"For example, when an OS queries a Pentium processor about the total memory available, the chip normally informs the OS about all the free memory [...]"
I don't think a processor chip in itself is sentient enought to inform the OS of anything... It would actually be more understandable (less confusing) to the layman if they made clear the division of work between OS services, OS kernel, and BIOS.
As an aside, I wonder why nobody talks about BIOS development when new CPU architectures are discussed. Are we at perfection already or what? What's the scene with open source BIOSes? Surely BIOS is a factor in efficiency and raw performance? (IANAEngineer.)
It was kinda funny of them to choose to bring that particular incident up (and wasn't there a bit of an invasion of the wife's privacy there?), after numerous rants on how confidential and trustworthy a partner they are...
I know they are different. I was just interested in how the differences manifest themselves to somebody going from SysV to BSD -- what the differences in the approaches and details look like from a practical hands-on viewpoint. Perhaps you don't have time to post a comparo from your own experience, and I'll respect that, but can you recommend a site digging into the major Unixes from the transition angle? (Yes I'm trying to skip going thru Google's broadside.)
[Heh, Raul, yes I'm quite sure. I've found too many good answers (usually to other people's good questions) here to take that joke for the whole story. Some signal/noise filtering is certainly required. As always everywhere.]
Just a small correction: Microsoft didn't call it QDOS, they called it MS-DOS (or IBM-DOS or PC-DOS, I forget which in what occasion). Seattle Computing, the creator of the thing, called it QDOS. Possibly because it was a quick and dirty CP/M rip-off.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't the "O" for "Operation", not "Organisation"?
Are those the MD5 checksums?
Sir, I have a problem reading your encrypted message. I wonder if the problem exist between my Scandinavic keyboard layout and my chair...
[/off-topic]
Thanks for the reminder! :-)
I think I have heard of OF, but had completely forgotten about it...
There's also inaccuracy like this:
"For example, when an OS queries a Pentium processor about the total memory available, the chip normally informs the OS about all the free memory [...]"
I don't think a processor chip in itself is sentient enought to inform the OS of anything... It would actually be more understandable (less confusing) to the layman if they made clear the division of work between OS services, OS kernel, and BIOS.
As an aside, I wonder why nobody talks about BIOS development when new CPU architectures are discussed. Are we at perfection already or what? What's the scene with open source BIOSes? Surely BIOS is a factor in efficiency and raw performance? (IANAEngineer.)
It was kinda funny of them to choose to bring that particular incident up (and wasn't there a bit of an invasion of the wife's privacy there?), after numerous rants on how confidential and trustworthy a partner they are...
"I put a great deal of trust into the story selection"
Please mod parent down. An obvious troll.
Huh, "meters"? Come on now, what's than in volkswagens?
(And is a meteroid a yardoid or a footoid in America? )
Call a small one asterix and a big one obelix.
I think you need to replace a "For" by an "Against" in there ;-)
I could have, even when English ain't my native lingo.
The grammar makes you wonder if he's related to a Ralph J. Yoda.
I know they are different. I was just interested in how the differences manifest themselves to somebody going from SysV to BSD -- what the differences in the approaches and details look like from a practical hands-on viewpoint. Perhaps you don't have time to post a comparo from your own experience, and I'll respect that, but can you recommend a site digging into the major Unixes from the transition angle? (Yes I'm trying to skip going thru Google's broadside.)
[Heh, Raul, yes I'm quite sure. I've found too many good answers (usually to other people's good questions) here to take that joke for the whole story. Some signal/noise filtering is certainly required. As always everywhere.]
Can you elaborate on those aspects? I'm genuinely interested in your informed opinion.
I was firmly down at Commodore Basic at the time when CP/M walked the Earth, so LOL, you most probably have forgot a lot more than I have :-)
;-)
I hafta admit the "Operator" part of my nick is completely fictional, unless a quite private and non-critical Linux box counts...
Then again, so was the original
Just a small correction: Microsoft didn't call it QDOS, they called it MS-DOS (or IBM-DOS or PC-DOS, I forget which in what occasion). Seattle Computing, the creator of the thing, called it QDOS. Possibly because it was a quick and dirty CP/M rip-off.
I initially read it as "CEO and president of CIA, whose members include Microsoft competitors such as Sun and Oracle..." and had quite a double take.
I can think of it as job security
;-)
As security job security?