This has been covered extensively in the antitrust decision (which, BTW, was upheld unanimously by 9 appelate judges). The exclusive agreements are illegal when you have a monopoly in that particular market. Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. (*) Therefore, the exclusive agreemets are illegal. End of story. You'd do well to actually get a clue before spouting nonsense.
(*) Oh, and before some moron decides to beat the "MS is not a monopoly" horse, I will not argue with that. I'll merely point out that the district judge and 9 appellate judges disagree with you. And they probably understand the laws a bit better than you.
When contributions become illegal then bribes become more popular, and those unwilling to accept bribes will not ever come close to getting into office
Uhhm, and how is it different from the current situations? Oh yeah, I get it! They are not technicaly bribes: they are called "contributions".
Bullshit. As I already explained, this patch causes the kernel to switch processes more often. More process switching means more CPU overhead. So, more CPU time is spent on switching and less on doing work. What part of that did you not undestand? So lower latency comes at a price of decreased throughput. You cannot do more process switching without paying the price in throughput. Period. I do suggest you take that OS course.
Perhaps you were assuming that all 100% of CPU time is utilized and that faster GUI is not really useful, so the processor does less "useful work".
If CPU is not being used than you wouldn't need this patch to schedule a GUI process. Pre-emptible patch makes a difference only when there is a lower priority process competing with the GUI processes.
Aside from the technicalities of this particular patch, your assumption that you're going to lose something when you apply a beneficial patch because 'you don't get anything for free' is, despite appearing mature and clueful, way off mark.
False. There *is* a tradeoff. And you probably want to take an Operating Systems course before spewing "there is no tradeoff with Free Software" nonsense. (BTW, I wanted to ask the same question).
Anyway, here is how it works: a ready, higher-priority process can kick off a running, lower priority process before the running process's time slice expires. This does indeed improve responsiveness so that your machine "feels" (*)faster, but in reality it actually runs slower. The cost of pre-emptible kernel is that it does more process switching than a non-preemptible one (see above, it can (and does) interrupt a process before its time slice is finished). More process switching requires more CPU time, concequently, less CPU time is spent on actually doing work.
So yes, the good thing is that it decreases latency (hence better responsiveness). But the bad thing is that it decreases throughput (the amount of work actually done) because of the increased process switching overhead.
(*) The reason your machine "feels" faster is that the GUI becomes more responsive. But that is pure illusion! Your machine actually does less work. Thus, the pre-emptible kernel patch would probably be useful for workstations, but you definitely don't want to use it on a server.
So the question becomes: what is the throughput/latency tradeoff with the current implementation of the preemptible kernel?
I think we need to go back to the moon and set up some bases, to better prepare us for mars, and to shut up those idiots who think nasa is in the business of special effects and sound stages.
Huh? What's the point? If they didn't believe it the first time, why would they believe it the second time?
3. You are planning to use an unproven language purely for its hype.
So to sum up, you have no clue what you are doing (the very fact that you asked it on slashdot, of all things, is an evidence of that); you don't know the language you want to use; and, instead of evaluating your options, you decided to ride the hype, perhaps to make your CV buzzword-compliant. Therefore, this project is doomed before it is even started.
Oh, and just to throw in some more buzzwords, I suggest you make it a Web service using the.NET framework combined with an innovative XML protocol for the information superhighway! Wow! That will impress every PHP on Earth.
In extreme cases you have to nuke and rewrite or replace major chunks of code, taking care to preserve actual API's and behavior (as opposed to whatever is (semi-)documented), but it definitely can be done.
Well, that is true, but now you are talking about major re-engineering. That is a *lot* more work than a month of bug fixes -- and this is exactly what Microsoft will need to do if they want to make their producs secure. No amount of patches will save them -- they will always be a step behind bugs. To make their products truly secure, there must be a major redesign effort. It took them a switch from windows 3.1/95/98 to NT/2000/XP code base to get reliability. The changes must be no less drastic to get security.
Re:Is it Netsafe?? Doesn't sound like it.
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 2
Aren't something like *half* of the script kiddie root hacks out there depending on someone being dumb enough to go onto the net while logged in as root?
No, it's more like 99%. It is hard to break into a secured box. Script kiddies have a field trip breaking into the insecure ones -- there is so many of them to choose from! If the construction industry took security as seriously as certain companies in computer industry do, nearly all houses would be built out of cardboard.
