Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70198 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-12-02 13:59 -0600 |
| Last post | 2019-12-09 16:33 -0600 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 66 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
"Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 13:59 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-02 12:33 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-02 21:17 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 23:08 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-02 15:39 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-10 13:55 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-11 12:48 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Pankaj Jangid <p4j@j4d.net> - 2019-12-03 09:21 +0530
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-03 02:03 -0300
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 09:40 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 11:40 +0100
NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 16:24 +0100
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-12-03 17:13 +0100
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2019-12-04 14:32 +0100
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-04 16:53 +0000
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-04 18:34 +0000
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-05 12:51 +0000
Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-12-08 04:21 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 17:05 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-12-06 22:12 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-07 07:28 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" rep_movsd <rep.movsd@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 07:57 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 11:03 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-09 17:08 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 11:39 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-09 18:26 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 15:50 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-10 15:09 +1300
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 20:30 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 09:06 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 03:58 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 11:18 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 05:37 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 15:49 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 11:43 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-12-10 10:19 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 12:50 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 13:12 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-10 13:54 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-10 17:22 +0200
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 15:35 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-10 15:17 -0300
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 11:32 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-10 21:09 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 09:49 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-11 03:13 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 11:20 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2019-12-11 12:57 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-15 23:27 -0500
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-16 10:02 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-11 14:17 -0800
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-11 12:11 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 12:42 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-11 16:01 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 16:15 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 16:25 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 16:35 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 17:19 -0600
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 11:09 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 13:17 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 15:55 +0100
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 15:26 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000
Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 16:33 -0600
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-10 11:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qsnqs8$n2q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70366 |
On 09/12/2019 23:35, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 12/9/2019 4:25 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> Melzzzzz wrote: >>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>> rep_movsd wrote: >>>> >>>> ----snip---- >>>> >>>>> MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ? >>>>> >>>>> MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in >>>>> Windows 10 >>>> >>>> I very much doubt that. Windows 3.1 is a M$ kludge. Windows 10 is >>>> descended from Windows NT, which was written by DEC. >>> >>> kernel only. >> >> Actually a DEC team who had worked on VMS and were hired for the job. >> >> I read in BYTE (Aug. 1985, IIRC) that after taking delivery, M$ set >> about "improving" it. The example given by BYTE was the removal of >> code that tested the graphics card before every write. For the speedup. > > The true speedup was moving the graphics device into ring 0. And the > cause of many crashes due to buggy video device drivers. > That was for NT 4.0, IIRC. For NT 3.51, graphics drivers were outside the kernel privilege ring, which meant ring switches for all access by the graphics drivers and a significantly slower graphics system than Win 3.x on the same hardware. Since a major use of NT was as a workstation for CAD and other graphics intensive work, this was a definite problem. Putting the graphics drivers into the closer ring gave a big speed boost. The risk of total system crashes due to buggy graphics drivers was a minor problem - there is relatively little benefit in having the kernel remain alive while the crashed gui restarts, compared to simply restarting the whole machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-10 13:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qso5sr$1ssc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70372 |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:09:12 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 09/12/2019 23:35, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> The true speedup was moving the graphics device into ring 0. And the >> cause of many crashes due to buggy video device drivers. >> > >was a minor problem - there is relatively little benefit in having the >kernel remain alive while the crashed gui restarts, compared to simply >restarting the whole machine. Clearly you're not familiar with the operational concept of a "Server" - ie you don't kill the backend just because the ooo-shiny! at the front has gone down. But then neither is or was Microsoft so you're made for each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-10 15:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qsobl4$l7e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70380 |
On 10/12/2019 14:17, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:09:12 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 09/12/2019 23:35, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> The true speedup was moving the graphics device into ring 0. And the >>> cause of many crashes due to buggy video device drivers. >>> >> >> was a minor problem - there is relatively little benefit in having the >> kernel remain alive while the crashed gui restarts, compared to simply >> restarting the whole machine. > > Clearly you're not familiar with the operational concept of a "Server" - ie you > don't kill the backend just because the ooo-shiny! at the front has gone down. > But then neither is or was Microsoft so you're made for each other. > Windows NT was not initially targeted as a server OS, but as a workstation OS. No one used Windows seriously for servers at the time - it was Unix or Netware. By the time Windows NT was a common choice for a server, the integration of the graphics drivers in the kernel layer was a done deal. And yes, it was a potential problem that a crashed gui meant a crashed server - but on servers you don't usually install high performance, high risk graphics drivers. (Don't misunderstand me - I think having the risky third-party driver code running at kernel level is a bad idea from the reliability viewpoint, and a terrible idea on a server. And when I set up a server, I do it using an OS that doesn't have a gui at all.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@nowhere.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-10 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qsodeu$11ua$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70383 |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:55:31 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 10/12/2019 14:17, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:09:12 +0100 >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> On 09/12/2019 23:35, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>> The true speedup was moving the graphics device into ring 0. And the >>>> cause of many crashes due to buggy video device drivers. >>>> >>> >>> was a minor problem - there is relatively little benefit in having the >>> kernel remain alive while the crashed gui restarts, compared to simply >>> restarting the whole machine. >> >> Clearly you're not familiar with the operational concept of a "Server" - ie >you >> don't kill the backend just because the ooo-shiny! at the front has gone >down. >> But then neither is or was Microsoft so you're made for each other. >> > >Windows NT was not initially targeted as a server OS, but as a >workstation OS. No one used Windows seriously for servers at the time - >it was Unix or Netware. By the time Windows NT was a common choice for >a server, the integration of the graphics drivers in the kernel layer MS were marketing it as a server from version 3.51 IIRC. Sure, no one took it seriously, but if that is the best the team from DEC could do then clearly VMS was a good OS despite them working on it, not because of them. Presumably the main VMS core was written before they came along. And in that vein lets hope Linux can survive the mess that Poettering is currently trying to make of it. >was a done deal. And yes, it was a potential problem that a crashed gui >meant a crashed server - but on servers you don't usually install high >performance, high risk graphics drivers. MS command line was such a useless waste of time (and still is really even with Powershell) that there was little choice but to have some sort of graphics driver to drive the GUI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CIzHF.217702$ZU.142507@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #70356 |
On 2019-12-09, rep_movsd <rep.movsd@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 1:29:31 AM UTC+5:30, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" >> https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/ >> >> I doubt it. >> >> Lynn > > MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ? > > MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in Windows 10 and it wont ever go away. > Closer to home even the VC6 MSVCRT.DLL is still around in Windows AFAIK This is because they don't wont to ditch old habits. Lame. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-12-09 16:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qsmi3e$nn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70356 |
On 12/9/2019 9:57 AM, rep_movsd wrote: > On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 1:29:31 AM UTC+5:30, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" >> https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/ >> >> I doubt it. >> >> Lynn > > MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ? > > MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in Windows 10 and it wont ever go away. > Closer to home even the VC6 MSVCRT.DLL is still around in Windows AFAIK You can read about the process to create Windows NT here, "Show Stopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft" https://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717/ Highly recommended. Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web