Yes, it works. Never mind the filesystem, you'd use a real hypervisor on real hardware with real operating systems designed for real virtualization, with real drivers that all work really, really well.
In other words, if you don't go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that you're running the right software on the right hardware, you risk corrupting your virtualised disk because the OS you're running in the virtualised server thinks that filesystem barriers work but the kernel it's running on is old enough that LVM doesn't support fileystem barriers or the real ext4 filesystem is mounted with barriers disabled so it doesn't even try to use them.
Conversely, a virtualization environment presents a somewhat "neutral" hardware profile to installed OSs. This makes it useful for installing legacy software on new hardware.
And adds a new load of bugs in the process.
When I was writing PC emulators years ago there were a lot of obscure bugs in the emulated applications when the fake hardware we gave it didn't quite work the same way the real hardware did and there was no way to emulate it precisely.
For example, suppose you have Linux running with an ext4 filesystem that's emulated by a disk file on a real Linux system using an ext4 filesystem on RAID. Do filesystem barriers work?
Microsoft will make you care, by withholding DX12 and perhaps later IE releases, the same thing they did when Vista was first released.
And, as I pointed out above, more than four years after Vista was released the majority of games are still DX9 because that's the only way to support all significant versions of Windows; DX11 has been out for some time but only a few games even seem to have optional DX10 renderers. On that basis, by the time we start to see many DX12 games, Windows 9 will be out with DX13.
BTW, whatever happened to that AGW thing? It was all big in the news a few years ago but I never seem to hear anything about it anymore.
It's funny how you hear the same comments ever 3 years or so when MS releases a new OS.
Yeah, I remember all those comments in 2004 when Microsoft released the replacement for XP.
The simple fact is that no-one but Microsoft thinks that installing a new version of Windows every three years makes sense. Windows 8 is a spectacularly dumb idea that merely fractures their OS lineup even further when people have barely even moved to Windows 7 yet.
People complain about numerous Linux distributions, but once Windows 8 comes out there'll be something like thirty different versions of Windows to deal with even if XP usage may be down in the single digit percentages by that point.
Surely you mean 'when DX12 games come out'? Which will be about five years after 50% of new PCs have DX12; even today most games seem to be DX9 possibly with a DX10 renderer option, which is primarily because Microsoft refused to port DX10 to XP.
Oh, and in my last job I spent about ten years writing software that was given away for free; you couldn't run our hardware without it, and that was where we made our money.
I don't disagree with you that pharma probably charge way too much for their drugs, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of bringing a new drug to the market is very expensive.
And that cost is almost entirely imposed by the government, so it could trivially be reduced by changing the laws.
if apple or HTC doesn't want to pay kodak they should just write their own algorithms
So what happens when they do write their own algorithm and then some troll climbs out from under the bridge and says 'no, that's no good, I patented adding numbers together on a computer, you owe me a bazillion dollars'?
Two billion years? At a billion keys per second I make it around 10^60 years to brute-force a 256-bit key. Use a billion gigakey crackers and you'd still take 10^50 years.
That was the whole point of picking a 256-bit key. It's not crackable by brute force using conventional computers even in theory until you control most of the mass of the universe.
Any AES-256 crack will be based on algorithmic flaws or quantum cryptography, not brute-force with conventional computers.
I've never understood this position. It always reads as, "Since we have more power we can be inefficient with it."
If managed code halves your development time while increasing the CPU load from 5% to 10% when it's running, then that's a big win in most cases. And, in general, C++ development is most definitely slower than Java if only due to the verbosity and compile times.
The machine should know the length of the buffers on the stack too.
My pointer is eight bytes into a buffer allocated on the stack six functions above this one. How much work do you expect the system to do before it gives up?
If the machine can't figure out it for some reason, then the function can return an error code saying as much.
It's not like the machine doesn't know either, free() doesn't require you to pass in the size.
Uh, what if that buffer wasn't allocated by malloc()? What if it's on the stack? What if it's part-way through a buffer allocated with malloc(), e.g. a string inside a structure?
Another issue, at least in Java, is the need to allocate a fixed size chunk of RAM to the application rather than have it increase and decrease as memory is used and freed. Even if the application is only really using a quarter of that memory and the rest is just temporary variables that should have gone on the stack.
What if? Either they're telling the truth and you learn something, or they're lying and you never know because it's pretty impractical to travel possibly hundreds of light years away to verify the claims.