I understand that this is a Linux distro for the Win98 crowd, and that Win98 isn't secure in the least, but I really hope that the Lindows people give the Win98'ers a fighting chance. Otherwise the k33bler pr0n elves are going to be visiting some new Lindows boxes *real* soon....:-/
If by some chance, this Lindows thing does take off, I can totally see the windows morons claiming that Linux is insecure. It says in the article that This wonderful OS can already run Outlook worms. I guess it wouldn't be windows-compatible without it:-)
It sure is as secure as windows
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 3
Not only did the installation process not give us the opportunity to add users other than root, it didn't even explain that we *should* add users other than root, didn't tell us that the account was root, and even tended to discourage us from entering the optional security password for root, because, "if you lose this password it cannot be recovered."
Right there, one of the most important reasons to use Linux is thrown out the window. The only thing we need now is a Linux port of Lookout, err... I mean Outlook, and Melissa / ILOVEYOU / Sircam / whatever will follow.
I suppose you mean that 4KB and 4MB pages can be used interchangebly and the OS can specify if it wants to allocate a 4KB or a 4MB page, correct? It is inconceivable that 4MB pages would be used exclusively.
First, as has already been pointed out, there is no performance hit.
But I still did not get the answer to my question. What is the purpose of having 4MB pages in the first place? It is inconceivable that an OS would use 4MB pages exclusively. The internal fragmentation would be enourmous.
To give you an analogy, think of what would happen if your file system used 4MB blocks. When you create a file, space would be allocated 4MB at a time so a 1 byte file would waste (4MB - 1byte) of disk space; (4MB + 1byte) file would take up two blocks, also wasting (4MB - 1byte) of disk space. On average, each file wastes 1/2 of the last block. Similarly, each process wastes on average 1/2 of the last page. That's not a problem if the pages are 4KB in size, but with 4MB pages there's lots of space wasted. That's like throwing away paging altogether.
So, I ask again, what is the point of having 4MB pages?
Could somebody with more knowledge explain why you need 4MB
pages in the first place? Pages are supposed to be small for
a reason. With 4MB pages, internal fragmentation would
go through the roof. It's almost like not having paging
at all. I don't understand why this option is even available and used.
The big question is why Woody still has not been released? I thought going to unstable/testing/stable model was supposed to speed up release cycles. Apparently not.
Ahem, I am originally from Ukraine (or USSR I should say:-), and I speak both Ukrainian and Russian fluently. But whatdya know? Some Anonymous Coward knows better.
Is the 3d sound supported? What's the quality of the driver? Does it work well on SMP systems? Live, AFAIK, was not only poorly supported but also caused hardware failures, especially with VIA chipsets. It seems that the only compelling reason for Live owners to upgrade is stability.(Much like windows, the next version is supposed to be more stable than the last...)
Slashdot Mirror
Signing exclusive agreements is NOT illegal!
This has been covered extensively in the antitrust decision (which, BTW, was upheld unanimously by 9 appelate judges). The exclusive agreements are illegal when you have a monopoly in that particular market. Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. (*) Therefore, the exclusive agreemets are illegal. End of story. You'd do well to actually get a clue before spouting nonsense.
(*) Oh, and before some moron decides to beat the "MS is not a monopoly" horse, I will not argue with that. I'll merely point out that the district judge and 9 appellate judges disagree with you. And they probably understand the laws a bit better than you.
Uhhm, and how is it different from the current situations? Oh yeah, I get it! They are not technicaly bribes: they are called "contributions".
Perhaps you were assuming that all 100% of CPU time is utilized and that faster GUI is not really useful, so the processor does less "useful work".
If CPU is not being used than you wouldn't need this patch to schedule a GUI process. Pre-emptible patch makes a difference only when there is a lower priority process competing with the GUI processes.
False. There *is* a tradeoff. And you probably want to take an Operating Systems course before spewing "there is no tradeoff with Free Software" nonsense. (BTW, I wanted to ask the same question).
Anyway, here is how it works: a ready, higher-priority process can kick off a running, lower priority process before the running process's time slice expires. This does indeed improve responsiveness so that your machine "feels" (*)faster, but in reality it actually runs slower. The cost of pre-emptible kernel is that it does more process switching than a non-preemptible one (see above, it can (and does) interrupt a process before its time slice is finished). More process switching requires more CPU time, concequently, less CPU time is spent on actually doing work. So yes, the good thing is that it decreases latency (hence better responsiveness). But the bad thing is that it decreases throughput (the amount of work actually done) because of the increased process switching overhead.
(*) The reason your machine "feels" faster is that the GUI becomes more responsive. But that is pure illusion! Your machine actually does less work. Thus, the pre-emptible kernel patch would probably be useful for workstations, but you definitely don't want to use it on a server.
So the question becomes: what is the throughput/latency tradeoff with the current implementation of the preemptible kernel?
