Some IT consultant was talking on the radio the other day about Code Red, and she was actually apologizing for Microsoft. I couldn't believe it! She said (paraprased), "Microsoft has thousands of employees, and keeping track of everything they do is almost impossible. They have quality assurance tests, but as we all know, these aren't perfect." I was dumbfounded by her slobbering backpeddling, and she wasn't even an employee of Microsoft!
The only way I can explain it is that most people use Microsoft software, and what we use must be the best, right? I mean, how often does someone buy a new car and then complain about all the problems that it undoubtedly has? Hardly ever. It must be the same with computers; the Windows users have an emotional investment in the product and they want everything to be just fine, so they apologize for shoddy software; "Oh Windows crashed, I bet the next version is better, this one is getting quite old", "Oh I got a virus, I wish those evil hackers would be put to death". See my point? They never think to blame Microsoft because they are Microsoft to a certain extent; they belong to a huge fanclub of a massive group of people. That's gotta feel good.
And it makes it tough for us non-Microsoft users to get along with. Like the abused wife that toddles on back to her jerk of a husband, so the users return to Outlook, because "this time it will be better" and "I don't know how I could possibly function if my calendar and e-mail client were two separate programs."
The Portable.NET project becomes the "DotGNU Portable.NET" subproject of the DotGNU meta-project.
Am I the only one that thought of the gladiator scene in the Monty Python's The Life of Brian when I read that? The bit where they are bickering over the 'splitters' and changing their names from the Liberation Party to the Party of Liberation or some such nonsense. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled/.
Just like we don't need flash to browse the web anymore? Just like we don't need a sorensen-v2-enabled Quicktime or WMP7 to view media anymore? Just like we don't need Windows to use any of that software down at Fred Meyer's? The dotNET initiative is aimed at extending the Microsoft platform to the internet in the same way.
Do we really want to encourage that? I have a lot of respect for Miguel and Microsoft, but I'll base my predictions on past behavior, which doesn't look good.
Those bastards, we need to go back to the good old days when programming was hard work. To hell with component based development!
Who said that?! A component system that requires you to install an application is broken. Why not simply allow someone to install the components required without making other judgements?
And you get these files over the internet. Code signing is worthless unless the public key is transmitted via a secure channel (like certified mail or something similar). Having said that, I believe that doing it in a realistic manner is more secure than not doing it (I use GPG all the time).
I saw it twice today. I took some buddies with me to the noon matinee, and I enjoyed it so much that I took my wife to the evening show, which was packed. There were 2 twelve-year-old girls sitting next to us, and after it was over they said, "That was better than Titanic!". I definately agree with them, but I really didn't care for Titanic myself....:> Perhaps it will be a box-office smash.
Members of the EU are not allowed to ratify treaties.
So the European states gave up their sovereignty whent they joined the EU? France is unable to sign Kyoto because it's just not possible right now? Sounds suspicious.
Using your karma to mod down posts that you do not agree with (as of this posting, the parent was modded down to 4 (Flaimbait) because some idiot doesn't want to discuss the matter). Read the Moderatin Guidelines before moderating!
Get one.
Just like the unjust villification of super-clean, cheap, nuclear power, the Green Party folks are crying that the sky is falling again (and people are buying it again). People really are gullible.
Just hit command-Q and the registration program quits. No big deal. Just because you don't know how to use a Macintosh doesn't mean you have to stick your foot in your mouth.
Why did that post get modded down to -1? It sounds like idiots with karma are at the helm again (go ahead and mod me down to prove my point). Seriously, read the moderation guidelines before you mod someone down because you don't agree with what they say. I know that's how the Green Party works in the real world (censorship of facts), but here on/. I thought we were above that.
The second derivative of GNP. It seems that as the economy actually showed signs of being normal (ie, unsustainable growth being a reality in the economic system), and everyone realized that investments were returning nada, panic set in. Then the second derivative caved and took the first derivative out with it as a result. As long as the growth of the growths was positive, then eveyone seemed to ignore these "problems" (quoted because I'm still not conviced that Japan's economy is a failue by design-- I suppose I'll reserve judgement until they either slide into uncontrolled decline and stay there, succeed on their current designs, or convert over to a more Western economy).
Banks in Japan are literally giving money away to try and resusitate there dead economy.
Now?
They've been doing that for last 50 years in order to stimulate the economy. It worked just fine when they could export so much more than import; but it eventually caught up with them when people realized that investments made no money without growth. Japan's economy depends a lot more on the second derivative than most western nation's economies do.
