"You can't guarantee none of this could ever happen."
And neither can you, no matter what ticbot's opinion is. From what I can see, ticbot is only unconcerned for his sake, not yours. I doubt he's championing for wiretaps. Why do people waste time on protesting non-protesters?
There's the other reason. People type too fast and don't catch their mistakes until seconds after hitting submit. It should be, "Were you looking for something more insightful?"
Interestingly, that's the first thing I typed out ("I don't care"), but I felt like what I was addressing was the usage problem for the term "least." So, I deleted that and wrote the original phrase in its most unambiguous form while maintaining the use of "least." Indeed "I don't care" is even less ambiguous. I think people like to use the word "least" or "most" because it adds emphasis. I believe the example I gave is valid English, in the sense that it doesn't break any rules. However it isn't Standard English, in the sense that it doesn't conform to a model for speech and writing used by the educated. "Least" in this case would refer to which bracket, or classification the caring falls. A parallel example would be someone finishing "in the bottom" of the results, therefore that person would say, "I finished in the bottom." It's vague, but it's not invalid.
I really don't blame anyone for using one phrase or the other. Out of context, both have problems. You have to consider the level at which someone cares about something before how much less they could care has any meaning. For instance, if on a scale of 0 to 9 (0 being the least anyone can care about anything and 9 being the most anyone can care about anything) I care about the starving children in Africa at level 9. If I say "I couldn't care less." It may only mean that I can't in good conscience care less than I do. On the other hand, someone who "could care less" can care less because it isn't as important to him. In other words, indifferent. That isn't to say people should say, "could" instead of "couldn't" when they really mean "I care in the least" which by the way is the less ambiguous approach.
Skull design was obviously just one example, but I can't help but ask, isn't the boxer that lasts longer generally the winner? If one wins at boxing more than everyone else, that most certainly qualifies him as a better boxer. I think you may have confused excelling at a sport with excelling at one aspect of it (punching).
More on the point of being a modified microkernel: "It is more or less true, for example, that both Windows NT 5.X and Unix variants like Mach and some BSD variants use a modified microkernel design"
More on memory management starting with NT 5.0: 'Windows NT 5.0 and its successors use clustered paging, a working set memory analogue and a free memory manager that fires up exactly once per second, while Unix uses an adaptive page specific algorithm -- often least-recently used -- to control paging. In Unix, there is no working set equivalent, and the free memory manager runs when needed.'... 'the Windows kernel [...] runs nonthreaded internally. This choice avoids "object blockage" to trade off concurrency and context switching in favor of increased efficiency for, and better control of, a small number of key processes.'... 'In contrast, the Unix approach generally has been to favor process creation and context switching at the cost of some efficiency for long-running processes.'
Since you responded directly to my post, I must assume you think that "Window NT is hybrid kernel" is a myth, because I never stated that "Windows NT is microkernel." So here are my responses:
1) Windows NT still uses microkernel concepts like message passing to tie all the components together. This does not make it a microkernel, but at the same time monolithic kernels do not do this. So what would one call it if it isn't exactly one or the other? A hybrid!
2) From Windows Internals, the 4th edition, page 36: "Windows isn't a microkernel-based operating system in the classic definition of microkernels." Now that's interesting. The author felt like he had to qualify the type of microkernel it isn't, instead of just saying it isn't a microkernel-based OS. Perhaps that's why Microsoft still refers to Window NT architecture as being based on a modified microkernel, or what everyone else calls it, hybrid.
"Can we stop claiming Windows has a microkernel now?"
The poster said, "I must've skipped into a parallel world where Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows 2003 were not somehow based on the microkernel NT Exective." The diagram that illustrates the "NT Executive" is the top one. I already linked to a diagram of the NT 4.0 kernel.
I have no problem with Windows being called a hybrid OS since Microsoft themselves claim, "Windows NT has always had a modified microkernel architecture." Calling a "modified microkernel" a monolithic kernel is a bit of a stretch.
All quoting is selective quoting. That's why it's called a quote. Not only that, I pointed out that it was my favorite quote. If I quoted something else, it would no longer be my favorite quote.
This my favorite Linus quote from that whole thread:
"In the UNIX world, we're very used to the notion of having many small programs that do one thing, and do it well. And then connecting those programs with pipes, and solving often quite complicated problems with simple and independent building blocks. And this is considered good programming.
That's the microkernel approach. It's undeniably a really good approach, and it makes it easy to do some complex things using a few basic building blocks. I'm not arguing against it at all."
