NOn should be able to claim IP on that tecnology.
JST technology (as well as any other similar one) resembles very closely to... compilers!!!
You write down source code in a high level language like C++ and you get it translated into another target language like machine code.
The "other" language needs not to be at a lower level. You can translate from Fortran or LISP to C as well.
I'd like to see these stupid claims stop once and forever. Companies should focus more on business, research and, most important, customers!
OK. OK.
If you fill the disk(s), the 750 GB one will have the arms and platters move 7 times more that each single 100 Gb disk.
Even if one of the 7 breaks, you'll loose only a mere 14% of the data.
My box fits 10 disks because I like to play it safe and some 7 times more heat (I blow away) is worth the increase in reliability.
And yes, mine was a joke.
1. The more data you pack in a volume, the higher the risk for data loss due to mechanical breaks.
2. 7 100 Gb disks (that would cost less than USD 430) will be at least 7 times more reliable than the 7200.10 with possibile similar performances.
The really bad news will come when vira will be available for:
- iPod(tm) through infected MP3s
- bluetooth earpieces through special whistles
- digital wrist whatches through vired organic batteries
So we can say that one third of the world cannot access a free (ans in freedom) internet. Another third cannot access it at all.
So is it right to call it "world wide web"?
There is something true in that study, indeed.
Personally I already have seen this kind of numbers, even though I've never minded to measure them.
Why? Simply put, because it matters very little.
Compared to Windows 3.11, Windows XP needs 100 times more disk space, 10 times more RAM and 10 times more time to boot.
Compared MS to Word 5.5, MS Word 2003 if slower and bigger.
Today I wouldn't revert back to Windows 3.11 and would not choose Word 5.5.
What'd be the most important features expected in a document file format? In my opinion:
1. compactness
2. openness
3. flexibility
No "access performances", though. Because the time needed to load a document, when you do real office work, weighs by far less than the time you spend on it while working. And when someone sends you a file written with a different version of the software or even with a different software, how much time do you spend to make that file readable and printable?
Maybe one day IT companies will focus on products and services instead of legal activities.
One should wonder how much resources those companies waste in useless legal actions and how much they earn from the same.
There are actually at least four different design concepts for this marvelous project.
So the one shown by Peter is just one.
I think that the crank operated recharger is an important feature that the orange design is missing.
I assume cryptography is to be used only between the mobile station and the base station.
All the rest of the conversation path would be in clear.
If this is not the case and if I were some terrorist, I'd like to have one of those phones and service!
The only one problem with laptopts, and PC in general as well, is whether the drivers are available in the distribution.
For example I have bought an Asus V6J to run Kubuntu.
It took me one day to finish the installation because the ethernet driver was not in the distribution!
This is the real point with LInux distributions: too much fragmentation of efforts and resources.
The MS suite is very very common indeed. After 20+ years of single choice market this is trivial.
But finally, is the MS suite fitting the real needs? How fast is it adapting to the new needs? Or rather is it defining the needs?
All software has bugs, is error prone and shows deficiencies in some way. With no exception.
One point is whether the manufacturer can (try to) fix, adapt and evolve that software in a reasonable timeframe.
Another one is whether the suite can be used among different environments, namely Windows, Linux and OS X at least.
Inconsistencies among office suites are a big problem. But, is a file format ad related application behaviour well documented?
Of course if the "incumbent application" hides the information, there will always be incoherencies.
Think about the web. As far as the "common standards" are concerned (aka W3C), all browsers are more or less equivalent. Problems arise when you use proprietary technologies. Why this? Because there are both a well defined standard definition and application behaviour, and because there is a third party tool to check compliancy. Do the same for the office suite, and you'll get a solution. Or sort of.
Well, both Minix3 and Linux run on real hardware. As a proof of concept I'd like to see both (groups):
1. agree on a "standard architecture"
2. agree on a "standard evaluation" for performances and reliability
3. agree on a "normalized amount of deveopment resources"
4. go and implement each his own proof of concept
5. measure performabces and reliability
Apart of points #2 and #5 that I see rather hard, this can be accomplished even if they don't agree. A community based juree could define
the relevant steps and do the measurements.
My own experience says that sometimes 1 test is worth more than 1 thousand theories.
This is what I call "challenge".
A real challenge means that the "someone" (the community) should define the minimum requirements to be matched.
For reliability, effectiveness and efficiency.
Maybe one can even define a way to measure these features, so the winner would be declared by measurement!
I'm personally not sure which one is really really right, Maybe none. Maybe both.