Is their economic way of life inferior? Who knows, only time will tell. It sure doesn't look that way right now, but then again the western nations had a great depression and we emerged much the wiser for it.
The only thing that really disturbs me about Japan are the reports of their crumbling higher-education systems; critics claim that their educational system is only intended to make good corportate drones (to use y2k vernacular) and to avoid too much open thought. Since I live in the US, it's hard to meter these claims -- but what I do know is that I never hear anything bad about Japan from Japan itself, and that sets of warning bells. A heathy society can have sprited fights about what's right-and-wrong; a sick society must support the status quo regardless the situation.
Usenet might have been a pioneering effort that showed how to build community, but it has since degenerated into shouting matches between cretins who have more spare time than what should be legal.
Sounds like someone got their feelings hurt.
Usenet is a very frank discussion, and it does offend the weak hearted who would rather have a nanny at the wheel. With a good usenet reader, and a quick mind, these problems go away.
The problem with Usenet is that there is no moderation.
The problem is with your Usenet client then. Mine has both killfiles and thread scoring (not to mention that newsgroups can be moderated if they choose to be). I still read usenet more than any other discussion site. Slashdot is one of the VERY, VERY few web sites that has managed to make the transition with any grace at all. Whenever I see an UltimateBulletinBoard website, I'm quick to go elsewhere; most of the people who design web discussion groups have no idea how to implement it properly. Considering the junk that must be dealt with on usenet, it's still heaven when compared to the HTTP "equivalents".
M:N does nothing for involuntary context switches, which have to somehow go through the kernel (for example, a signal is delivered to the process, which swaps context so that returning from the handler will cause a new thread to run).
That's the whole point. Threads that do not need kernel scheduling don't have to bother the kernel scheduler. The process is still scheduled by the kernel and all niceties are followed. Take the GUI application with 10 threads that are handling event-driven input. None of them will block. If they all must be scheduled by the kernel, then you have 10 expensive context switches to do relativly trivial things. If they are all scheduled as user threads, then one quanta can take care of all of them in a single switch.
So M:N does nothing for I/O or response to real-time inputs.
Real-time inputs? Yes, user threads do a tremendous amount of good as long as there are no blocking threads involved (which should be scheduled as kernel threads). I/O? You are correct; you shouldn't schedule I/O as userland threads.
M:N also does nothing for compute-intensive multithreading that is done *sanely*. Sure, M:N may speed up a program that performs, say, some operation on a large matrix using 50 threads on two processors, because when these threads synchronize, it can be done using those fast voluntary context switches. But M:N will do nothing for a program that uses two threads over two processors to do the same thing, which is the more sane design.
And yet there are numerous counter-examples that can be thrown. If the programmer doesn't understand what's going on, then all sorts of things could cause performance problems (using large big-oh algorithms being the most obvious). A bad programmer can't be saved anyway -- if a low-level work unit can be split up without blocking, why not schedule it in userland? If (as above) you have 2 threads doing a *lot* of independent work, then it makes sense to schedule them as kernel threads because the time to process masks the context switch. The whole point is that the programmer, not the OS, is in control here.
As a rule, the number of threads in an application should be not much more than the minimum that is required to utilize the various functional units of the hardware (processors and peripherals). Using too many threads just causes wasteful context switches that accomplish nothing, increases the memory access footprint of the application (since each thread has its own private data areas, such as the stack), and causes the scheduler to have to choose from among more threads.
It's not worth trying to speed up brain-damaged applications that make poor use of threads, yet this is exactly what M:N is for.
The problem is, you never know the architecture (CPUs) you're going to end up running on someday. Using 10 GUI userland event threads along with 10 blocking kernel I/O threads allows your application to scale from 1 to many processors; if you use 20 kernel scheduled threads, then it might not perform as well on a single-CPU system as it otherwise would. Which one of the above applications is the real brain-dead one (please stand up).
What's wrong with Linux threads? I've been using them for a while. They seem to work for me.Why are the IBM ones so much better?
Linux threads are 1:1 mapped with kernel threads. This is great for I/O intensive operations because they can be independently scheduled by the kernel. If one task is bloking on some thing or other in the kernel, the others can be scheduled just fine. The problem comes with scalability; scheduling a kernel thread is just as expensive as scheduling a process, so if you have many many threads and relatively few processors things can get slow because the task switching/creation overtakes the performance.
