And what he believed was that people should be on control. And society should be controlled thru a straight democracy and bigger masses should be organized thru democratic centralism.
I assume by "he" you mean Marx, not Stalin - I've not seen much evidence of Stalin believing society should be controlled through anything approximating a democracy.
I'm not surprised if many countries have lower infant mortality rates than the US because the US does so many abortions that it kills (ha) that statistic.
Are you asserting here that the infant mortality rates being compared include abortions as infant deaths?
If so, do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
I have to call you on this one. It's only a "pretty nice thing" in theory, since the option has to be enabled during the compilation of the binary. In Windows (even XPsp2), this is only enabled for certain MS-created services that listen on ports. It has to run in PAE mode. Not every application is protected. Significantly, the user-space apps are not protected. You have to specify/PAE option, despite what MS says.
Windows supports four system-wide configurations for both hardware-enforced and software-enforced DEP.
Configuration
Description
OptIn
This setting is the default configuration. On systems with processors that can implement hardware-enforced DEP, DEP is enabled by default for limited system binaries and programs that "opt-in." With this option, only Windows system binaries are covered by DEP by default.
OptOut
DEP is enabled by default for all processes. You can manually create a list of specific programs that do not have DEP applied by using the System dialog box in Control Panel. Information technology (IT) professionals can use the Application Compatibility Toolkit to "opt-out" one or more programs from DEP protection. System compatibility fixes, or shims, for DEP do take effect.
AlwaysOn
This setting provides full DEP coverage for the whole system. All processes always run with DEP applied. The exceptions list to exempt specific programs from DEP protection is not available. System compatibility fixes for DEP do not take effect. Programs that have been opted-out by using the Application Compatibility Toolkit run with DEP applied.
AlwaysOff
This setting does not provide any DEP coverage for any part of the system, regardless of hardware DEP support. The processor does not run in PAE mode unless the/PAE option is present in the Boot.ini file.
so that if you set OptOut or AlwaysOn, all programs, by default are protected, except, if OptOut is set, for those programs specified in the "opt-out" list, without having to enable that option during compilation of the binary?
Or the part where they say
To use these processor features, the processor must be running in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode. However, Windows will automatically enable PAE mode to support DEP. Users do not have to separately enable PAE by using the/PAE boot switch.
so that you don't have to enable PAE if you've enabled DEP (i.e., the option for DEP isn't set to AlwaysOff)?
Or both?
Or are you thinking of the software-enforced DEP:
An additional set of Data Execution Prevention security checks have been added to Windows XP SP2. These checks, known as software-enforced DEP, are designed to block malicious code that takes advantage of exception-handling mechanisms in Windows. Software-enforced DEP runs on any processor that can run Windows XP SP2. By default, software-enforced DEP helps protect only limited system binaries, regardless of the hardware-enforced DEP capabilities of the processor.
which is separate from the hardware-enforced DEP which uses AMD's so-called "virus protection" feature (i.e., the ability to mark pages "no execute permission")?
I don't know the details, but I think there is an intermediate code being used such that you can target that code and it will run on XBox and PCs equally
CLR bytecode?
(And would they also add that capability to the existing XBox?)
That, of course, doesn't require a port of full-blown NT 5.1^H^H^H^H^H^HXP to the XBox.
If it's such a major pain, why are they doing it anyway (for the Xbox2)?
Because, if what I've heard is true, the XBox runs an NT-derived OS (which is presumably why they're bothering to do it at all), and because they're not "porting Windows NT" in the sense of having a fully-supported PowerPC version of Windows NT 5.1, a/k/a "Windows XP", running on {PowerPC box of the day}, complete with Microsoft apps such as Office, they're selling a box to run XBox games.
Now, how much work porting the port that has to be ported (kernel, compilers, compiler support libraries, and the like) is, as opposed to how much work would be required to port the part that'd be needed only for a fully-functional version of XP, is another question. It's probably more work for the former than the latter, i.e. most of the libraries and executables would probably Just Recompile And Work, it's just the ones that include assembler code, or tweak hardware directly, that'd need work.
However, just because something compiles and passes a smoke test, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some bug due to incompletely-portable code that happens to work on the existing platforms (or is less likely not to work on the existing platforms), or due to compiler bugs, so they'd probably still need to do full QA on a PowerPC version of XP, which is probably more than what's needed for the presumably-smaller PowerPC version of "Windows XB", so there's still a cost - and they might not be interested in paying that cost, except perhaps for server versions.
Probably not at all, given that most of those OSes would have to be modified to run atop Mach primitives.