Why not doing a "proof of concept" instead of battling?
It seems that a real world challenge would put an "end" to this story.
Both Tanenbaum and Torvalds can teach a lot in OS design and implentation. If they don't agree, thay have to proof their point.
Real proof, I mean, on real hardware.
Whatever the final answer is, we all will thank both for the challenge. But, definitely, I think a real proof is needed.
May be. The bad news would come when this tag will become mandatory for everyone for every day usage.
In any case, unless you implant it very deep in the body, it can be removed or transplanted on someone else.
People is to be identified by something they are not by something they have. Also by something they know is not good, because in this case the knowledge, that is the information, can be copied, erased or modified. Our brains are not read-only.
We all hope that this kind of technology will be used only for this kind of purposes and not for Humans.
Such a technology could lead to a 24x7 tracking of persons: where they are and when, at least.
Doctor means "those who can teach". And he can.
In any case, I'm not American. And here you're doctor in computer science once you get a degree in a computer science university.
Nonetheless, thanks for the precision.
Information security is failing also because information needs to be managed and addressed by non technical people! Also known as "normal people".
Techniques like phishing or social engineering, as well as a good dose of stupidity and ignorance, can make security technologies useless! Like writing down on leaflets PINs and passwords or communicating them via email.
Whether monolithic or microkernel, what it is expected from an OS is to manage resources, implement basic services et cetera in an effective and efficient way.
I think that the number of lines of code in either design direction tend to be almost the same, unless some code refactoring.
Also the number of "services" done by the OS tend to be the same.
Ease of maintenance, robustness, efficiency and so on are problems that should be faced in both cases with an overall need for resources that should be the same in both cases.
So, instead of debating, I'd do some real world tests, instrumentation and profiling in order to find out a reasonable solution. Being it shared memory or copy buffer, it really doesnt' matter. Real effectivenes and afficiency do.
Prof. Tanenbaum and Dr. Torvalds (as well as a number of other people at their same level) have shown their deep knowledge in this area. A real advance in OS technology would be a constructive debate after the real world data analysis.
So the final question is: why not?
P.S. The referenced web site is still hot and smoking!
Slashdot Mirror
NOn should be able to claim IP on that tecnology. ... compilers!!!
JST technology (as well as any other similar one) resembles very closely to
You write down source code in a high level language like C++ and you get it translated into another target language like machine code.
The "other" language needs not to be at a lower level. You can translate from Fortran or LISP to C as well.
I'd like to see these stupid claims stop once and forever. Companies should focus more on business, research and, most important, customers!
OK. OK.
If you fill the disk(s), the 750 GB one will have the arms and platters move 7 times more that each single 100 Gb disk.
Even if one of the 7 breaks, you'll loose only a mere 14% of the data.
My box fits 10 disks because I like to play it safe and some 7 times more heat (I blow away) is worth the increase in reliability.
And yes, mine was a joke.
1. The more data you pack in a volume, the higher the risk for data loss due to mechanical breaks.
2. 7 100 Gb disks (that would cost less than USD 430) will be at least 7 times more reliable than the 7200.10 with possibile similar performances.
The really bad news will come when vira will be available for:
- iPod(tm) through infected MP3s
- bluetooth earpieces through special whistles
- digital wrist whatches through vired organic batteries
So we can say that one third of the world cannot access a free (ans in freedom) internet. Another third cannot access it at all.
So is it right to call it "world wide web"?
That means little or no interest from gamers. That could also be translated as "little o no money" as well.
There is something true in that study, indeed.
Personally I already have seen this kind of numbers, even though I've never minded to measure them.
Why? Simply put, because it matters very little.
Compared to Windows 3.11, Windows XP needs 100 times more disk space, 10 times more RAM and 10 times more time to boot.
Compared MS to Word 5.5, MS Word 2003 if slower and bigger.
Today I wouldn't revert back to Windows 3.11 and would not choose Word 5.5. What'd be the most important features expected in a document file format? In my opinion:
1. compactness
2. openness
3. flexibility
No "access performances", though.
Because the time needed to load a document, when you do real office work, weighs by far less than the time you spend on it while working.
And when someone sends you a file written with a different version of the software or even with a different software, how much time do you spend to make that file readable and printable?
And so it will not cloak anymore!
Maybe one day IT companies will focus on products and services instead of legal activities.
One should wonder how much resources those companies waste in useless legal actions and how much they earn from the same.
The USD 100 laptop hardware specs can be found here for the sake of completeness.
