I don't define an OS as a mediator between programs. That's a multitasking OS.
A basic OS does two things: 1) Present a mechanism for applications to control hardware in a unified way; and 2) automate certain functions (making CPU idle calls, driving the video, controlling disks, etc.), with the express purpose of accomplishing part 1 transparently (i.e., no ML required). For the purposes of this definition, an application program is any program that accepts and processes user input, and then manipulates hardware based on that input. Things like flushing the IO buffers, then, are not functions of application programs, but of the operating system, because the data doesn't need to be modified during the flushing process (flushing an input buffer presents raw data to the application program for processing; flushing an output buffer completes hardware manipulation requested by pre-processed data--for example, flushing the stdout buffer to write to the screen only prints remain characters to the screen--but the actual data processing and system calls have already been made by the application program).
Using a system like Linux helps make this apparent. The kernel is an operating system, because it automates functions required to provide a unified API for hardware control to any application program. init, which is called by the kernel, is an application program, because it reads user input (from/etc/inittab), and manipulates hardware (changing states of CPU, memory, video, etc. by calling more programs). It calls on the core OS (the Linux kernel) to get the input (file I/O, like fopen() or open()) and perform the output (execv() or something similar). Therefore init is not an OS itself.
Whether or not system libraries (libc or glibc on Linux) should be considered part of the OS is up for grabs. I personally believe they are not part of the OS. The kernel provides the basic system calls. The libraries only provide C functions to access these system calls. We don't even need the libraries--we could statically link whatever we want to run. The kernel is complete in providing an API to control hardware transparently; the libraries just map these system calls to human-usable functions. Consider the libraries primitive application programs, then, and you'll see why they aren't part of the OS.
Now about the single program running with direct hardware access. That is an OS by my definition. Actually, it is an application/OS combination. So you may ask "Why don't all programs then use this application/OS combo?" The answer is fourfold: 1) It is costly in code, time, and money to provide OS functionality in each program. 2) It is harder to guarantee stability when every program controls hardware its own way. 3) It is extremely difficult to support a wide range of hardware, even on a generic program like a word processor. 4) We want to do things like multitask and share information. This requires outside help.
Unfortunately, as computing comes to the masses, the definition of OS becomes watered-down in an effort to make people understand the concept. It is increasingly the case that OS now means "Any set of software that will help me get my work done." Few average people see the point in having a PC without Microsoft Office installed, and they consider Office a core part of their operating system.
A very low percentage (too low) of the computing population know what a Linux kernel is, let alone that it is an operating system. All that extra stuff, including the bash shell I depend so heavily on, is nothing but UI utilities.
That would be PcPtOS (Punch card and Paper Tape OS), v. 1.0.
Humans were the first OS, preparing human input into machine-readable instructions, and interpreting machine-output as human-readable information.
Isn't that all the OS really does? Tell the hardware what to do, so it does what a person wants? That was a human's job first.
Find the first computer that took human-readable input and converted it to machine instructions automatically, and that's the first non-human OS.
Even then, the OS would have been a custom job, depending on the hardware. Since each computer was different at each site, the OS would have been different, too. And not like my version of Linux is different from yours, I mean fundamentally different. The first common OS couldn't come about until hardware was becomming widespread (and commoditized), so I think UNIX would qualify as one of the first common OS's.
Obviously I should research what I say before I say it! Times like these, everyone sees how far my head is up my, well... At least I got a karma point for the message.
Now Apple has to show damages. How are they going to pull that off? Appleinsider said nothing bad about the machine, they only displayed pictures. Assuming they weren't doctored, they could do no more harm to Apple's commercial prospects than Apple's own, released pictures could (at whatever time they were released).
After reading the 10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained, it would seem (at first glance) that Appleinsider would fall protected under the Fair Use exemption. However, if Appleinsider knew the pictures were leaked (illegally), that protection flies out the window.
Although I don't like Apple, I think they should go after Appleinsider if there is a good case behind them (not just legal bullshit). We can't let copyright enforcement lax.
You're allowed to use copyrighted material in more situations than that, and that's important to know.
