In other words, "Why try anything if you can't make it work perfectly in the first version". I think that sums up what's wrong with tech in the US these days. Do you think the first cars were better than a horse? People would ride by broken down cars and yell "get a horse". I'm glad those early tech developers were persistant.
Instead of using passive IR sensors... use (gasp) active IR sensors or ultrasonic - like autodoors today use.
The door in the article appears to be using (active) Sharp IR distance sensors. I wonder if some of their problems are the large number of sensors interfering somewhat.
I think the door should audibly announce the maximum width it had to open to. Additionally it should record daily maximums and announce if an object exceeds the current record.
The Japanese are now accustomed to automatic doors. After I spent a few months there, upon returning to the US I'd sometimes wait at a public door until I remembered it wouldn't open. Thus revolving doors are expected to be automatic too. Unfortunately, making a door like that safe is tricky, and there's a very famous case of a toddler dying in a automatic revolving door (see here). I don't think anyone in Japan is going to install a revolving door for a while, what with people calling them deathtraps (even if all the issues were fixed). Ford didn't exactly release the Pinto 2.
Also, there is of course the cool factor of having a door like the one in TFA. It might attract a few more people to come into your shop. Combined with an ordinary slinding outer double-door, it could be pretty good at sealing things too.
Oh, I do, every day, all the way. And I don't let the Canadian border stop me: I used to be Canadian, for a while,
So you're not Canadian anymore (did you mean no longer a citizen?), but you try to mess with their affairs still anyway? I can see offering one's opinion, but typically you should leave a democracy up to its citizens.
and I don't want them slipping into the Schiavo state for their own Scarecrow "leaders", either.
Uh huh, because everyone in the US is the same, after all. When I look at the US I see lots of people who disagree, not a blind mass following someone off a cliff. But I guess some people like to be overly dramatic.
What have you done to fight fascism lately?
Well, I vote Libertarian, give money to worthy causes, and go do my job and try to make the economy work. The last part is easy if you don't post 25+ times a day on Slashdot.
No I'm pretty sure they mean Fahrenheit. 50C would be too hot for most people, quite overdoing it when you are causing the heating yourself. 50F is 10C, chilly but perfectly livable with a jacket. I guess you're not from a northern climate?
That's definitely it. I found it on my own, then came to see if anyone had a link already and I found your post, which agrees exactly on the location. It was a bit annoying to find since google maps doesn't have roads for Australia. I got most of the information I needed from the site itself, and this anti-nuclear site which gave a handy map.
I stongly disagree with this. In my faith, we believe citizens should pay as much in taxes as possible. Despite their apparent Christian veneer, we have many followers in Congress.
Huh? Let me put it this way, Mr. Wormhole. Space qualified CPUs go into the most reliable computers ever made. No radiation-hardened computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. They are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
If you don't mind me asking, what was the solution? Is there a way in Unix to get GPS time or a way to make GPS systems spit out the offset? NTP servers using GPS clock sources must have a way to do this properly...
Re:Have you even looked at Apple's website?
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
You're confusing "privileged mode" AKA "kernel mode" with "in the kernel". Mach isn't a real microkernel, but it does support the ability to run software in privileged mode without it being "linked in the kernel".
No I'm not confusing the two. Accelerated graphics drivers have been buried so deeply into OSes nowadays that they are extremely hard to separate them from all internal APIs. If your driver allocates memory or accesses the PCI bus, it'll have to follow the license of the host OS code that does that (or disgustingly roll its own version of everything).
And Mach is *too* a microkernel. In fact its one of the most famous and influential microkernels ever written. The Mach project rewrote BSD into a microkernel. OSX is derived from an intermediate version. It is not a pure microkernel, just like NT is a hybrid. That's a pragmatic choice for performance. But what do I know about Mach, I've only read the Mach papers and taken graduate OS courses at the university where it was written (Carnegie Mellon), attended talks by some of the creators, and was a teaching assistant for an OS course at the same university.
