Reply-To: "Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.com>
From: "Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.os.development,comp.os.minix
References: <nlig5tkfkjn3freuarvkglrf3fds1gl7rt@4ax.com> <MPG.14c3b89d9332d8d798984c@news.direcpc.com> <slrn95ked9.3at.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl> <MPG.14c3f049f50eae198984f@news.direcpc.com> <slrn95lq75.i3s.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl> <93fssi$la1$1@news.ilstu.edu> <slrn95ooht.qhl.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010110234351.5152D-100000@winnie.obuda.kando.hu> <93ku3p$6vn$1@news.ilstu.edu> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010112014034.20983K-100000@winnie.obuda.kando.hu> <93m9kb$iv1$1@news.ilstu.edu> <AHA96.6641$3N1.143602@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <MPG.14d0f5f0a07f87d69898a3@news.direcpc.com> <94ersl$gb3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <MPG.14d68357298ed0f99898c3@news.direcpc.com> <94kkp2$ann$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Subject: Re: dumb question: do you fork()?
Lines: 99
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <wtAb6.1140$Z%5.19288@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:56:12 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.104.140.20
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 980341724 213.104.140.20 (Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:08:44 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:08:44 GMT
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Path: news.adfa.edu.au!clarion.carno.net.au!news0.optus.net.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news1.carrier1.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.adfa.edu.au alt.os.development:1045 comp.os.minix:36639

stargazer wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
> > If you take my comments out from between the two parts, the
> > connection is more obvious.  She said:
> >
> > > > Established convention is that an OS is entirely untrusting of its
> > > > application programs...
> >
> > > > The apex of this inefficency is clearly demonstrated by GDI

Ummm...ok...so in your dictionary convention = inefficency, Jerry??

"Established _CONVENTION_ is..."
"The apex of this _INEFFICENCY_ is..."

To make the connection you're making, then "convention" must have to be
synonymous with "inefficency"...even someone as heretical as myself would
not go _that_ far...lol :)

Let me state again, I'm not talking about CPU protection mechanism...and
especially not in GDI's case (that's more the "round the houses" attitude of
"mistrust"...as has been stated, GDI is essentially protectionless...get
with the program, I'm talking a little more generically than you
assume)...I'm talking about a general attitude of mistrust and that this
flaky safety net is the only crutch against bugs for most applications...and
that the only justification that is given is a "safety by numbers"
argument..."hey! everyone else does it this way"...

Let me re-iterate, commonality DOES NOT make for correctness...

Other points in various posts:

I never said my ideas were new...not at all...that was invented by someone
else...

I also never said I wanted to use DOS...that also was invented by someone
else...

The argument was never about CPU protections...that was, again, invented by
someone else...

Also, I _have_ worked in _REAL_ software companies and that is, in fact, the
whole rationale behind my comments and philosophy...I find the practices and
attitudes are understandable, yes, but wholly unjustifiable and, quite
frankly, unacceptable...

Btw, are you reading each other's posts because you're all claiming an
authority over the truth but are widely contradicting each other?? You all
claim "experience" but cite different types of experience...maybe this
_ISN'T_ to do with who's seen the most...maybe it's more to do with who is
_able_ to see the most, if they opened their eyes...

Anyway, its hilarous to an extent that everyone's saying I'm "wrong" but,
almost every post, including the ones that are just sniping personal insults
at me have said pretty much "I agree with your ideas in principle"...

Also, I've used this philosophy of mine in a real-life commerical
environment creating a neural network ("with eyes"...sorry, in-joke ;) that
deployed airbags...it did not need to be a formally specified project but I
thought that such an attitude was grossly vile and unacceptable for even a
commerical "money is everything" company...I gambled with my job, in fact,
and it paid off well...

I insisted to the project team that we were going to do this the right
way...I "wasted" a week or so of development time just to ensure that
everyone was properly on-board with the idea...I was NOT flavour of the
month...

We did indeed deliver a working system (99.7% recognition efficiency - best
yet achieved from an AI system) and did so within schedule and within
budget...the levels of formal specification were, indeed, not to exacting
"millitary" standards but they were exhaustive and systematic...

Everyone on the project fully comprehended what everyone else was doing, as
well, btw, because they could see its complete formal description in black
and white...they could even toy with their ideas with a pen and paper on the
commute into work, without a computer available...coding was far more speedy
and productive because everyone knew what they were going to code...it is
also far more satisifying on a personal level for many, many reasons...

From what I've heard when I got back in contact with one of that team, the
rest of that team are all now converts (and they were far from that to begin
with)...maybe it takes a practical experience (obviously, a good one ;) to
make people appreciate what I'm advocating...

Its more than just bug intolerance...it's an entirely different way of
approaching things...

Ah well...y'all just carry on doing what you're doing...I'll do what I do...

Anyway, does everything in these NGs have to be resolved in such an
attacking manner?

It's True...The Art of Conversation is Dead.
Beth :)




