x86 does not have a tagged TLB. This means that every context switch needs a full TLB flush, which results in a lot of TLB (and cache) churn.
Not necessar'ly. Ah ain't no CPU architect, but f'seebly you could fabricate a tag from tha current CR3 value an' maybe let the cache notify ya when yer assumptions gota hell. Wud this improve perf in real design? Fukc if I know!
The problem with this is that, since modern CPUs all use untyped memory semantics, they are forced to use typed-variable semantics, rather than typed-value, making the whole system no fun at all to program (unless you're into B&D languages).
Yo safety first 'n all, but we got a lil thing called type inference for yall artsy-fartsy whiny bitches. I'll give ya a combinatorial argument here: if yo language can do LESS (but still accomplishes whateva the hell you actually need), there's FEWWA OPPORTUNITIES fo' runtime bugs! Straight up simple's that. So don't be dissin' my statically-typed homeboys callin' 'em all inta B&D an' kinky shit like that!! Sounds ta me mo like you're just an incontinent fuck liable to crap all over tha place if the CPU don't be wastin' its valuable r'sources ta check on ya diapers all the time. Keep it rational, yo.
He's not wrong, he just has a lot of faith in type theory. This is the principle behind JNode and Singularity.
If you'll be claiming that he's not wrong (i.e. that running everything in a virtual machine in ring 0 brings much better performance), at least don't support this with examples of experimental OS that are lacking in the performance department (despite the little win of software-only context switch).
WTF you talkin' 'bout? Singularity's FASTER than Windows, Linux 'n FreeBSD at at IPC, file transfers, data streamin', and otha tight shit like that! Moreover, slightly fast + safter = strictly cooler regardless, dude.
True 'nuff to some degree, however, a nigga could see translatin' C to a stylized "driver C"... and WOAH! sneak in some type safety 'n shit. Toss in linear types, effect analysis, critical section termination, resource bounds... damn!
One wonders how useful C would be at this point, though. The only reason I see of keeping it C is for porting old code, and the old code is probably going to make lots of assumptions about the capabilities of C that we'd be taking out.
Of course, there's also the massive pool of developers who already know C, but if you know C, it's not that difficult to learn something similar (C++, Java, C#, etc).
Dude I ain't dissin' ya proposition, but we both know it's all 'bout the sales. Crusty ol' devs like their crusty ol' C. Gotta ease it in. Writin drivers in a totally sound modern language 'n shit'd rock veritably, no kiddn, but we can't be neglectin' tha success o' MISRA-C, SystemC, 'n fuck knows what all else.
It is possible to run untrusted code in the same address space as trusted code.
Fo sho, or more aptly, you trust the code not cuz some smart fucker wrote it, but due to the fact you fuckin' PROVED it safe relative to yer favored semantics.
The downside is, it would be incredibly difficult to do this with precompiled x86 stuff at all, and probably impossible to do it without a performance hit compared to simply running in its own address space. I'm not even sure it could be done efficiently with C source -- it would most likely have to be a sufficiently high-level bytecode language, at least.
True 'nuff to some degree, however, a nigga could see translatin' C to a stylized "driver C"... and WOAH! sneak in some type safety 'n shit. Toss in linear types, effect analysis, critical section termination, resource bounds... damn!
Which means that, probably, no one will ever do it. In order for this to work, it'd have to both be sufficiently better than Linux to get a majority of Linux developers to move over, and it'd have to support all the old Linux drivers, at least, until they could be rewritten.
Dem's da breaks, ain't dey? Ah one day one day ma pretty. The ol' em-dollarsign's got Singularity, but you know, them ain't no Linux friendly buncha bastards.
I mean here we're talking about people writing user-space drivers and filesystems and such for a systems with really really slow context switches -- compared to a kernel running typesafe code. People are doing this thing which is hundreds of times slower than a microkernel that runs a safe os, but speed is so important eigh? Come on.
That's what, 80,000 cycles plus? That's ridiculous. All to save some registers and load a new LDT?
Fo sho 80k cycles is a bitch, but what you screamin' 'bout loadin a new LDT?? Yeah it may happen an' all, but Linux don't give much'f a damn 'bout segments... a couple big 4giggers'll do. The real dope is at the page table... straight up CR3 swappin', and 'course the attendant TLB and cache thrashin' (yeah I know you don' gotta clearance it all out dudez).
If MS ever goes to a POSIX based UNIX type OS with a Windows GUI, just like Apple did, they would do the same thing but they wouldn't be nice enough to maintain an open source version like Apple has done with Darwin.
I don' see the ol' em-dollarsign pullin' that kinda shit veritably soon. They got a lot invested inta vista architectrally, and honestly now, deep down it ain't any worse than unix... it's mostly a matter of dev process suckage, which'd soon enough infect any other code base. But heyo ya know what? Them microfuckers do contribute to at least one total bona fide community open source project: GHC!! No kiddin, check out the site maint's email addr.
