Jump to content

willm

Atomican
  • Content Count

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willm

  1. willm

    Single purpose OS

    Hmm. I don't see how a Linux kernel stripped down to the bare minimum would be functionally different from what you describe. The only way I can see it not being similar is if the kernel was not stripped down as much as it can be. In fact any kernel if stripped down to the very bare minimum should be equivalent to what you describe. edit: anyway if you have now left the discussion as you often seem to do, then thankyou for participating up until you did. It was interesting.
  2. willm

    Single purpose OS

    What about just modifying the kernel support and SMP components to include your application code? So you would have the basic functionality which would be used just to run your application code. Also, why do you find SMP support funny. Would that not be a useful thing to have on modern computers if performance gain was the goal? I still don't see how this is different from stripping down a linux kernel to the bare minimum and then modifying to to include your application code. Would this approach be any worse than making a library available as you describe?
  3. willm

    Single purpose OS

    Well, no. Because as I understood it you could use the OSKit components to make your single purpose OS. Not to make a smaller OS that would run your process, but to integrate the necessary functionality that your application would use to be completely OS independent. If I have completely missed your point and everything I have been saying is irrelvant, fine, and I would like to learn more as to why. No need to be an arse about it. I would appreciate if you just used my name, and toned down the hostility.
  4. willm

    Single purpose OS

    1) OSKit does not in any way resemble a shared object 2) OSKit is not at all, in any way shape or form, intended to support a single application/process as fast as possible 3) OSKit does not, in any way shape or form, benefit people wanting to write a single purpose OS Nice try though, TheSecret. Rob. My understanding of OSKit is that it is flexible enough to support writing a dedicated OS. It may not be its explicit intent, but it can certainly be used to that purpose, can it not? Thankyou for replying, but... 1. Why the hostility? 2. I'm not TheSecret?
  5. willm

    Single purpose OS

    How is the Flux OSKit not what you have described? You appear to be coming across as quite arrogant. Why not clarify what you mean if it is not clear to some, instead of just dismissing peoples input? edit: I'm not a programmer,however I have a good understanding of operating systems and their internals as it was a subject of great interest to me for many years. If what you are describing is out of the scope of my knowledge, why not explain it more thoroughly? That may benefit other people as well.
  6. willm

    Single purpose OS

    nitpicking, but can we stop using the term single purpose OS? It implies an Operating system with a single purpose, rather than a low level application with basic OS functionality. Is that not what you are meaning? OK. Stuff like this has certainly been done. The research area is "dedicated operating systems", and I seem to recall FLuxOS or similar. I will try and find the paper/site for you. For what you mean? Agreed :) edit: Here you go, OSKit. http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/ Is this what you meant? The abstract from the paper: If this is what you mean, then there still will not be performance advantages. The advantages and reasons for making use of the kit would be more to do with re-usability, scalability, flexibility, maintainability etc...
  7. willm

    Single purpose OS

    Quite a few people already mentioned memtest86. I repeat, you should probably do some reading before dismissing the way things are done and thinking you can do it better.
  8. willm

    Single purpose OS

    Haven't people already done so in this thread?Name one... Rob. Haven't people already done so in this thread? By the way, nice way to disregard my reply.
  9. willm

    Single purpose OS

    Haven't people already done so in this thread? Why do you think badly reinventing the wheel is (possibly) a good thing? As people have told you, it comes down to removing the abstraction. Replacing system calls with function calls isn't going to give the performance boost you seem to think exists. In fact, I would think a dedicated application would perform better making use of a modern operating systems functionality(since it will make far better use of modern hardware than your standalone application would) than it would if you wrote it from scratch to be OS independent. If you want to understand why your initial reasoning isn't sound, I would suggest reading up on operating system architecture. In which case, I highly recommend Modern Operating Systems by Tauenbaum..
  10. willm

    Single purpose OS

    That's exactly why we know there are not performance benefits to what you describe. Because there are plenty examples of it being tried before.
  11. willm

    Notorious child killer set to go free

    The hypocrisy and abandonment of principles and basic human values aside? Vengeance derives from emotion and passion, and is often at odds with justice. Vengeance and Justice cannot both operate successfully as a societal institution, and if any semblance of order and fairness is to be maintained, a system based on justice is the only reasonable choice. Of course. Otherwise, we have a justice system based only on retribution, and not rehabilitation. Which isn't very just at all. I do sympathize with your personal experiences, but I do think they may be clouding your opinions on the subject.
  12. He basically said "good luck", and had no involvement with T3 AFAIK.
  13. willm

    Reminder for Summer: Sun Protection

    I've never been sunburnt in Brisbane. Not sure why...perhaps just good skin?
  14. willm

    How do I get a 39Mg Audio file to the UK quickly

    Rapidshare will be the fastest method without costing money. The rest have quite slow upload speeds in Aus, and any web based email service is a joke.
  15. I'm fairly hyped about this movie. One aspect that I am wondering about/looking forward to is the use of 3D. Cameron has always known how to use new technology to the best effect to tell a story, without letting it become the story. When I do see Avatar, I look forward to watching a 3D movie that is more than just things flying at my face. Also wondering if it will usurp District 9 as the best Sci-Fi movie of the year.
  16. willm

    Notorious child killer set to go free

    You seem to be arguing more for revenge, rather than justice. As tragic as it may be, not every person who murders a child carefully plans it and feels triumphant after doing so. edit: as for the death penalty, it isn't excusable under any circumstances. Ideally, our constitution should one day reflect this.
  17. willm

    Dogs are better then Cats

    It's just that they choose not to. our cat uses the toilet (doesn't flush, but still). our dogs still occasionally shit on the carpet, despite a years worth of house training. presonally im not much of a pet person, but i would 100% take a cat over a dog. That's fucking weird. Would freak me the fuck out if I saw it. http://www.litterkwitter.com.au/en/index.php it works bitches. I think I would prefer a litter box to finding cat poop/pee at random intervals when I go to use the bathroom.
  18. willm

    Is it rude to do this?

