"Take the case of porting a complex application like MS-Word from Windows to another OS. There are lots of supporting libraries (dll's) that have to be ported that rely on other libraries (in other words they rely on OPERATING SYSTEM FUNCTIONS, which may or may not be KERNEL functions)."
yes I can write supporting libraries too, this is merely a logical seperation, technically an application is really the primary executable, all supporting datafiles and all things which would be included if it were statically linked. I really fail to see how this breathtaking concept of libraries which make programming more manageable has anything to do with the operating system. Ultimately when the chain is followed you end up with calls to the REAL operating system, the lowest level api at the bottom of the tree... in linux this api is entirely provided by the kernel, in some systems it is made up of multiple files yes... but combined they perform more or less the same task as the kernel.
An emulator makes for something different, it's a wrapper which uses the current OS. Your emulated experience is tricking an operating system into believing it's controlling hardware when it is not.
Yes you can port the Linux operating system to another hardware platform, but it is still the linux OS. I don't think anyone would argue that the HARDWARE is an operating system, whether emulated or real.
"The kernel is traditionally the part that handles memory management, task scheduling, talks to hardware, etc. The OS"
That is very nearly the definition of an operating system. On the linux operating system there are many shells, many compilers, many greplike utilites, etc... there are lots and lots of applications, all of which talk to the kernel or a layer which talks to the kernel. The operating system is the lowest level software layer in the system, or the kernel.
Microkernel architectures are no different, AFAIK, linux microkernel's have a loader which loads them into memory and they more or less remap the interrupt vectors and turn themselves into the operating system on the fly, regardless of what OS you are using before, by the time they have actually booted THEY are the operating system. As for what technically constitutes a "microkernel", I never said the OS had to lie in one file, or even that it technically MUST be only the kernel, a better definition is the lowest level layer of software that provides an api for interfacing with the core hardware. In linux however, this is entirely done by the kernel.
yes I'm well aware of what the gnu homepage says. My entire statement was pointing out that what stallman and the gnu say on the subject is incorrect.
Explain to me how you can compile and run the gnu apps and run them on BSD, proprietary unix, etc. Now, explain to me how one would port the kernel to run on another operating system. You can't, you can't port the operating system to another operating system, you can port the applications to another operating system.
So kernel == os
the operating system is the part which controls the hardware, manages memory etc. Applications interact with the operating system, using calls it provides etc. The difference is quite clear really.
When you have a base of more than 50 nt based systems, and you never see a true blue screen, or never have to chkdsk/r (or fixboot) from the recovery console because an NT based system mysteriously stops booting for no apparent reason. Or better yet, when you can get the icons in the system to load consistantly in the same order each time you boot the machine... let me know and I'll start debating this issue. I agree though the NT kernel is about as good as say... OS/2 was when first released (gee wonder why, could be that the same team of ibm developers wrote them... could even be that they are basically the same code!).
It's true that win32 is the source of most of the OS issues, but it's also true, that the only possible salvagable portions of the system weren't written by microsoft. As far as I know microsoft IS writting the new gui and api so I won't hold my breath. Different programmers too, but considering the same sort of garbage is spewed out from microsoft in every application they produce and those must come from different development routines it has to be microsoft policies that cause the evil and not the programmers. I'd be amazed if longhorn turns out to be stable, efficient, AND as secure as the current releases of *nix. Even if it is... it's not exactly like those *nix systems are going to stand still while MS catches up... and without a doubt the OSS ones develope more rapidly.
Hell they could make a good start simply by seperating mediaplayer, ie, oe, asp, etc and making them removable... permanently. And then getting rid of this horrid registry concept. Just taking the idea of text based configuration from systems like linux and adding in text processing tools and a decent cli shell would make the system MUCH easier to administer for someone with half a brain who knows what he's doing. leave the point and click for the idiot mcse's.
Actually 2000 was supposed to be the convergence. 2000 professional was supposed to be the home and office user OS. People generally used neither it nor ME, this time around MS decided not to even give the compatibility option.
"Basically the number of patches issued is about as meaningless an indicator of code quality as number of lines of code per day is a measure of productivity."
that much at least is true
"Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has."
and maybe 10-15 built in applications (counting crap nobody will ever use), redhat has what a few thousand? If what you say is true that makes windows pretty damn bloated wouldn't you say?
"Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player"
According to microsoft these programs are part of the core OS. They also aren't removeable, even if you want to use a different email client, webbrowser, or media player, you can't get rid of them. Since you can't remove them from the core OS, their bugs are and should be grouped in with it.
"IMHO, the only thing that could possibly rectify this situation is a new code-base, from the ground up."
I agree, a new code base (kernel, new gui, etc) is the way to go. They should contract someone else to write it as well. They also need a new development model... and the only way they'll be able to use that new development model is to figure out a new business model. Somehow I suspect none of this will happen though;) At best they'll give us another system like NT, that appears to be great at first and rears it's ugly head later.
Closed source doesn't make them more secure, it merely makes it take longer for the peer review... and most of the peers reviewing have no intention of telling microsoft when they find holes.
Actually kernel is a synonym for operating system. An operating system doesn't include userland apps. Which is why when refering to the operating system please call it by the name the author chose for it, LINUX. GNU/Linux is a name made up by someone who writes applications which have a port to the Linux operating system.
The reason microsoft gets a few choice applications thrown in is that THEY insist they are part of THEIR operating system. That doesn't make an application like a web browser part of the linux operating system.
For another thing, all of the security holes and bugs in those programs lay at microsoft's feet, they aren't merely bundled by microsoft, they are written by the same shoddy programmers who write the rest of it.
Microsoft has gone further than call those applications part of the operating system, they've made sure you cannot reasonably remove them (no getting rid of media player shortcuts doesn't qualify as REMOVEING it.). With linux there is no application including the GUI itself that I can't remove... since there is actually an option whether or not to install this or that web browser, then those applications stand on their own merit and don't group together as linux. A bug in Mozilla only affects mozilla users (windows or linux mozilla users generally), a bug in IE affects every windows user because they can't get rid of IE even if they want to.
Furthermore, according to mr gates 1/3 of winxp systems crash more than 3 times daily due to bugs in the OPERATING SYSTEM... and that's just the ones who use the error reporting service.
It's not too late to get out of this pit, you can start using your mind today and find the link (i'll give you a hint, it was covered by slashdot) to the interview in which he gave those numbers all by yourself;)
XP is produced by microsoft IIS is produced by microsoft IE is produced by microsoft ASP is produced by microsoft
linux is not produced by rh apache is not produced by rh mozilla is not produced by rh php is not produced by rh
each of the individual groups are responsible for the software they produce. Microsoft is responsible for any security flaws in xp and all the xp you mentioned above. No two of the open source projects mentioned above are maintained by the same group... there is no one person responsible for all of them.
The microsoft apps however and their flaws are all the result of the shoddy programming from one shoddy company.
rh doesn't claim mozilla and php are part of the OS. Microsoft DOES claim IE and ASP are. rh doen't claim apache is part of the OS. Microsoft does claim IIS is. Of course none of these applications are part of the OS (even IE isn't, the OS is the kernel not even the shell qualifies), but microsoft claims they are so it can tie them into it's monopoly and gain a monopoly in those areas either. If they can't take the heat that come with that they should get out of the kitchen.
This is all ridiculous though, the number of patches released for a product are no gauge of how secure or insecure it is... the obviousness of though holes and damaged caused by them are, I think it's fairly clear who wins in this competition.
"Most of the holes that have received a lot of publicity"
I'm not talking about merely the ones which have recieved alot of publicity... I'm talking about the literally THOUSANDS of exploits available to script kiddies.
Last I checked a windows virus scanner checks for tens of thousands of virii, worms, trojans, etc.
Lazy sysadmins are a problem without a doubt, testing procedures need to be sped up in other cases for new patches.
But the phenominal number of holes in windows that have absolutely no justification for making it out the door constitutes negligence on the programmers part. You'll find bugs in final release versions of linux, but they are fairly consistantly obscure and almost never a problem of fundemental design. The kind of design problems with windows are the things you could propose to any 20 random admins and they could tell you are a bad idea.
There is a difference between being human and therefore limited and flawed. And just not giving a rat's ass so long as your still making money and are immune to blame.
" I think it goes beyond what you said. Sometimes human technology *disrupts* evolution. For example, immunizations allow a large number of human beings to survive that would otherwise die from various diseases. Over time, the survivors would pass on genetic traits that resist those diseases. By vaccinating, we short circuit that process."
