Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:21 In article <era3bm$tvp$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er9hlt$8qk_004(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <er7av0$ijh$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <er6s31$8ss_006(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>When Linux can be installed and used with very little relearning >>>>by any computer owner, then it will cease to be a toy and become >>>>a general purpose tool. It hasn't reached that maturity..yet. >>>>It is getting there rapidly. >>> >>> >>>That is the case today. The average computer owner sends email, recieves >>>spam, surfs the web and plays Minesweeper. >> >>Then you have not been keeping up with what is going on in the >>real world. Clear your windows and take another look. > >Go take a look at what all those PCs get used for. What I listed was most >of it. People have PCs in there home that only serve as a very limited >tool. Nope. I'm currently running a test so see just how much pressure people are getting to start doing on-line banking. The latest development is that any check you write is handled like a debit card. The requirement for a voucher for each payment is disappearing. >>> You get all that in many >>>installs today. All the user has to do is answer yes to installing the >>>software. >> >>Youare a decade behind. > >No. You aren't noticing or you've already converted. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:34 In article <5f310$45d8a544$4fe770f$11782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <9b5c0$45d854a8$4fe75aa$9801(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <er7blr$ijh$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <er6sft$8ss_009(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <er4gcr$1ln$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <er45hl$pkf$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >>>>>>>jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 2007-02-15, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The DOS mind set was to only do one thing at a time. Some bits of >> >> later >> >>>>>>>>>versions looked like multitasking was intended but abandoned. Even >> >> very >> >>>>>>>>>later versions save registers into code space instead of onto the >> >> stack. >> >>>>>>>>I read that there was a multitasking dos released by Microsoft in >>>>>>>>Europe. and then there's Deskview and I think Digital Research had >>>>>>>>a go at multitasking dos too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I played with something called multidos (I think it) was shareware or >>>>>>>>freeware and faked multitasking somehow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you call two tasks "multi", >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't :-). >>>>> >>>>>I could do 3 too. >>>>> >>>>>It just takes a little more coding. >>>> >>>> >>>>My point is that it should not take more coding to add and/or >>>>subtract. To have to do coding in order to add one is a crock. >>>>None of our old customers would have accepted this. We certainly >>>>did not have the resources to code every time we needed to run >>>>an extra task. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>I wrote one that worked quite nicely. It >>>>>>>allowed the user interface task to run while disk I/O and printing etc >>>>>>>also ran. It was very special purposed so it wouldn't be something to >>>>>>>market. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It really isn't that hard to create a multitasking system if only one >> >> task >> >>>>>>>is allowed to touch a given bit of hardware. Mostly you just have to >>>>>>>change the stack pointer and return from the timer interrupt into the >>>>>>>other task's context. >>>>>> >>>>>>You have a very big IF in that sentence. ;-) >>>>> >>>>>Yes, but the two tasker served its purpose quite nicely. I created only >>>>>the tool I needed for the purpose not a general OS. >>>> >>>> >>>>Sure. I understand what you did. :-) Now think about all the >>>>different kinds of hardware, formats, software, etc. and the >>>>fact that each person's individual system are all different from >>>>any other system in the world, past and future. >>>> >>>>You can't force everybody to code every time they want to do >>>>something extra. >>> > > >>>Where's that supposed bright line between coding and using? > >> <GRIN> Believe it or not, compilation. I guess I'd better >> define this one. Compilation is the computing service that >> changes your ASCII character directions into data blocks >> that a linker can use to produce an executable set of >> machine insructions. > >You mean like when I type a name and password in at >the appropriate prompts. :-) Yep. You are very good at thinking. [admiring emoticon here] > >I understand what you think you wrote, but that >doesn't define a bright line. Sure it does. However, the bright line changes depending on how deep into the [emoticon tries to think of a word] layers of functionality you are coding and/or flowcharting. This is when the notion of black boxes coming into design work. >When I set up a >crontab to repeat a computer process (perhaps back >up a set of files and put them on tape or a cd) at >a certain time every day am I coding or am I using? The set up is the coding. The action is the using. Separating these two is THE key to having a well-designed piece. An OS designer has to be able to "change hats" almost unconsciously when s/he is viewing the bit flow the coding has to deal with. It gets really interesting when the OS has to treat itself as data, then an EXE, then data. JMF's term was "in behalf of the user" when he would execute his exec code pretending he was the user. >Same thing with a doze PC and "scheduled tasks." > >There are libraries at all "higher levels." I view this >as a discussion well suited to fuzzy logic analysis. Oh, it's more complicated than fuzzy logic :-)). That's what makes the work fun to do. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:36 In article <3heht2tqsvlhsccjp3poli4dipmakcmr2t(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Feb 07 14:00:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> >><GRIN> Believe it or not, compilation. I guess I'd better >>define this one. Compilation is the computing service that >>changes your ASCII character directions into data blocks >>that a linker can use to produce an executable set of >>machine insructions. >> > > OMG... you got one right. > > You are no longer batting 1000 on wrong answers! Uh-oh. The answer must be wrong. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:40 In article <6baf5$45d8df82$49ecf3c$12829(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <5f310$45d8a544$4fe770f$11782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >> BAH wrote: >> >>>>>Where's that supposed bright line between coding and using? >>> >>>><GRIN> Believe it or not, compilation. I guess I'd better >>>>define this one. Compilation is the computing service that >>>>changes your ASCII character directions into data blocks >>>>that a linker can use to produce an executable set of >>>>machine insructions. >>> >>>You mean like when I type a name and password in at >>>the appropriate prompts. :-) >> >> >> No, that is obviously an interpreter. >> >> >>>I understand what you think you wrote, but that >>>doesn't define a bright line. When I set up a >>>crontab to repeat a computer process (perhaps back >>>up a set of files and put them on tape or a cd) at >>>a certain time every day am I coding or am I using? >> >> >> I'd say both in this case. It is an interpreter you are coding for, you >> are using, lets say, vi and likely bash to do it. >> >> >> >>>Same thing with a doze PC and "scheduled tasks." >> >> >> In that case you are neither programming not a user. You are a victim. >> >> >> >>>There are libraries at all "higher levels." I view this >>>as a discussion well suited to fuzzy logic analysis. >> >> >> I disagree. Fuzzy logic is just a digital guy trying to do analog. > >Disagree all you want. Disagreement doesn't change the >facts or the scope. It does need discussion from my POV. That's the first time anybody asked the question and the first time I've tried to set it down in English ASCII. Thus, I'm still thinking about it because I surprised myself with that answer. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 19 Feb 2007 09:49
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >Video, and audio, playback is about as realtime as it gets. > > Not if the bits can be stored before displaying. It's not *realtime* then silly ! Goodness, your ability to invent new bizarrely distorted meanings for words knows no bounds. Graham |