    That's what I wonder as well. It's only considered rude because of an arbitrary custom which was traditional, and is becoming less common. It doesn't(shouldn't) interrupt or change anything, and will only offend those who choose to be offended because they place importance on that custom.
  19. willm

    Is it rude to do this?

    I can't help but think that is just old fashioned. Perhaps the fact that this is less common behavior today reflects the different generation. What is and is not considered rude is a reflection of society, and if most people don't consider a particular behavior rude, then I think it is fairly safe to say that it isn't rude. I think it is exactly as Chuck Norris stated. After you close your plate, then this should signal to the waiter that it is ready to be taken away.
  20. willm

    Internet Caps = BS?

    Sorry to keep this ongoing, but I have just a small question for VannA. The wikipedia page for Internet in Australia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Australia states: Now, is that incorrect? Was the service not artificially limited at all, and it was just the service they made available, as a result of market forces? I'm still having trouble understanding the point, and I'm wondering if it may be a false dichotomy as a result of miscommunication.
  21. willm

    Randomness in evolution

    I never meant to imply, and don't believe I did, that mutations were planned or the same thing as convergent evolution. I only meant to say that convergent evolution perhaps demonstrates that evolution is not purely random or down to sheer dumb luck as robzy suggests, but is a result of selective pressure. I think convergent evolution demonstrates this, with separate species evolving to be remarkably similar due to similar selective pressures.
  22. willm

    Security Updates

    You can remove the update via Add/remove programs, and then when it shows up again in automatic updates, right click and hide update. If the update is causing problems, then a later update should be released to rectify the problem.
  23. willm

    Randomness in evolution

    Surely the link I provided earlier to Convergent Evolution demonstrates, at least the possibility, that animals evolve due to selective pressure and not just "sheer dumb luck"?
  24. willm

    Internet Caps = BS?

    They can't do this if the companies they would be buying their internet from don't change however. Then they have to pass these expense on to the consumers, so there would be no difference. It isn't really feasible for consumers to start a new business on the same scale as Optus or Telstra and improve things that way. I don't understand why you and robzy disagree that the service is artificially limited or restricted. Reading over the discussion again, it appears I was speaking from a technical context, and you and robzy from an economic context. Is this correct, and just a misunderstanding? Anyway, thankyou for clarifying your point so much. As it stands, I don't have enough knowledge to continue the discussion or properly frame my argument(which appears to be invalid anyway). I don't understand why the concept of greed apparently doesn't apply to companies, but I suppose that's reading for another day.
  25. willm

    Internet Caps = BS?

    (I hope you don't mind that this is continuing, as I feel that I am getting something out of the discussion. perhaps others are as well.) I am sorry for this. I understand that I'm lacking some knowledge, bur taher than read up on economics theory, I am hoping that I can get a good idea of why my thinking is incorrect in this discussion. Why, and how? What can consumers realistically do in Australia to widen the choices available to them? That's true, but it also doesn't contradict the point I am trying to make. Unfortunately, I don't know the appropriate jargon to explain what I think the situation to be. To try and use what is no doubt a poor analogy : I own a small cable tv service in a town of 200 people, and sell cable tv at a price to fairly reflect the cost of running the service, support, whatever other costs of business, etc. Now, I am the only cable tv in that town. No other townspeople can start their own cable tv service, because I own the only link outside of the town. Now, say I offer 100 channels. I charge $50/month for those 100 channels. 50 of those channels cost me twice as much as the remaining channels to provide, and this is reflected in the current price. Now, if I decide not to pay for those 50 channels, this means that only 50 channels will be available to the subscribers. Now, if I don't pass my cost saving on to consumers, then am I not overcharging? What if I decide to limit the service to subscribers by only making the service available on weekdays, not weekends. Without lessening the price to the consumer to reflect the newly limited service. In fact, what if, due to being a monopoly in that town, I decide to bump up the price simply because I can, to gain more profit? How is then not a limited service(as well as being the service provided)? Obviously in that example, the townspeople would probably stop paying, and I would be forced to lower the price or some equivalent action. I would think though that I could do quite close to what I describe, without crossing the line that would cause me to lose a significant amount of customers. For something that is more essential, such as telecommunications, it becomes even easier to to near or perhaps cross that line, with customers not always having the choice to go somewhere else, or to simply go without. It may be an extreme example, but I consider it to be an exaggerated example of the situation in Australia, with it being collusion rather than a monopoly. For whatever reason, the previous explanations are simply not making sense to me. Is it just a semantic thing? Not knowing the jargon? Or am I thinking about it entirely incorrectly? Perhaps the key thing I don't understand, is why the two positions are mutually exclusive. Why can't a company offer a crippled service to increase revenue, and be able to do so because of market forces? Is this really the reason some ISP's charge for domestic traffic? Why don't all ISP's then charge for domestic traffic? What about situations of two customers being with the same ISP and on the same DSLAM?
×