As I understand it, the news of supporting.NET CF 2.0 relates to WinCE 6 versus its predecessor (WinCE 5.0), not WinCE 4.2, and even 2.0 for 4.2 has only been out for a short while.
According to the article it is.NET [CF] 2.0 support that is being added, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the only real.NET. Who would actually develop in a CE environment? I think I would rather have root canal surgery.
I hope you had a point to that. As far as I could tell, nobody was saying anything about Windows Mobile in this thread. I know I simply referred to a Microsoft mobile OS. In other words, I don't find it surprising that Microsoft used the MEDC to announce a new OS version to be used in mobile markets. Now I would have been surprised if Microsoft announced it at an Apple event.
What was the surprise? Microsoft showed off a new version of its mobile OS to a mobile developer's conference, or that they included.Net? (.Net. You know, that dev platform that Microsoft would port to your bathroom shower head if they could).
I wish I could purchase them for around $0.75 / 20 oz. because I go through bottle after bottle like it was water. (Actually a lot faster than water.) The corner store sells them for less than I can get them online. It's unfortunate they don't carry "essential" though, and I can't just pick up a whole case at a time. They're all (Power-C, Energy, Revive, and Focus) sold by the bottle.
My favorite parts of the site are the "ingredient glossary" intro and the SmartWater "h2overview." The individual VitaminWater descriptions are pretty funny also.
Not as bad or as much as high fructose corn syrup laden beverages. Plus many varieties/flavors can be had from VitaminWater. It's light enough to drink by the gallons practically, so very refreshing, but also very tasty. Some of the humor on their site is pretty good too.
Keep critical processes in userland which is what hybrid kernels do.
"I fail to see where the "microkernel concepts" have been left."
Uh, message passing.
"What does NT do? implement everything in kernel space"
No. Just like other hybrid kernels, it only runs typical microkernel and noncritical (non-microkernel) processes in kernel space and passes messages to critical processes running in user space. Therefore, it isn't a monolithic kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
There's the other reason. People type too fast and don't catch their mistakes until seconds after hitting submit. It should be, "Were you looking for something more insightful?"
Lack of education. Where you looking for something more insightful?
Interestingly, that's the first thing I typed out ("I don't care"), but I felt like what I was addressing was the usage problem for the term "least." So, I deleted that and wrote the original phrase in its most unambiguous form while maintaining the use of "least." Indeed "I don't care" is even less ambiguous. I think people like to use the word "least" or "most" because it adds emphasis. I believe the example I gave is valid English, in the sense that it doesn't break any rules. However it isn't Standard English, in the sense that it doesn't conform to a model for speech and writing used by the educated. "Least" in this case would refer to which bracket, or classification the caring falls. A parallel example would be someone finishing "in the bottom" of the results, therefore that person would say, "I finished in the bottom." It's vague, but it's not invalid.
I really don't blame anyone for using one phrase or the other. Out of context, both have problems. You have to consider the level at which someone cares about something before how much less they could care has any meaning. For instance, if on a scale of 0 to 9 (0 being the least anyone can care about anything and 9 being the most anyone can care about anything) I care about the starving children in Africa at level 9. If I say "I couldn't care less." It may only mean that I can't in good conscience care less than I do. On the other hand, someone who "could care less" can care less because it isn't as important to him. In other words, indifferent. That isn't to say people should say, "could" instead of "couldn't" when they really mean "I care in the least" which by the way is the less ambiguous approach.
Skull design was obviously just one example, but I can't help but ask, isn't the boxer that lasts longer generally the winner? If one wins at boxing more than everyone else, that most certainly qualifies him as a better boxer. I think you may have confused excelling at a sport with excelling at one aspect of it (punching).
I'm not sure why someone moded you "Funny" but I certainly think a black anodized 6061 T6 alloy case would be great.
He could dump the tea, er... I mean computers in the harbor.
Windows message passing != Linux message passing
... 'the Windows kernel [...] runs nonthreaded internally. This choice avoids "object blockage" to trade off concurrency and context switching in favor of increased efficiency for, and better control of, a small number of key processes.' ... 'In contrast, the Unix approach generally has been to favor process creation and context switching at the cost of some efficiency for long-running processes.'
