Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John Ames Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:41:27 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: <20250811154127.000048da@gmail.com> References: <106mke5$1di32$1@dont-email.me> <106ukm1$35g8p$3@toylet.eternal-september.org> <106v67a$1cgol$1@news1.tnib.de> <106vfvv$3bpmd$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> <106vi4r$3c9cr$2@dont-email.me> <3ihcmlx47d.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <107070d$3hvho$1@dont-email.me> <1071hb2$3qqje$2@toylet.eternal-september.org> <1071jbr$3ra8s$1@dont-email.me> <10746fg$h625$2@dont-email.me> <68972458$0$415$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <1078hv9$1i6lu$1@dont-email.me> <20250811093927.00004266@gmail.com> <107dpu8$2sqrk$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 22:41:40 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="20ddcf5c134940fbb46751ed8a0f4557"; logging-data="3030990"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Z1xDtSUCFgCJ849E/xoOJ3UsdS2CQmUs=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:i53FChcG4Yzaxs77jDZB4Ax+9Ks= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:70817 On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 22:13:29 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > Think of how the ABS brakes work in your car: while you have your > foot flat to the floor, trying to come to a halt, the controller has > to sense when a skid is imminent, overrule your control to *release* > the brakes for a tiny fraction of a second, then apply them again. > This happens over and over, within the time it takes (typically less > than a second) to bring you to a halt. >=20 > You think that=E2=80=99s a simpler problem than the P64 program on the AGC > that controlled the descent to the Moon? In the strictest assessment, yes? But it's also a problem where I would agree that the use of a multitasking RTOS is probably warranted (though as I understand it automotive embedded systems may be implemented with discrete subsystems instead - like the Voyager probes, if we stick with the spacecraft comparison - and I'm not sure what they run "under the hood," so to speak.) The point isn't that use of complex multitasking systems is *never* warranted in the embedded space, it's that that space encompasses a *staggeringly* broad range of applications and many very non-trivial problems with their own considerations, and making generalizations across that whole class as to what is or isn't universally appropriate is silly. The right tool for the job is *the right tool for the job.*