Posts by StrangerHereMyself 1545 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Jul 2020
Windows development is handled by interns and $6 an hour Indians. Microsoft isn't serious about Windows development anymore only adding features that will improve its bottom-line and stock price (like the dreaded A.I.). The attack surface is therefore getting larger and larger. Nothing ever gets removed because no one knows if it will break things.
The knowledgeable people have all been transferred to other projects, most likely A.I. and Azure.
Even if that were true then Rust should only be used for Systems Programming (i.e. operating systems, device drivers) and not for developing application programs (and that includes tools like Unix utilities).
The learning curve for Rust is simply too great to force it on application programmers. What we need is a compiled Application Programming Language with safety features and a familiar C-like syntax. C# could've been that language was it not that Microsoft chose to make it a runtime-bound language.
C is a Systems Programming Language and therefore doesn't require or need bounds checking or memory protection. The lack of these isn't a design fault it's a FEATURE!! The error we keep making is that we use a Systems Programming Language to write application software!!
We should invent a new Application Programming Language which has a the same familiar C syntax, but with aforementioned protections built-in.
Linux has shown me that there's an enormous demand for an open-source operating system people can tinker with and base products on without having to bother paying anyone or begging for the source code. Linux isn't the "best" operating system (far from it IMHO), but it's "good enough" for most purposes. That's why it can be found in everything that's connected to the internet, from a fridge to a supercomputer and everything in between.
I would've liked to have seen a future when Minix or some other microkernel operating system thrived, but due to Tanenbaum's ill fated decisions not to license his OS Linux took over that role.
The advantage of a microkernel is that its core system services are so small that they can effectively be written in assembler, making the overall system much faster and responsive.
Hand-coded assembly will always be faster, this has nothing to do with the IPC system.
In fact, I'm disappointed Microsoft hasn't rewritten Windows core parts in assembly. The dream of multi-architecture has been dead for decades so writing assembly for core parts is worthwhile.
Look at what KolibriOS is doing with assembly. A full-fledged operating system with an UI in less space than a single Windows program's Help file! It's so small the entire operating system could fit inside the processor cache!!
It simply isn't good enough. A compiler doesn't know about a programmer's intentions and has a very limited horizon for optimizing code. Context switching is performed thousands of times per seconds so even small improvements here make a huge difference.
Maintainability aren't much of an issue because the kernel code involved is very small and almost never changes. I'm pretty sure the Windows scheduling code hasn't been touched in decades.
The advantage for Microsoft is that Rust requires essentially no maintenance. If it compiles and works as expected then it's guaranteed to be free of memory snafu's and vulnerabilities (save for logical ones, of course).
The C code base requires continuous scrutiny, especially when changes are made. This costs a lot of money and more importantly developer capacity. Capacity that might be better spent on improving the product.
The Linux kernel itself needs to be replaced with a microkernel written in pure assembly with its device drivers and userspace utilities written in Rust. It should be a drop-in replacement so most Linux distro's can continue without even noticing.
Linux is pure C and I doubt this will ever change in a meaningful way as this story illustrates.
The idea of making a programming language difficult to use to sort out the "weak" developers is ludicrous. Humankind needs more developers because the demand for computer software is ever growing. Making programming an art that only a few sages understand is not in the general interest.
I'm personally a great fan of Garbage Collected languages like Java van C# since it fits the natural model of humans creating objects left and right and letting the computer figure out when to clean things up.
Rust is only needed because a) the GC languages mostly run on a virtual machine and are therefore deemed too slow b) over time software developers grabbed a Systems Programming Language (namely C) to write application software.
Instead of creating a safe application programming language boffins have decided to create a safe Systems Programming Language which developers again intend to write application software with. Yes, this is as illogical as it sounds, but it is the reality we live in today.
This has always been my experience. Once the "prototype" works management wants it put into production ASAP even though you warned them not to.
That is why I don't write prototypes anymore. If I write code it's according to my three-layer architecture standards and fully unit tested so I can easily change it without it falling apart like a deck of cards.
I hear some noises on the interweb that the next Starliner flight will be a uncrewed cargo mission. I find that difficult to believe but alas, there you have it.
