My Vintage Dream PC

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by GreenXenon, May 18, 2009.

  1. GreenXenon

    jmfbahciv Guest

    Have EDDT, will travel.

    jmfbahciv, May 28, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. GreenXenon

    jmfbahciv Guest

    MS DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DEVELOP!! That's the point I've been trying
    to make. It's a distribution business and that is rooted deep in
    its folklore.

    jmfbahciv, May 28, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. GreenXenon

    jmfbahciv Guest

    Good because I had no idea how to start. Thanks.
    My user mode code has some buffers I want to be written to the
    disk. I do a series of UUOs and CALLIs to convey to the
    monitor's file system handler, memory handler, device routines,
    and controller device routines that I want my bits to be copied
    from here to there and labelled XYZ. I ask the monitor what
    date/time it thinks it is by doing a CALLI. I set up certain
    rules about subsequent usage of the computer system by telling
    the monitor through CALLIs and UUOs. These are the only
    ways the monitor and I, the user, communicate.

    How is that for a start?

    jmfbahciv, May 28, 2009
  4. A salesman who thinks he can program is even more dangerous than a
    programmer with a soldering iron.

    Roland Hutchinson

    He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
    .... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
    --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( )
    Roland Hutchinson, May 28, 2009
  5. For the Morris worm, the vaxen were running BSD unix not VMS (it was a
    sendmail exploit, iirc).

    Scott Lurndal, May 28, 2009
  6. GreenXenon

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    When talking about micro- or nano- kernels, the OS isn't just the
    kernel. While a nanokernel won't (typically) be multithreaded, the full
    OS would have not just multiple threads but multiple processes.

    Any OS worth discussing today will be multithreaded.
    Joe Pfeiffer, May 28, 2009
  7. Pretty clear to me - what we unixy folks would call a syscall
    Ahem A Rivet's Shot, May 28, 2009
  8. GreenXenon

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    A nanokernel OS would have multiple processes, regardless of how many
    processors it was running on (though the context of the discussion is
    multiple processors).

    When it was pointed out that an OS would be multithreaded, you responded
    by saying a nanokernel would not be. My point is that a nanokernel (or
    microkernel) would not be the entire OS, by a long shot, and that the OS
    in total would indeed be multi-threaded.
    Joe Pfeiffer, May 28, 2009
  9. GreenXenon

    FatBytestard Guest

    Nice unsubstantiated, peanut gallery mentality comment.

    WHAT have you heard?

    Mine runs fine. Vista has run fine for over three years, and W7 has
    been running fine for several months now. You nay sayer retards are

    I love it how folks that have ZERO actual experience with things
    expound on them like they actually know what is going on.

    You do not.
    FatBytestard, May 29, 2009

  10. You caught him in a quantum shlip.
    TheQuickBrownFox, May 29, 2009

  11. Can they bore an 8 inch hole through a 3 inch thick steel plate?
    Capt. Cave Man, May 29, 2009
  12. GreenXenon

    FatBytestard Guest

    Core kernel subprocesses can evolve where a dedicated core given to
    that sub-process would be the prudent manner to handle it. Remember when
    Bill said that 64kB was "enough"? There will come a day when the kernel
    is so big, and has so many functions to manage, that in a multi core
    world, the best solution would be a segmented kernel implementation.

    Networking, for example, WITH security built into the kernel, would be
    best handled on a locked, protected core that the main kernel is only
    able to access. The kernel could become a manager of hardware between
    other segments of that hardware, running their own little kernel segments
    on their own CPUs. Not unlike JBOD paradigm. A JBOCores thing.

    The Cell CPU does networking at near wire speeds. Usually such numbers
    are not attainable due to various protocol overhead problems.

    8.5 out of 10 Gb/s is pretty damned good.

    Hardware IP encryption and HAIPE and such is in your future, if you
    have half a brain, and can see the bigger picture. The cell is easily
    FatBytestard, May 29, 2009
  13. GreenXenon

    FatBytestard Guest

    So what?

    Without you providing a more detailed description, including what
    exactly your cosmic ray is supposed to have done, you remark is just shy
    of meaningless.

    Have you seen (now or ever) any modern, embedded systems under

    Your mindset appears to be the single point of failure.
    FatBytestard, May 29, 2009
  14. GreenXenon

    FatBytestard Guest

    You should probably learn to spell it if you are going to expound upon
    FatBytestard, May 29, 2009
  15. GreenXenon

    FatBytestard Guest

    Getting rid of her batch process mentality is the better path.

    The Cell BE is in your future.
    FatBytestard, May 29, 2009
  16. Your suggestion of a nanokernel on one core controlling all other cores
    doesn't scale and is far more complex and less reliable than even a
    monolithic operating system. It is also untractable since the nanokernel
    will need to execute _in the context of the core_ at times and must
    also prevent whatever higher level software is running on that core from
    adversly affecting the rest of the system (e.g. the higher level software
    can't be allowed to program the local APIC (which is part of the core),
    for example).

    What you will see going forward is that the operating sytsem(s) never really touch
    the real hardware anymore and a VMM of some sort manages and coordinates
    the hardware resources amongst the "operating system(s)", while the
    operating systems are blissfully unaware and run applications as they would

    The VMM will be compact, it will be more tractable to prove close to correct
    and will integrate with the platform TPM or TPM equivalent; but it will run
    on all cores as ring -1.

    Scott Lurndal, May 29, 2009
  17. But memory caches, buffers, etc. HAVE changed, and your analysis (and
    training)is about three decades OLD, minimum.

    Speed scales over time. The number of transistors that can be integrated
    into a given die area scales over time.

    We all already know that. Your reply is meaningless.

    The paradigm by which we utilize the hardware can and has changed, and
    will continue to change. You claiming it is all the same is a sad

    Your mind set is what has stagnated.

    Do you even know what current mode logic is, for example?
    TheQuickBrownFox, May 29, 2009
  18. Have you seen ANY modern systems? Do you know how seldom bit errors
    occur these days? Do you know what ECC can do? Do you know how seldom the
    ECC area needs to be referred to on systems where it is utilized? We are
    talking over periods of years!

    When do we get to correct your errors? You were struck by several
    cosmic rays. Errant data spews forth. When are you going to push your
    reset button? You ARE the weakest link.

    Mind sets like yours have stutter stepped man's advancement rate for
    TheQuickBrownFox, May 29, 2009

  19. Any OS that runs on the Cell BE CPU will be if it uses the whole CPU.

    There are Cells in your futures...
    TheQuickBrownFox, May 29, 2009
  20. Exactly. "multiple processes" on a single CPU is only one thread, in
    the final analysis, even if it has little execution order functions, etc.
    helping things out.
    TheQuickBrownFox, May 29, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.