Dude, stable in this instance also means does not change with different kernel versions. One of the issues prop devs've had is building a bin driver that loads into arbitrary kernel versions 'n builds. Moreover, with proper type chicken, you c'd p'tentially run crappy drivers inside the kernel at no bigger risk than in user mode.
3. LISP relates very closely to lambda calculus, which would likely have been vastly familiar to those involved in the design of a nuclear reactor. It is likely that mathematicians and scientists were involved in the development process, and their formulas were easily translated to LISP.
DOES NOT COMPUTE. Why would lambda calculus be "vastly familiar" to nuclear physicists and engineers? They deal with completely different areas of math. LISP isn't designed for numerical formulas, either, it's designed for symbolic manipulation. FORTRAN would have been a more natural choice for scientists and engineers doing numerical stuff. However, it's more typically used for simulation than control.
That's not quite right. The IPO, or Initial Public Offering, is when the stock is first offered to be publicly traded on an exchange (such as Nasdaq or NYSE). Before that point, shares can be bought and sold privately between entities, they're simply not listed publicly. Generally what happens is that one or more underwriters (typically investment banks) will buy the shares from the selling party, and then offer them for sale on the market for the IPO. The advantages of this setup are that the company gets a guaranteed amount of cash from the IPO, and the actual public trading is handled by a third party, rather than insiders. But other owners can also sell at that time. And you can buy shares as soon as the ask and bid prices converge to the point that ask is sufficiently below bid. But often times due to the confusion of the IPO, this isn't going to be a very good price, at least short term.
Dude, that's the whole point of science, revising explanations based on evidence to try to figure out what's going on. Nowhere does it say these scientists think they're 100% right. That tone comes from the news reporter's simplification of things for a general audience.
Noise from monitors and computer fans is independent of what you're doing, so it's noise. But the sound of your own keyboard clacking away can be very help improve the cadence of your typing. I find I type more quickly and accurately on a Model M with its crisp tactile and auditory feedback as compared to lesser keyboards.
It's not because they're tech companies per se; a lot of these investigations are due to shady accounting. Indeed, many of the major accounting firms have been investigated, particularly for possible interactions between their accounting services and audit divisions. One of the common irregularities has been not correctly accounting for compensation in the form of stocks and options as expenses: this is detrimental to existing shareholders and the IRS. Tech companies tend to prefer to reinvest in their own business rather than pay out dividends. This is because the industry has a lot of small, quickly growing companies, and the others follow suit in their practices because it benefits managers. The result is that stock is valued for its resale price, rather than as a source of contuining income the company has to pay out--so stock-based compensation has been seen as a way to essentially print money! The problem is that unscrupulous managers can manipulate figures to make it look like the stock or options cost them less than they did. So you see, it really has nothing to do with technology at all.
I don't know, I think throwing an Intel board into an XServe enclosure and bundling the latest stable build of OS X 86 (plus diligent QA, of course) isn't too bad as a stopgap if they're not ready for it in the other products. After all, historically Mac OS X Server was the first version of Mac OS X released. My reasoning is that servers aren't Apple's primary market, so the inevitable transitioning kinks won't be in the spotlight, and many of the XServes they do have depolyed are for applications like HPC where they're used to bleeding edge hardware and software. The other thing is that servers don't need to run the 3rd party desktop applications like Adobe's stuff; it's mostly standard Unix daemons and custom software.
Sure, because they already have a $100 iPod... the iPod Scuffle (or wuz it Snuffle?). Sure, the user interface ain't too darn expressive, but it's an iPod sho'nuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Civil War? 1776? Are you fuckin' British?
hahaha
Oh totally I dig whatcher sayin dude; I suppose the buddhist-like middle path shit'd be to offer high perf and compat modes at the flick of a flag.
Not necessar'ly. Ah ain't no CPU architect, but f'seebly you could fabricate a tag from tha current CR3 value an' maybe let the cache notify ya when yer assumptions gota hell. Wud this improve perf in real design? Fukc if I know!
Yo safety first 'n all, but we got a lil thing called type inference for yall artsy-fartsy whiny bitches. I'll give ya a combinatorial argument here: if yo language can do LESS (but still accomplishes whateva the hell you actually need), there's FEWWA OPPORTUNITIES fo' runtime bugs! Straight up simple's that. So don't be dissin' my statically-typed homeboys callin' 'em all inta B&D an' kinky shit like that!! Sounds ta me mo like you're just an incontinent fuck liable to crap all over tha place if the CPU don't be wastin' its valuable r'sources ta check on ya diapers all the time. Keep it rational, yo.
WTF you talkin' 'bout? Singularity's FASTER than Windows, Linux 'n FreeBSD at at IPC, file transfers, data streamin', and otha tight shit like that! Moreover, slightly fast + safter = strictly cooler regardless, dude.
Dude I ain't dissin' ya proposition, but we both know it's all 'bout the sales. Crusty ol' devs like their crusty ol' C. Gotta ease it in. Writin drivers in a totally sound modern language 'n shit'd rock veritably, no kiddn, but we can't be neglectin' tha success o' MISRA-C, SystemC, 'n fuck knows what all else.