I heard something about OSX running the Java Virtual Machine directly on top of Mach for better performance
"Running directly on top of Mach", in OS X, would require stuff to be added to Mach to make that useful. The UN*X part of OS X is integrated with Mach; it doesn't run as a Mach server. To do, for example, networking or file system operations, a JVM "running... directly on top of Mach" would have to have a server in the Mach kernel to talk to in order to do that, and that doesn't exist - and it's not clear that you'd get better performance from that.
Type "1" in Google and hit I'm feeling lucky. Hint: It's not the IE page.
Yeah, but IE isn't at version 1, it's at version 6.
However, if you try the same trick with "6", you get to the Quicktime download page. The IE page is about 9th on the list of pages you get if you Google for "6" - below...
...not only the Quicktime page, but the pages for Netscape 7.2, Macromedia Shockwave, and Opera.
The seperation of the CLI/GUI from the kernel offers obvious advantages for stability and security both, which are almost indeniably better on a Linux machine than on a Windows machine
Not having as much of the graphics driver code in the kernel probably helps stability and security, but
that has nothing to do with the CLI, which doesn't run in the kernel in Windows (it's implemented in the user-mode cmd.exe and in various.exe files corresponding to the commands);
it's not equivalent to putting the entire GUI in the kernel (which Windows doesn't do, either).
I have no idea what IE being tied down to the OS and the kernel has to do with the kernel itself, those are microsoft's words and not my own.
Microsoft, as far as I know, have never said that IE was tied to the kernel. They have said that it's tied to the OS, but they consider the OS to contain more than just the kernel-mode code. The NT kernel doesn't prevent IE from being removed; what would prevent it from being removed would be the use of IE components (e.g., the HTML rendering and HTTP/FTP/etc. fetching code) by other (user-mode) parts of the OS.
I'm just saying the Linux kernel does not have that limitation.
Neither does the Windows kernel (in the sense of, for example, c:\ntoskrnl.exe or c:\ntmpkrnl.exe, which would correspond to vmlinuz, plus all the loadable kernel modules, i.e. the.sys files). Any "inability to remove IE" limitation would be due to user-mode code requiring that IE components be present.
There is simply hands down a hundred things the Linux kernel can do that the NT kernel can't in it's current state. Software raid(as i mentioned in another post)
What does the kernel (in the sense of "code running in whatever corresponds to 'kernel mode' on the CPU") have to do with that? To a large degree, the "integration" of IE in Windows means that much of IE is a wrapper around libraries that provide HTML rendering, HTTP/FTP/etc. backends, and the like, and that those are also available to other applications. (That's something that can be found with at least one browser in at least one desktop environment on Linux and other UN*Xes as well.)
First off, those "x86-only" PCI cards depend on PC-BIOS. Apple and Sun use Open Firmware. It doesn't have anything to do with the instruction set of the CPU.
Correct, but note that Alpha-based TURBOChannel machines apparently had a MIPS emulator in the firmware, to handle the MIPS machine language firmware on TURBOChannel cards; it presumably also emulated whatever environment that firmware depended on, if there was any such environment. It might be possible to do the same for non-x86 machines and PCI cards, with an x86 and BIOS emulator.
Yes, but it is unoptomized, and requires X11 or Darwin to run (these must be downloaded separately after the purchase of a Mac with OS X).
Darwin comes for free with the purchase of a Mac with OS X (it has to - it'd be kind of hard for anything else to run without/mach_kernel,/usr/lib/libc.dylib, and/usr/lib/libSystem.dylib, for example). Presumably you meant something other than "Darwin" there.
religion is not crack for the soul, you have forgotten your Marx, "Religion is the Opiate for the Masses" or something like that
Something like
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Let's just face the facts that some people are more prone to addictive behaviors, and it can happen with anything: drugs, shopping, gambling, sex, and yes, pornography.
And religion. In some cases getting addicted to religion can be verydamaging.
Erototoxins? Is this an attempt to re-brand a need for sexual stimulationas a medical condition again?
Could be. There's a group that wants to do MRIs to prove that pr0n damages the brain, according to this article. Dr. Reisman is mentioned in that article; she's talking about "erototoxins" there as well.
And, yes, that is where Ed Meese went off to, as per that Deseret News article.
(Oh, and the list of problems caused by pr0n should probably have included homosexuality - a lot of the stuff on Dr. Reisman's site goes on about homosexuality as well.)
was build 1936 in Germany (Zuse Z1) and not 1951 in Ukraine as BusinessWeek claimed.