As far as I know, it is okay to publish copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder if it's not-for-profit. That is to say, I can say "In Section 4.3.1 we saw how functions can be passed as parameters." (Weiss, Efficient C Programming, 1995), even though I'm not Mark Allen Weiss, because people aren't paying me to hear that sentence. Of course, a news operation, critic, commentor, or otherwise may make a profit from his claims, but that's acceptable. You just can't say "Pay me $5 to hear me quote Mark Allen Weiss."
Profitable operations like that require agreement from the copyright holder. Furthermore, in an acceptable (but without permission) display of copyrighted material, it is necessary to give the copyright holder credit for the information on display.
As long as those pictures actually did belong to Apple (they weren't fakes), it was stated that they belonged to Apple, and the sites didn't charge for them (I saw the pictures, and I didn't pay anything), I don't believe there is any legal basis for a law suit.
It's a single-user workstation, really./home is huge because I've got mucho MP3s./usr is understandably huge. / is larger than most people would like, because I want to catch programs that land in/opt./var and/root are awfully big for my application, because I originally installed Linux dual-boot with NT on hda1, and when I deleted it (hoorah!), I moved partitions around./var was originally/root,/root was originally/home.
Hope you find this useful./home should be large enough at 3GB for many users, if you impose quotas (at my school, it's 15MB per user). / and/root could be smaller, as could/boot (I keep at least three kernels in lilo, and backup copies of each one). Make/usr (and/usr/local) really big, maybe equally sized to fill the disk.
I just looked at the Bugtraq statistics myself, as posted on the securityfocus website. It turns out that aggregate Linux vulnerabilities only beat out WinNT by 1. Of course, I've never met someone who uses a "super-distribution": Debian, Redhat, Slackware, and SuSE, all combined (somehow magically overlaid upon one another, so that bugs are counted multiple times). Any single Linux distro has far fewer bugs than NT.
And if you look at the "Top Vulnerable Packages" for 1999 and 2000, NT tops the list by a long shot. In 1997 and 98, neither Linux nor NT even made the list.
Given the nature of the data, and the pompousness of Mr. Moody, it would seem that Freddy-boy was closely examining the data that's found in the latter half of his large intestine.
I'd expect this kind of idiocy from local news crews, but for ABC to give this guy nation recognition? This is why I get my news from CNN.com: I don't get some barely-made-it-through-college asshole trying to push his point of view into the news.
What ever made these people think we valued their opinions? Who watches TV news just to listen to Brokaw, Donaldson, and the lot? Now THAT should be a/. poll.
What you're saying then, is that because you're too cheap to pay for pickup, the Federal government should pay it for you. Now you don't have to pay extra for package delivery and pickup, it's distributed across all taxpayers.
Because I never use Priority/Express Mail, my taxes aren't going to serve myself, they're going to pay for your services. That's nice, especially when you chose to live in the middle of nowhere.
This is the same attitude that's got us spending so much on government programs. People complain that they have to work, or spend extra money, to receive a service, when the government ought to provide it anyway. As a result, Washington has its hands so deeply in our pockets, and is so much in our face, we've barely got room to breathe. This is the same attitude that made Communism look glamorous to the Russians; look how that turned out.
It is simple, really, but not because the USPS has to take a loss to pickup and deliver (as a government agency, it NEVER takes a loss; things like this make taxes go up, as well as stamp prices). It's simple because you're just too cheap to carry your own weight.
Sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea. As I said in a previous post, having some government dim-wit read your mail as it's being scanned runs against every good-judgement bone in my body.
I actually said it was a bad idea to have the print-and deliver service, because then the USPS can read what you send to Aunt Mary (or others). That is actually better than having your received mail being scanned. You can control what you send to Aunt Mary; you can't control what you receive. There might be some significant personal information being disclosed in the mail you receive.
That's worse than having a Carnivore box invading the privacy of every ISP (and therefore every one of their customers) -- it's like having a personal FBI agent standing at your mailbox!
You may say that, because your mail would be openly read, you would not have important information sent to the box. But, if it's not important, why do you need instant access to it through your email account?
This also sets the mood for trouble from Uncle Sam. If your neighbor Bill voluntarily allows his mail to be opened and digitized, what have you got to hide by not taking advantage of this service? Are you a terrorist or other criminal because you don't want your mail digitized?