More on the point of being a modified microkernel:
"It is more or less true, for example, that both Windows NT 5.X and Unix variants like Mach and some BSD variants use a modified microkernel design"
More on memory management starting with NT 5.0:
'Windows NT 5.0 and its successors use clustered paging, a working set memory analogue and a free memory manager that fires up exactly once per second, while Unix uses an adaptive page specific algorithm -- often least-recently used -- to control paging. In Unix, there is no working set equivalent, and the free memory manager runs when needed.'
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33089.html
Sounds like a fair assessment. Although I spend a lot of time developing applications on Windows, I don't think Windows is well designed.
1) Windows NT still uses microkernel concepts like message passing to tie all the components together. This does not make it a microkernel, but at the same time monolithic kernels do not do this. So what would one call it if it isn't exactly one or the other? A hybrid!
2) From Windows Internals, the 4th edition, page 36: "Windows isn't a microkernel-based operating system in the classic definition of microkernels." Now that's interesting. The author felt like he had to qualify the type of microkernel it isn't, instead of just saying it isn't a microkernel-based OS. Perhaps that's why Microsoft still refers to Window NT architecture as being based on a modified microkernel, or what everyone else calls it, hybrid.
No problem. Windows has a hybrid kernel.
Or at least that I meant to link to the NT 4.0 diagrams:
e t/images/archive/ntwrkstn/evaluate/featfunc/f3af_b ig.gif
http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/techn
The poster said, "I must've skipped into a parallel world where Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows 2003 were not somehow based on the microkernel NT Exective." The diagram that illustrates the "NT Executive" is the top one. I already linked to a diagram of the NT 4.0 kernel.
I have no problem with Windows being called a hybrid OS since Microsoft themselves claim, "Windows NT has always had a modified microkernel architecture." Calling a "modified microkernel" a monolithic kernel is a bit of a stretch.
Perhaps you'll get more out of this instead: The Win32 Subsystem (what makes it Windows) is clearly running in user mode.
w indowsnt/4/workstation/reskit/en-us/archi.mspx?mfr =true
a spx?type=technical+report&id=989
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/
Also, Microsoft admits that microkernels are more dependable and show their research here:
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.
If you decide to look at the PDF, you can go straight to page 7 for the kernel architecture.
http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/techne t/images/archive/ntwrkstn/evaluate/featfunc/f0af_b ig.gif
That's funny. Microsoft has one of it's layers labeled "Microkernel." I guess it's a hybrid OS after all.
All quoting is selective quoting. That's why it's called a quote. Not only that, I pointed out that it was my favorite quote. If I quoted something else, it would no longer be my favorite quote.
This my favorite Linus quote from that whole thread:
"In the UNIX world, we're very used to the notion of having
many small programs that do one thing, and do it well. And
then connecting those programs with pipes, and solving
often quite complicated problems with simple and independent
building blocks. And this is considered good programming.
That's the microkernel approach. It's undeniably a really
good approach, and it makes it easy to do some complex
things using a few basic building blocks. I'm not arguing
against it at all."
As I understand it, the news of supporting .NET CF 2.0 relates to WinCE 6 versus its predecessor (WinCE 5.0), not WinCE 4.2, and even 2.0 for 4.2 has only been out for a short while.
According to the article it is .NET [CF] 2.0 support that is being added, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the only real .NET. Who would actually develop in a CE environment? I think I would rather have root canal surgery.
I hope you had a point to that. As far as I could tell, nobody was saying anything about Windows Mobile in this thread. I know I simply referred to a Microsoft mobile OS. In other words, I don't find it surprising that Microsoft used the MEDC to announce a new OS version to be used in mobile markets. Now I would have been surprised if Microsoft announced it at an Apple event.
What was the surprise? Microsoft showed off a new version of its mobile OS to a mobile developer's conference, or that they included .Net? (.Net. You know, that dev platform that Microsoft would port to your bathroom shower head if they could).
I wish I could purchase them for around $0.75 / 20 oz. because I go through bottle after bottle like it was water. (Actually a lot faster than water.) The corner store sells them for less than I can get them online. It's unfortunate they don't carry "essential" though, and I can't just pick up a whole case at a time. They're all (Power-C, Energy, Revive, and Focus) sold by the bottle.
My favorite parts of the site are the "ingredient glossary" intro and the SmartWater "h2overview." The individual VitaminWater descriptions are pretty funny also.
Not as bad or as much as high fructose corn syrup laden beverages. Plus many varieties/flavors can be had from VitaminWater. It's light enough to drink by the gallons practically, so very refreshing, but also very tasty. Some of the humor on their site is pretty good too.
Menger sponge is the more common term.