Business Week should have said "stored program computer", or "Von Neumann computer", as per the timeline on this page. (Emphasis on "continental Europe"; the first Von Neumann machine ever, as far as I know, was built at the University of Manchester.)
Sergey Alekseyevich Lebedev, the head of the group that developed that machine (MESM), was born in Russia; that group also created the Big-Ass Computer series (OK, that's not an exact translation of "Bolshaja Elektronno-Schetnaja Mashina":-)). There's a BESM-6 Nostalgia page about the sixth series of BESM machines. (It's a bit tricky to do the usual sort of buffer overflow tricks on those machines:
Each memory word had two parity bits - one for each half, the combined parity for the whole word must have been odd. Thus, the distinction between code and data was achieved: one had the halfword parities even-odd, the other - odd-even, so code overwriting or branches to data got caught as soon as an offending instruction was executed. (The program had to ask the kernel to switch the mode of the store instruction to "code" before generating executable code, or to use a special system call, so using self-modifying code was discouraged.);
Re:This Article is riddled with inaccuracies.
on
NeXTSTEP To Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
This one is the official history of UNIX, which includes a number of the BSD releases in the timeline. Same site as you mentioned, and they do mention major Linux kernel releases there.
Arguably, they should mention Linux kernel releases in the second column, if they're mentioning 4.4BSD, although as they didn't mention 4.4-Lite (the version that didn't require an AT&T license), maybe they're only listing stuff that required an AT&T license.
I still don't consider Linux a UN*X; I categorize it as UNIX-like.
I reserve "UNIX-like" for something that is sufficiently incompatible with UNIX systems that it's hard to move yourself, or your source code, to them. I haven't seen any sign that Linux is any worse than, say, various commercial UNIXes in that regard. I use "UNIX-compatible" for a system that is intended to be able to let people used to UNIX just use it, and to let programs written for UNIX "just work".
The term "UNIX-like" doesn't appear to be used as much these days; if that's the case, it might be that "UNIX-like" isn't as interesting these days - "close only counts in horseshoes".
This article actually describes a pretty heated battle between AT&T and Berkeley/BSD,
That took place after most of the BSD releases.
but I really recall reading somewhere that it was a partnership early on with students working on the AT&T code.
"Working on the AT&T code" in the sense of "directly contributing either to Research UNIX or to USG UNIX/System {III,V}", or in the sense of "taking AT&T code and adding stuff to it?
When it comes down to it, though, BSD and AT&T's System 5 UNIX had a great deal of common code
Because AT&T added a lot of what various SV-based UNIXes called, at the time, "Berkeley enhancements", i.e. they picked up BSD code, rather than being joint developers with Berkeley. (SVR4 picked up some more stuff, but that was as a result of a partnership with Sun rather than with Berkeley.)
in particular look at the discussion of the TCP/IP code, which was a part of BSD UNIX used in System 5
And which they picked up (through Lachman Associates, I think).
My understanding is that Linux and UNIX have very different takes on the kernel, and that to me differentiates the two trees enough that they should not both be called by the same term.
I suspect most commercial UN*Xes these days have sufficiently "different takes on the kernel" that the descent from original AT&T UNIX is a bit remote; the BSDs have diverged a fair bit as well.
You can choose not to call them "UNIX" if you want, but...
That said, there's a great deal of code that's fairly portable between the two.
For a lot of that code, it's a bit more than "fairly" portable;
there's a great deal of code that's "fairly portable" between OSes nominally ultimately descended from AT&T UNIX, and I deliberately use "fairly" there - the question is whether a given Linux distribution looks significantly different from "the average of all other UN*Xes" than does, say, AIX, from the point of view of the user, or the administrator, or the developer. I suspect that, except perhaps from the point of view of the OS developer, most Linux distributions are not significantly further from "the average of all other UN*Xes" than are other UN*Xes.
I really don't care much whether the code was, once upon a time, code from AT&T; what I care about is whether a particular model of how the system works matches that of other UN*Xes. Linuxes have their deviations from the norm, but the same applies to many commercial UN*Xes. To pick one example, Linux distributions use ELF as their object file format, just as SunOS 5.x and many other SVR4 derivatives, and most of the BSDs, do; several commercial UN*Xes don't, including one BSD-derived commercial (partially open-source) UN*X. (Hint: it's the one that uses Mach-O instead.:-))
3BSD didn't even have virtual memory. See
a timeline.