What if the seas are made of beer and the women are all Natalie Portman clones?
Seriously, no-one in their right mind would post the truth about their planet on the Galactic Internet. Either they'll be making the place sound much better than it is because they live in a shit hole, or they'll be making it sound like a shit hole so that the rest of the galaxy doesn't invade to steal their women. It's such a dumb idea that only an SF writer could have come up with it.
Errrmmmm... if we can be stored in a machine then what is the point of finding other planets to live on?
So you can find a new planet to take over where you could build massive computers to store your trillions of AI slaves.
The main issue where I disagree is that there's no reason to send slow ships if they're just carrying a few AIs, since the ships can be so small that accelerating them to 50-90% of the speed of light would probably be possible. Or just send a dumb ship that sets up a receiver in the new system and transmit yourself there at the speed of light once that's done.
From what I have seen it would take from thousands to tens of thousands of years to travel to the nearest star.
10% of the speed of light seems viable for small ships and 1% for large ones (well, unless you want to mine billions of tons of Helium-3), so you're really talking decades to centuries. But if you're going to live on a ship that takes centuries to travel to another star, there's probably not much point traveling to that star in the first place; you could just fly through space living on your ship... you'll need resources eventually but to survive on it for five hundred years you'll have to reduce your requirements to practically nothing.
The 100 year starship project is supposed to study what it will take to sustain private sector investment into a long range program of building a starship.
Well, that's dumb, because it's never going to happen. No private company is going to spend a hundred years building a starship when they can just wait a hundred years for the technology to become viable and then spend five years building it.
It's like starting a project to build a space shuttle in 1880.
Slashdot Mirror
when it detects you are drowsy? Shut the car off? Shock you? Pour you a cup of coffee?
Zap your butt with an electric shock.
Yes, it works. Never mind the filesystem, you'd use a real hypervisor on real hardware with real operating systems designed for real virtualization, with real drivers that all work really, really well.
In other words, if you don't go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that you're running the right software on the right hardware, you risk corrupting your virtualised disk because the OS you're running in the virtualised server thinks that filesystem barriers work but the kernel it's running on is old enough that LVM doesn't support fileystem barriers or the real ext4 filesystem is mounted with barriers disabled so it doesn't even try to use them.
Conversely, a virtualization environment presents a somewhat "neutral" hardware profile to installed OSs. This makes it useful for installing legacy software on new hardware.
And adds a new load of bugs in the process.
When I was writing PC emulators years ago there were a lot of obscure bugs in the emulated applications when the fake hardware we gave it didn't quite work the same way the real hardware did and there was no way to emulate it precisely.
For example, suppose you have Linux running with an ext4 filesystem that's emulated by a disk file on a real Linux system using an ext4 filesystem on RAID. Do filesystem barriers work?
See that ethernet port on the back of your tv? don't plug anything in to it.
But it's probably running Windows 8, so it won't boot without an Internet connection.
Microsoft will make you care, by withholding DX12 and perhaps later IE releases, the same thing they did when Vista was first released.
And, as I pointed out above, more than four years after Vista was released the majority of games are still DX9 because that's the only way to support all significant versions of Windows; DX11 has been out for some time but only a few games even seem to have optional DX10 renderers. On that basis, by the time we start to see many DX12 games, Windows 9 will be out with DX13.
BTW, whatever happened to that AGW thing? It was all big in the news a few years ago but I never seem to hear anything about it anymore.
It's funny how you hear the same comments ever 3 years or so when MS releases a new OS.
Yeah, I remember all those comments in 2004 when Microsoft released the replacement for XP.
The simple fact is that no-one but Microsoft thinks that installing a new version of Windows every three years makes sense. Windows 8 is a spectacularly dumb idea that merely fractures their OS lineup even further when people have barely even moved to Windows 7 yet.
People complain about numerous Linux distributions, but once Windows 8 comes out there'll be something like thirty different versions of Windows to deal with even if XP usage may be down in the single digit percentages by that point.
Maybe when DX12 comes out?
Surely you mean 'when DX12 games come out'? Which will be about five years after 50% of new PCs have DX12; even today most games seem to be DX9 possibly with a DX10 renderer option, which is primarily because Microsoft refused to port DX10 to XP.
Calm down, Steve Balmer. Put down that chair.
Oh, and in my last job I spent about ten years writing software that was given away for free; you couldn't run our hardware without it, and that was where we made our money.
I don't disagree with you that pharma probably charge way too much for their drugs, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of bringing a new drug to the market is very expensive.
