Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5130 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Totally OT: 64/32,... -- memory models are _everything_ to programs
  • From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 01:56:44 -0400
  • Message-id: <1147672604.3069.89.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 07:30 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:
> The entire arguement of this, was taken back in 8/16, to 16/32, you lost
> about 20 years ago. The x864 CPU, is basically an old 8088 using it's AH
> register, that then was extended to be an AX register, that then got extended
> to be an EAX register. All of which exist in a CS (Code Segment) or a DS
> (Data Segment) capable of segmenting the memory access down to 16k blocks.
> All of which currently exist within a built in memory controller that can
> translate memory access within 4k or 16k space.

All this has _nothing_ to do with how programs using memory models. The
CPU isn't the issue, it's the memory models programs/libraries/plug-ins

> The past years, it has been pretty tiresome to hear the old rhetoric at how
> Gates and Windows are evil. That they've been "blocking" innovation. The
> fact of the matter is, that the community of self-proclaimed Gods in the
> Linux community has done more to block it, than Gates, at late. No no, don't
> tell me to start providing patches, because even if I did, they wouldn't be
> accepted by the community. The community hasn't been about "sharing" for
> about 5-10 years.

I'm sorry, but NT 3.51 "Daytona" is where NT became Chicago's bitch. NT
_never_ recovered from that. NT 3.5 was finally a true, Win32 design
with minimal need for WoW (unlike NT 3.1). Today, .NET is a joke and
Win32 is utterly polluted from Chicago -- and NT 6.0 "Longhorn" is
another NT 4.0 "Cairo" fiasco -- almost point-by-point, only 10 years
later. NT's RBAC/MAC is essentially useless if you want to run any
desktop applications.

Patch management on Windows, because of its inter-dependency and
integration, is why it's impossible. Microsoft itself pays serious
money to Altiris to handle its own patch resolution internally (even if
they eventually feed Microsoft SMS or SUS servers). They have ever
since half of Microsoft went down because of SQL Slammer -- when
"staying current" caused 2 newer patches to uninstall the older patch
that would have prevents SQL Slammer. The Microsoft systems being feed
from Altiris management didn't go down, because Altiris QA caught that
and Microsoft's own QA didn't bother.

Something like -- newer patches breaking older ones -- is virtually
_unheard_of_ in the UNIX world. Don't get me started on MS RPC
handshakes and how Microsoft not only breaks their own security
protocols in some patches, but such handshakes aren't even enforced (but
Samba enforces them, so things break).

The UNIX piecemeal model is far more maintainable and secure.
Always has been. Always will be.

> Personally, I'm beginning to think Linux is a platform that I should leave
> by now. Don't like what the core on it is, these days.

GNU is 64-bit clean.
Win32 isn't and never has been.
That's why Microsoft has to use WoW, again.

Digital tried for 10 years to get Microsoft's own tool developers and
application division to actually write to "pure" Win32/64 -- and never
could. Digital knew NT far better than Microsoft, and even wrote Win64
for them. "Longhorn" is a joke, just like "Cairo" was. You can't have
a pure .NET platform when you don't have pure .NET tools -- just like
you couldn't with pure Win32/64 before that either.

Linux x86-64, as implemented by Fedora and SuSE, works extremely well.
True PAE 52-bit programs/libraries, with a good subset of 32-bit / PAE
36-bit libraries and programs (although I have a few complaints).

Windows XP x64 is not. And Vista x64 is a mess right now.

Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign
nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset
because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups