Virtualization technology is a very good thing. It allows you to use multiple operating systems at once, without fights for hardware control (which is why VMWare doesn't do it like this). But, if it's doable in hardware, it's doable in OS level software. Why didn't anybody do it then?
Put differently, how are AMD and Intel going to make it work? Since hardware doesn't like multiple masters (try a PS2 mouse with 4-5 byte protocol, it completely freaks out with a KVM switch), it's going to go haywire if you have multiple masters. Unless, of course, you don't. If all is virtual, make the entire computer virtual and let the OS meddle in the virtual space that's left after that. Include drivers for anything you like in the virtualizer core and let that start up the "OS".
The OS can then not use all features of the hardware, but only those given out by the virtualizer core. There's no escaping it, since it's the replacement for your BIOS. Combine that with the concept of Trusted (Treacherous) Computing and mix in a bit of Fritz chip and BIOS replacement Intel is pushing (as well), what do you get?
A computer with only drivers and everything (yes, EVERYTHING) in a checkable state, in which your OS doesn't even control the computer anymore, but the virtualizer. You don't want to change that one, since it renders your computer unusable. You do want to change that, since it renders your computer unusable. The state in which you control anything on your computer is becoming a paradox.
*puts on tinfoil hat, goes back within cage of faraday in radio-silent zone*
There are numerous ways to avoid that, although I must admit that it's an error that stems from not designing your target first, and implementing it later. Which is specifically what VS (and the entire.NET series) would like you to do, given the ease with which you can not design.
I can honestly say, I program around 10 hours a day and I have been for the past 7 years and I have maybe had that only once. I can't even remember actually having that. Even plain forgetting to override it is more common in my place. Forgetfulness is something those constructs don't help with, just sloppyness and people trying to get stuff done really fast without cross-checking. I don't want my surgeon to take my only good leg in case of a car accident, because he didn't cross-check my leg condition with my patient status.
It allows you to work faster and create more in a short while. It allows you to create abnormally slow programs that you can't even speed up with the willpower to do so, because of Windows internals. Those exact internals that Java won't touch with a stick.
Java doesn't look like win32 because it isn't even trying to. It's trying to look platform-independant and the same on all platforms, with the option to skin it to any GUI you want. dotNET IS windows. There's no wonder that it looks a lot more like windows.
I must strongly disagree on the OO implementation however, aside from it not supporting multiple inheritance, it's just good. Microsofts methodics are plain stupid, because for everything you want to do you have to specify it so explicitly my fingers still hurt last time I tried it.
Compare:
Java: public class xyz {
int function() {// some function
} }
public class abc extends xyz {
int function() {// different, automatic polymorphism
} }
C++: class xyz {
public: virtual int function() {// some function
};
public: int functiontoo() {// some function too
}; };
class abc : xyz {
public: virtual int function() {// some other function! again automatic!
};
public: int functiontoo() {// some function too, not polymorphic!
}: };
C#: (might contain errors, been a while) public class xyz {
public virtual int function() {// function
}
public int functiontoo() {// functiontoo
} }
public class abc : xyz {
public override int function() {// override, kind of pointless...
}
public new int functiontoo() {//... why new? that's reserved for memory allocation...
} }
My point is,.NET (in C#) requires you to make everything you want so explicit that I'm inclined to say that you're wasting time doing that more than you're gaining time due to other factors.
Plus, I just don't like their idea of a good library. Rape the C++ STL, why don't ya. Either support c++ (and the STL), or don't support it at all.
Multiple streams are confusing as confucius, whereas reparse points are more commonly known as "mounting" in unix.
Multiple streams are very incompatible, don't add anything to the FS that you couldn't do with plain more than one file and make stuff as confusing as hell. Why? To be able to add an icon to a file?
Egad. Spend your time on useful things, such as BRINGING THE DARN THING OUT ALREADY.
Your understanding is wrong. It did support hardlinks since the first version of the FS, as can be seen by hexediting the file table and seeing numerous files with commonly up to 4 names at the start of the FS.
You do care what a mile is? There are around 8 different types of miles, which means that if you're driving 70 mph on your speedometer you could be pulled over for both speeding and driving too slow, since there are at least two different miles that are either longer or shorter. If you'd just invent some sort of system to make it all logical and in a certain base system (so you have ONE unit for something, not hundreds of units) you would be all set. And somebody did, lo and behold, and the only people that are practically ignoring it (officially everything is even metric!) are the US. Why?
Don't think that would make for a fair law. DMCA would be modded +5 Funny (of course, nobody's going to take that seriously), but how would you mod the Patriot Act? -3 Troll, +3 Funny, -3 Overrated and +3 Interesting ?
The object is opposite the location of the sun (implicitly), because it's at its closest (near to us) and it's in a trajectory that's larger than ours (which places it away from the sun, compared to us). Also realising that all planets except Neptune are in a nearly-flat plane for terms of rotation, comes to the conclusion that it must be on the other side of the sun. So, if the sun is in the west, you look to the east. If the sun is in the east, you look to the west. If the sun is on the other side of the earth, you look up (under a slight angle for the angle the earth' axis makes with its trajectory).
hm... it might just have been in the middle of the night, so it would be am, or plain 3:25 UTC.