Furthermore, whether or not something using a messaging protocol or RPC is "linked" or not hasn't really been answered from a licensing standpoint IMO. I'm sure the GNU Hurd people would argue that a lot of it is linking of some sort, and many others would disagree with them. At any rate, I know I wouldn't go there, especially not if I were a company. Apple is smart enough to avoid walking into a problem like that. What I said in the earlier post was in response to you saying that Apple could use Linux if it wanted to. Since (as you point out) Linux is not a microkernel, it would have to be linked, that's all that matters. Apple (smartly) went for BSD code. They are of course happy to use GPL code for userspace applications, but that's a different issue entirely.
Microsoft says lots of stuff, but it's their actions that count. And their only package that uses a significant amount of real open-source software uses both BSD and GPL components.
The code in their OS that's borrowed was taken from BSD. They are smart enough not to take GPL code. Even for userspace, as that would just bring bad press for their OS product.
Like HFS+?
Good point, that's one of their more significant contributions.
One operating system can't possibly fill all the niches. Linux is tied to a kernel design that works well for a certain class of problems,
... but it depends on Linus for continued development
Only as much as Apple depends on Steve Jobs. They are influential leaders, but not necessary. Look at LKML and you can watch yourself how things work. Someone could take over tomorrow if Linus could no longer work on the project (Andrew Morton or Alan Cox being likely successors).
... and Linus antipathy towards non-traditional kernels is legendary.
NT became successful after they dropped their devotion to a pure microkernel design. OSX has never been a pure microkernel from the start, being derived from an intermediate version of the Mach codebase. Linux has never dabbled with microkernel design since every successful OS has moved in the opposite direction. That's simply pragmatism, and all those OSes made the pragmatic choice.
In the last decade though, all OSes have adopted some of the simpler advantages of a microkernel design, such as modular drivers. If Hurd or DragonFlyBSD ever comes up with something compelling enough, I have no doubt Linux will adopt it. Up to now, there's been no reason to do so.
Have you looked at the the actual code? Or are you just going by "what
Why? If we switch to leap hours, the only software (and that's what the change is about) that will be disrupted by the change will be software that has to be working 500-600 years from now. A lot of programs could safely ignore leap hours, unlike now, when many programs can't ignore leap seconds.
It's nice to see that only 5 years after Y2K, people have already forgotten the important lesson it taught. We cannot predict what will still be running, so no its not ok for programs to ignore it.
In 1960, people thought: It should be pretty safe to assume that people will use 4 digit years 40 years from now.
Re:Have you even looked at Apple's website?
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Apple has released the source to every major and minor version of just about everything in Mac OS X below the Quartz layer
Did I say "Apple is bad"? No, I said Apple likes the BSD license. After all, its what allows them to keep Quartz (their real competetive advantage, nobody cares about launchd that much, or their kernel which isn't any better than FreeBSD). So while you were busy with your "Apple is good" tirade in response to something I didn't say, you are showing that you agree with me.
... they could have used any kernel they wanted.
I highly doubt there is no kernel-level code in OS-X for graphics, and it is certainly proprietary right now. Accelerated graphics cards do a lot, so these APIs are pretty wide nowadays. Quartz is most likely linked to such an API, and since it does that API doesn't exist in a GPL'ed operating system that'd mean linking non-GPL code with GPL code, which is a no-no. So a GPL OS was out of the question for them. BSD has given Apple the freedom to pick and choose what they want to release. Whether they release 75% or nothing is beside the point, they didn't want to release 100% which is what the GPL would effectively require.
IBM? HP? SGI? Where can I download OpenAIX, OpenHPUX, and OpenIrix? THAT's the kind of code release that would be comparable to what Apple's done.
Apple didn't release OS9, they released their modified BSD/Mach fork. Thus that wouldn't really be equivalent. In fact, everything I can think of that they did release started out as open source. While its nice they released things when they didn't have to, they've kept most of their traditionally proprietary stuff proprietary. This is no different from the UNIX vendors not releasing all of their old code. IBM and SGI have however released entire file systems which were formerly proprietary. In SGI's case, XFS was one of the big advantages of IRIX, so its quite commendable to see what they did (not unlike Apple releasing Quartz, which would be great if they did someday).
