off). Yes, I know it's a big ask to port all that stuff. If it did happen, though, QNX would be THE thing.
Then again, it depends on the cost. While the core OS looks to be industrial strength, if they want too much for it, you might as well stick with FreeBSD or Linux. If the licenses are too Microsoftian, people might shun it no matter how good it is. Open source OS's have raised the stakes. It's no good to have a killer product if you're going to be Microsoftian about it, because the Open Source crowd will eat you for dinner.
Still, the driver support is exceptional (Supports everything from most PC's I own and work with). It might very well be worth a try - heck, what am I saying. I can't wait to try this thing. But I'm not optimistic. In the end, propreitry software can lead to no good, and lead to Microsoftian pricing structures which just don't make sense. It'll be a fun OS to play with, but if they want too much for its use - Microsoftian pricing - I might as well not bother and just stick to Linux. Really.
GNU/BSD/X11/MPL/Artistic/Linux? BIND, Apache, Sendmail.... are all, I believe BSD'd. These are some of the top reasons people actually use Linux...err, sorry. GNU/BSD/X11/MPL/Artistic/Linux. I'm not denying the contribution of the GNU utilities/FSF to Linux at all. And I'm not even saying that you should call it "Linux". But neither should it be referred to as "GNU" or "GNU/Linux". In fact, you might as well call the distribution of Linux, the entire OS, by the name which the distribution was created. Ie, you could call Mandrake 7.1....Mandrake 7.1 and Debian 2.2, Debian 2.2...and....Slackware 7...Slackware 7. No need to mention "Linux kernel" or "GNU utilities" or "BSD-licensed servers" or "MPL programs" or "Artistic programs".
I work in the Biotechnology industry. There's no question that man and machine will fuse at some point, relatively soon in fact. I agree with the privacy issues - privacy is paramount and we should not allow new technologies, no matter how stunning, to interfere with it.
However, I have a big issue with your fear of integrating technology into human/other organisms. This has been happening for quite a while now, with Pacemakers, artificial limbs/plates for bone correction and assistance, hearing aids, etc. The fact is that with new technologies, such as electronic hearts, eyes, livers, etc, we will be able to boost the human lifespan by several decades. Lipespans of 160 will be common. As technology improves, 200 won't be unheard of.
This isn't a new phenomenon though, it's been on the cards since the 1800s when machines started to assist humans with menial functions. In the 1950s Computers started taking over some of the "thinking" functions such as Intelligence/encryption/military and later business and of course number crunching, and now machines are going to be making their way into our bodies. This isn't an unusual leap and people in the Biotech industry have been predicting it for ages. Fact is, when people get to 130 and still have a good 40 years to live - with perfect vision, hearing, a perfect heart, etc - they probably won't be complaining. Well, maybe some of them will.
In conclusion, I don't think that people should be forced to implement technologies on themselves - and I don't think that any technologies that will be integrated so closely into our lives should we choose to implement them should invade our privacy in any way. But to bash such technologies for "de-humanizing" us is as stupid as bashing railroads and punchcard looms
Like many other things Americans have standardized due to their amazing grasp of marketing and FUD (Windows 95/NT/Etc MS products are American), The Internet is a product that is of low quality and high consumability. Like the Ford line of cars for example. They are of crap quality, but they are mass produced and marketed so well, that they actually do sell. I doubt many people will argue that Ford is better than Audi or Volvo. Retarded indeed. Usually I'm in praise of the American way, and indeed there are some things that the Americans have done well, and do well, and for those they must be commended. The Internet, however, is not one of them.
The Amiga was an awesome machine *for its time in the 80s blah blah blah.
That's all we here from these morons. It's simply not true. Even today, there are areas where the Amiga outperforms any other platform (hardware and software platform), not because it's got better hardware, but because of the cleverness of the hardware and software combination - the particular combination that Amiga uses.
Up until 1999, even AGP-equipped PC's could not compete with original Amigas when it came to certain graphics/syncing tasks, and even now that high-end PC's have surpassed it, there are STILL areas where the Amiga is superior. The Amiga is not dead, even in it's old form. It won't be "dead" until someone creates something that can do what it does better than it does it - and at the moment, such a beast is too expensive for most people to afford.
Although the old Amiga will be left behind eventually, it's still a machine that really cooks, esp with the latest PPC technology. In fact, Amigas can run Mac apps faster than the Mac itself! Bullshit? No - fact.
Amiga is not dead and it's still a testament to what human engineering is capable of.
You're right, it doesn't point to "nothing useful". It points, in fact, to something very interesting and quite useful. What better way to reverse engineer software/drivers is there?
Moron. Go back to school. Learn to write proper English.
www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b on FreeBSD
I can assure you that W2K and microsoft will run hotmail just fucking fine. Everyone who thinks otherwise just plain linux stupid.
