FWIS3

Gullible Jones wrote:You guys have utterly lost me with the hardware stuff, however

The relevant part of this thread for me. If GJ is lost, I have no hope.

FZR1KG wrote:This is why modern CPU's and older mainframes have multiple rings.
The real O/S is run at level 0, the others are run at level 1 or 2 depending on how many rings the CPU supports.
There is a reason MS uses only two rings. It was not designed to use virtulization from the ground up.

And as GJ correctly points out, neither does Linux, nor most Unix based OSs. Which sucks big time, just a bit less than MS

SciFi Chick wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:You guys have utterly lost me with the hardware stuff, however

The relevant part of this thread for me. If GJ is lost, I have no hope.

Knowing GJ, he'll educate himself.

And even if he doesn't, he's a "Digital Native". He ought to understand this stuff right off the bat or so do Marketing Drones say

Sigma_Orionis wrote:
Now, supposedly the pro and enterprise editions of WIndows 8 provide a type 2 hypervisor and it supports XP as a guest OS. And if (which I'd bet is the case) the edition of your Windows 8.1 is the "entry level" edition, you could use VMWare Player or VirtualBox I suppose you could make a kludge between a WIndows XP VM and a type 2 hypervisor that allowed USB passthrough to connect your USB/RS323 Adapter to get your software running. Of course that requires a WIndows XP VLK license though, which you probably don't have, which explains why you're knee deep trying to get that code to run on Windows 8.1

It Sucks

Isn't it interesting that MS now offer's a solution to its incompatibility within itself, that involves you requiring to have multiple licences and a more expensive version of their O/S when their non stop mantra was compatibility. One could easily argue that that preached compatibility, didn't provide it deliberately and thus created a market for their new virtualization package...on a more expensive O/S of course.
MS, giving you products that you have to pay for that were standard almost everywhere else sine the dawn of the computer industry.

MS reminds me of Chavez. Full of hot air and lacking in vision or performance.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:This is why modern CPU's and older mainframes have multiple rings.
The real O/S is run at level 0, the others are run at level 1 or 2 depending on how many rings the CPU supports.
There is a reason MS uses only two rings. It was not designed to use virtulization from the ground up.

And as GJ correctly points out, neither does Linux, nor most Unix based OSs. Which sucks big time, just a bit less than MS

Probably why many people in the know said going to Unix will set the industry back decades.
At least it's not centuries like MS! rofl

Sigma_Orionis wrote:Virtualization is NOT inherently secure, AND each virtual machine SHOULD be secured separately.

I've read about ways to hack your way into the hypervisor OS from a hacked VM.

Edited for clarity THRICE!

Yep.
Though the general consensus with simulating other CPU's on a third system is that you never provide hardware interfacing.
All the hardware stuff goes through the main O/S.
Not so much of an issue decades back but it is now with all the interfacing for hardware available to plug into your PC.
Extra security can be gained by using more rings that are provided.
There are also other ways to provide security in hardware but if you don't implement the full rings that the CPU gives you, well, you just can't use them.

FZR1KG wrote:Isn't it interesting that MS now offer's a solution to its incompatibility within itself, that involves you requiring to have multiple licences and a more expensive version of their O/S when their non stop mantra was compatibility. One could easily argue that that preached compatibility, didn't provide it deliberately and thus created a market for their new virtualization package...on a more expensive O/S of course.
MS, giving you products that you have to pay for that were standard almost everywhere else sine the dawn of the computer industry.

MS reminds me of Chavez. Full of hot air and lacking in vision or performance.

Nicky Ripe makes Chavez look like statesman

FZR1KG wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:On, on NPR today I heard about a guy that wrote a book about the most important company in the world, Intel... arrrgghhhh DAMN YOU ALL TO HELLL!!!!

Link: http://www.harpercollins.com/9780062226 ... el-trinity

What can you expect from the same people who think that Steve Jobs was a legendary programmer?

W.T.F. ?

On linkedin some idiot posted an update that said "Two Legendary Programmers" and it had a picture of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, do the math

Sigma wrote:Extremely cool, considering that in those days that stuff was considered "esoteric", even more cool that you implemented it yourself. I don't know enough to do stuff like that, I just use it

It's not as difficult as it seems.
To get you to a point where you could design CPU's from first principles would take me about 18 weeks at 8 hours a week to teach you.
I know, because that's what I used to do.
You'd have the knowledge to design the CPU, the control and support circuits, the cache, the pipeline, the micro code etc.
After that you decide how deep you want to learn, but, you could design your own CPU's easily and implement them on FPGA's.

