I did not mean that CS was formerly CIT, I meant CMU was formerly CIT.
The name CIT was subsequently reused for engineering.
If they had named the engineering school "Mellon Institute of Technology" it would have had an amusing acronym.
Mach was designed around message passing.
COW was supposed to make that affordable.
Write() and fork() were just instances of this.
Mach was also a research project that was studying this technique.
The code in user space did not need to be aware of COW.
As I recall, most of the unix kernel source code did not need to be aware of COW.
Linux does not have the same design.
COW may or may not be appropriate.
User code does not normally need to be aware of read ahead and write behind.
Does it really need to be aware of COW?
Recently, I saw the creator of mach.
I asked him if he ever uses mach any more. He said no.:)
There is a US statute that specifically covers making copies of audio recordings.
IANAL, but it seems to specifically permit some noncommercial copying of audio recordings by consumers.
I wonder if Captain Copyright is tolerant of parodies?
I did not mean that CS was formerly CIT, I meant CMU was formerly CIT. The name CIT was subsequently reused for engineering. If they had named the engineering school "Mellon Institute of Technology" it would have had an amusing acronym.
Linux does not have the same design. COW may or may not be appropriate. User code does not normally need to be aware of read ahead and write behind. Does it really need to be aware of COW?
Recently, I saw the creator of mach. I asked him if he ever uses mach any more. He said no. :)
Here is one on the IC:
03-16-06 OSU Creates World's First Transparent Integrated Circuit
Here are some earlier ones:
02-07-06 OSU Licenses New Transparent Electronics to HP
12-20-05 Transparent Electronics Presentation Named In Top Five
There is a US statute that specifically covers making copies of audio recordings. IANAL, but it seems to specifically permit some noncommercial copying of audio recordings by consumers.