Quantum Computers.
Rapid molecule sorting and delivery.
500ghz CPU using silicon based materials.
New method to control atom-scale magnetism.
Invented Relational Database.
etc.
If you are disappointed, I recommend you do some of your own research on their research.
The conceptually challenged will point out that the boundaries between science, math and engineering are fuzzy, and may go on to suggest that the fuzziness of the boundaries means there is no distinction. They are, of course, incorrect, as anyone who has ever crossed a road is aware: the finite width of the road and the existence of shoulders does not prevent it from having two different sides. I always wonder if the folks who claim not to be able to tell the difference between science, mathematics and engineering stand by the road wondering which side they are on.
Given that the term "science" is a man-made term with numerous different definitions, and given that language is not precise, how can you be so sure that your dogamtic view is the one truth?
So I do not think that Google labs or MS is a fair comparison to AT&T or Bell Labs. The latter were making discoveries about nature. The former are developing technologies for communication and computation which have a much more limited potential for creating new sources of power or other new technologies for disturbing the universe.
If I am interpreting your statements properly, you seem to be making a value judgement between different types of knowledge. I wonder in what manner this absolute truth was revealed to you?
Food for thought: Would an artifical intelligence beyond our own not be a source of power and have staggering implications?
What is with Forbes? I have only seen pro-SCO articles despite a mountain of evidence indicating the lawsuit has very little merit (possibly only in a contract dispute context), seems fishy.
Using tools will allow the doctors to spend more time with data to apply to problem solving, and less time attempting to extract that data using less advanced techniques. These will not replace the doctors they will help them realize their potential.
Star Trek's fictional technology, such as the communicator, tricorder, phaser, even Transparent Aluminum... have all come to exist as reality much quicker than imagined
I know I can't believe how quickly we are advancing. For example, I bought a tricorder last week, it records CD, DVD and HD-DVD.
"Clarification
Tom Reeves, IBM's VP of semiconductor and technology services, said he was not making any specific references to past or current Cell yields in an executive insight interview that ran last week. He was, instead, referring to large die yield challenges in general and the successful leverage provided by logic redundancy strategies. IBM does not release product specific yield information. This clarification was made on July 14, 2006."
I wasn't trying to attack you personally but rather your message. It probably came off poorly due to frustration with the number of times I read posts from people that blame users instead of realizing that good secure operating systems don't have these same problems. Either way, I apologize for the wording.
Back to the issue. I don't disagree that you can't remove the human and there will always be problems, but these can be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2. MS has a poor track record so far, but that doesn't mean we blame the human. If other companies can write secure OS's, MS can too, so let's put the blame where it should be. And just to qualify that, IBM's OS's have been secure for decades because they were in environments that required it, MS was in an environment that did not require it nearly as much until relatively recently, so while I think it's their problem to solve (not the users), I understand why they weren't secure from day 1.
There is no OS that is 100% secure. Security is important, but if your expectation is for complete security, you will live a dissapointed life. The weak link in most computer networks is human. If it was programmed by humans, there will be a flaw that can be exploited. If there isn't a flaw in the programming, social engineering works fine to discover passwords that get you past the security
Maybe not 100% secure, but there are commercial OS's that are orders of magnitude more secure than Windows. Why do people like you continue to post statements that make it sound like the current situation with Windows is the best we can hope for and we should not expect MS to improve the security of their OS?
You have some good points regarding privacy of data, but I disagree that "software as service is crud." There are a number of pro's to software as a service, here are a few:
1) No need to install, low end user maintenance. This is important for businesses.
2) Access to applications and your own data whether at your own PC, in the library or at the airport across the country, without carrying around a laptop.
3) Increased ability for software to offer interaction with other services.
Or, if you are in business and actually need this data, then you get it from the place you are supposed to, either direct from the supplier in an 832 document, or from a service where multiple suppliers dump their 832's.
but Singularity is - by far - the most innovative operating system concept on the block today
Given that there are existing commercial operating systems that are more complete and advanced than Singularity (especially with respect to memory isolation, security, etc.), I think this statement goes a little far. It's good that MS is working on this and it sounds like Singularity is taking a good approach to the problem, but hardly the first or most advanced.
You have been posting this for quite some time. I have been to your web site and it does not show in any concrete terms how your solution is more reliable. Whether it is algorithmic or synchronous signal-based, there are still X states the system can be in, of which Y are valid. Unfortunately, for all but the most trivial programs, X is so many orders of magnitude beyond our ability to check all states that I don't see any gain to your system.
It would be interesting if you have valid ideas that support your claim, but each time I ask you do not respond. This leads me to believe this is vapor.
CASE, code generators, etc. have their place and can be successful. I have created and used these types of tools and continue to enjoy analyzing where they are a good fit.
OLTP business applications tend to be the best fit because there are many many forms/transactions to create and they tend to be relatively simple (mostly data validation, some calculations, database update, etc.). The work that is being automated is not creative problem solving but rather the application of a solution multiple times to similar but not identical entities.