You don't have privacy anyway, so get over it.
Huh? What's the point? If they didn't believe it the first time, why would they believe it the second time?
3. You are planning to use an unproven language purely for its hype.
.NET framework combined with an innovative XML protocol for the information superhighway! Wow! That will impress every PHP on Earth.
So to sum up, you have no clue what you are doing (the very fact that you asked it on slashdot, of all things, is an evidence of that); you don't know the language you want to use; and, instead of evaluating your options, you decided to ride the hype, perhaps to make your CV buzzword-compliant. Therefore, this project is doomed before it is even started.
Oh, and just to throw in some more buzzwords, I suggest you make it a Web service using the
Well, that is true, but now you are talking about major re-engineering. That is a *lot* more work than a month of bug fixes -- and this is exactly what Microsoft will need to do if they want to make their producs secure. No amount of patches will save them -- they will always be a step behind bugs. To make their products truly secure, there must be a major redesign effort. It took them a switch from windows 3.1/95/98 to NT/2000/XP code base to get reliability. The changes must be no less drastic to get security.
First Amazon makes profit, then Microsoft decides to fix bugs. Anyone want to guess what will be next?
(It is an interesting coninsidence that 2002 is a palindrome. Hmmm....)
That's like saying "working new work".
(see subject)
No, it's more like 99%. It is hard to break into a secured box. Script kiddies have a field trip breaking into the insecure ones -- there is so many of them to choose from! If the construction industry took security as seriously as certain companies in computer industry do, nearly all houses would be built out of cardboard.
I understand that this is a Linux distro for the Win98 crowd, and that Win98 isn't secure in the least, but I really hope that the Lindows people give the Win98'ers a fighting chance. Otherwise the k33bler pr0n elves are going to be visiting some new Lindows boxes *real* soon.... :-/
If by some chance, this Lindows thing does take off, I can totally see the windows morons claiming that Linux is insecure. It says in the article that This wonderful OS can already run Outlook worms. I guess it wouldn't be windows-compatible without it :-)
Right there, one of the most important reasons to use Linux is thrown out the window. The only thing we need now is a Linux port of Lookout, err... I mean Outlook, and Melissa / ILOVEYOU / Sircam / whatever will follow.
Of course it will! Except that in the modern interpretation, it is the invisible hand that puts money in the pockets of politicians.
I suppose you mean that 4KB and 4MB pages can be used interchangebly and the OS can specify if it wants to allocate a 4KB or a 4MB page, correct? It is inconceivable that 4MB pages would be used exclusively.
First, as has already been pointed out, there is no performance hit.
But I still did not get the answer to my question. What is the purpose of having 4MB pages in the first place? It is inconceivable that an OS would use 4MB pages exclusively. The internal fragmentation would be enourmous.
To give you an analogy, think of what would happen if your file system used 4MB blocks. When you create a file, space would be allocated 4MB at a time so a 1 byte file would waste (4MB - 1byte) of disk space; (4MB + 1byte) file would take up two blocks, also wasting (4MB - 1byte) of disk space. On average, each file wastes 1/2 of the last block. Similarly, each process wastes on average 1/2 of the last page. That's not a problem if the pages are 4KB in size, but with 4MB pages there's lots of space wasted. That's like throwing away paging altogether.
So, I ask again, what is the point of having 4MB pages?
Could somebody with more knowledge explain why you need 4MB pages in the first place? Pages are supposed to be small for a reason. With 4MB pages, internal fragmentation would go through the roof. It's almost like not having paging at all. I don't understand why this option is even available and used.
The big question is why Woody still has not been released? I thought going to unstable/testing/stable model was supposed to speed up release cycles. Apparently not.
Ahem, I am originally from Ukraine (or USSR I should say :-), and I speak both Ukrainian and Russian fluently. But whatdya know? Some Anonymous Coward knows better.
They speak Ukrainian in Ukraine. Russian is close enough but *ahem* some Ukrainians don't like it. It's kinda like speaking English in Quebec... :-)
Or Honda vs. Hyunday?
Huh? that is plain false. You can run as many kde
sesssions per machine as you want
Is the 3d sound supported? What's the quality of the driver? Does it work well on SMP systems? Live, AFAIK, was not only poorly supported but also caused hardware failures, especially with VIA chipsets. It seems that the only compelling reason for Live owners to upgrade is stability.(Much like windows, the next version is supposed to be more stable than the last...)
What happened to LinuxOne, btw?
You heard wrong. I suggest you take an algorithms course.
There are some (though not many I think) problems that are in NP but not NP-complete.
There are lots of problems that are in NP but not NP-complete. Most of the known algorithms are.