Re: How to develop a random number generation device

TheKraken wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:07:53 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

TheKraken wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:51:23 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well, Windows is not a modern OS, and x86 is not a modern processor.
Given decent hardware tools, an OS should abort a process that tries
to execute data.
You're an idiot.
No, he's right. It is not hard to make data segments non-executable, and even windows can do it to some extent (blocking execution on the stack segment). And he's also right that windows is not a modern OS - from the day DOS 1.0 came out to the day Vista arrived, the MS OS's have never been "modern" in terms of how they are designed and implemented. They have had plenty of modern features, and the age of a particular feature or idea is no indication of quality, of course.

My remark was about his first line. "Windows is not a modern OS".

Utter horse***.


In a modern OS, you have a carefully separated and modular design. You don't put dangerous (in terms of crashing or corrupting other parts) like the graphics drivers in the kernel. You certainly don't have a gui as an essential part of the operating system. Windows has a totally jumbled mess rather than a proper design - the company even stood up in a court and swore that it was impossible to separate the web browser from the operating system!

The remainder of that line, "and x86 is not a modern processor"


The x86 architecture was outdated and outclassed when the first 8086 chip came on the market - everyone, including Intel, knew that. The only reason it turned up in the first PC was a PHB at IBM thought it would save a few dollars over the engineers' choice (a 68000), and since the PC was a low-volume dead-end experiment product, it would not matter.

Current x86 devices are excellent implementations of a terrible architecture that was outdated 20 years ago.

The guy is a fucking loon.


I've had my disagreements with John, but I don't think that's how I'd describe him!

Oh, and your assessment is flawed as well.

"Modern and quality" are two different elements.


As I said, if you'd noticed. The basic Unix design is still a good way to build an operating system after over 30 years.

When I was a kid, my father worked at Cinti. Milacron. I have seen
"Grade six bolts" that really were such things. In our "modern age", I
have seen bolts that are claimed to be grade six that have heads that
twist off like taffy.

A REAL grade six bolt does NOT EVER have a head that would twist off
like taffy.

Yet in today's ass backward society, we have entire industries that
utilize the cheapest components they can find, and only make a move to
change something if they are faced with their indiscretions in a blatant
manner, not unlike I face you people when you spew horse***.


I agree - lots of "modern" changes are very much a step backwards. But that does not make windows a "modern OS", no matter how many backwards steps MS have taken since they conned SCP out of their "quick and dirty operating system".

I have seen numerous OSes, and they all have their places. A PC was
not EVER meant it run world class, mission critical OSes that have zero
failure modes. It is a consumer product, and such things would have made
it an entirely unapproachable realm for the consumer, had they been
utilized.


That's also true, and the failures in windows does not imply strengths in other OSes. I use windows in many systems, because it is the best choice for the job - that does not make it a modern OS, nor does it make someone an "idiot" for pointing that out.

As far as vulnerabilities go, every digital system has them.


Windows has far more than its fair share, for many reasons.

As for the x86 not being "modern". I am quite sure that without the
personal computer industry as a whole, the world would not be anywhere
close to the degree of integration we currently enjoy without the
innovations put forth by such companies as Intel, IBM, and the like.


That is a total non-sequitar. The x86 was not a modern design - when it was made, it was considered old-fashioned and badly designed according to current standards (compare it to the 68000 for example, or the Z80). The fact that PC's revolutionised computing has nothing to do with the x86 being "modern" or not.

We would be nowhere close to 125M transistors on a die, like we are
today.


So what?

Credit, Intel and the consumer demand for personal computing,
regardless of the fucking OS.

Lots of companies, Intel included, had their part to play in the history of personal computing (many by sheer luck, rather than hard work). But none of that changes *anything* in this thread - neither windows nor the x86 have ever been "modern" designs, nor is John an idiot for saying so.
.

Quantcast