Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Is this a troll? (Score 1) 484

Well, while we are getting rid of the old OS, so all the applications need to be recompiled anyway, lets switch to the Mill Computing Platform. Why? Number one feature for an OS, there is no such thing as a ring zero. All applications, including the kernel, run at the same pace.

Now, couple that with all the benefits of the Mill Architecture.

* Next, lets start with seL4 as the Kernel, as the only mathematically proven, verified bug free kernel*.
* Add Vulkan as the only Graphic API,
* Switch to ZFS for large clusters of Hard disks,
* Switch to an SSD optimized Filesystem for appropriate hardware,
* Add different flavors for the OS. seL4 has this idea that the OS interface is simply made up in how applications pass information. So, you can setup a Windows passing scheme, a Genode passing scheme, a gaming specific passing scheme, an OS X passing scheme and so on and so forth.
You can then have applications written directly to the metal, or locked to one particular scheme.

Yes, I know that it doesn't work quite like this, but we are dreaming, aren't we?

* Yes, this assumes no bugs in the verification and all that jazz.

Comment Re:The Big Three (Score 1) 484

Well, I would imagine he wants the GNU stuff to be able to be swapped out for newer versions without breaking OS X at ever OS update. Or maybe he wants the GNU compiler to be included again. Or maybe he wants the GNU tools to be first class citizens, instead of slowly being fazed out for applications written by Apple.

Then again, maybe he wants the Linux kernel, with the GNU license, instead of the Apple License the Darwin (which is not FreeBSD, though it has some shared history). Or maybe he wants a kernel that wasn't forked from BSD at the time the were trying to create a micro kernel by tacking things on. Or maybe I am just guessing, and I don't know what he wants.

Comment Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple (Score 1) 171

The viral part is forcing you to use the same license. If the GPL were the only option available, it would be very free compared to closed source licenses. Since it is competing with the likes of the BSDs and MITs of the world, it is one of the most restrictive licenses. It forces you not just to use its license with its own source code, but also with others source code, to which the original developer doesn't necessarily have any claim.

Comment Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score 3, Informative) 171

The problem with this argument is if someone forks my project, and publishes it under a newer license, I can no longer accept changes back into my codebase. If I did, I would be forced to use the new license, making the GPL doubly viral, cannibalizing its own license to spread its viewpoint. This is the reason Linus made the Linux kernel GPL2 only.

Comment Re:was this a sarcasm/joke? (Score 1) 78

Unfortunately, this doesn't fix those type of bugs, because they aren't bugs. It also cannot patch a program without the sourcecode, at least not by itself.

What you really want is to use one of these project that translate executable code into, say, c or c++, and from there you could try to do this, if it runs on those systems and can handle anything other than x86 code.

Comment Re:Smell test (Score 2) 78

In fact, you are correct. The article clams they don't have to have the source, but that is only partly true. The recipient, the program that has a bug, must have the source code. The donor, the program that does not suffer from the bug, does not need to have the source code. And this is perhaps the interesting part.

So, say you are creating an open source Office program, and you obviously need to open .doc files. You have mostly everything working, but now you have this one file that crashes your program, but doesn't crash Office. Instead of spending the time to find it, CodePhage allows you to point it at your source code, and at Office, and it will build an internal set of debug like codes of each program. You need to run it on your code with a working example file, then run it with the non working file, it will figure out what you are doing, then it will open the same file with Office, find out if you are doing something out of order or if there is a check you aren't running, and the article describes in a little more detail how it works, though not the nitty gritty. It then modifies your source code, and runs it again, and see if the changes fix it, if not it will continue until it does.

The say in general the bugs they tested were fixed in 20 to 90 minutes.

Comment Re:Security team (Score 1) 517

Spybot S&D has a whitelisting function that allows it to skip whitelisted functions. Its not that hard, you can use the timestamp on the file, or compare the file hash if it looks like it has been changed.

By doing this with at least the files that are not accessible to normal users, and using a limited account, you can mitigate a lot of this.

Comment Re: isn't x86 RISC by now? (Score 1) 161

However, there are projects underway to optimize general purpose instructions, i.e. the Mill CPU designs found at millcomputing.com. They are designing a cpu from the ground up that can process up to 33 instructions per cycle, trying to get the performance per watt of a DSP with the flexibility of a General Purpose CPU.

"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis

Working...