But ultimately the real work is the proper abstraction of the business process and this still requires a human.
Bank of memory throwing correctable ECC errors? Map it out. Processor that has ECC errors in it's cache? Map it out
Coincidentally, our Sun box died this morning once AGAIN due to the LACK of ECC in cache and memory. While I'm sure the box you speak of is newer, they sure shot themselves in the foot by shipping so many systems without industry standard ECC for the last few years.
There are three viable choices for server CPUs today-- Intel/AMD-something, PPC family, or uSparc
IBM can't let go of the PPC family for many reasons, but it lags behind the Intel/AMD world vastly.
IBM's Power architecture is currently the king of the hill for servers (vs Sparc, x86, Itanium, etc.), has been for some time, and it looks like the Power6 will continue this trend.
If by PPC you were referring to the processor previously used in the Mac, then you should not have included it in the list of "server" processor choices. The Power4, Power5, Power5+, Power6 etc. are the server processors from the Power line.
As features get added to Linux, should we list the operating systems that already have that feature? Are there any significant features in Linux that do not already exist in OS/360, MVS, VM, VAX, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, OS/400, BeOS, OS X, OS/2, Win2K/XP, etc. etc. etc.?
A secure OS prevents those things that you listed. The malware is not allowed access to the resources it requires, including but not limited to: memory, registers, interrupts, system calls, files, disk, etc. etc. etc.
There are extremely secure commercial operating systems that prevent all of this.
Only if it can be added in such a way that it has zero impact on those
of us who are not interested in it
You do realize that this means nothing should be added to linux, period. Everything will have an impact on someone that doesn't care about it. If you approach these types of questions from the view of the linux community as a whole, then in many cases it's pretty easy to see the overall benefit. If, on the other hand, each person bases their decision only on their own personal environment, then you will tend to have a mess.
Also, isn't it trivial to make an rpm give you the installed manifest of
its contents?
With computers, there are actions that are a value-add with respect to your project/goals, and there are actions that are not. Manually performing these types of tasks are typically not a value-add, they can and should be standardized and automated.
I recommend, as your first project, to write a program that will automatically read slashdot postings and determine which ones are crap. We can call this service "Crapoogle."
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Computers.
Rapid molecule sorting and delivery.
500ghz CPU using silicon based materials.
New method to control atom-scale magnetism.
Invented Relational Database.
etc.
If you are disappointed, I recommend you do some of your own research on their research.
The conceptually challenged will point out that the boundaries between science, math and engineering are fuzzy, and may go on to suggest that the fuzziness of the boundaries means there is no distinction. They are, of course, incorrect, as anyone who has ever crossed a road is aware: the finite width of the road and the existence of shoulders does not prevent it from having two different sides. I always wonder if the folks who claim not to be able to tell the difference between science, mathematics and engineering stand by the road wondering which side they are on.
Given that the term "science" is a man-made term with numerous different definitions, and given that language is not precise, how can you be so sure that your dogamtic view is the one truth?
So I do not think that Google labs or MS is a fair comparison to AT&T or Bell Labs. The latter were making discoveries about nature. The former are developing technologies for communication and computation which have a much more limited potential for creating new sources of power or other new technologies for disturbing the universe.
If I am interpreting your statements properly, you seem to be making a value judgement between different types of knowledge. I wonder in what manner this absolute truth was revealed to you?
Food for thought: Would an artifical intelligence beyond our own not be a source of power and have staggering implications?
Not really new at all. Not that I'm trying to knock Microsoft, just that you are giving them credit for things others did decades ago.
What is with Forbes? I have only seen pro-SCO articles despite a mountain of evidence indicating the lawsuit has very little merit (possibly only in a contract dispute context), seems fishy.
You remember when development of this chip was announced right?
1994. I remember the day I read the article in computerworld about the HP and Intel alliance and the new CPU, sounded interesting.
12 years later they are shipping about 40,000 anually.
This thing is simply not going to take off.
Using tools will allow the doctors to spend more time with data to apply to problem solving, and less time attempting to extract that data using less advanced techniques. These will not replace the doctors they will help them realize their potential.
Star Trek's fictional technology, such as the communicator, tricorder, phaser, even Transparent Aluminum... have all come to exist as reality much quicker than imagined
I know I can't believe how quickly we are advancing. For example, I bought a tricorder last week, it records CD, DVD and HD-DVD.
"Clarification Tom Reeves, IBM's VP of semiconductor and technology services, said he was not making any specific references to past or current Cell yields in an executive insight interview that ran last week. He was, instead, referring to large die yield challenges in general and the successful leverage provided by logic redundancy strategies. IBM does not release product specific yield information. This clarification was made on July 14, 2006."
I wasn't trying to attack you personally but rather your message. It probably came off poorly due to frustration with the number of times I read posts from people that blame users instead of realizing that good secure operating systems don't have these same problems. Either way, I apologize for the wording.