I suspect that in the next few weeks we'll hear Boeing pulling out of the Commercial Crew Program despite assurances to the contrary.
Intel is right to focus on high-end nodes like 18A instead of 20A. Everybody wants the highest density so they can claim the most powerful AI-chip to please the stock market and to up their share price. A substandard process simply doesn't cut it.
In the end there's really no choice but to continue no matter what investors say since it's too dangerous for the U.S. and the West to rely on a firm that's located on a disputed island which may get invaded almost any minute. Intel must march on and get it right, no matter how much money needs to be spent.
If Intel can get nose to nose with TSMC and China starts making the wrong noises Intel's profits will simply explode beyond anything imaginable. Right now may be a good time to invest in Intel.
The oldest Linux Mint PC I have running is an AMD Athlon 64 machine with 2GB of RAM from 2007 (!). I don't use it on a daily basis, of course, but it's there when I need it.
The one I use daily is an Intel Core i7-2600 from 2010 or so with 4GB of RAM. I replaced the HDD with a Samsung SSD (1TB) and it doing so has made it blazingly fast. The best way to speed up any PC or laptop is to replace the HDD with a SSD.
The biggest advantage of Cloud is in my opinion redundancy. You can mirror you database to another region in another country or even another continent. For example, if the floodgates near London fail it will be nice to know your data is still accessible from the Liverpool DC.
If the UK gets embroiled in an nuclear war it's nice to know your company can still access its data from the Seattle DC.
That's the only advantage I see for regular companies. For startups the ability to quickly scale may be invaluable but that's only a small part of the demographics.
Ever since I read that story of a guy who ran some job on Google's cloud and made a programming error and racking up a $60,000 (!) bill over the weekend I've been steering clear of Cloud development.
I wiped my AWS account as soon as I was done with it.
I use VPS servers and run whatever I need on them, upping the memory and processor capacity as needed. No Cloud for me.
The taxpayers hand over money for private companies to invest yet all the profits remain private.
I'm not against investing public money but only if part of the profit is returned to the taxpayers. And I don't just mean in terms of jobs (because that's what private companies always cite as an excuse).
Not a chance. Because they're E2EE no one knows what's being exchanged or said on those platforms. Therefore LEA cannot make any requests for content (they can however ask for IP addresses) and when they do WhatsApp / Meta will tell them they cannot oblige because of the encryption.
The most powerful feature of WhatsApp is Disappearing Messages, which makes it almost impossible for LEA to build a case against someone.
The fact that Telegram isn't E2EE encrypted makes him liable for any wrongdoing on the platform. If Telegram ignores all pleas from LEA (law enforcement agencies) to remove stuff or handover information on individuals the CEO can be held accountable.
The fact that he holds multiple passports will work against him in this case because Russia cannot legally come to his aid. France can claim he's a French citizen and can therefore by tried as such.
I also believe Russia is trolling because I don't for a second believe Telegram is being used for confidential military communications. They're just out to throw stones into our pond whenever they can.
I see the Boom as an interim solution until a quiet supersonic passenger airplane is finally developed, as NASA is doing with QUESST. High-supersonic speeds are needed to make supersonic speeds worthwhile. You need at least Mach 2 and preferably something beyond Mach 3 for it to have an impact.
I'd love to be able to fly to Australia or New Zealand in 8 hours or so. The long flight times are the thing that's keeping me from visiting these countries.
What really bothers me is that Aerojet Rocketdyne says they've never seen any problems with these thrusters. Have they outsourced their development to $6 / hour Indian engineers too?
I mean, thrusters like these have been made and used for at least 50 years and all of a sudden there are issues which cannot be explained by the manufacturer! This is all very worrisome.
I mean: could they've come up with a different flight rationale to send down Butch and Sunita on this POS? I believe NASA engineers would've been up in arms and publicly denouncing the decision.
NASA management wanted them to return in Starliner but couldn't find an excuse to do so.
The current management thinks engineers are overpaid bigots who dare to question their wisdom all the time. So they've outsourced everything and turning the company into a marketing operation. Their products are all "legacy" (read: developed by their forerunners) and developing new products isn't really possible because they fired all the knowledgeable people.