In the end we'll get Linux with all the best features from AIX, HPUX, Irix. One great operating system is better than four good ones, IMO. There's room for several operating systems in the market, but not as many as we had 10 years ago.
Imagine if Apple worked with FreeBSD to get their kernel changes adopted rather than forking it (and also hiring away a few important developers). That would require all changes to be open, and high enough quality that open source developers would accept them (no nasty ass hacks to meet deadlines). I think that would have been better overall, and its certainly better for the FreeBSD people as they would get desirable features with zero porting effort.
Microsoft? I wish they'd use MORE BSD code in their kernel, not less. They don't like any flavor of open source all that much, it makes it too hard for them to do things like maintaining an incompatible sockets library.
MS dilikes the GPL, but has actually come out and said they like BSD on more than one occasion. There is no reason to fear competition from an OS that lets you have its best features. It makes perfect sense for a company with their development model.
Re:The real difference...
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
With your logic, why did IBM and SGI side with Linux and the GPL? If your confused by that, try the following substitution on your post:
proprietary-friendly = friendly to companies which use code, hostile to companies that write/release code. proprietary-hostile = hostile to companies that use code, friendly to companies that write/release code.
All the sudden, it makes perfect sense why Apple and MS like the BSD license, and IBM, SGI, HP, and everyone else who competes with MS like the GPL. The license you call "hostile" seems to have a lot of support from companies who still make a lot of money on proprietary products.
It's really quite simple; every company would like everyone else's code to be BSD, but would rather release their own code under the GPL (if they have to release it). That way they can use the BSD stuff for whatever they want, while GPL'ing their own code limits the damage other proprietary companies can do.
Well, he said that but without the British slang. I think he'd be much cooler with a British accent, but I'm not sure the UK would be amused. Here's to hoping he doesn't ever get knighted...
Re:FreeBSD
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
While I agree with much of what you said...
The Ports system is far superior to the rpm system. It actually tracks dependancies, and has a system to grab them for you. You are way off base on that statement.
Why did you leave out Debian's dpkg, which the GP mentioned? It's been doing everything you describe for at least 6 years. In the last two years, the rpm based distros have all added dependency tracking systems, such as Suse's excellent Yast tool. If you really want to compile things, Gentoo has a ports system just like the BSDs, and it has worked quite well for a couple of years now.
These discussions are always funny becuase you can see how people never poke around looking at alternatives, and then go and make comments that are way our of date. Read about the other systems, or just admit "I have no idea what they do now". Sites such as KernelTrap are good for cross-OS news stories. Even though I'm regularly a Debian user, that's how I found out about the work on DragonFly BSD, which I think is pretty cool. I think some of that work will percolate into the other OSes, which is why I'm glad most developers *do* keep track of the current work in other free OSes.
Ah but what C compiler does it use? Guess its "complete minus a compiler". Don't worry though, I won't tell RMS so he starts ranting about FreeBSD/GCC.
And shopkeepers pay the mafia protection money "so that no trouble should happen to come upon their store". But that's fine, because at no point was the shopkeeper ever directly threatened.
In the real world, people do connect the dots and interpret an indirect threat.
How true; This fairly useless feature was in AIM first, so its not ours to steal. Apparently it's for MS to steal though, since only big companies get to steal ideas. Go look up who got a patent on the car, and how much they had to do with actually developing the technology. And remember, don't ever make a website where you can carry out a transaction with only one click, since obviously nobody skilled in the trade could ever come up with that idea on their own...
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, "Why try anything if you can't make it work perfectly in the first version". I think that sums up what's wrong with tech in the US these days. Do you think the first cars were better than a horse? People would ride by broken down cars and yell "get a horse". I'm glad those early tech developers were persistant.