Or the most terrifying case of all -- when a significant number of people want their mail digitized (it doesn't even have to be half), the government will decide they have the right to intervene in every person's mail delivery. Not only will all mail be opened, read, and digitized by government employees, but a duplicate copy will be made and archived, and the feds may start dictating the non-delivery of "questionable" messages.
All this and more because you were too lazy to go down to the post office. Don't tell me "If you don't want your mail scanned, you don't have to...", because this is a concept we shouldn't allow our government to come anywhere near considering.
Oh, and think of all the crackers that could gain access to your personal information, if you aren't scared of the government. (I'd rather have 500 crackers know my personal information than the federal government, because at least crackers are legally responsible for their actions.)
One last note: only businesses who don't know how to do business would enjoy this service. Having mail digitized and made available through the Internet would open a billion new doors to industrial espionage. How many businesses do you know of want trade secrets released in public?
The biggest lie they are telling us is that this is free. With government, nothing is free. Given what I get from the government for what I pay in taxes, this is probably the most expensive email address I've ever had.
One nice thing about this address is that I don't have to use it. If some website requires an email address to access some feature, I can give them my postal email address and never check the spam. Suddenly, my regular email account is spam-free. The government provides me with a fed-maintained, carefree spam black hole.
The print-and-deliver service might be nice, if you have your head up your ass. Do you really want some Goddamned federal employee reading your correspondence to Aunt Mary or anyone else? Even if it's innocuous, I still object to the principle of letting others read me mail. I never send postcards.
I don't mind paying $0.33 per message to send email through the account, since sending mail is optional (and I'll never use the damn thing). What I do object to is the fact that, after a short while, the USPS will undoubtedly start charging for mandatory monthly "maintenance" whether or not I use the account. When I get my first bill, that's when I grab my rifle and head to my friendly neighborhood branch of the USPS.
They can't get a monopoly on email service, just like they can't get a monopoly on postal service. For mail, they dictate that a standard letter can't be carried by anyone but the USPS. So companies like UPS, FedEx just make a differently-shaped envelope. It's un-Constitutional to prevent a person from coming to your home, receiving an item, and carrying it to someone else. Extend these principles into the Internet, and you have a postal service that outlaws non-government use of POP3 and SMTP protocols. All we do is develop another set of mail protocols.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but if you ask me, STMP and POP3 are just "foreign languages", which is to say they take English and encode it in some other syntax and format. How is this different from, say, Russian? This means that these protocols should be protected by the first amendment, preventing the USPS from outlawing transmission of them. Of course, some asshole judge determined that programming languages were "functional devices", like a toaster, and weren't protected by the first amendment. Our forefathers would claw there eyes out if they could see what is happening in their country today.
Option "Rotate" "CCW" for counter-clockwise. Option "Rotate" "CW" for clockwise. You need to type the "Option", no quotes. It goes in the "Device" section.
As of XF86 4.0, it only worked with a few video cards -- I don't know about 4.0.1 yet. Give it a try, it'll dump an error message in/var/log/XFree86.0.log (or whatever that log name is) if it doesn't work. (Plus, your display won't be in portrait mode!)
Wow, before leaving for this year's party, I just finished my dist-upgrade, leaving me with such wonders as a new init, XFree86 4.0.2, and some other new, good things. Just this morning, I also managed to get DRI working with my i810 chipset.
Now, at 2:25am, as Octave compiles (it appears dist-upgrade broke Octave, plus a computing-intensive application ought to be optimized for my system), I download 2.4.0-prerelease. I can't think of a better way to usher in 2001 then with a new mathematical package, a new compiler (minor updates to gcc 2.95.2 packages, I guess), a new windowing system, a new direct rendering infrastructure, and now, to top it all, a new kernel.
If you ask me, life is good. I find it hard to imagine that in the future, such things as having the latest kernel and windowing system will not mattter to me. But now, in my youth, I am content.
Happy New Year. I will continue enjoying the year until spring semester starts up, but that is two weeks away...
I see my kernel is finished downloading, and Octave is about wrapped up... That means time to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't define an OS as a mediator between programs. That's a multitasking OS.
A basic OS does two things: 1) Present a mechanism for applications to control hardware in a unified way; and 2) automate certain functions (making CPU idle calls, driving the video, controlling disks, etc.), with the express purpose of accomplishing part 1 transparently (i.e., no ML required). For the purposes of this definition, an application program is any program that accepts and processes user input, and then manipulates hardware based on that input. Things like flushing the IO buffers, then, are not functions of application programs, but of the operating system, because the data doesn't need to be modified during the flushing process (flushing an input buffer presents raw data to the application program for processing; flushing an output buffer completes hardware manipulation requested by pre-processed data--for example, flushing the stdout buffer to write to the screen only prints remain characters to the screen--but the actual data processing and system calls have already been made by the application program).
Using a system like Linux helps make this apparent. The kernel is an operating system, because it automates functions required to provide a unified API for hardware control to any application program. init, which is called by the kernel, is an application program, because it reads user input (from /etc/inittab), and manipulates hardware (changing states of CPU, memory, video, etc. by calling more programs). It calls on the core OS (the Linux kernel) to get the input (file I/O, like fopen() or open()) and perform the output (execv() or something similar). Therefore init is not an OS itself.
Whether or not system libraries (libc or glibc on Linux) should be considered part of the OS is up for grabs. I personally believe they are not part of the OS. The kernel provides the basic system calls. The libraries only provide C functions to access these system calls. We don't even need the libraries--we could statically link whatever we want to run. The kernel is complete in providing an API to control hardware transparently; the libraries just map these system calls to human-usable functions. Consider the libraries primitive application programs, then, and you'll see why they aren't part of the OS.
Now about the single program running with direct hardware access. That is an OS by my definition. Actually, it is an application/OS combination. So you may ask "Why don't all programs then use this application/OS combo?" The answer is fourfold: 1) It is costly in code, time, and money to provide OS functionality in each program. 2) It is harder to guarantee stability when every program controls hardware its own way. 3) It is extremely difficult to support a wide range of hardware, even on a generic program like a word processor. 4) We want to do things like multitask and share information. This requires outside help.
Unfortunately, as computing comes to the masses, the definition of OS becomes watered-down in an effort to make people understand the concept. It is increasingly the case that OS now means "Any set of software that will help me get my work done." Few average people see the point in having a PC without Microsoft Office installed, and they consider Office a core part of their operating system.
A very low percentage (too low) of the computing population know what a Linux kernel is, let alone that it is an operating system. All that extra stuff, including the bash shell I depend so heavily on, is nothing but UI utilities.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
That would be PcPtOS (Punch card and Paper Tape OS), v. 1.0.
Humans were the first OS, preparing human input into machine-readable instructions, and interpreting machine-output as human-readable information.
Isn't that all the OS really does? Tell the hardware what to do, so it does what a person wants? That was a human's job first.
Find the first computer that took human-readable input and converted it to machine instructions automatically, and that's the first non-human OS.
Even then, the OS would have been a custom job, depending on the hardware. Since each computer was different at each site, the OS would have been different, too. And not like my version of Linux is different from yours, I mean fundamentally different. The first common OS couldn't come about until hardware was becomming widespread (and commoditized), so I think UNIX would qualify as one of the first common OS's.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
Obviously I should research what I say before I say it! Times like these, everyone sees how far my head is up my, well... At least I got a karma point for the message.
Now Apple has to show damages. How are they going to pull that off? Appleinsider said nothing bad about the machine, they only displayed pictures. Assuming they weren't doctored, they could do no more harm to Apple's commercial prospects than Apple's own, released pictures could (at whatever time they were released).
After reading the 10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained, it would seem (at first glance) that Appleinsider would fall protected under the Fair Use exemption. However, if Appleinsider knew the pictures were leaked (illegally), that protection flies out the window.
Although I don't like Apple, I think they should go after Appleinsider if there is a good case behind them (not just legal bullshit). We can't let copyright enforcement lax.
You're allowed to use copyrighted material in more situations than that, and that's important to know.
As far as I know, it is okay to publish copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder if it's not-for-profit. That is to say, I can say "In Section 4.3.1 we saw how functions can be passed as parameters." (Weiss, Efficient C Programming, 1995), even though I'm not Mark Allen Weiss, because people aren't paying me to hear that sentence. Of course, a news operation, critic, commentor, or otherwise may make a profit from his claims, but that's acceptable. You just can't say "Pay me $5 to hear me quote Mark Allen Weiss."
Profitable operations like that require agreement from the copyright holder. Furthermore, in an acceptable (but without permission) display of copyrighted material, it is necessary to give the copyright holder credit for the information on display.