I think the best way to describe this is to understand that just like every other simple and complex process and lifeform in the entire universe... our actions are natural. We like to believe we are an exception to nature somehow and thus are actions are as well, but it's simply not true. We are an animal like any other, the only thing exceptional about us is that we are an evolution which is manually capable and intelligent both. It turned out to make for a combination that does quite a good job at surviving.
Nature made us, like any other animal if we survive than we are succeeding... our actions and thier results, whether humanitarian or brutal are simply part of nature. Nature may have a volcano erupt tommorow which wipes out a species... A hurricane may carry water filled with organisms to a new location where the climate causes those organisms to evolve into something more fit to survive. Nature is sometimes kind, sometimes brutal itself.
We can do nothing if nature hasn't provided the tools... if one day we understand the weather and learn to manipulate it, will being guided by our intent somehow make the weather unnatural? Of course not, weather is a perfectly natural thing, just as we are. Our touch, understanding, or intent doesn't magically turn a perfectly natural thing into something unnatural.
I think we need to stop worrying about whether or not we are in harmony with nature... something we are but a small part of. And start worrying about what does and does not help our species to survive. If we eliminated every other species on the planet, including ourselves, our actions would not be unnatural, but merely a part of it. Nature wouldn't even blink, it would carry on.
In short, if we produce eyeglasses, there is no need for evolution to eliminate those with poor vision. Just as the concept of weapons has eliminated the need for most of our physical strength. Us producing eyeglasses is no more or less natural than those with poor vision getting killed because they cannot defend themselves.
evolution birthed those brains as a way of helping our species survive. The things we produce are a product of the brains evolution gave us to survive, evolutions continued advancement of our brains allowing us to handle more and more complex processes is merely proof that they help our species survive.
evolution gave us brain, everything we use them for is merely nature. Just as a wolf killing a rabit is merely part of evolution and nature. I know it hurts the frail ego's of many but were nothing special. We are no exceptions, our actions are part of nature no more or less than a crow shitting on a treestump.
According to a recent interview covered here on slashdot, mr gates himself says that 1/3 of the windows systems crash 3 or more times a day due to OS problems. So much for the unstable app theory.
Those numbers gleaned from error reporting service and undoubtedly cooked to boot.
Just out of curiousity, what device is it that isn't supported under linux?
P.S. Please show some respect to the man who wrote the operating system and call it linux, and show respect to the group who wrote a few applications that run on it by their given gnu names.
while in this particular case the patch came ahead of the worm, they generally don't. Microsoft doesn't normally patch holes, even those which have been discovered by the good guys and reported to them. Unless they are good and ready or they already know someone is exploiting it.
ummm you STILL don't have to touch a windows machine for it to self-destruct, according to gates himself (just from the send error report thing) 1/3 of all windows xp systems crash 3 or more times a day due to flaws in the operating system... not app crashes, OS crashes due not to app flaws, but OS flaws.
That's pretty sad considering he actually said in the interview as if it were a good thing, and especially sad considering you know they cooked those numbers to look as favorable as possible (just like any other corporation would).
Well the article is vague about what the private sector specialists are specialists OF but I should hope they would be better qualified than politician like a minister of anything.
The point isn't whether the people involved work for government or private sector. It's that "ministers" instead of "specialist" are laying the groundwork for the plan.
At least that's a valid point... hopefully that's what he was aiming for.
"# THey'll want business to use it. And businesses will be unwilling to use anything that they suspect has a backdoor. The source'd have to be visible for them to trust it"
Then how to do you explain businesses running windows? I'm curious because I can't figure it out myself;)
Sure the silk wouldn't break and the bullet wouldn't pierce it and enter into the body. But wouldn't the flexibility actually be a bad thing? The bullet would travel further before rebounding and still pierce into the flesh. Not saying much for silk body armor the bullet doesn't get in but you still have a hole 2 inches deep in the flesh.
At best I could see this reducing the damage from bullet wounds, not actually stopping damage altogether.
hmm and I was under the impression that a diamond could withstand phenominal amounts of heat which is about the only reason there is an interest in using diamond to make processors.
True but you can bet the mere reverse engineering of mother natures public domain work will be patented and thus stolen from the public domain. Aint life grand?
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding, that must be a sweet processor if people were willing to die for it.