Hmmm. Ok, that will be very interesting. I wonder when they'll start running Hotmail jsut fucking fine. I recall similar sentiments when Microsoft switched Hotmail over from Solaris to NT. Hmmm....I guess that ran Hotmail just fucking fine, and that's why they switched to FreeBSD. Isn't that right, Anonymous?
saying something like "Enter a check," "Open a new document," or "Send an e-mail"
To me, this isn't the definition of a good natural language CLI. In fact, I don't think such a thing would actually be a good idea. It's been said before that the way forward will be semi-natural language CLIs and programming languages.
I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again: Sheep. This is a language that will really take off in the future. Let's take a look into the future: Sheep is a semi-natural language programming language, with the syntax structure of a text adventure game, but compiled into a list of instructions instead of interactively entered to the game parser - in this case, the parser will be a Sheep compiler, which will translate the instructions into native machine code. While far easier to read than traditional languages, Sheep will also have the performance of C - something that will create unprecedented programmer productivity. Because of it's inherent natural-based structure, it will allow creativity - not pure hack, to play the MOST vital part of creating good code.
Before this goes too OT, let me get back to semi-natural CLIs:) I think that in the future, languages like Sheep will spawn operating systems that have similar natures to Sheep - and also semi-natural language CLI. Now, I'm not talking about the kind of CLI the poster above mentioned, the "Send an email for me please", kind of thing. I'm thinking more along the lines of Cisco's IOS, or how that is at the moment. Intuitive, helpful, and verbosely interactive. However, while IOS CLI is nice, it's not exactly what I'm talking about. The semi-natural language CLI will have more: it will understand commands not in the way that traditional CLI's have understood them, but in the context of everything preceding each command, in the style of adventure game parsers. This is where it will make its similarity to the Sheep language itself apparent.
All in all, it will be a step forward in communications between people and computers - and - what many industry professionals will appreciate - it will lead to cleaner code - as well as many cool "intelligent utilities", like semi-natural language CLIs.
Ummm, can you please point out where I said that MS Access == SQL Server? What I was saying was that NT Server is NOT stable enough to handle too many users. Please produce an affidavit stating that I said that MS Access == SQL. Otherwise, shut up until you have something useful to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's why:
The mathematical formulaes involved in cryptographic equations rely on pseudo-complex number generation - now, this in itself is not a problem, but the METHOD in which it is implemented is a big problem and will actually make or break encryption.Now, how do we know whether or not the numbers are reliable insofar as cryptographics are concerned? First, is the geometry of the integer table isomorphic? If not, you are in trouble.
This is because one cannot have an operator that displays the properties of a value that is compact and admits a Kahler metric...and therefore does not project a non singular algebraic variety.It sounds great. No doubt about that. Maybe even worth the price if it really can run Linux binaries through LxRun. I dunno about that, though. What about X11 compatibility? The article claims it has built in X functionality. How complete is this? Could you run heavy duty Linux apps, like StarOffice and Netscape for Linux?
How difficult would it be to port a heavy duty app - not a small open source app like GNU bash or wget, or GNU tar - but a truly heavy duty application like Apache, or BIND? These are Industrial Strength Apps that people need and use daily, and if they aren't ported....well....(trails off). Yes, I know it's a big ask to port all that stuff. If it did happen, though, QNX would be THE thing.Then again, it depends on the cost. While the core OS looks to be industrial strength, if they want too much for it, you might as well stick with FreeBSD or Linux. If the licenses are too Microsoftian, people might shun it no matter how good it is. Open source OS's have raised the stakes. It's no good to have a killer product if you're going to be Microsoftian about it, because the Open Source crowd will eat you for dinner.
Still, the driver support is exceptional (Supports everything from most PC's I own and work with). It might very well be worth a try - heck, what am I saying. I can't wait to try this thing. But I'm not optimistic. In the end, propreitry software can lead to no good, and lead to Microsoftian pricing structures which just don't make sense. It'll be a fun OS to play with, but if they want too much for its use - Microsoftian pricing - I might as well not bother and just stick to Linux. Really.That just isn't true. Australia use the European standards (E1/3) as opposed to the American standards (T1/3). E1's are superior to T1's. Sorry.
GNU/BSD/X11/MPL/Artistic/Linux? BIND, Apache, Sendmail .... are all, I believe BSD'd. These are some of the top reasons people actually use Linux...err, sorry. GNU/BSD/X11/MPL/Artistic/Linux. I'm not denying the contribution of the GNU utilities/FSF to Linux at all. And I'm not even saying that you should call it "Linux". But neither should it be referred to as "GNU" or "GNU/Linux". In fact, you might as well call the distribution of Linux, the entire OS, by the name which the distribution was created. Ie, you could call Mandrake 7.1....Mandrake 7.1 and Debian 2.2, Debian 2.2...and....Slackware 7...Slackware 7. No need to mention "Linux kernel" or "GNU utilities" or "BSD-licensed servers" or "MPL programs" or "Artistic programs".
No need.I work in the Biotechnology industry. There's no question that man and machine will fuse at some point, relatively soon in fact. I agree with the privacy issues - privacy is paramount and we should not allow new technologies, no matter how stunning, to interfere with it.