The solution to this is to have both kernel threads and userland threads. Things that don't block and/or require other things that block the kernel should be spawned as userland threads (they are about an order of magnitude faster for both scheduling and creating), and things that will block the kernel (network I/O, file I/O, etc.) should be setup as kernel threads. This makes life easier on the scheduler and also makes GUI applications "feel" faster than they currently do. Solaris has been doing this for quite some time already.
This is equivilent to saying that having a Java compiler and JVM on a varietly of different platforms does nothing to help interoperability because its all bound the the JVM API and its internals.
Having Java without Swing or even AWT is pretty pointless. That's what Microsoft is "giving" away here. All the tools to be an ancillary participant in.NET, but not to inter-operate on a client (or even heavy-Windowsish) level.
I don't like the GPL much myself, but I do get tired of hearing BSD advocates dumping on it so much. It's still much better than closed commercial source, regardless your ideology; and I can understand how some might feel threatened by others using their code. I don't feel that way, but I'd much rather play by GPL rules than be forced to use a closed system.
This is why Microsoft's comments are so humorous; every time they attack the GPL, just re-read their statements and replace 'GPL' with 'commercial software' and it makes even MORE sense (especially the 'viral' aspect [Word files, PSD files, XLS files, Exchange Server Protocol, MSDNS, MSKerberos, Internet Explorer, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Their intentions are made perfectly clear by reading the restrictions placed on users of their "shared source" code. If you fix a bug, you can't even distribute your changes as a complete package (the Minix syndrome)!
Slashdot Mirror
The only way I can explain it is that most people use Microsoft software, and what we use must be the best, right? I mean, how often does someone buy a new car and then complain about all the problems that it undoubtedly has? Hardly ever. It must be the same with computers; the Windows users have an emotional investment in the product and they want everything to be just fine, so they apologize for shoddy software; "Oh Windows crashed, I bet the next version is better, this one is getting quite old", "Oh I got a virus, I wish those evil hackers would be put to death". See my point? They never think to blame Microsoft because they are Microsoft to a certain extent; they belong to a huge fanclub of a massive group of people. That's gotta feel good.
And it makes it tough for us non-Microsoft users to get along with. Like the abused wife that toddles on back to her jerk of a husband, so the users return to Outlook, because "this time it will be better" and "I don't know how I could possibly function if my calendar and e-mail client were two separate programs."
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Am I the only one that thought of the gladiator scene in the Monty Python's The Life of Brian when I read that? The bit where they are bickering over the 'splitters' and changing their names from the Liberation Party to the Party of Liberation or some such nonsense. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled /.
Do we really want to encourage that? I have a lot of respect for Miguel and Microsoft, but I'll base my predictions on past behavior, which doesn't look good.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Who said that?! A component system that requires you to install an application is broken. Why not simply allow someone to install the components required without making other judgements?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
And
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Doesn't suffer from the same problem?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
dnl FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')dnl
Then re-run m4 on it:
m4 /etc/mail/sendmail.mc > /etc/sendmail.cf
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
So the European states gave up their sovereignty whent they joined the EU? France is unable to sign Kyoto because it's just not possible right now? Sounds suspicious.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://inconnu.isu.edu/~ink/GLOBAL_WARMING.pdf
Get one. Just like the unjust villification of super-clean, cheap, nuclear power, the Green Party folks are crying that the sky is falling again (and people are buying it again). People really are gullible.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
With a sense of humor like yours, it's understandable that someone would mistake it for Whiney Europeanese.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Now?
They've been doing that for last 50 years in order to stimulate the economy. It worked just fine when they could export so much more than import; but it eventually caught up with them when people realized that investments made no money without growth. Japan's economy depends a lot more on the second derivative than most western nation's economies do.
Is their economic way of life inferior? Who knows, only time will tell. It sure doesn't look that way right now, but then again the western nations had a great depression and we emerged much the wiser for it.
The only thing that really disturbs me about Japan are the reports of their crumbling higher-education systems; critics claim that their educational system is only intended to make good corportate drones (to use y2k vernacular) and to avoid too much open thought. Since I live in the US, it's hard to meter these claims -- but what I do know is that I never hear anything bad about Japan from Japan itself, and that sets of warning bells. A heathy society can have sprited fights about what's right-and-wrong; a sick society must support the status quo regardless the situation.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Sounds like someone got their feelings hurt.