"Take the case of porting a complex application like MS-Word from Windows to another OS. There are lots of supporting libraries (dll's) that have to be ported that rely on other libraries (in other words they rely on OPERATING SYSTEM FUNCTIONS, which may or may not be KERNEL functions)."
yes I can write supporting libraries too, this is merely a logical seperation, technically an application is really the primary executable, all supporting datafiles and all things which would be included if it were statically linked. I really fail to see how this breathtaking concept of libraries which make programming more manageable has anything to do with the operating system. Ultimately when the chain is followed you end up with calls to the REAL operating system, the lowest level api at the bottom of the tree... in linux this api is entirely provided by the kernel, in some systems it is made up of multiple files yes... but combined they perform more or less the same task as the kernel.
An emulator makes for something different, it's a wrapper which uses the current OS. Your emulated experience is tricking an operating system into believing it's controlling hardware when it is not.
Yes you can port the Linux operating system to another hardware platform, but it is still the linux OS. I don't think anyone would argue that the HARDWARE is an operating system, whether emulated or real.
"The kernel is traditionally the part that handles memory management, task scheduling, talks to hardware, etc. The OS"
That is very nearly the definition of an operating system. On the linux operating system there are many shells, many compilers, many greplike utilites, etc... there are lots and lots of applications, all of which talk to the kernel or a layer which talks to the kernel. The operating system is the lowest level software layer in the system, or the kernel.
Microkernel architectures are no different, AFAIK, linux microkernel's have a loader which loads them into memory and they more or less remap the interrupt vectors and turn themselves into the operating system on the fly, regardless of what OS you are using before, by the time they have actually booted THEY are the operating system. As for what technically constitutes a "microkernel", I never said the OS had to lie in one file, or even that it technically MUST be only the kernel, a better definition is the lowest level layer of software that provides an api for interfacing with the core hardware. In linux however, this is entirely done by the kernel.
yes I'm well aware of what the gnu homepage says. My entire statement was pointing out that what stallman and the gnu say on the subject is incorrect.
Explain to me how you can compile and run the gnu apps and run them on BSD, proprietary unix, etc. Now, explain to me how one would port the kernel to run on another operating system. You can't, you can't port the operating system to another operating system, you can port the applications to another operating system.
So kernel == os
the operating system is the part which controls the hardware, manages memory etc. Applications interact with the operating system, using calls it provides etc. The difference is quite clear really.
When you have a base of more than 50 nt based systems, and you never see a true blue screen, or never have to chkdsk /r (or fixboot) from the recovery console because an NT based system mysteriously stops booting for no apparent reason. Or better yet, when you can get the icons in the system to load consistantly in the same order each time you boot the machine... let me know and I'll start debating this issue. I agree though the NT kernel is about as good as say... OS/2 was when first released (gee wonder why, could be that the same team of ibm developers wrote them... could even be that they are basically the same code!).
It's true that win32 is the source of most of the OS issues, but it's also true, that the only possible salvagable portions of the system weren't written by microsoft. As far as I know microsoft IS writting the new gui and api so I won't hold my breath. Different programmers too, but considering the same sort of garbage is spewed out from microsoft in every application they produce and those must come from different development routines it has to be microsoft policies that cause the evil and not the programmers. I'd be amazed if longhorn turns out to be stable, efficient, AND as secure as the current releases of *nix. Even if it is... it's not exactly like those *nix systems are going to stand still while MS catches up... and without a doubt the OSS ones develope more rapidly.
Hell they could make a good start simply by seperating mediaplayer, ie, oe, asp, etc and making them removable... permanently. And then getting rid of this horrid registry concept. Just taking the idea of text based configuration from systems like linux and adding in text processing tools and a decent cli shell would make the system MUCH easier to administer for someone with half a brain who knows what he's doing. leave the point and click for the idiot mcse's.
Actually 2000 was supposed to be the convergence. 2000 professional was supposed to be the home and office user OS. People generally used neither it nor ME, this time around MS decided not to even give the compatibility option.
Actually the numbers I've heard show that apache runs over 80% of the webservers out there if you count apache on windows.
"Basically the number of patches issued is about as meaningless an indicator of code quality as number of lines of code per day is a measure of productivity."
that much at least is true
"Windows alone has many, many times the number of lines of code that Red hat 9 has."
and maybe 10-15 built in applications (counting crap nobody will ever use), redhat has what a few thousand? If what you say is true that makes windows pretty damn bloated wouldn't you say?
"Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player"
;) At best they'll give us another system like NT, that appears to be great at first and rears it's ugly head later.
According to microsoft these programs are part of the core OS. They also aren't removeable, even if you want to use a different email client, webbrowser, or media player, you can't get rid of them. Since you can't remove them from the core OS, their bugs are and should be grouped in with it.
"IMHO, the only thing that could possibly rectify this situation is a new code-base, from the ground up."
I agree, a new code base (kernel, new gui, etc) is the way to go. They should contract someone else to write it as well. They also need a new development model... and the only way they'll be able to use that new development model is to figure out a new business model. Somehow I suspect none of this will happen though
Closed source doesn't make them more secure, it merely makes it take longer for the peer review... and most of the peers reviewing have no intention of telling microsoft when they find holes.
Actually kernel is a synonym for operating system. An operating system doesn't include userland apps.
;)
Which is why when refering to the operating system please call it by the name the author chose for it, LINUX. GNU/Linux is a name made up by someone who writes applications which have a port to the Linux operating system.
The reason microsoft gets a few choice applications thrown in is that THEY insist they are part of THEIR operating system. That doesn't make an application like a web browser part of the linux operating system.
For another thing, all of the security holes and bugs in those programs lay at microsoft's feet, they aren't merely bundled by microsoft, they are written by the same shoddy programmers who write the rest of it.
Microsoft has gone further than call those applications part of the operating system, they've made sure you cannot reasonably remove them (no getting rid of media player shortcuts doesn't qualify as REMOVEING it.). With linux there is no application including the GUI itself that I can't remove... since there is actually an option whether or not to install this or that web browser, then those applications stand on their own merit and don't group together as linux. A bug in Mozilla only affects mozilla users (windows or linux mozilla users generally), a bug in IE affects every windows user because they can't get rid of IE even if they want to.
Furthermore, according to mr gates 1/3 of winxp systems crash more than 3 times daily due to bugs in the OPERATING SYSTEM... and that's just the ones who use the error reporting service.
It's not too late to get out of this pit, you can start using your mind today and find the link (i'll give you a hint, it was covered by slashdot) to the interview in which he gave those numbers all by yourself
XP is produced by microsoft
IIS is produced by microsoft
IE is produced by microsoft
ASP is produced by microsoft
linux is not produced by rh
apache is not produced by rh
mozilla is not produced by rh
php is not produced by rh
each of the individual groups are responsible for the software they produce. Microsoft is responsible for any security flaws in xp and all the xp you mentioned above. No two of the open source projects mentioned above are maintained by the same group... there is no one person responsible for all of them.
The microsoft apps however and their flaws are all the result of the shoddy programming from one shoddy company.
rh doesn't claim mozilla and php are part of the OS. Microsoft DOES claim IE and ASP are. rh doen't claim apache is part of the OS. Microsoft does claim IIS is. Of course none of these applications are part of the OS (even IE isn't, the OS is the kernel not even the shell qualifies), but microsoft claims they are so it can tie them into it's monopoly and gain a monopoly in those areas either. If they can't take the heat that come with that they should get out of the kitchen.
This is all ridiculous though, the number of patches released for a product are no gauge of how secure or insecure it is... the obviousness of though holes and damaged caused by them are, I think it's fairly clear who wins in this competition.
"Most of the holes that have received a lot of publicity"
I'm not talking about merely the ones which have recieved alot of publicity... I'm talking about the literally THOUSANDS of exploits available to script kiddies.
Last I checked a windows virus scanner checks for tens of thousands of virii, worms, trojans, etc.
Lazy sysadmins are a problem without a doubt, testing procedures need to be sped up in other cases for new patches.
But the phenominal number of holes in windows that have absolutely no justification for making it out the door constitutes negligence on the programmers part. You'll find bugs in final release versions of linux, but they are fairly consistantly obscure and almost never a problem of fundemental design. The kind of design problems with windows are the things you could propose to any 20 random admins and they could tell you are a bad idea.
There is a difference between being human and therefore limited and flawed. And just not giving a rat's ass so long as your still making money and are immune to blame.
" I think it goes beyond what you said. Sometimes human technology *disrupts* evolution. For example, immunizations allow a large number of human beings to survive that would otherwise die from various diseases. Over time, the survivors would pass on genetic traits that resist those diseases. By vaccinating, we short circuit that process."