As long as those pictures actually did belong to Apple (they weren't fakes), it was stated that they belonged to Apple, and the sites didn't charge for them (I saw the pictures, and I didn't pay anything), I don't believe there is any legal basis for a law suit.
I don't believe.
Scale it up / slice it up as appropriate.
First: Two hard disks, one 13.6 GB, one ~3 GB.
/dev/hda1: / (1.4G) (1.3G Free)
/dev/hda5: /boot (23M) (15M Free)
/dev/hda2: /home (3.4G) (1.9G Free)
/dev/hda6: /root (486M) (455M Free)
/dev/hda7: /var (243M) (203M Free) /dev/hda9: /usr (6.8G) (4.8G Free)
/dev/hdb6: /mnt/data (2.9G) (1.0G Free)
Sizes reported as from `df -h`
Swap partitions are /dev/hda8 (125M) and /dev/hdb5 (120M).
It's a single-user workstation, really. /home is huge because I've got mucho MP3s. /usr is understandably huge. / is larger than most people would like, because I want to catch programs that land in /opt. /var and /root are awfully big for my application, because I originally installed Linux dual-boot with NT on hda1, and when I deleted it (hoorah!), I moved partitions around. /var was originally /root, /root was originally /home.
Hope you find this useful. /home should be large enough at 3GB for many users, if you impose quotas (at my school, it's 15MB per user). / and /root could be smaller, as could /boot (I keep at least three kernels in lilo, and backup copies of each one). Make /usr (and /usr/local) really big, maybe equally sized to fill the disk.
Good luck.
I just looked at the Bugtraq statistics myself, as posted on the securityfocus website. It turns out that aggregate Linux vulnerabilities only beat out WinNT by 1. Of course, I've never met someone who uses a "super-distribution": Debian, Redhat, Slackware, and SuSE, all combined (somehow magically overlaid upon one another, so that bugs are counted multiple times). Any single Linux distro has far fewer bugs than NT.
And if you look at the "Top Vulnerable Packages" for 1999 and 2000, NT tops the list by a long shot. In 1997 and 98, neither Linux nor NT even made the list.
Given the nature of the data, and the pompousness of Mr. Moody, it would seem that Freddy-boy was closely examining the data that's found in the latter half of his large intestine.
I'd expect this kind of idiocy from local news crews, but for ABC to give this guy nation recognition? This is why I get my news from CNN.com: I don't get some barely-made-it-through-college asshole trying to push his point of view into the news.
What ever made these people think we valued their opinions? Who watches TV news just to listen to Brokaw, Donaldson, and the lot? Now THAT should be a /. poll.
What you're saying then, is that because you're too cheap to pay for pickup, the Federal government should pay it for you. Now you don't have to pay extra for package delivery and pickup, it's distributed across all taxpayers.
Because I never use Priority/Express Mail, my taxes aren't going to serve myself, they're going to pay for your services. That's nice, especially when you chose to live in the middle of nowhere.
This is the same attitude that's got us spending so much on government programs. People complain that they have to work, or spend extra money, to receive a service, when the government ought to provide it anyway. As a result, Washington has its hands so deeply in our pockets, and is so much in our face, we've barely got room to breathe. This is the same attitude that made Communism look glamorous to the Russians; look how that turned out.
It is simple, really, but not because the USPS has to take a loss to pickup and deliver (as a government agency, it NEVER takes a loss; things like this make taxes go up, as well as stamp prices). It's simple because you're just too cheap to carry your own weight.
Sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea. As I said in a previous post, having some government dim-wit read your mail as it's being scanned runs against every good-judgement bone in my body.
I actually said it was a bad idea to have the print-and deliver service, because then the USPS can read what you send to Aunt Mary (or others). That is actually better than having your received mail being scanned. You can control what you send to Aunt Mary; you can't control what you receive. There might be some significant personal information being disclosed in the mail you receive.
That's worse than having a Carnivore box invading the privacy of every ISP (and therefore every one of their customers) -- it's like having a personal FBI agent standing at your mailbox!
You may say that, because your mail would be openly read, you would not have important information sent to the box. But, if it's not important, why do you need instant access to it through your email account?