You mean the timeline that says "3BSD is 32-bit port of 2BSD w/virtual memory and C shell" (although it really was a derivative of UNIX/32V with VM and the 2BSD changes - i.e., Berkeley didn't independently port 2BSD to the VAX, they built on AT&T's VAX port and added demand-paged VM).
Slashdot Mirror
I assume by "he" you mean Marx, not Stalin - I've not seen much evidence of Stalin believing society should be controlled through anything approximating a democracy.
Are you asserting here that the infant mortality rates being compared include abortions as infant deaths?
If so, do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
OK, what part of what MS says is false?
The part where they say
so that if you set OptOut or AlwaysOn, all programs, by default are protected, except, if OptOut is set, for those programs specified in the "opt-out" list, without having to enable that option during compilation of the binary?
Or the part where they say
so that you don't have to enable PAE if you've enabled DEP (i.e., the option for DEP isn't set to AlwaysOff)?
Or both?
Or are you thinking of the software-enforced DEP:
which is separate from the hardware-enforced DEP which uses AMD's so-called "virus protection" feature (i.e., the ability to mark pages "no execute permission")?
You forgot Pamela Anderson.
CLR bytecode?
(And would they also add that capability to the existing XBox?)
That, of course, doesn't require a port of full-blown NT 5.1^H^H^H^H^H^HXP to the XBox.
Because, if what I've heard is true, the XBox runs an NT-derived OS (which is presumably why they're bothering to do it at all), and because they're not "porting Windows NT" in the sense of having a fully-supported PowerPC version of Windows NT 5.1, a/k/a "Windows XP", running on {PowerPC box of the day}, complete with Microsoft apps such as Office, they're selling a box to run XBox games.
Now, how much work porting the port that has to be ported (kernel, compilers, compiler support libraries, and the like) is, as opposed to how much work would be required to port the part that'd be needed only for a fully-functional version of XP, is another question. It's probably more work for the former than the latter, i.e. most of the libraries and executables would probably Just Recompile And Work, it's just the ones that include assembler code, or tweak hardware directly, that'd need work.
However, just because something compiles and passes a smoke test, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some bug due to incompletely-portable code that happens to work on the existing platforms (or is less likely not to work on the existing platforms), or due to compiler bugs, so they'd probably still need to do full QA on a PowerPC version of XP, which is probably more than what's needed for the presumably-smaller PowerPC version of "Windows XB", so there's still a cost - and they might not be interested in paying that cost, except perhaps for server versions.
Probably not at all, given that most of those OSes would have to be modified to run atop Mach primitives.
"Running directly on top of Mach", in OS X, would require stuff to be added to Mach to make that useful. The UN*X part of OS X is integrated with Mach; it doesn't run as a Mach server. To do, for example, networking or file system operations, a JVM "running ... directly on top of Mach" would have to have a server in the Mach kernel to talk to in order to do that, and that doesn't exist - and it's not clear that you'd get better performance from that.
No, OS X's UFS isn't LFS-based, it's just regular boring old FFS.
Yup. I remember seeing that suggestion ages ago ("ages" as in "probably between 35 and 40 years") in some magazine, probably Life. It was proposed as August Comte's Positivist Calendar back in 1849; it's also been proposed as the Tranquility Calendar and elsewhere. Google for "13 months" "28 days" and then rest assured that great minds think alike. :-)
Yeah, but IE isn't at version 1, it's at version 6.
However, if you try the same trick with "6", you get to the Quicktime download page. The IE page is about 9th on the list of pages you get if you Google for "6" - below...
...not only the Quicktime page, but the pages for Netscape 7.2, Macromedia Shockwave, and Opera.
Not having as much of the graphics driver code in the kernel probably helps stability and security, but
Microsoft, as far as I know, have never said that IE was tied to the kernel. They have said that it's tied to the OS, but they consider the OS to contain more than just the kernel-mode code. The NT kernel doesn't prevent IE from being removed; what would prevent it from being removed would be the use of IE components (e.g., the HTML rendering and HTTP/FTP/etc. fetching code) by other (user-mode) parts of the OS.
Neither does the Windows kernel (in the sense of, for example, c:\ntoskrnl.exe or c:\ntmpkrnl.exe, which would correspond to vmlinuz, plus all the loadable kernel modules, i.e. the .sys files). Any "inability to remove IE" limitation would be due to user-mode code requiring that IE components be present.
What features does Linux's software RAID offer that Windows 2000's software RAID doesn't?
"Separate" in what sense?