I think the best way to describe this is to understand that just like every other simple and complex process and lifeform in the entire universe... our actions are natural. We like to believe we are an exception to nature somehow and thus are actions are as well, but it's simply not true. We are an animal like any other, the only thing exceptional about us is that we are an evolution which is manually capable and intelligent both. It turned out to make for a combination that does quite a good job at surviving.
Nature made us, like any other animal if we survive than we are succeeding... our actions and thier results, whether humanitarian or brutal are simply part of nature. Nature may have a volcano erupt tommorow which wipes out a species... A hurricane may carry water filled with organisms to a new location where the climate causes those organisms to evolve into something more fit to survive. Nature is sometimes kind, sometimes brutal itself.
We can do nothing if nature hasn't provided the tools... if one day we understand the weather and learn to manipulate it, will being guided by our intent somehow make the weather unnatural? Of course not, weather is a perfectly natural thing, just as we are. Our touch, understanding, or intent doesn't magically turn a perfectly natural thing into something unnatural.
I think we need to stop worrying about whether or not we are in harmony with nature... something we are but a small part of. And start worrying about what does and does not help our species to survive. If we eliminated every other species on the planet, including ourselves, our actions would not be unnatural, but merely a part of it. Nature wouldn't even blink, it would carry on.
In short, if we produce eyeglasses, there is no need for evolution to eliminate those with poor vision. Just as the concept of weapons has eliminated the need for most of our physical strength. Us producing eyeglasses is no more or less natural than those with poor vision getting killed because they cannot defend themselves.
evolution birthed those brains as a way of helping our species survive. The things we produce are a product of the brains evolution gave us to survive, evolutions continued advancement of our brains allowing us to handle more and more complex processes is merely proof that they help our species survive.
evolution gave us brain, everything we use them for is merely nature. Just as a wolf killing a rabit is merely part of evolution and nature. I know it hurts the frail ego's of many but were nothing special. We are no exceptions, our actions are part of nature no more or less than a crow shitting on a treestump.
According to a recent interview covered here on slashdot, mr gates himself says that 1/3 of the windows systems crash 3 or more times a day due to OS problems. So much for the unstable app theory.
Those numbers gleaned from error reporting service and undoubtedly cooked to boot.
Just out of curiousity, what device is it that isn't supported under linux?
P.S. Please show some respect to the man who wrote the operating system and call it linux, and show respect to the group who wrote a few applications that run on it by their given gnu names.
while in this particular case the patch came ahead of the worm, they generally don't. Microsoft doesn't normally patch holes, even those which have been discovered by the good guys and reported to them. Unless they are good and ready or they already know someone is exploiting it.
ummm you STILL don't have to touch a windows machine for it to self-destruct, according to gates himself (just from the send error report thing) 1/3 of all windows xp systems crash 3 or more times a day due to flaws in the operating system... not app crashes, OS crashes due not to app flaws, but OS flaws.
That's pretty sad considering he actually said in the interview as if it were a good thing, and especially sad considering you know they cooked those numbers to look as favorable as possible (just like any other corporation would).
Well the article is vague about what the private sector specialists are specialists OF but I should hope they would be better qualified than politician like a minister of anything.
The point isn't whether the people involved work for government or private sector. It's that "ministers" instead of "specialist" are laying the groundwork for the plan.
At least that's a valid point... hopefully that's what he was aiming for.
"# THey'll want business to use it. And businesses will be unwilling to use anything that they suspect has a backdoor. The source'd have to be visible for them to trust it"
;)
Then how to do you explain businesses running windows? I'm curious because I can't figure it out myself
Sure the silk wouldn't break and the bullet wouldn't pierce it and enter into the body. But wouldn't the flexibility actually be a bad thing? The bullet would travel further before rebounding and still pierce into the flesh. Not saying much for silk body armor the bullet doesn't get in but you still have a hole 2 inches deep in the flesh.
At best I could see this reducing the damage from bullet wounds, not actually stopping damage altogether.
hmm and I was under the impression that a diamond could withstand phenominal amounts of heat which is about the only reason there is an interest in using diamond to make processors.
I know this is slashdot, but if anyone bothered to read the article (not holding my breath) it says the reason is simple, the spiders eat eachother.
True but you can bet the mere reverse engineering of mother natures public domain work will be patented and thus stolen from the public domain. Aint life grand?