There are actually at least four different design concepts for this marvelous project.
So the one shown by Peter is just one.
I think that the crank operated recharger is an important feature that the orange design is missing.
I assume cryptography is to be used only between the mobile station and the base station.
All the rest of the conversation path would be in clear.
If this is not the case and if I were some terrorist, I'd like to have one of those phones and service!
man man
This is real advance in physics!
... only when I'll se the real machine running games!
The only one problem with laptopts, and PC in general as well, is whether the drivers are available in the distribution.
For example I have bought an Asus V6J to run Kubuntu.
It took me one day to finish the installation because the ethernet driver was not in the distribution!
This is the real point with LInux distributions: too much fragmentation of efforts and resources.
The MS suite is very very common indeed. After 20+ years of single choice market this is trivial.
But finally, is the MS suite fitting the real needs? How fast is it adapting to the new needs?
Or rather is it defining the needs?
All software has bugs, is error prone and shows deficiencies in some way. With no exception.
One point is whether the manufacturer can (try to) fix, adapt and evolve that software in a reasonable timeframe.
Another one is whether the suite can be used among different environments, namely Windows, Linux and OS X at least.
Inconsistencies among office suites are a big problem. But, is a file format ad related application behaviour well documented?
Of course if the "incumbent application" hides the information, there will always be incoherencies.
Think about the web. As far as the "common standards" are concerned (aka W3C), all browsers are more or less equivalent. Problems arise when you use proprietary technologies.
Why this? Because there are both a well defined standard definition and application behaviour, and because there is a third party tool to check compliancy.
Do the same for the office suite, and you'll get a solution. Or sort of.
Well, both Minix3 and Linux run on real hardware.
As a proof of concept I'd like to see both (groups):
1. agree on a "standard architecture"
2. agree on a "standard evaluation" for performances and reliability
3. agree on a "normalized amount of deveopment resources"
4. go and implement each his own proof of concept
5. measure performabces and reliability
Apart of points #2 and #5 that I see rather hard, this can be accomplished even if they don't agree. A community based juree could define the relevant steps and do the measurements.
My own experience says that sometimes 1 test is worth more than 1 thousand theories.
This is what I call "challenge".
A real challenge means that the "someone" (the community) should define the minimum requirements to be matched.
For reliability, effectiveness and efficiency.
Maybe one can even define a way to measure these features, so the winner would be declared by measurement!
I'm personally not sure which one is really really right, Maybe none.
Maybe both.
Why not doing a "proof of concept" instead of battling?
It seems that a real world challenge would put an "end" to this story.
Both Tanenbaum and Torvalds can teach a lot in OS design and implentation. If they don't agree, thay have to proof their point.
Real proof, I mean, on real hardware.
Whatever the final answer is, we all will thank both for the challenge.
But, definitely, I think a real proof is needed.
In any case, unless you implant it very deep in the body, it can be removed or transplanted on someone else.
People is to be identified by something they are not by something they have. Also by something they know is not good, because in this case the knowledge, that is the information, can be copied, erased or modified. Our brains are not read-only.
We all hope that this kind of technology will be used only for this kind of purposes and not for Humans.
Such a technology could lead to a 24x7 tracking of persons: where they are and when, at least.
Doctor means "those who can teach". And he can.
In any case, I'm not American. And here you're doctor in computer science once you get a degree in a computer science university.
Nonetheless, thanks for the precision.
Information security is failing also because information needs to be managed and addressed by non technical people! Also known as "normal people".
Techniques like phishing or social engineering, as well as a good dose of stupidity and ignorance, can make security technologies useless!
Like writing down on leaflets PINs and passwords or communicating them via email.
Whether monolithic or microkernel, what it is expected from an OS is to manage resources, implement basic services et cetera in an effective and efficient way.
I think that the number of lines of code in either design direction tend to be almost the same, unless some code refactoring.
Also the number of "services" done by the OS tend to be the same.
Ease of maintenance, robustness, efficiency and so on are problems that should be faced in both cases with an overall need for resources that should be the same in both cases.
So, instead of debating, I'd do some real world tests, instrumentation and profiling in order to find out a reasonable solution. Being it shared memory or copy buffer, it really doesnt' matter.
Real effectivenes and afficiency do.
Prof. Tanenbaum and Dr. Torvalds (as well as a number of other people at their same level) have shown their deep knowledge in this area. A real advance in OS technology would be a constructive debate after the real world data analysis.
So the final question is: why not?
P.S. The referenced web site is still hot and smoking!