Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What a bunch of Wuss (Score 1) 572

by rev0lt (#47702481) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

In the early days all of Germany's neighbors were weak in comparison, they'd all been through WW1 also.

I don't really see where you got that idea. The british empire had what was probably the most well-oiled war machine at the time - and Germany gave them a run for their money.

No one really wanted to get into a war and were slow to react.

If you mean "leaders were well aware of the consequences of war in your own backyard because it had happened a decade and a half before", yeah. No redneck reasoning here. And when the Americans realized this, they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They've witnessed the horrors of the invasion of China and what is now Korea a couple of years before. (Hint: google "nanking massacre" - it makes the german seem inefficient by comparison).

If Germany had just grabbed their "lebensraum" and stopped they probably could have kept it.

You seem to forget that WWII was also fought in Africa. And Asia. Germany was fighting every major country on Earth at the time (with the exception of Japan), and had taken control of France and Netherlands, both with colonies in Africa.

Comment: Re:What a bunch of Wuss (Score 1) 572

by rev0lt (#47702411) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft
Even after the USA entered, if Germany had invested into expanding their submarine fleet as it was proposed internally (and, at the time, they had the biggest submarine fleet in the world), it would not have been difficult to cut the US supply lines to the allies by taking control of the Atlantic. Again, bad decisions.

Comment: Re:Over paid (Score 1) 442

by rev0lt (#47609931) Attached to: Big Bang Actors To Earn $1M Per Episode

I just thing it's not worth millions of dollars a year.

No professional career is worth millions of dollars a year, even if you're running into burning buildings or doing the other crap you mention. Btw, writing is way easier than acting, at least for me. It has to do with talent. But - BUT - if someone builds a business model around your specific skill/trick/whatever that generates millions in revenue, aren't you entitled to a cut? That's how professional sports work. Acting careers. Writing careers. Inspiring spokesman. Religious leaders. Politicians. Bankers. Whatever, all those people making millions a year. They're just taking a cut of the profit their work generates. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 739

by rev0lt (#47562811) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

https://lkml.org/lkml/1998/9/3... [lkml.org] I don't know what else to tell you. They really do suck. Trap-gates are faster and safer. Call-gates are... prettier, more elegant.

Have a look at Linux 2.0 implementation. You'lll see an interrupt handler copying registers to the stack, and *then* invoking the call gate. So basically, doubling the work. And no, interrupts are not safer, as they don't provide stack isolation. This is done *manually* in the Linux implementation.

It's probably much a much narrower/null lead these days with massive caches, but back in 98, it was serious business.

I seriously doubt that. I was working extensively with x86 assembly in 98, and actually implemented call-gate systems in some of my pet projects. Granted, they were pet projects, not a mainstream piece of OSS, but I don't share that experience.

he various kernel mailing lists are abound with discussions on people wanting to try out call-gates, and finding out that *they suck*.

AFAIK, the implementation 2.0/2.2 still uses a call gate. Not directly, but inside the IV.

Also, SYSENTER wasn't switched to until we ran into the P4's massive pipeline stall on trap-gates, which the AMD K6 did *not* exhibit. It wasn't a fundamental problem with the trap-gate itself, but a quirk of the Netburst architecture.

It is a fundamental problem with the trap gate. The pipeline size and the agressive branch prediction mechanism only made it worse. Shorter pipelines don't suffer as much, as they are faster to clean and less prone to stupid execution stalls. Also, there was a huge amount of optimization done on silicon for this since 32 bit operating systems using interrupts became mainstream, and the same can't be said for the architecturally complex call-gate solution. SYSENTER simplifies a lot, but performs basically the same task as a call gate.

The fact that the unices/dos used entry 0x80 in the IDT, and NT used 0x2e, and 95 used 0x30, with call-gates to VxD code (eventually gotten rid of) doesn't mean the methodology of the trap was what was inherited

Actually, the fact that many other architectures do not provide any other user-defined global entry point besides the interrupt table has a huge weight in it; I don't see any problem with the metodology, if you're implementing a portable system. I see problems with a specific implementation of it on an operating system designed from the ground up for x86, and one of those problems is that whoever implemented it clearly had no clue about how it worked.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 868

by rev0lt (#47562595) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Jews, on the other hand, have thousands of years old connection to the land. There are historical artifacts, found all across Israel with Hebrew writings on them, and indeed most of Jewish history can be traced back to Greater Israel.

As many other tribes do, including many many muslim settlers. Jews didn't existed as a "nation" trying to form their own country since the beginning of the 30's. Problems between jewish settlements and muslim settlements go back many many centuries, as both shared the same piece of land. To suggest that jews are the ones with the legitimate right to it is to be narrow-minded. During the beginning of the XX century, they were actually a minority in the region. In fact, when jews all over Europe started returning to the "promised land", the influx was so big that the Brits passed laws limiting Jewish emigration.

The sad reality, is that we have a "neighbour" that is so extreme and hell bent on our extermination, that we have no choice but to continue defending ourselves.

That is a piss-poor excuse. I bet your neighbour doesn't have nuclear devices and the backing of the most well-equipped army in the World. But if that "us-or-them" attitude is what makes you sleep well at night - by all means. But regardless, both sides are to blame.

Comment: Re:"Proportional response" is nonsense (Score 1) 868

by rev0lt (#47562537) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

That lie was exposed as such, when the Gazans voted — in free and internationally-observed elections [washingtonpost.com] — for Hamas [wikipedia.org].