Instead of using passive IR sensors... use (gasp) active IR sensors or ultrasonic - like autodoors today use.
The door in the article appears to be using (active) Sharp IR distance sensors. I wonder if some of their problems are the large number of sensors interfering somewhat.
I think the door should audibly announce the maximum width it had to open to. Additionally it should record daily maximums and announce if an object exceeds the current record.
The Japanese are now accustomed to automatic doors. After I spent a few months there, upon returning to the US I'd sometimes wait at a public door until I remembered it wouldn't open. Thus revolving doors are expected to be automatic too. Unfortunately, making a door like that safe is tricky, and there's a very famous case of a toddler dying in a automatic revolving door (see here). I don't think anyone in Japan is going to install a revolving door for a while, what with people calling them deathtraps (even if all the issues were fixed). Ford didn't exactly release the Pinto 2.
Also, there is of course the cool factor of having a door like the one in TFA. It might attract a few more people to come into your shop. Combined with an ordinary slinding outer double-door, it could be pretty good at sealing things too.
Oh, I do, every day, all the way. And I don't let the Canadian border stop me: I used to be Canadian, for a while,
So you're not Canadian anymore (did you mean no longer a citizen?), but you try to mess with their affairs still anyway? I can see offering one's opinion, but typically you should leave a democracy up to its citizens.
and I don't want them slipping into the Schiavo state for their own Scarecrow "leaders", either.
Uh huh, because everyone in the US is the same, after all. When I look at the US I see lots of people who disagree, not a blind mass following someone off a cliff. But I guess some people like to be overly dramatic.
What have you done to fight fascism lately?
Well, I vote Libertarian, give money to worthy causes, and go do my job and try to make the economy work. The last part is easy if you don't post 25+ times a day on Slashdot.
Why do you hate our freedom, and fear the strength that keeps our open societies superior to these medieval tyrannies?
With the law in question, it seems your own government hates your freedom. Why don't you take it up with them?
No I'm pretty sure they mean Fahrenheit. 50C would be too hot for most people, quite overdoing it when you are causing the heating yourself. 50F is 10C, chilly but perfectly livable with a jacket. I guess you're not from a northern climate?
I hate it when people give me the "Global Warming look". That gaze really is harmful to my feelings.
That's definitely it. I found it on my own, then came to see if anyone had a link already and I found your post, which agrees exactly on the location. It was a bit annoying to find since google maps doesn't have roads for Australia. I got most of the information I needed from the site itself, and this anti-nuclear site which gave a handy map.
...and think I pay too many taxes.
I stongly disagree with this. In my faith, we believe citizens should pay as much in taxes as possible. Despite their apparent Christian veneer, we have many followers in Congress.
Huh? Let me put it this way, Mr. Wormhole. Space qualified CPUs go into the most reliable computers ever made. No radiation-hardened computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. They are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
If you don't mind me asking, what was the solution? Is there a way in Unix to get GPS time or a way to make GPS systems spit out the offset? NTP servers using GPS clock sources must have a way to do this properly...
True, but why make it three times worse?
You're confusing "privileged mode" AKA "kernel mode" with "in the kernel". Mach isn't a real microkernel, but it does support the ability to run software in privileged mode without it being "linked in the kernel".
... but it depends on Linus for continued development
... and Linus antipathy towards non-traditional kernels is legendary.
No I'm not confusing the two. Accelerated graphics drivers have been buried so deeply into OSes nowadays that they are extremely hard to separate them from all internal APIs. If your driver allocates memory or accesses the PCI bus, it'll have to follow the license of the host OS code that does that (or disgustingly roll its own version of everything).
And Mach is *too* a microkernel. In fact its one of the most famous and influential microkernels ever written. The Mach project rewrote BSD into a microkernel. OSX is derived from an intermediate version. It is not a pure microkernel, just like NT is a hybrid. That's a pragmatic choice for performance. But what do I know about Mach, I've only read the Mach papers and taken graduate OS courses at the university where it was written (Carnegie Mellon), attended talks by some of the creators, and was a teaching assistant for an OS course at the same university.