And that cost is almost entirely imposed by the government, so it could trivially be reduced by changing the laws.
if apple or HTC doesn't want to pay kodak they should just write their own algorithms
So what happens when they do write their own algorithm and then some troll climbs out from under the bridge and says 'no, that's no good, I patented adding numbers together on a computer, you owe me a bazillion dollars'?
Lets say it takes 2 billion years to crack 1 key.
Two billion years? At a billion keys per second I make it around 10^60 years to brute-force a 256-bit key. Use a billion gigakey crackers and you'd still take 10^50 years.
That was the whole point of picking a 256-bit key. It's not crackable by brute force using conventional computers even in theory until you control most of the mass of the universe.
Any AES-256 crack will be based on algorithmic flaws or quantum cryptography, not brute-force with conventional computers.
I've never understood this position. It always reads as, "Since we have more power we can be inefficient with it."
If managed code halves your development time while increasing the CPU load from 5% to 10% when it's running, then that's a big win in most cases. And, in general, C++ development is most definitely slower than Java if only due to the verbosity and compile times.
C++ has one major flaw: lack of reflection. That makes GUI code a royal pain, and simple DB framework interaction, well, unsimple.
It also makes those huge piles of unmaintainable, mind-boggingly complex Java reflection code rather more difficult to write.
The machine should know the length of the buffers on the stack too.
My pointer is eight bytes into a buffer allocated on the stack six functions above this one. How much work do you expect the system to do before it gives up?
If the machine can't figure out it for some reason, then the function can return an error code saying as much.
And then what do you do?
It's not like the machine doesn't know either, free() doesn't require you to pass in the size.
Uh, what if that buffer wasn't allocated by malloc()? What if it's on the stack? What if it's part-way through a buffer allocated with malloc(), e.g. a string inside a structure?
Another issue, at least in Java, is the need to allocate a fixed size chunk of RAM to the application rather than have it increase and decrease as memory is used and freed. Even if the application is only really using a quarter of that memory and the rest is just temporary variables that should have gone on the stack.
Even almost perfect native code can expose massive security holes.
Indeed. Just look at all the security holes in the JVM.
Managed code is an improvement security-wise, but you're still exposed to the hazards of bad native coding.
.
Even governments have historically not planned 100 years out. No one really has.
You can't plan 100 years out. Technology changes far too fast for anyone to predict what the world will be like a century from now.
Without Apollo, there wouldn't have been a SpaceX.
[citation needed]
What if? Either they're telling the truth and you learn something, or they're lying and you never know because it's pretty impractical to travel possibly hundreds of light years away to verify the claims.
What if the seas are made of beer and the women are all Natalie Portman clones?
Seriously, no-one in their right mind would post the truth about their planet on the Galactic Internet. Either they'll be making the place sound much better than it is because they live in a shit hole, or they'll be making it sound like a shit hole so that the rest of the galaxy doesn't invade to steal their women. It's such a dumb idea that only an SF writer could have come up with it.
Errrmmmm... if we can be stored in a machine then what is the point of finding other planets to live on?
So you can find a new planet to take over where you could build massive computers to store your trillions of AI slaves.
The main issue where I disagree is that there's no reason to send slow ships if they're just carrying a few AIs, since the ships can be so small that accelerating them to 50-90% of the speed of light would probably be possible. Or just send a dumb ship that sets up a receiver in the new system and transmit yourself there at the speed of light once that's done.
That way you don't have to spend eleventy jillion years traveling somewhere to learn about it.
But what if they're lying?
From what I have seen it would take from thousands to tens of thousands of years to travel to the nearest star.
10% of the speed of light seems viable for small ships and 1% for large ones (well, unless you want to mine billions of tons of Helium-3), so you're really talking decades to centuries. But if you're going to live on a ship that takes centuries to travel to another star, there's probably not much point traveling to that star in the first place; you could just fly through space living on your ship... you'll need resources eventually but to survive on it for five hundred years you'll have to reduce your requirements to practically nothing.
Aren't we already stored in machines? Squishy ones?
But they're magic machines. Because they're squishy.
The 100 year starship project is supposed to study what it will take to sustain private sector investment into a long range program of building a starship.
Well, that's dumb, because it's never going to happen. No private company is going to spend a hundred years building a starship when they can just wait a hundred years for the technology to become viable and then spend five years building it.
It's like starting a project to build a space shuttle in 1880.