This also sets the mood for trouble from Uncle Sam. If your neighbor Bill voluntarily allows his mail to be opened and digitized, what have you got to hide by not taking advantage of this service? Are you a terrorist or other criminal because you don't want your mail digitized?
Or the most terrifying case of all -- when a significant number of people want their mail digitized (it doesn't even have to be half), the government will decide they have the right to intervene in every person's mail delivery. Not only will all mail be opened, read, and digitized by government employees, but a duplicate copy will be made and archived, and the feds may start dictating the non-delivery of "questionable" messages.
All this and more because you were too lazy to go down to the post office. Don't tell me "If you don't want your mail scanned, you don't have to...", because this is a concept we shouldn't allow our government to come anywhere near considering.
Oh, and think of all the crackers that could gain access to your personal information, if you aren't scared of the government. (I'd rather have 500 crackers know my personal information than the federal government, because at least crackers are legally responsible for their actions.)
One last note: only businesses who don't know how to do business would enjoy this service. Having mail digitized and made available through the Internet would open a billion new doors to industrial espionage. How many businesses do you know of want trade secrets released in public?
The biggest lie they are telling us is that this is free. With government, nothing is free. Given what I get from the government for what I pay in taxes, this is probably the most expensive email address I've ever had.
One nice thing about this address is that I don't have to use it. If some website requires an email address to access some feature, I can give them my postal email address and never check the spam. Suddenly, my regular email account is spam-free. The government provides me with a fed-maintained, carefree spam black hole.
The print-and-deliver service might be nice, if you have your head up your ass. Do you really want some Goddamned federal employee reading your correspondence to Aunt Mary or anyone else? Even if it's innocuous, I still object to the principle of letting others read me mail. I never send postcards.
I don't mind paying $0.33 per message to send email through the account, since sending mail is optional (and I'll never use the damn thing). What I do object to is the fact that, after a short while, the USPS will undoubtedly start charging for mandatory monthly "maintenance" whether or not I use the account. When I get my first bill, that's when I grab my rifle and head to my friendly neighborhood branch of the USPS.
They can't get a monopoly on email service, just like they can't get a monopoly on postal service. For mail, they dictate that a standard letter can't be carried by anyone but the USPS. So companies like UPS, FedEx just make a differently-shaped envelope. It's un-Constitutional to prevent a person from coming to your home, receiving an item, and carrying it to someone else. Extend these principles into the Internet, and you have a postal service that outlaws non-government use of POP3 and SMTP protocols. All we do is develop another set of mail protocols.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but if you ask me, STMP and POP3 are just "foreign languages", which is to say they take English and encode it in some other syntax and format. How is this different from, say, Russian? This means that these protocols should be protected by the first amendment, preventing the USPS from outlawing transmission of them. Of course, some asshole judge determined that programming languages were "functional devices", like a toaster, and weren't protected by the first amendment. Our forefathers would claw there eyes out if they could see what is happening in their country today.
Option "Rotate" "CCW" for counter-clockwise.
Option "Rotate" "CW" for clockwise.
You need to type the "Option", no quotes. It goes in the "Device" section.
As of XF86 4.0, it only worked with a few video cards -- I don't know about 4.0.1 yet. Give it a try, it'll dump an error message in /var/log/XFree86.0.log (or whatever that log name is) if it doesn't work. (Plus, your display won't be in portrait mode!)
Wow, before leaving for this year's party, I just finished my dist-upgrade, leaving me with such wonders as a new init, XFree86 4.0.2, and some other new, good things. Just this morning, I also managed to get DRI working with my i810 chipset.
Now, at 2:25am, as Octave compiles (it appears dist-upgrade broke Octave, plus a computing-intensive application ought to be optimized for my system), I download 2.4.0-prerelease. I can't think of a better way to usher in 2001 then with a new mathematical package, a new compiler (minor updates to gcc 2.95.2 packages, I guess), a new windowing system, a new direct rendering infrastructure, and now, to top it all, a new kernel.
If you ask me, life is good. I find it hard to imagine that in the future, such things as having the latest kernel and windowing system will not mattter to me. But now, in my youth, I am content.
Happy New Year. I will continue enjoying the year until spring semester starts up, but that is two weeks away...
I see my kernel is finished downloading, and Octave is about wrapped up... That means time to go.
A new year calls for a new signature.