Management is laser focused on getting their $100 million bonus package. The rest is merely noise.
Boeing is basically doomed. Only a fool who believes otherwise.
NASA and Boeing are claiming that Starliner will fly again with crew. Is anyone buying that? Not me.
The article claims that Boeing has lost money on Starliner but I'm convinced that this is not the case. Boeing doesn't give anyone insight into its cost structure and profit taking on Starliner. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the engineers got less than half of the $4.3 billion to build and test the spacecraft. With all the writedowns Boeing is still in the black.
I'm pretty sure Boeing's management doesn't care about their safety (although the company will publicly deny that). They know that if Starliner returns without a crew the program is dead. There's simply not enough time to patch up the Starliner's thrusters and fly another CFT before the ISS is retired.
NASA says that they're "100%" certain that Starliner will fly again with crew. I'm convinced they didn't consult with Boeing on that statement.
The question is whether "privacy preserving advertising" will survive if targeted, privacy-invasive advertising is ten times more profitable. What will Mozilla do when advertisers aren't interested in web users' privacy but crave more money and sales instead?
Will they derate the privacy preserving features quietly without anyone noticing (very unlikely no one will notice)? This could turn into a PR disaster which could dwarf CrowdStrike.
That's literally the case for the Russians. The Boeing team had to learn anew how to design and build a manned capsule spacecraft. The people that designed and built the Apollo capsule have long since retired or passed away. The only thing the Boeing team had was some blueprints, books and possibly someone around who had some inside knowledge on how they built Apollo / Gemini etc.
That plus the fact that technology and manufacturing techniques have changed markedly over the last 50 years made it challenging for them to build another spacecraft.
If the astronauts had been Boeing employees this would've been sorted out long ago (they would've been ordered to return aboard Starliner).
But since the astronauts are NASA employees the agency has a say in this. In fact, they have the last word on whether Butch and Sunni will be returning on Starliner.
NASA has already been in contact with the astronauts and they've given their opinion on the matter. I'm pretty sure this will weigh quite heavily with NASA since the last thing they'd want is two astronauts who flatly refuse to board a spacecraft when they've been ordered to do so.
The only way Boeing could be kept on board would be for NASA to finance another CFT, whole or partially. But that would be unfair towards SpaceX and could even lead to Boeing profiting from its incompetence.
I do believe there's gross incompetence on Boeing's part. The spacecraft barely works and it seems they barely tested it even though they received almost twice the amount SpaceX got. NASA should investigate how much profit taking Boeing did on building Starliner. I believe they cut corners to make the profit they desired and didn't really care about the end result.
I believe NASA management wants the crew to return aboard Starliner but faces opposition from engineers who aren't satisfied that the risk is manageable or even quantifiable. So they're massaging the dissenters with more tests and try to talk them into accepting that the risk is acceptable.
NASA management knows that if the crew doesn't return on Starliner Boeing will most likely walk and they'll be left with one crew launch provider. That and the enormous political pressure from Boeing financed Congressmen is behind the fact that a decision still hasn't been taken, even though more tests will not meaningfully influence the understanding of the risks.
It will be a hard call to make for Nelson. I believe the dissenters will not alleviate and insist on the crew returning aboard Dragon. Overruling their dissent would be extremely risky. If the crew dies Nelson will immediately step down and replaced by the vice-administrator.
I own a decade old Color LaserJet All-in-One and it works just fine under Linux Mint. The software is a bit slow and clunky IMHO. It uses a full blown Linux stack and it takes a while to start up.
The crappy printers are mostly ink-jet ones. I therefore recommend always buying a laser printer.
I'm pretty sure it will still use ARM, since there's a incestuous relationship between Broadcom and the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Eben Upton, the founder of RP used to work at Broadcom.
I do believe RISC-V is the future and that it will see greater and greater usage everywhere. Many Chinese microcontroller manufacturers produce RISC-V-based products.
RISC-V will eventually dominate (unless the U.S. government takes steps to reign it in) so it's a good thing Raspberry Pi Foundation added a few cores for tinkerers to play with. They're sufficient for most simple control applications, but lack things like floating point math to be used as signal processors.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