Furthermore, whether or not something using a messaging protocol or RPC is "linked" or not hasn't really been answered from a licensing standpoint IMO. I'm sure the GNU Hurd people would argue that a lot of it is linking of some sort, and many others would disagree with them. At any rate, I know I wouldn't go there, especially not if I were a company. Apple is smart enough to avoid walking into a problem like that. What I said in the earlier post was in response to you saying that Apple could use Linux if it wanted to. Since (as you point out) Linux is not a microkernel, it would have to be linked, that's all that matters. Apple (smartly) went for BSD code. They are of course happy to use GPL code for userspace applications, but that's a different issue entirely.
Microsoft says lots of stuff, but it's their actions that count. And their only package that uses a significant amount of real open-source software uses both BSD and GPL components.
The code in their OS that's borrowed was taken from BSD. They are smart enough not to take GPL code. Even for userspace, as that would just bring bad press for their OS product.
Like HFS+?
Good point, that's one of their more significant contributions.
One operating system can't possibly fill all the niches. Linux is tied to a kernel design that works well for a certain class of problems,
Such as the class of problems falling between wristwatches and the world's top supercomputer? I'll settle for that.
Only as much as Apple depends on Steve Jobs. They are influential leaders, but not necessary. Look at LKML and you can watch yourself how things work. Someone could take over tomorrow if Linus could no longer work on the project (Andrew Morton or Alan Cox being likely successors).
NT became successful after they dropped their devotion to a pure microkernel design. OSX has never been a pure microkernel from the start, being derived from an intermediate version of the Mach codebase. Linux has never dabbled with microkernel design since every successful OS has moved in the opposite direction. That's simply pragmatism, and all those OSes made the pragmatic choice.
In the last decade though, all OSes have adopted some of the simpler advantages of a microkernel design, such as modular drivers. If Hurd or DragonFlyBSD ever comes up with something compelling enough, I have no doubt Linux will adopt it. Up to now, there's been no reason to do so.
Have you looked at the the actual code? Or are you just going by "what
Maybe it is... After all it'll certainly take long term thinking to finish the EU constitution.
Rest of the constants are bogus anyway.
Simply being derived doesn't make them "bogus". Thus I fart in your general direction using an ideal gas. (note: R = 8.3144 x 10^7 erg mol^-1 K^-1)
Why? If we switch to leap hours, the only software (and that's what the change is about) that will be disrupted by the change will be software that has to be working 500-600 years from now. A lot of programs could safely ignore leap hours, unlike now, when many programs can't ignore leap seconds.
It's nice to see that only 5 years after Y2K, people have already forgotten the important lesson it taught. We cannot predict what will still be running, so no its not ok for programs to ignore it.
In 1960, people thought: It should be pretty safe to assume that people will use 4 digit years 40 years from now.
Apple has released the source to every major and minor version of just about everything in Mac OS X below the Quartz layer
... they could have used any kernel they wanted.
Did I say "Apple is bad"? No, I said Apple likes the BSD license. After all, its what allows them to keep Quartz (their real competetive advantage, nobody cares about launchd that much, or their kernel which isn't any better than FreeBSD). So while you were busy with your "Apple is good" tirade in response to something I didn't say, you are showing that you agree with me.
I highly doubt there is no kernel-level code in OS-X for graphics, and it is certainly proprietary right now. Accelerated graphics cards do a lot, so these APIs are pretty wide nowadays. Quartz is most likely linked to such an API, and since it does that API doesn't exist in a GPL'ed operating system that'd mean linking non-GPL code with GPL code, which is a no-no. So a GPL OS was out of the question for them. BSD has given Apple the freedom to pick and choose what they want to release. Whether they release 75% or nothing is beside the point, they didn't want to release 100% which is what the GPL would effectively require.
IBM? HP? SGI? Where can I download OpenAIX, OpenHPUX, and OpenIrix? THAT's the kind of code release that would be comparable to what Apple's done.