Oddly enough, when American citizens are killed by the thousands as a response to direct actions of their freely elected democratic government, its called "terrorism", and it is a legitimate excuse to bomb the shit out of other countries. What you're saying is that anyone that suffered directly from decisions made by the US governments has the legitimate right of shooting down *any* american, just because it exercised its democratic duty. So, lets expand this concept - there has been some heavy international military interventions in the last decade, coordinated by more than a dozen democratic nations. It was their government's decision to take part on it. What you're defending is, that if you were on the other side of any of those interventions, you have the *right* to kill *anyone* from any of those countries, because they elected a government?
I actually hope you're an american.

Contrary to the haters' portrayal, IDF are not indiscriminate killers they don't need this sort of calculations to try their hardest to avoid killing innocent civilians. Shit still happens, unfortunately.

Its not the hater's portrayal when you have western media covering it, and even have Israel allies asking questions about this. Are you really convinced that Hamas has a super-duper propaganda machine that is bigger and more efficient than Israel's/US machine? Shit happens when you bomb one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and they don't care.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 868

by rev0lt (#47562389) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

So I really do think that comparing casualty numbers here, when they're competently kept low by Israel and intentionally driven up by hamas, and yes they're deliberately trying to get their own killed for the press value, is a little disingenious. Unless you don't mind parrotting Hamas propaganda. Because that is what it is: Propaganda, very very bloodily so.

And what do they have left? I'd suggest you try to corner a common house pet like a cat or a dog, and see what happens. It is easy to take the moral high ground when you have food, water, sanitation and electricity. And a job, public transportation, schools, shelter. Parks for kids to play. Do you think everyone in Gaza is a terrorist? Do you think every arab is a terrorist?
Imagine yourself without most of what you take for granted, and that you look across your fence and your neighbour has everything you want and is laughing at you. It is hard not to get emotional on this, specially when you have an active propaganda machine telling you who the enemy is. And this machine exists in both sides.

Keep in mind, what is now the US and Australia was partially colonized by western criminals. Does this mean they are all criminals, and their children need to die? I don't think you believe what you wrote.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 868

by rev0lt (#47562327) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Hamas started it and reuses to agree to any proposed cease fire. Israel isn't the group calling for the extermination, Hamas is. Israel has also offered legitimacy to the Palestinian government in exchange for a cease fire and removing the language in the charter to kill all jews.

So, a guy insults you and says you should die. You shoot him and his family? Is this the appropriate response? Because that's what I've seen Israeli leaders and spokesman defend, and they don't look like batshit crazy terrorists. The other guys do.

Comment: Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 739

by rev0lt (#47559237) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

They suck. That's why Linux didn't use them (int 0x80).

Wrong. Linux didn't use them because every Unix OS out there didn't use them because... You know, they weren't designed specifically for x86. And - contrary to *every* single f***ing int 0x80 implementation out there, x86 Linux uses/used to (before SYSENTER) by-register instead of by-stack parameter passing convention.

That's why Windows NT didn't use them (int 0x2e)

Windows NT didn't use them because it was designed as a highly portable micro-kernel. Initially they targeted other architectures besides x86, such as MIPS. There were other reasons, and AFAIK most of the *actual* protection mechanism from the kernel was developed by an outside consultant (read it on a book some years back about Windows 95, cannot vouch for accuracy).

That's why *BSD didn't use them (int 0x80).

BSD kernels weren't designed for x86. They were ported for x86. The ports were done using the most generic approach. And every x86 BSD kernel uses by stack convention, not by register.

That's why OSX doesn't use them (int 0x80).

OSX wasn't designed as a x86-only operating system, and also inherits from BSD and XNU. XNU is based on Mach, which is based on 4.2BSD, so again, a port, not a native x86 development.

Cache locality is horrible, the far pointer requires more bytes/instruction and segment registers suck- especially when running in protected mode

You're kidding me, right? A single call that triggers a processor mechanism that creates a destination stack frame, SECURELY copies X bytes of stack between levels and invokes a higher - or LOWER level function? Most 32 bit code is 4-byte aligned anyway and binaries built page-bounded, so the actual savings are bare to none. And call gates are *actually* faster than interrupts. And given the way that protected memory works, I'd expect to see way more cache penalties on the interrupt approach than with a call gate. And all this not considering the huge amount of executed code before dispatching the actual syscall, at least on the kernels I mentioned.

The "DOS-style" syscalls you're referring to are a software interrupt trap, (also called a trap-gate).

No, you're confusing software interrupts (such as int 21h, int 80h, etc) with parameter convention. DOS-style is to pass parameters to interrupts by register, eg. ah=25h, al=00, int 21h. Every other x86 unix implementation passes by stack, not by register. There is the "but its slower" argument that falls when you actually look at the 2.0 kernel implementation specifics.

Every OS worth mentioning used them prior to SYSENTER being introduced.

True. Most unixes did it because of ABI compatibility (the use of int 0x80 predates any semi-decent protection mechanism from Intel, probably by a decade). Also, most OS developers aren't really tied into building a better mouse trap; If you look at it, most OSs use more-or-less exactly the same design, because most of the guys building them all learned from the same book and the same source references (nothing wrong with that, and it is truely the work of masters), and the guys that didn't usually don't care about x86 at all. Some are little details (such as the call gate stuff), others are a bit more serious (as in the case of not using the cpu's segmentation mechanism in userland applications to provide complete separated read-execute and read-write selectors), but in the end is like having a Ferrari to drive to church :)

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Working...