Really, your new version of the kernel will have the same privileges as the old version. I see no problem with that.
I only fail to understand why they plan to put a kernel above that hypervisor. For it to be of any use, the hypervisor must controll all I/O operations anyway, what they get from Linux?
"Frankly, I don't know why Windows is considered the best business OS. You're much better off with a unixy OS in any environment where gaming isn't important."
No *nix desktop runs Exchange + Outlook, nor runs Word.
Word should be trivial to replace, but it isn't. It is hard to make people change, and most managers aren't willing to listen to complains just to save a few thousand (yet most should).
Exchange + Outlook is even harder, because it not only has a calendar system but also make it available to the network, so people can send an apointment to you, and if your calendar don't say you are busy they just assume you aren't (it gets to the point that people just don't even use phones anymore). That is very hard to change, and involves some reality facing. Boureoucracies are very bad at reality facing.
"And people have pointed out that the Internet is an example of the same phenomenon. It hasn't succeeded because it's such a great network. The IP/UDP/TCP/DNS/SMTP/HTTP/... protocols aren't all that good, actually. They're good enough to do the job, but anyone who knows them can tell you lots of ways to improve them. The reason for the Internet's success is mostly that all the specs have been published openly from the start. Anyone can download them for free, read them and implement them without legal restrictions. This gave the Internet a huge advantage over other privately-developed protocols that were often technically better but weren't available to any developer that was curious."
Actualy, the reason that the Internet is sucessfull is that there is a complete implementation of the main protocols available (BSD licensed) to anyone that want to use it. So people used it.
What goes to show that your point have even more support than you originaly tought.
Well, it is fast (main complain about microkernels), stable and able to run on some computers now. It seem to not have any problem but lack of coders (and no, I'm not helping).
It is also the most viable general use microkernel implementation out there. Microkernels may have no imediate gain, but long term they seem to be much more easier to expand.
Of course, with later Linux developments, we may have a moot point since they are moving most things to the user space already... Linux too can become the first general use microkernel.
Well, I can not explaint things better than the link you posted (maybe you should read it again). But I can point you that newer and more precise experiments weren't able to reproduce the results (your link points to some of them).
Are you talking about the errors of the experiment? Well, no device is perfect, all of them create errors.
If you read the article, you'll see that the precision of similar experiments have grown a lot, and such errors never repeat on a highter precision experiment.
First, photons have no mass. If you find some new particle with mass, well, it is not a photon. That is by definition.
Second, relativity says that particles without mass travel exactly at C. That includes photons.
Third, modern relativity comes directly from eletromagnetism. Both theories use the same experiments to calculate the light speed (actualy, C is defined, so those experiments ended up as the definition of a meter), so both have the same precision.
Well, for a start, they get no money from any choice you make.
Those people have a reason why they chosed FOSS. And have a reason why they are advocating it. You may not agree with their reasons, but they at least aren't on it for your money.
Or the GP was completely wrong... or maybe he has just tighter resources than you.
All things he said are usefull to improve performance, and can lead to errors that will decrease said performance if you are not carefull enough. Of course, if your performance hits are due to gross architectural errors, you shouldn't even think on looking into them.
Tell me why should I trust Microsoft not misleading people into using that licence when they talk about permissive licence. Once we say the MS-PL is ok, how do we tell people that MS-LPL is not?
And, to answer your question, there is the word 'Windows' at the above licence.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not. FSF is not doing any extorsion (unless you count: "if you violate our copyrights, we'll sue you" as extorsion).
The GP is simply a troll, with the same comment that apears on any conversation around here (not even a creative troll).
Really, your new version of the kernel will have the same privileges as the old version. I see no problem with that.
I only fail to understand why they plan to put a kernel above that hypervisor. For it to be of any use, the hypervisor must controll all I/O operations anyway, what they get from Linux?
No *nix desktop runs Exchange + Outlook, nor runs Word.
Word should be trivial to replace, but it isn't. It is hard to make people change, and most managers aren't willing to listen to complains just to save a few thousand (yet most should).
Exchange + Outlook is even harder, because it not only has a calendar system but also make it available to the network, so people can send an apointment to you, and if your calendar don't say you are busy they just assume you aren't (it gets to the point that people just don't even use phones anymore). That is very hard to change, and involves some reality facing. Boureoucracies are very bad at reality facing.
P2P is also widely used to dowload free software! Mainly Linux distros! Oh... Nevermind.
I don't know where you are from... But .doc seems to be the de-facto standard around here.
Debian is quite used, as is Fedora. (K)Ubuntu is also growing fast. And remember, Brazil is one of the homes of Mandriva.
We also have lots of derivatives.
Or Windows 7, or Ubuntu...
That applies to a lot of languages, including the old and trusted Pascal.
In fact, it is C that used to be the weard one.
Nice, because games are one of the few things keeping people on Windows. If Microsoft's greed destroy that, everybody gains (at least at long term).
Actualy, the reason that the Internet is sucessfull is that there is a complete implementation of the main protocols available (BSD licensed) to anyone that want to use it. So people used it.
What goes to show that your point have even more support than you originaly tought.
We have the term "design bug" for that. But it seems it still isn't an enterprize grade term :(
Well, it is fast (main complain about microkernels), stable and able to run on some computers now. It seem to not have any problem but lack of coders (and no, I'm not helping).
It is also the most viable general use microkernel implementation out there. Microkernels may have no imediate gain, but long term they seem to be much more easier to expand.
Of course, with later Linux developments, we may have a moot point since they are moving most things to the user space already... Linux too can become the first general use microkernel.
Well, I can not explaint things better than the link you posted (maybe you should read it again). But I can point you that newer and more precise experiments weren't able to reproduce the results (your link points to some of them).
Are you talking about the errors of the experiment? Well, no device is perfect, all of them create errors.
If you read the article, you'll see that the precision of similar experiments have grown a lot, and such errors never repeat on a highter precision experiment.
First, photons have no mass. If you find some new particle with mass, well, it is not a photon. That is by definition.
Second, relativity says that particles without mass travel exactly at C. That includes photons.
Third, modern relativity comes directly from eletromagnetism. Both theories use the same experiments to calculate the light speed (actualy, C is defined, so those experiments ended up as the definition of a meter), so both have the same precision.
He is not an Emacs user. An Emacs user would never call that GNU editor that run on Windows Emacs, even they having the same name.
Exactly! If he was left alone with Windows ME, he'd just give up and go away. Now, Vista he'll be able to "use" for a long time.
But you can bet they'll react very well to Earth climate.
Well, for a start, they get no money from any choice you make.
Those people have a reason why they chosed FOSS. And have a reason why they are advocating it. You may not agree with their reasons, but they at least aren't on it for your money.
No, it does not compete with ARM, MIPS and others at the embebbed market, simply because it consumes a lot of power and is seriously unpowered.
If sucessfull, that chip will open a market on its own for legacy software to run on small power appliances.
Or the GP was completely wrong... or maybe he has just tighter resources than you.
All things he said are usefull to improve performance, and can lead to errors that will decrease said performance if you are not carefull enough. Of course, if your performance hits are due to gross architectural errors, you shouldn't even think on looking into them.
Tell me why should I trust Microsoft not misleading people into using that licence when they talk about permissive licence. Once we say the MS-PL is ok, how do we tell people that MS-LPL is not?
And, to answer your question, there is the word 'Windows' at the above licence.
Unless they invent a revolutionary way to flip burgers...
So the bad guys have to inster then on an 8 hour interval?
I fell we are dealing with the wrong problem here...
Oh yes, you can.