However, even the official SI is from the 20th century. It's been around for 45 years now, and it's officially even accepted in the USA. They don't use it though...
Looking to the west for *whom* ? Asia? Europe? America?
Thinking about it, Europe will be plain dark, Asia will have early sunrise (with their sun in the "east"), and America will have the sun in the "west". So, those in America will be looking to the east and those in Asia will be looking to the west. Those in europe won't have a sun nearby to confuse it with.
You said you knew a place where you could download a gcc that made win32 binaries? If so, it could make a fast cross-compiler too. That'd be quite nice. Do you have a link for the compiler?
Where can I get a GCC that runs natively in win32 that generates platform-independant ELFs? I'm developing an OS, so any Windows-dependency (or anything else, for that matter) is not usable. In Linux I use the platform gcc to generate a crosscompiling gcc, so that it does what I want it to do. If I do that with the GCC I get with Cygwin I create another Cygwin-based GCC, which is slow. Where do I get that GCC?
Also, who ported GCC itself to Windows without Cygwin? The point of C was that it was portable as long as you complied to POSIX which Windows doesn't (at least, not in any usable fashion).
> I swear, you can't make this shit up. Show of hands: who here believes a single thing MS says anymore?
If you put that as "Show of hands: Who here believes nothing MS says anymore?" you'd be modded as +5 Troll for trying to get a load of replies and being very correct at that.
Do you have any idea how SLOW cygwin is? I can only use the cygwin compiler and it's slow as ****. Compiling my own OS costs me around 1.5 minute on linux and around half an hour on windows, if only because of constantly waiting for the cygwin-process-delay.
There's a petition group trying to get people off their addiction to this poisonous liquid that is responsible for numerous hospitalizations a year: http://www.dhmo.org/ .
Slashdot Mirror
Virtualization technology is a very good thing. It allows you to use multiple operating systems at once, without fights for hardware control (which is why VMWare doesn't do it like this). But, if it's doable in hardware, it's doable in OS level software. Why didn't anybody do it then?
Put differently, how are AMD and Intel going to make it work? Since hardware doesn't like multiple masters (try a PS2 mouse with 4-5 byte protocol, it completely freaks out with a KVM switch), it's going to go haywire if you have multiple masters. Unless, of course, you don't. If all is virtual, make the entire computer virtual and let the OS meddle in the virtual space that's left after that. Include drivers for anything you like in the virtualizer core and let that start up the "OS".
The OS can then not use all features of the hardware, but only those given out by the virtualizer core. There's no escaping it, since it's the replacement for your BIOS. Combine that with the concept of Trusted (Treacherous) Computing and mix in a bit of Fritz chip and BIOS replacement Intel is pushing (as well), what do you get?
A computer with only drivers and everything (yes, EVERYTHING) in a checkable state, in which your OS doesn't even control the computer anymore, but the virtualizer. You don't want to change that one, since it renders your computer unusable. You do want to change that, since it renders your computer unusable. The state in which you control anything on your computer is becoming a paradox.
*puts on tinfoil hat, goes back within cage of faraday in radio-silent zone*
The world is larger than Java and C#, even in a Java thread.
mod parent "+5 scary, not funny anymore"...
There are numerous ways to avoid that, although I must admit that it's an error that stems from not designing your target first, and implementing it later. Which is specifically what VS (and the entire .NET series) would like you to do, given the ease with which you can not design.
I can honestly say, I program around 10 hours a day and I have been for the past 7 years and I have maybe had that only once. I can't even remember actually having that. Even plain forgetting to override it is more common in my place. Forgetfulness is something those constructs don't help with, just sloppyness and people trying to get stuff done really fast without cross-checking. I don't want my surgeon to take my only good leg in case of a car accident, because he didn't cross-check my leg condition with my patient status.
It allows you to work faster and create more in a short while. It allows you to create abnormally slow programs that you can't even speed up with the willpower to do so, because of Windows internals. Those exact internals that Java won't touch with a stick.
// some function
// different, automatic polymorphism
// some function // some function too
// some other function! again automatic! // some function too, not polymorphic!
// function
// functiontoo
// override, kind of pointless...
// ... why new? that's reserved for memory allocation...
.NET (in C#) requires you to make everything you want so explicit that I'm inclined to say that you're wasting time doing that more than you're gaining time due to other factors.
Java doesn't look like win32 because it isn't even trying to. It's trying to look platform-independant and the same on all platforms, with the option to skin it to any GUI you want. dotNET IS windows. There's no wonder that it looks a lot more like windows.
I must strongly disagree on the OO implementation however, aside from it not supporting multiple inheritance, it's just good. Microsofts methodics are plain stupid, because for everything you want to do you have to specify it so explicitly my fingers still hurt last time I tried it.
