Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Damage or Change? (Score 5, Insightful) 487

by Urkki (#47765123) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.

You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?

Yes, I agree.

Comment: Re:Amazing to use such a crude programming languag (Score 1) 98

by Urkki (#47764285) Attached to: Project Zero Exploits 'Unexploitable' Glibc Bug

Nothing prevents writing runtime libraries on safer languages than C, even C++11 would be a lot better (unless abused, but that applies to C too). And assembler is used very little these days, because there are many relevant CPUs in the market (ARM variants, x86, x64).

Comment: Re:Amazing to use such a crude programming languag (Score 1) 98

by Urkki (#47763045) Attached to: Project Zero Exploits 'Unexploitable' Glibc Bug

Protip: Your fancy "modern" language is written in this "crude" language.

Even if a compiler for a "fancy" safe language were written with a "crude" unsafe language, it would still be just one program to verify for ptr++ kind of bugs. Additionally, a compiler is a classical input -> output kind of non-interactive program, which yields itself very well for running under verification tools like valgrind, which increases confidence that at least for any given input, it will not do nasty things.

Comment: Re: I hope not (Score 1) 507

by Urkki (#47746959) Attached to: If Java Wasn't Cool 10 Years Ago, What About Now?

Compile and link is a simple concept.

10000 functions, create 10000 objects, 9990 are unused. 10 get copied to one bigger object. Duh!

Mmm, not sure what point or joke you are trying to make, but it is ruined by numerical inaccuracy: generally one object (whether you mean C++ class or a compiler output object file) contains many exported functions.

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

by Urkki (#47717861) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

"No, stripped to the bone, operating system offers no APIs at all"
I think we called those Kernels and it's already done in the linux and bsd world not windows.

Mmm, yeah, a barebone OS would not have almost anything except the kernel. But Linux and BSD kernels offer a complex API: all the system calls. Not barebone at all.

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

by Urkki (#47717809) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

Or

It would have to be able to shut itself down, on PC probably by ACPI events.

Oh, that's communication, then you can hack it.

I don't know, it could be made to be one-time trigger, which starts the shutdown. If there's no way to get altered input through, that will not allow hacking. It should be simple enough to,be made bug-free.

+ - Linus Torvalds Want to Dominate the Desktop->

Submitted by darthcamaro
darthcamaro (735685) writes "Linux is everywhere or is it? At the LinuxCon conference in Chicago today Linus Torvalds was asked where Linux should go next. Torvalds didn't hesitate with his reply.

"I still want the desktop," Torvalds said as the audience erupted into boisterous applause.

Torvalds doesn't see the desktop as being a kernel problem at this point either, but rather one about infrastructure. While not ready to declare a 'Year of the Linux Desktop' he does expect that to happen — one day."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

by Urkki (#47713691) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

Note that discussion is about users noticing performance gain with OS running on bare metal in the year 2020. At that time, with harware of that time, they'll need a benchmarking software to notice the difference between native and VM host, even for stuff like games.

In fact, at that time, I think state-of-the-art games etc PC software will be delivered as VM images, because the OS part of those images is going to be so small part of total size of the game that it is inconsequential, and developing against a fixed virtual OS is going to save tons of time, especially on the compatibility testing.

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

by Urkki (#47710413) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

How would you even know if it's running?

Well, for the totally barebone version, you could run it in a VM and examine its memory contents there.

I think even barebone OS would need *some* functionality. It would have to be able to shut itself down, on PC probably by ACPI events. It would probably need to be able to start the first process/program, because I think an OS has to be able to do that, even if that process then wouldn't be able able to do anything due to lack of APIs. Etc. So even barebone, it still needs to do something.

More practical than examining a VM, much like physical skeletons on display, most likely there would be some extra support to be able to see what is going on. Equivalent of wires and rods for a real skeleton would be some kind of debug features for the barebone OS: display messages on screen or over RS232, possibly accept some commands like reboot or dump information, even provide machine language debugger/disassembler.

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 2) 129

by Urkki (#47710143) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

No, stripped to the bone, operating system offers no APIs at all, and it will not run any user applications.

Uh, what would be the point of such an operating system?

Point would be to have a stripped to the bone OS.

Actually it's kind of same as having a stripped to the bone animal (ie. skeleton): you can for example study it, put it on display, give it to the kids to play with... ;)

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 4, Informative) 129

by Urkki (#47710129) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

First, assumption is that we're talking about the kind of virtual machines people run in VirtualBox etc, using the native CPUs etc. IOW, not talking about emulators like QEMU.

VM host RAM overhead is essentially static, while VM guest memory sizes go up along with all memory sizes, so actually RAM overhead asymptotically approaches 0%.

30% CPU, just how do you get that number? Virtual memory page switches etc may have some overhead in VM maybe, I don't know, but normal application code runs at the raw CPU just like code on the host OS.

And there's normally no emulation of hardware, there's just virtualization of hardware in the normal use cases. Hardware can also be directly connected to the VM at the lowest possible level, bypassing most of the host OS driver layers (non-performance-related, this is very convenient with mice and keyboards in multi-monitor setups, where each monitor can have a VM in full screen with dedicated kb&mouse in front of it, no more looking at one VM while focus is in another).

Comment: Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

by Urkki (#47709833) Attached to: Operating Systems Still Matter In a Containerized World

No, stripped to the bone, operating system offers no APIs at all, and it will not run any user applications. It will just tend to itself. Then you add some possibilities for user applications to do things, the less the better, from security and stability point of view. Every public API is a potential vulnerability, a potential window to exploit some bug.

Comment: Re:What debate? (Score 1) 115

by Urkki (#47636649) Attached to: Can We Call Pluto and Charon a 'Binary Planet' Yet?

Planet and Dwarf Planet are arbitrary labels defined by the IAU.
How can you "debate" about that?

Well, they're not really arbitrary. There are at least three points you can argue about:

1. Argue to change the definition (actual written words), which determines which is which and what isn't either.

2. Argue about interpretation of the defintion. Though, if this succeeds, then it makes the definition ambiguous, and the classification of border cases does become arbitrary.

3. Argue about the chosen terms "planet" and "dwarf planet". For example I'm personally not too happy having "dwarf planets" which are not a subclass of "planets", it's a bit unintuitive to me.

Comment: Re:Binary yes, planet no. (Score 1) 115

by Urkki (#47636623) Attached to: Can We Call Pluto and Charon a 'Binary Planet' Yet?

neither has Jupiter. Zing.

"Cleared its orbit" means, the planet controls everything which shares or crosses orbit with it. This may mean the usual moons, but also oribtal resonance (such as the Pluto-Neptune resonance) and minor bodies oribiting the Lagrange points of the planet (Trojans at L4/L5) instead of the planet itself like the usual moons.

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell

Working...