Apple didn't release OS9, they released their modified BSD/Mach fork. Thus that wouldn't really be equivalent. In fact, everything I can think of that they did release started out as open source. While its nice they released things when they didn't have to, they've kept most of their traditionally proprietary stuff proprietary. This is no different from the UNIX vendors not releasing all of their old code. IBM and SGI have however released entire file systems which were formerly proprietary. In SGI's case, XFS was one of the big advantages of IRIX, so its quite commendable to see what they did (not unlike Apple releasing Quartz, which would be great if they did someday).
In the end we'll get Linux with all the best features from AIX, HPUX, Irix. One great operating system is better than four good ones, IMO. There's room for several operating systems in the market, but not as many as we had 10 years ago.
Imagine if Apple worked with FreeBSD to get their kernel changes adopted rather than forking it (and also hiring away a few important developers). That would require all changes to be open, and high enough quality that open source developers would accept them (no nasty ass hacks to meet deadlines). I think that would have been better overall, and its certainly better for the FreeBSD people as they would get desirable features with zero porting effort.
Microsoft? I wish they'd use MORE BSD code in their kernel, not less. They don't like any flavor of open source all that much, it makes it too hard for them to do things like maintaining an incompatible sockets library.
MS dilikes the GPL, but has actually come out and said they like BSD on more than one occasion. There is no reason to fear competition from an OS that lets you have its best features. It makes perfect sense for a company with their development model.
With your logic, why did IBM and SGI side with Linux and the GPL? If your confused by that, try the following substitution on your post:
proprietary-friendly = friendly to companies which use code, hostile to companies that write/release code.
proprietary-hostile = hostile to companies that use code, friendly to companies that write/release code.
All the sudden, it makes perfect sense why Apple and MS like the BSD license, and IBM, SGI, HP, and everyone else who competes with MS like the GPL. The license you call "hostile" seems to have a lot of support from companies who still make a lot of money on proprietary products.
It's really quite simple; every company would like everyone else's code to be BSD, but would rather release their own code under the GPL (if they have to release it). That way they can use the BSD stuff for whatever they want, while GPL'ing their own code limits the damage other proprietary companies can do.
Well, he said that but without the British slang. I think he'd be much cooler with a British accent, but I'm not sure the UK would be amused. Here's to hoping he doesn't ever get knighted...
While I agree with much of what you said...
The Ports system is far superior to the rpm system. It actually tracks dependancies, and has a system to grab them for you. You are way off base on that statement.
Why did you leave out Debian's dpkg, which the GP mentioned? It's been doing everything you describe for at least 6 years. In the last two years, the rpm based distros have all added dependency tracking systems, such as Suse's excellent Yast tool. If you really want to compile things, Gentoo has a ports system just like the BSDs, and it has worked quite well for a couple of years now.
These discussions are always funny becuase you can see how people never poke around looking at alternatives, and then go and make comments that are way our of date. Read about the other systems, or just admit "I have no idea what they do now". Sites such as KernelTrap are good for cross-OS news stories. Even though I'm regularly a Debian user, that's how I found out about the work on DragonFly BSD, which I think is pretty cool. I think some of that work will percolate into the other OSes, which is why I'm glad most developers *do* keep track of the current work in other free OSes.
Ah but what C compiler does it use? Guess its "complete minus a compiler". Don't worry though, I won't tell RMS so he starts ranting about FreeBSD/GCC.
And shopkeepers pay the mafia protection money "so that no trouble should happen to come upon their store". But that's fine, because at no point was the shopkeeper ever directly threatened.
In the real world, people do connect the dots and interpret an indirect threat.
How true; This fairly useless feature was in AIM first, so its not ours to steal. Apparently it's for MS to steal though, since only big companies get to steal ideas. Go look up who got a patent on the car, and how much they had to do with actually developing the technology. And remember, don't ever make a website where you can carry out a transaction with only one click, since obviously nobody skilled in the trade could ever come up with that idea on their own...