Compare:
Java:
public class xyz {
int function() {
}
}
public class abc extends xyz {
int function() {
}
}
C++:
class xyz {
public: virtual int function() {
};
public: int functiontoo() {
};
};
class abc : xyz {
public: virtual int function() {
};
public: int functiontoo() {
}:
};
C#: (might contain errors, been a while)
public class xyz {
public virtual int function() {
}
public int functiontoo() {
}
}
public class abc : xyz {
public override int function() {
}
public new int functiontoo() {
}
}
My point is,
Plus, I just don't like their idea of a good library. Rape the C++ STL, why don't ya. Either support c++ (and the STL), or don't support it at all.
Multiple streams are confusing as confucius, whereas reparse points are more commonly known as "mounting" in unix.
Multiple streams are very incompatible, don't add anything to the FS that you couldn't do with plain more than one file and make stuff as confusing as hell. Why? To be able to add an icon to a file?
Egad. Spend your time on useful things, such as BRINGING THE DARN THING OUT ALREADY.
The only link between perl mucking and programming is the one you create with "ln".
Your understanding is wrong. It did support hardlinks since the first version of the FS, as can be seen by hexediting the file table and seeing numerous files with commonly up to 4 names at the start of the FS.
You do care what a mile is? There are around 8 different types of miles, which means that if you're driving 70 mph on your speedometer you could be pulled over for both speeding and driving too slow, since there are at least two different miles that are either longer or shorter. If you'd just invent some sort of system to make it all logical and in a certain base system (so you have ONE unit for something, not hundreds of units) you would be all set. And somebody did, lo and behold, and the only people that are practically ignoring it (officially everything is even metric!) are the US. Why?
You tell me.
You don't have a TiVo, no video iPod, no cable, no satellite? Where do you live, Mars?
Don't think that would make for a fair law. DMCA would be modded +5 Funny (of course, nobody's going to take that seriously), but how would you mod the Patriot Act? -3 Troll, +3 Funny, -3 Overrated and +3 Interesting ?
He didn't suck THAT much, did he?
The object is opposite the location of the sun (implicitly), because it's at its closest (near to us) and it's in a trajectory that's larger than ours (which places it away from the sun, compared to us). Also realising that all planets except Neptune are in a nearly-flat plane for terms of rotation, comes to the conclusion that it must be on the other side of the sun. So, if the sun is in the west, you look to the east. If the sun is in the east, you look to the west. If the sun is on the other side of the earth, you look up (under a slight angle for the angle the earth' axis makes with its trajectory).
hm... it might just have been in the middle of the night, so it would be am, or plain 3:25 UTC.
However, even the official SI is from the 20th century. It's been around for 45 years now, and it's officially even accepted in the USA. They don't use it though...
Looking to the west for *whom* ? Asia? Europe? America?
Thinking about it, Europe will be plain dark, Asia will have early sunrise (with their sun in the "east"), and America will have the sun in the "west". So, those in America will be looking to the east and those in Asia will be looking to the west. Those in europe won't have a sun nearby to confuse it with.
......
*off to fetch some more coffee*
Oh, and on its closest point it's the size of a euro at 230 meters.
You said you knew a place where you could download a gcc that made win32 binaries? If so, it could make a fast cross-compiler too. That'd be quite nice. Do you have a link for the compiler?
The information in the article in SI units:
> On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 69.4 million kilometers away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 3:25 p.m. UTC.
Did that with my AMD duron 1.2GHz. It cost an additional 150 euros in electricity cost. It cut my heating bill by 450 euros.
:)
And it's always available
Where can I get a GCC that runs natively in win32 that generates platform-independant ELFs? I'm developing an OS, so any Windows-dependency (or anything else, for that matter) is not usable. In Linux I use the platform gcc to generate a crosscompiling gcc, so that it does what I want it to do. If I do that with the GCC I get with Cygwin I create another Cygwin-based GCC, which is slow. Where do I get that GCC?
Also, who ported GCC itself to Windows without Cygwin? The point of C was that it was portable as long as you complied to POSIX which Windows doesn't (at least, not in any usable fashion).
> I swear, you can't make this shit up. Show of hands: who here believes a single thing MS says anymore?
If you put that as "Show of hands: Who here believes nothing MS says anymore?" you'd be modded as +5 Troll for trying to get a load of replies and being very correct at that.
Do you have any idea how SLOW cygwin is? I can only use the cygwin compiler and it's slow as ****. Compiling my own OS costs me around 1.5 minute on linux and around half an hour on windows, if only because of constantly waiting for the cygwin-process-delay.
There's a petition group trying to get people off their addiction to this poisonous liquid that is responsible for numerous hospitalizations a year: http://www.dhmo.org/ .
Store outside of childrens' reach.
> ... nerve injuries caused by low-force, highly repetitive work ...
That explains why my girlfriend won't get RSI. Her typing can't be qualified under low force.
Anybody got a bulk supply of keyboards by the way?