What does the kernel (in the sense of "code running in whatever corresponds to 'kernel mode' on the CPU") have to do with that? To a large degree, the "integration" of IE in Windows means that much of IE is a wrapper around libraries that provide HTML rendering, HTTP/FTP/etc. backends, and the like, and that those are also available to other applications. (That's something that can be found with at least one browser in at least one desktop environment on Linux and other UN*Xes as well.)
Correct, but note that Alpha-based TURBOChannel machines apparently had a MIPS emulator in the firmware, to handle the MIPS machine language firmware on TURBOChannel cards; it presumably also emulated whatever environment that firmware depended on, if there was any such environment. It might be possible to do the same for non-x86 machines and PCI cards, with an x86 and BIOS emulator.
Such as "XDarwin"?
X11 comes with OS X Panther; you might have to install it from the CD, though (I forget how I installed it on mine).
Darwin comes for free with the purchase of a Mac with OS X (it has to - it'd be kind of hard for anything else to run without /mach_kernel, /usr/lib/libc.dylib, and /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib, for example). Presumably you meant something other than "Darwin" there.
Something like
from Chuck Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right , to be precise.
And religion. In some cases getting addicted to religion can be very damaging.
Could be. There's a group that wants to do MRIs to prove that pr0n damages the brain, according to this article. Dr. Reisman is mentioned in that article; she's talking about "erototoxins" there as well.
And, yes, that is where Ed Meese went off to, as per that Deseret News article.
(Oh, and the list of problems caused by pr0n should probably have included homosexuality - a lot of the stuff on Dr. Reisman's site goes on about homosexuality as well.)
You misspelled "intarweb".
Business Week should have said "stored program computer", or "Von Neumann computer", as per the timeline on this page. (Emphasis on "continental Europe"; the first Von Neumann machine ever, as far as I know, was built at the University of Manchester.)
Sergey Alekseyevich Lebedev, the head of the group that developed that machine (MESM), was born in Russia; that group also created the Big-Ass Computer series (OK, that's not an exact translation of "Bolshaja Elektronno-Schetnaja Mashina" :-)). There's a BESM-6 Nostalgia page about the sixth series of BESM machines. (It's a bit tricky to do the usual sort of buffer overflow tricks on those machines:
[+1, Funny]
Arguably, they should mention Linux kernel releases in the second column, if they're mentioning 4.4BSD, although as they didn't mention 4.4-Lite (the version that didn't require an AT&T license), maybe they're only listing stuff that required an AT&T license.
I reserve "UNIX-like" for something that is sufficiently incompatible with UNIX systems that it's hard to move yourself, or your source code, to them. I haven't seen any sign that Linux is any worse than, say, various commercial UNIXes in that regard. I use "UNIX-compatible" for a system that is intended to be able to let people used to UNIX just use it, and to let programs written for UNIX "just work".
The term "UNIX-like" doesn't appear to be used as much these days; if that's the case, it might be that "UNIX-like" isn't as interesting these days - "close only counts in horseshoes".
That took place after most of the BSD releases.
"Working on the AT&T code" in the sense of "directly contributing either to Research UNIX or to USG UNIX/System {III,V}", or in the sense of "taking AT&T code and adding stuff to it?
Because AT&T added a lot of what various SV-based UNIXes called, at the time, "Berkeley enhancements", i.e. they picked up BSD code, rather than being joint developers with Berkeley. (SVR4 picked up some more stuff, but that was as a result of a partnership with Sun rather than with Berkeley.)
And which they picked up (through Lachman Associates, I think).
I suspect most commercial UN*Xes these days have sufficiently "different takes on the kernel" that the descent from original AT&T UNIX is a bit remote; the BSDs have diverged a fair bit as well.
You can choose not to call them "UNIX" if you want, but...
I really don't care much whether the code was, once upon a time, code from AT&T; what I care about is whether a particular model of how the system works matches that of other UN*Xes. Linuxes have their deviations from the norm, but the same applies to many commercial UN*Xes. To pick one example, Linux distributions use ELF as their object file format, just as SunOS 5.x and many other SVR4 derivatives, and most of the BSDs, do; several commercial UN*Xes don't, including one BSD-derived commercial (partially open-source) UN*X. (Hint: it's the one that uses Mach-O instead. :-))
You misspelled "Wiener Nation".
You mean the timeline that says "3BSD is 32-bit port of 2BSD w/virtual memory and C shell" (although it really was a derivative of UNIX/32V with VM and the 2BSD changes - i.e., Berkeley didn't independently port 2BSD to the VAX, they built on AT&T's VAX port and added demand-paged VM).