Usenet is a very frank discussion, and it does offend the weak hearted who would rather have a nanny at the wheel. With a good usenet reader, and a quick mind, these problems go away.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The problem is with your Usenet client then. Mine has both killfiles and thread scoring (not to mention that newsgroups can be moderated if they choose to be). I still read usenet more than any other discussion site. Slashdot is one of the VERY, VERY few web sites that has managed to make the transition with any grace at all. Whenever I see an UltimateBulletinBoard website, I'm quick to go elsewhere; most of the people who design web discussion groups have no idea how to implement it properly. Considering the junk that must be dealt with on usenet, it's still heaven when compared to the HTTP "equivalents".
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
M:N does nothing for involuntary context switches, which have to somehow go through the kernel (for example, a signal is delivered to the process, which swaps context so that returning from the handler will cause a new thread to run).
That's the whole point. Threads that do not need kernel scheduling don't have to bother the kernel scheduler. The process is still scheduled by the kernel and all niceties are followed. Take the GUI application with 10 threads that are handling event-driven input. None of them will block. If they all must be scheduled by the kernel, then you have 10 expensive context switches to do relativly trivial things. If they are all scheduled as user threads, then one quanta can take care of all of them in a single switch.
So M:N does nothing for I/O or response to real-time inputs.
Real-time inputs? Yes, user threads do a tremendous amount of good as long as there are no blocking threads involved (which should be scheduled as kernel threads). I/O? You are correct; you shouldn't schedule I/O as userland threads.
M:N also does nothing for compute-intensive multithreading that is done *sanely*. Sure, M:N may speed up a program that performs, say, some operation on a large matrix using 50 threads on two processors, because when these threads synchronize, it can be done using those fast voluntary context switches. But M:N will do nothing for a program that uses two threads over two processors to do the same thing, which is the more sane design.
And yet there are numerous counter-examples that can be thrown. If the programmer doesn't understand what's going on, then all sorts of things could cause performance problems (using large big-oh algorithms being the most obvious). A bad programmer can't be saved anyway -- if a low-level work unit can be split up without blocking, why not schedule it in userland? If (as above) you have 2 threads doing a *lot* of independent work, then it makes sense to schedule them as kernel threads because the time to process masks the context switch. The whole point is that the programmer, not the OS, is in control here.
As a rule, the number of threads in an application should be not much more than the minimum that is required to utilize the various functional units of the hardware (processors and peripherals). Using too many threads just causes wasteful context switches that accomplish nothing, increases the memory access footprint of the application (since each thread has its own private data areas, such as the stack), and causes the scheduler to have to choose from among more threads.
It's not worth trying to speed up brain-damaged applications that make poor use of threads, yet this is exactly what M:N is for.
The problem is, you never know the architecture (CPUs) you're going to end up running on someday. Using 10 GUI userland event threads along with 10 blocking kernel I/O threads allows your application to scale from 1 to many processors; if you use 20 kernel scheduled threads, then it might not perform as well on a single-CPU system as it otherwise would. Which one of the above applications is the real brain-dead one (please stand up).
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Linux threads are 1:1 mapped with kernel threads. This is great for I/O intensive operations because they can be independently scheduled by the kernel. If one task is bloking on some thing or other in the kernel, the others can be scheduled just fine. The problem comes with scalability; scheduling a kernel thread is just as expensive as scheduling a process, so if you have many many threads and relatively few processors things can get slow because the task switching/creation overtakes the performance.
The solution to this is to have both kernel threads and userland threads. Things that don't block and/or require other things that block the kernel should be spawned as userland threads (they are about an order of magnitude faster for both scheduling and creating), and things that will block the kernel (network I/O, file I/O, etc.) should be setup as kernel threads. This makes life easier on the scheduler and also makes GUI applications "feel" faster than they currently do. Solaris has been doing this for quite some time already.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Having Java without Swing or even AWT is pretty pointless. That's what Microsoft is "giving" away here. All the tools to be an ancillary participant in .NET, but not to inter-operate on a client (or even heavy-Windowsish) level.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
This is why Microsoft's comments are so humorous; every time they attack the GPL, just re-read their statements and replace 'GPL' with 'commercial software' and it makes even MORE sense (especially the 'viral' aspect [Word files, PSD files, XLS files, Exchange Server Protocol, MSDNS, MSKerberos, Internet Explorer, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Their intentions are made perfectly clear by reading the restrictions placed on users of their "shared source" code. If you fix a bug, you can't even distribute your changes as a complete package (the Minix syndrome)!
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.