However, I have a big issue with your fear of integrating technology into human/other organisms. This has been happening for quite a while now, with Pacemakers, artificial limbs/plates for bone correction and assistance, hearing aids, etc. The fact is that with new technologies, such as electronic hearts, eyes, livers, etc, we will be able to boost the human lifespan by several decades. Lipespans of 160 will be common. As technology improves, 200 won't be unheard of.This isn't a new phenomenon though, it's been on the cards since the 1800s when machines started to assist humans with menial functions. In the 1950s Computers started taking over some of the "thinking" functions such as Intelligence/encryption/military and later business and of course number crunching, and now machines are going to be making their way into our bodies. This isn't an unusual leap and people in the Biotech industry have been predicting it for ages. Fact is, when people get to 130 and still have a good 40 years to live - with perfect vision, hearing, a perfect heart, etc - they probably won't be complaining. Well, maybe some of them will.
In conclusion, I don't think that people should be forced to implement technologies on themselves - and I don't think that any technologies that will be integrated so closely into our lives should we choose to implement them should invade our privacy in any way. But to bash such technologies for "de-humanizing" us is as stupid as bashing railroads and punchcard loomsLike many other things Americans have standardized due to their amazing grasp of marketing and FUD (Windows 95/NT/Etc MS products are American), The Internet is a product that is of low quality and high consumability. Like the Ford line of cars for example. They are of crap quality, but they are mass produced and marketed so well, that they actually do sell. I doubt many people will argue that Ford is better than Audi or Volvo. Retarded indeed. Usually I'm in praise of the American way, and indeed there are some things that the Americans have done well, and do well, and for those they must be commended. The Internet, however, is not one of them.
Oops, "hear" even. Darn keyboard! Grr!
The Amiga was an awesome machine *for its time in the 80s blah blah blah.
That's all we here from these morons. It's simply not true. Even today, there are areas where the Amiga outperforms any other platform (hardware and software platform), not because it's got better hardware, but because of the cleverness of the hardware and software combination - the particular combination that Amiga uses.Up until 1999, even AGP-equipped PC's could not compete with original Amigas when it came to certain graphics/syncing tasks, and even now that high-end PC's have surpassed it, there are STILL areas where the Amiga is superior. The Amiga is not dead, even in it's old form. It won't be "dead" until someone creates something that can do what it does better than it does it - and at the moment, such a beast is too expensive for most people to afford.
Although the old Amiga will be left behind eventually, it's still a machine that really cooks, esp with the latest PPC technology. In fact, Amigas can run Mac apps faster than the Mac itself! Bullshit? No - fact.
Amiga is not dead and it's still a testament to what human engineering is capable of.You're right, it doesn't point to "nothing useful". It points, in fact, to something very interesting and quite useful. What better way to reverse engineer software/drivers is there?
Moron. Go back to school. Learn to write proper English.I can assure you that W2K and microsoft will run hotmail just fucking fine. Everyone who thinks otherwise just plain linux stupid.
Hmmm. Ok, that will be very interesting. I wonder when they'll start running Hotmail jsut fucking fine. I recall similar sentiments when Microsoft switched Hotmail over from Solaris to NT. Hmmm....I guess that ran Hotmail just fucking fine, and that's why they switched to FreeBSD. Isn't that right, Anonymous?saying something like "Enter a check," "Open a new document," or "Send an e-mail"
To me, this isn't the definition of a good natural language CLI. In fact, I don't think such a thing would actually be a good idea. It's been said before that the way forward will be semi-natural language CLIs and programming languages.I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again: Sheep. This is a language that will really take off in the future. Let's take a look into the future: Sheep is a semi-natural language programming language, with the syntax structure of a text adventure game, but compiled into a list of instructions instead of interactively entered to the game parser - in this case, the parser will be a Sheep compiler, which will translate the instructions into native machine code. While far easier to read than traditional languages, Sheep will also have the performance of C - something that will create unprecedented programmer productivity. Because of it's inherent natural-based structure, it will allow creativity - not pure hack, to play the MOST vital part of creating good code.
Before this goes too OT, let me get back to semi-natural CLIs:) I think that in the future, languages like Sheep will spawn operating systems that have similar natures to Sheep - and also semi-natural language CLI. Now, I'm not talking about the kind of CLI the poster above mentioned, the "Send an email for me please", kind of thing. I'm thinking more along the lines of Cisco's IOS, or how that is at the moment. Intuitive, helpful, and verbosely interactive. However, while IOS CLI is nice, it's not exactly what I'm talking about. The semi-natural language CLI will have more: it will understand commands not in the way that traditional CLI's have understood them, but in the context of everything preceding each command, in the style of adventure game parsers. This is where it will make its similarity to the Sheep language itself apparent.All in all, it will be a step forward in communications between people and computers - and - what many industry professionals will appreciate - it will lead to cleaner code - as well as many cool "intelligent utilities", like semi-natural language CLIs.
How do they plan to enforce that ?
Ummm, can you please point out where I said that MS Access == SQL Server? What I was saying was that NT Server is NOT stable enough to handle too many users. Please produce an affidavit stating that I said that MS Access == SQL. Otherwise, shut up until you have something useful to say.