Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux is an interpreter

astrid.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Linux is an interpreter

#61

Post by tremon »

Hasslequest wrote: post #28
tosti wrote: post #22

This article was painful to read because of all the misconceptions. A cpio archive is not a filesystem. Author uses initramfs, which is based on tmpfs. Linux can extract cpio to tmpfs. An archive of files and directories is in itself not a program. Just because something looks similar doesn't mean it's equivalent. Binary programs are executed on the CPU, so if there's an interpreter involed it's hiding in the hardwar…

It's the init in the cpio which is the interpeted program, and the rest of the cpio is memory for this interpeted progam.

How is it interpreted? Something that you load into memory and then set the processor's Instruction Pointer at is not interpreted at all. And in case /init is a shell script, it's not the kernel doing the interpreting -- the interpreter would be /bin/sh, which would still be loaded into memory and executed by the processor. Claiming that machine code is "interpreted" because it still needs to be finalized by a loader is not a clever gotcha -- it's ignorant erasure of relevant distinctions.

Re: Linux is an interpreter

#64

Post by pwdisswordfishy »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #39
pwdisswordfishy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. There's no broader debate. "Professional" means "X is getting paid for this", not "X is paying something in order for X to be able to do this". It's that simple. > To put an example, suppose you hire a painter, and they show up with non-work attire, no ladder, no brush, they ask you to buy a can of paint for them and a brush. Compared to a contractor that bills you flat and brins their own ladder, has work clot…

You can't just conveniently ignore that "professionalism" is a concept that exists and is pretty clearly what the original author meant based on context and content. Refusing to interpret things in the most plausible manner just wastes everyone's time. For example the phrase "unprofessional professional" means a professional (ie getting paid) who is behaving unprofessionally (ie exhibiting a lack of professionalism).

There's no ignoring it. It was raised pre-emptively in the very first comment: "the way that "professional" is used as a euphemism in Americans' bizarre discursive repertoire".

> the phrase "unprofessional professional" means

That's just an oxymoron.

> a professional (ie getting paid) who is behaving unprofessionally (ie exhibiting a lack of professionalism)

A professional who is getting paid, the (only) necessary and sufficient condition for being "professional", is by definition exhibiting professionalism. That's a fact, and it's not any more complicated than that.

Re: Linux is an interpreter

#65

Post by fc417fc802 »

pwdisswordfishy wrote: post #64
fc417fc802 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just conveniently ignore that "professionalism" is a concept that exists and is pretty clearly what the original author meant based on context and content. Refusing to interpret things in the most plausible manner just wastes everyone's time. For example the phrase "unprofessional professional" means a professional (ie getting paid) who is behaving unprofessionally (ie exhibiting a lack of professionalism).

There's no ignoring it. It was raised pre-emptively in the very first comment: " the way that "professional" is used as a euphemism in Americans' bizarre discursive repertoire ". > the phrase "unprofessional professional" means That's just an oxymoron. > a professional (ie getting paid) who is behaving unprofessionally (ie exhibiting a lack of professionalism) A professional who is getting paid, the (only) necessary…

Why not bother to check a dictionary before responding? Your "raised pre-emptively" was nothing more than you being preemptively wrong. It can be used as either a noun or an adjective and has multiple well established definitions for each. You are fixated on one of them.

I'm not hiring that plumber again as he was rather unprofessional.

Your attire doesn't look professional.

> ... is by definition exhibiting professionalism.

Nope, wrong again.

I found the lack of professionalism during my recent visit alarming.

Post reply on HN