In theory, the power companies don't have a monopoly any more. The idea was that by deregulating and opening up the lines, you'd be able to buy power from your favorite provider, instead of having to use the state-sanctioned monopoly. This (once again, in theory) would lead to more efficient providers, lower prices, better service, etc., etc.
The question is, if the providers don't have the capacity to supply the power for everybody that wants it, who would you rather have not enough power for: the companies or people in their homes?
Personally, I'd rather have companies have to reduce their power slightly, and have people in their homes still be able to cook, depend on a refrigerator, etc.
As for a socialist country not running out of power, are you serious? Just because you belong to a certain type of society doesn't mean that your country won't exceed it's power supply.
I'm not sure if its strong enough for what you're looking for, but try S-Talk. Its a UNIX talk compatible client with encryption added on. Also, if you look around, I think there are ICQ add ons that will do what you're looking for (but I don't know of any off of the top of my head).
I took a data security class last semester, and our books for it were this one and Applied Cryptography. AC was a better book, hands down. It seemed that everything that was in the Stallings book was also in Applied Crypto, and more. Maybe AC was just easier for me to read, or something, but if you are going to buy a book on cryptography I would recommend Applied Cryptography over Cryptography and Net Security.
Well, if I remember right, there was a version of breakout on the Atari in the mid-eighties. Probably the version most people think of when they say breakout (its what I think of). Also, it could be that "Breakout" has become the generic name for a whole class of games, like coke for colas, xerox for copies, etc....
Hurd does have some advantages. As many others have mentioned, it is based on the Mach microkernel. And, as we all know, the microkernel only provides core functionality (i.e. a messaging service, and some other stuff).
This means all of the other services are implemented and run in user space and mode. Why is this cool? Well, it's easier for you to implement your own if you want. Also, with the way kernels work, it's best to spend as little time as possible in the kernel to avoid priority inversion, and other bits of non-deterministic behavior.
The drawbacks? Mach is _really_ slow -- the message passing just ain't fast. NT was/is based on a microkernel design, and they had to move several services (to be honest, I'm not sure what -- memory management, networking, and IO, I think) back into the kernel to get reasonable performance.
There is definitely something to be said for doing things simply. A lot of what Linux does in the kernel isn't fancy like NT or Solaris, but they know they don't have the additional complexity so they can get through the critical sections pretty quickly most times.
> Linux would be definitely easier to use if you > could just have "massive" kernel, without > modules, IMNSHO
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How would everyday usage of Linux become easier with a monolithic kernel?
As for Linux adopting a monolithic kernel like the BSDs, the modularity of the Linux kernel was definitely a design feature, not an accident. By allowing you to load modules dynamically, you can keep the size of the kernel down (and extra complexity out of the kernel). If you really want, you could always recompile a kernel with _everything_ enabled.
I could be wrong, but I think that is what the generic kernels are for BSD. I know with OpenBSD one of the first things they recommend (man afterboot) is to recompile a kernel with only what you need.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, the power companies don't have a monopoly any more. The idea was that by deregulating and opening up the lines, you'd be able to buy power from your favorite provider, instead of having to use the state-sanctioned monopoly. This (once again, in theory) would lead to more efficient providers, lower prices, better service, etc., etc.
The question is, if the providers don't have the capacity to supply the power for everybody that wants it, who would you rather have not enough power for: the companies or people in their homes?
Personally, I'd rather have companies have to reduce their power slightly, and have people in their homes still be able to cook, depend on a refrigerator, etc.
As for a socialist country not running out of power, are you serious? Just because you belong to a certain type of society doesn't mean that your country won't exceed it's power supply.
Just my $.02 or 2-pence, or what-have-you
I'm not sure if its strong enough for what you're looking for, but try S-Talk. Its a UNIX talk compatible client with encryption added on. Also, if you look around, I think there are ICQ add ons that will do what you're looking for (but I don't know of any off of the top of my head).
I took a data security class last semester, and our books for it were this one and Applied Cryptography. AC was a better book, hands down. It seemed that everything that was in the Stallings book was also in Applied Crypto, and more. Maybe AC was just easier for me to read, or something, but if you are going to buy a book on cryptography I would recommend Applied Cryptography over Cryptography and Net Security.
Just my $.02
Well, if I remember right, there was a version of breakout on the Atari in the mid-eighties. Probably the version most people think of when they say breakout (its what I think of). Also, it could be that "Breakout" has become the generic name for a whole class of games, like coke for colas, xerox for copies, etc....
Hurd does have some advantages. As many others have mentioned, it is based on the Mach microkernel. And, as we all know, the microkernel only provides core functionality (i.e. a messaging service, and some other stuff).
This means all of the other services are implemented and run in user space and mode. Why is this cool? Well, it's easier for you to implement your own if you want. Also, with the way kernels work, it's best to spend as little time as possible in the kernel to avoid priority inversion, and other bits of non-deterministic behavior.
The drawbacks? Mach is _really_ slow -- the message passing just ain't fast. NT was/is based on a microkernel design, and they had to move several services (to be honest, I'm not sure what -- memory management, networking, and IO, I think) back into the kernel to get reasonable performance.
There is definitely something to be said for doing things simply. A lot of what Linux does in the kernel isn't fancy like NT or Solaris, but they know they don't have the additional complexity so they can get through the critical sections pretty quickly most times.
> Linux would be definitely easier to use if you
> could just have "massive" kernel, without
> modules, IMNSHO
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How would everyday usage of Linux become easier with a monolithic kernel?
As for Linux adopting a monolithic kernel like the BSDs, the modularity of the Linux kernel was definitely a design feature, not an accident. By allowing you to load modules dynamically, you can keep the size of the kernel down (and extra complexity out of the kernel). If you really want, you could always recompile a kernel with _everything_ enabled.
I could be wrong, but I think that is what the generic kernels are for BSD. I know with OpenBSD one of the first things they recommend (man afterboot) is to recompile a kernel with only what you need.
Just my $.02
- Haplo
After the author made the COW (Cash On Wheels) unusable, BRE sucked. Tradewars, now that was a game... Anybody remember Legend of the Red Dragon?
I hate to nitpick here, but Katz only used the word "our" once, and that was in the phrase "our hero"
Maybe you are mainly referring to his other articles (which I usually ignore).