Examples of open source CPU's implemented on FPGA's:
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_processor

Nothing hard. Really. Trust me. I know.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:On linkedin some idiot posted an update that said "Two Legendary Programmers" and it had a picture of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, do the math

The stupid is strong with that one.

FZR1KG wrote:It's not as difficult as it seems.
To get you to a point where you could design CPU's from first principles would take me about 18 weeks at 8 hours a week to teach you.
I know, because that's what I used to do.
You'd have the knowledge to design the CPU, the control and support circuits, the cache, the pipeline, the micro code etc.
After that you decide how deep you want to learn, but, you could design your own CPU's easily and implement them on FPGA's.

Examples of open source CPU's implemented on FPGA's:
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_processor

Nothing hard. Really. Trust me. I know.

Sounds like a great way to spend a sabbatical, now if I could only get someone stupid enough to pay me while I do that....

Edited to include quote because that Cravat Loving Ape posted while I was writing this And then because I can't post without assassinating the king's English

FZR1KG wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:On linkedin some idiot posted an update that said "Two Legendary Programmers" and it had a picture of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, do the math

The stupid is strong with that one.

Oh yeah, and in the comments section virtually nobody argued it.

Sadly I'm more of a software/scripting person like Sigma.

Re Linux, IIRC that UNIX OSes use only two rings is part of the reason they're so awesomely portable. Likewise Windows NT (which has had ports to PowerPC and DEC Alpha, and now ARM). But I'm not convinced the cost of that in security and reliability is significant, compared to the cost of human error in C/C++ code. I would say especially in userspace, but lately kernel bugs have been the in thing, so...

(On a related note, I once ran a static code analyzer against current Firefox sources. The results were pretty horrifying.)

Also I sorta kinda blame the programming practices outlined in K&R C (yes, the White Bible which must not be criticized). Being terse and inscrutable as a matter of coding style is not helpful to anyone, least of all the person who does it.

Edit: also reading the new posts, OMG I WANNA LEARN HOW TO DESIGN A CPU, OMG

Gullible Jones wrote:Sadly I'm more of a software/scripting person like Sigma.

Re Linux, IIRC that UNIX OSes use only two rings is part of the reason they're so awesomely portable.

It's also why they really aren't a decent O/S.
But, in a fortunate twist of irony, make them easily implemented as a virtual machine on an O/S that does implement the full set of rings.
it's just a question of time before it happens. Though MS could in theory get the hardware vendors to help them make their poorly implemented O/S better at virtualization...oh wait, they already have.

GJ wrote:Edit: also reading the new posts, OMG I WANNA LEARN HOW TO DESIGN A CPU, OMG

How much do you want it??? lol

Gullible Jones wrote:Sadly I'm more of a software/scripting person like Sigma.

I TOLD YOU that you should have stuck to physics, or barring that, you should have become a developer, but no, the kid had to try and become like me!

Gullible Jones wrote:Re Linux, IIRC that UNIX OSes use only two rings is part of the reason they're so awesomely portable. Likewise Windows NT (which has had ports to PowerPC and DEC Alpha, and now ARM). But I'm not convinced the cost of that in security and reliability is significant, compared to the cost of human error in C/C++ code. I would say especially in userspace, but lately kernel bugs have been the in thing, so...

You forgot to say they're so awesomely portable ON COMMODITY HARDWARE

Gullible Jones wrote:(On a related note, I once ran a static code analyzer against current Firefox sources. The results were pretty horrifying.)

I'd love to see that thing running against Peoplesoft's source code.

Gullible Jones wrote:Also I sorta kinda blame the programming practices outlined in K&R C (yes, the White Bible which must not be criticized). Being terse and inscrutable as a matter of coding style is not helpful to anyone, least of all the person who does it.

HERETIC! you're criticizing a Demi-GOD!, quick guys! let's round up a posse, I know where we can get pitchforks and torches cheap!

Gullible Jones wrote:Edit: also reading the new posts, OMG I WANNA LEARN HOW TO DESIGN A CPU, OMG

Yer drooling on the carpet kid

Sigma_Orionis wrote:You forgot to say they're so awesomely portable ON COMMODITY HARDWARE

Undoubtedly the best quote of the thread which sums up almost everything here!
No need to read the thread folks, just read the above. Everything else can be derived from that.