Fo sho, or more aptly, you trust the code not cuz some smart fucker wrote it, but due to the fact you fuckin' PROVED it safe relative to yer favored semantics.
True 'nuff to some degree, however, a nigga could see translatin' C to a stylized "driver C"... and WOAH! sneak in some type safety 'n shit. Toss in linear types, effect analysis, critical section termination, resource bounds... damn!
Dem's da breaks, ain't dey? Ah one day one day ma pretty. The ol' em-dollarsign's got Singularity, but you know, them ain't no Linux friendly buncha bastards.
Amen brotha, sing it!
Fo sho 80k cycles is a bitch, but what you screamin' 'bout loadin a new LDT?? Yeah it may happen an' all, but Linux don't give much'f a damn 'bout segments... a couple big 4giggers'll do. The real dope is at the page table... straight up CR3 swappin', and 'course the attendant TLB and cache thrashin' (yeah I know you don' gotta clearance it all out dudez).
I don' see the ol' em-dollarsign pullin' that kinda shit veritably soon. They got a lot invested inta vista architectrally, and honestly now, deep down it ain't any worse than unix... it's mostly a matter of dev process suckage, which'd soon enough infect any other code base. But heyo ya know what? Them microfuckers do contribute to at least one total bona fide community open source project: GHC!! No kiddin, check out the site maint's email addr.
Dude, stable in this instance also means does not change with different kernel versions. One of the issues prop devs've had is building a bin driver that loads into arbitrary kernel versions 'n builds. Moreover, with proper type chicken, you c'd p'tentially run crappy drivers inside the kernel at no bigger risk than in user mode.
Go here and uncheck Zonk: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome
DOES NOT COMPUTE. Why would lambda calculus be "vastly familiar" to nuclear physicists and engineers? They deal with completely different areas of math. LISP isn't designed for numerical formulas, either, it's designed for symbolic manipulation. FORTRAN would have been a more natural choice for scientists and engineers doing numerical stuff. However, it's more typically used for simulation than control.
That's not quite right. The IPO, or Initial Public Offering, is when the stock is first offered to be publicly traded on an exchange (such as Nasdaq or NYSE). Before that point, shares can be bought and sold privately between entities, they're simply not listed publicly. Generally what happens is that one or more underwriters (typically investment banks) will buy the shares from the selling party, and then offer them for sale on the market for the IPO. The advantages of this setup are that the company gets a guaranteed amount of cash from the IPO, and the actual public trading is handled by a third party, rather than insiders. But other owners can also sell at that time. And you can buy shares as soon as the ask and bid prices converge to the point that ask is sufficiently below bid. But often times due to the confusion of the IPO, this isn't going to be a very good price, at least short term.
Hmm... I don't think we should go into the details here :)
That's how I got my latest job, believe it or not.
Or it might just get lost in a sea of flab. How good of an insulator is fat?
Dude, that's the whole point of science, revising explanations based on evidence to try to figure out what's going on. Nowhere does it say these scientists think they're 100% right. That tone comes from the news reporter's simplification of things for a general audience.
It's British.
Could you tell us more about your meetings? I think it would be great to know how to make meetings positive and exciting!
Noise from monitors and computer fans is independent of what you're doing, so it's noise. But the sound of your own keyboard clacking away can be very help improve the cadence of your typing. I find I type more quickly and accurately on a Model M with its crisp tactile and auditory feedback as compared to lesser keyboards.
It's not because they're tech companies per se; a lot of these investigations are due to shady accounting. Indeed, many of the major accounting firms have been investigated, particularly for possible interactions between their accounting services and audit divisions. One of the common irregularities has been not correctly accounting for compensation in the form of stocks and options as expenses: this is detrimental to existing shareholders and the IRS. Tech companies tend to prefer to reinvest in their own business rather than pay out dividends. This is because the industry has a lot of small, quickly growing companies, and the others follow suit in their practices because it benefits managers. The result is that stock is valued for its resale price, rather than as a source of contuining income the company has to pay out--so stock-based compensation has been seen as a way to essentially print money! The problem is that unscrupulous managers can manipulate figures to make it look like the stock or options cost them less than they did. So you see, it really has nothing to do with technology at all.
I don't know, I think throwing an Intel board into an XServe enclosure and bundling the latest stable build of OS X 86 (plus diligent QA, of course) isn't too bad as a stopgap if they're not ready for it in the other products. After all, historically Mac OS X Server was the first version of Mac OS X released. My reasoning is that servers aren't Apple's primary market, so the inevitable transitioning kinks won't be in the spotlight, and many of the XServes they do have depolyed are for applications like HPC where they're used to bleeding edge hardware and software. The other thing is that servers don't need to run the 3rd party desktop applications like Adobe's stuff; it's mostly standard Unix daemons and custom software.
Sure, because they already have a $100 iPod... the iPod Scuffle (or wuz it Snuffle?). Sure, the user interface ain't too darn expressive, but it's an iPod sho'nuff.