Back to the issue. I don't disagree that you can't remove the human and there will always be problems, but these can be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2. MS has a poor track record so far, but that doesn't mean we blame the human. If other companies can write secure OS's, MS can too, so let's put the blame where it should be. And just to qualify that, IBM's OS's have been secure for decades because they were in environments that required it, MS was in an environment that did not require it nearly as much until relatively recently, so while I think it's their problem to solve (not the users), I understand why they weren't secure from day 1.
There is no OS that is 100% secure. Security is important, but if your expectation is for complete security, you will live a dissapointed life. The weak link in most computer networks is human. If it was programmed by humans, there will be a flaw that can be exploited. If there isn't a flaw in the programming, social engineering works fine to discover passwords that get you past the security
Maybe not 100% secure, but there are commercial OS's that are orders of magnitude more secure than Windows. Why do people like you continue to post statements that make it sound like the current situation with Windows is the best we can hope for and we should not expect MS to improve the security of their OS?
In my mind, Forbes is a couple notches below People magazine.
You have some good points regarding privacy of data, but I disagree that "software as service is crud." There are a number of pro's to software as a service, here are a few:
1) No need to install, low end user maintenance. This is important for businesses.
2) Access to applications and your own data whether at your own PC, in the library or at the airport across the country, without carrying around a laptop.
3) Increased ability for software to offer interaction with other services.
Or, if you are in business and actually need this data, then you get it from the place you are supposed to, either direct from the supplier in an 832 document, or from a service where multiple suppliers dump their 832's.
but Singularity is - by far - the most innovative operating system concept on the block today
Given that there are existing commercial operating systems that are more complete and advanced than Singularity (especially with respect to memory isolation, security, etc.), I think this statement goes a little far. It's good that MS is working on this and it sounds like Singularity is taking a good approach to the problem, but hardly the first or most advanced.
All Frozen water floats in liquid water
Surprising at it may seem, "heavy" water ice does not float in "normal" water, it sinks.
You have been posting this for quite some time. I have been to your web site and it does not show in any concrete terms how your solution is more reliable. Whether it is algorithmic or synchronous signal-based, there are still X states the system can be in, of which Y are valid. Unfortunately, for all but the most trivial programs, X is so many orders of magnitude beyond our ability to check all states that I don't see any gain to your system.
It would be interesting if you have valid ideas that support your claim, but each time I ask you do not respond. This leads me to believe this is vapor.
Humans have souls, Chimps don't have souls. It's easy to tell the difference.
Please educate us, how do we know we have souls, chimps don't have souls and why is this so easy to determine?
CASE, code generators, etc. have their place and can be successful. I have created and used these types of tools and continue to enjoy analyzing where they are a good fit.
OLTP business applications tend to be the best fit because there are many many forms/transactions to create and they tend to be relatively simple (mostly data validation, some calculations, database update, etc.). The work that is being automated is not creative problem solving but rather the application of a solution multiple times to similar but not identical entities.
But ultimately the real work is the proper abstraction of the business process and this still requires a human.
Publish benchmarks like TPC-C and SAP transactions, etc. consistently show Power winning significantly.
Bank of memory throwing correctable ECC errors? Map it out. Processor that has ECC errors in it's cache? Map it out
Coincidentally, our Sun box died this morning once AGAIN due to the LACK of ECC in cache and memory. While I'm sure the box you speak of is newer, they sure shot themselves in the foot by shipping so many systems without industry standard ECC for the last few years.
There are three viable choices for server CPUs today-- Intel/AMD-something, PPC family, or uSparc
IBM can't let go of the PPC family for many reasons, but it lags behind the Intel/AMD world vastly.
IBM's Power architecture is currently the king of the hill for servers (vs Sparc, x86, Itanium, etc.), has been for some time, and it looks like the Power6 will continue this trend.
If by PPC you were referring to the processor previously used in the Mac, then you should not have included it in the list of "server" processor choices. The Power4, Power5, Power5+, Power6 etc. are the server processors from the Power line.
As features get added to Linux, should we list the operating systems that already have that feature? Are there any significant features in Linux that do not already exist in OS/360, MVS, VM, VAX, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, OS/400, BeOS, OS X, OS/2, Win2K/XP, etc. etc. etc.?
A secure OS prevents those things that you listed. The malware is not allowed access to the resources it requires, including but not limited to: memory, registers, interrupts, system calls, files, disk, etc. etc. etc.
There are extremely secure commercial operating systems that prevent all of this.
Only if it can be added in such a way that it has zero impact on those of us who are not interested in it
You do realize that this means nothing should be added to linux, period. Everything will have an impact on someone that doesn't care about it. If you approach these types of questions from the view of the linux community as a whole, then in many cases it's pretty easy to see the overall benefit. If, on the other hand, each person bases their decision only on their own personal environment, then you will tend to have a mess.
Also, isn't it trivial to make an rpm give you the installed manifest of its contents?
With computers, there are actions that are a value-add with respect to your project/goals, and there are actions that are not. Manually performing these types of tasks are typically not a value-add, they can and should be standardized and automated.
I recommend, as your first project, to write a program that will automatically read slashdot postings and determine which ones are crap. We can call this service "Crapoogle."