On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Holway <andrew.holway at gmail.com> wrote:>> >> When Windows 2000 came out some called it "bloated pig". Some 6 years down >> the road Linux started catching up ;-) Then we stopped laughing about >> Windows. >> > > All in the name of progress..I have been told that Windows developers were taught not to optimize their code for memory/cpu/etc since those could be solved by throwing more hardware at it. Instead they should make clean readable code. Not claiming that is exclusive to Windows or the clean readable part is followed...> _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, April 12, 2017 2:39 pm, Mauricio Tavares wrote:> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Holway <andrew.holway at gmail.com> > wrote: >>> >>> When Windows 2000 came out some called it "bloated pig". Some 6 years >>> down >>> the road Linux started catching up ;-) Then we stopped laughing about >>> Windows. >>> >> >> All in the name of progress.. > > I have been told that Windows developers were taught not to > optimize their code for memory/cpu/etc since those could be solved by > throwing more hardware at it. Instead they should make clean readable > code. Not claiming that is exclusive to Windows or the clean readable > part is followed... >Continuing in the same spirit. Way back SELinux (before it made it into main stream kernel) had a competitor. LIDS. De-ciphers as Linux Intrusion Detection System (but name is confusing). Creature of Purdue University Computer science department. Basically LISD was a kernel patch that upon end of boot sequence demotes root account to privileges of user nobody. This makes system impregnable on the fly (but real pain to administer - any change can only be done as: shut down, change, boot). I was so impressed, I still remember about it. Never came to using it though. If it did, it might give big pain to NSA and friends. But SELinux won, and LIDS never made it into main stream kernel - to my regret. As far as SELinux is concerned, several people still think that several (how many?) thousands of extra code in the kernel may bring more harm than do good. Anyway, the last IMHO is where "tastes differ". Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mauricio Tavares wrote:> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Holway <andrew.holway at gmail.com> > wrote: >>> >>> When Windows 2000 came out some called it "bloated pig". Some 6 years >>> down the road Linux started catching up ;-) Then we stopped laughingabout>>> Windows. > >> All in the name of progress.. > > I have been told that Windows developers were taught not to > optimize their code for memory/cpu/etc since those could be solved by > throwing more hardware at it. Instead they should make clean readable > code. Not claiming that is exclusive to Windows or the clean readable > part is followed...I read an interview 10? 15? years ago with Gates, and it was clear he was a hardware junky. mark
On 4/12/2017 12:39 PM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:> I have been told that Windows developers were taught not to > optimize their code for memory/cpu/etc since those could be solved by > throwing more hardware at it. Instead they should make clean readable > code. Not claiming that is exclusive to Windows or the clean readable > part is followed...There is a good case to be made for avoiding 'premature optimization' in software design and development. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:25:52PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:> On 4/12/2017 12:39 PM, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > > I have been told that Windows developers were taught not to > >optimize their code for memory/cpu/etc since those could be solved by > >throwing more hardware at it. Instead they should make clean readable > >code. Not claiming that is exclusive to Windows or the clean readable > >part is followed... > > > There is a good case to be made for avoiding 'premature > optimization' in software design and development.Yeah. Especially because (good) modern compilers can do an amazing job of optimizing for you, enough so that you often don't need to put any effort at all into it. then there are those corner cases, wherein you DO. -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- The Lord is like a strong tower. Those who do what is right can run to him for safety. --------------------------- Proverbs 18:10 (niv) -----------------------------
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:59:41 -0500 (CDT) "Valeri Galtsev" <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:> On Wed, April 12, 2017 2:39 pm, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Holway > > <andrew.holway at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> When Windows 2000 came out some called it "bloated pig". Some 6 > >>> years down > >>> the road Linux started catching up ;-) Then we stopped laughing > >>> about Windows. > >>> > >> > >> All in the name of progress.. > > > > I have been told that Windows developers were taught not to > > optimize their code for memory/cpu/etc since those could be solved > > by throwing more hardware at it. Instead they should make clean > > readable code. Not claiming that is exclusive to Windows or the > > clean readable part is followed... > > > > Continuing in the same spirit. Way back SELinux (before it made it > into main stream kernel) had a competitor. LIDS. De-ciphers as Linux > Intrusion Detection System (but name is confusing). Creature of > Purdue University Computer science department. Basically LISD was a > kernel patch that upon end of boot sequence demotes root account to > privileges of user nobody. This makes system impregnable on the fly > (but real pain to administer - any change can only be done as: shut > down, change, boot). I was so impressed, I still remember about it. > Never came to using it though. If it did, it might give big pain to > NSA and friends. But SELinux won, and LIDS never made it into main > stream kernel - to my regret. As far as SELinux is concerned, several > people still think that several (how many?) thousands of extra code > in the kernel may bring more harm than do good. Anyway, the last IMHO > is where "tastes differ". > > Valerithe wikipedia confirms my memory that SELinux is a child of the NSA. Is anyone astonished that this allowed them to hack into Linux? d> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Valeri Galtsev > Sr System Administrator > Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics > Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics > University of Chicago > Phone: 773-702-4247 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- In modern fantasy (literary or governmental), killing people is the usual solution to the so-called war between good and evil. My books are not conceived in terms of such a war, and offer no simple answers to simplistic questions. ----- Ursula Le Guin