531–540 of 675 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has HR been weaponized if the result was just a chat
The result does not change the intent.
All you have is the result but you infer a whole lot so it fits your framing.
Someone called HR, HR met with the people and they chatted. That is all you have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel still does it. As far as I can see they're the only player in town that provide open, detailed documentation for their high-speed NICs [0]. You can actually write a driver for their 100Gb cards from scratch using their datasheet. Most other vendors would either (1) ignore you, (2) make you sign an NDA or (3) refer you to their poorly documented Linux/BSD driver. Not sure what the situation is for other hardware…
Wow... that PDF is 2,750 pages! There must be an army of technical writers behind it. That is an incredible technical achievement. Real question: Why do you think Intel does this? Does it guarantee a very strong foothold into data center NICs? I am sure competitors would argue two different angles: (1) this PDF shares too much info; some should be hidden behind an NDA, (2) it's too hard to write (and maintain) this P…
Regards to (1), if you don't publish this information you're not selling a CPU, you're selling a very expensive chunk of sand. There is simply no way that a customer can guess at what your implementation looks like. Additionally, Intel barely has IP in the traditional sense. They hold patents, but their only real competitor in making x86 processors, AMD, has a long-standing mutual non-enforcement agreement wrt patents.
Regards to (2), I'm guessing a majority of this PDF can be generated sort of like you generate API documentation from doxygen comments.
[1]: https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruh73q/spruh73q.pdf?ts=175651560...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this. I tried to modify a hobby OS recently so it would process the "soft reboot" button (to speed up being rebooted in GCP) and it was so unbelievably hard to figure out how to support it. I tried following the instructions on the OS Dev Wiki and straight up reading what both Linux and FreeBSD do and still couldn't make progress. Yes. The thing that happens when you tell Windows or Linux to "restart". Gave up o…
To clarify, are you having trouble getting the signal to reboot from the gcp console into your OS? Or are you having trouble rebooting on gcp?
Getting it to work on GCP meant properly driving something called the Intel PIIX4 controller which was emulated into the VM.
Separately from the OS being able to turn itself off, the OS needs to process a signal received by the hypervisor on this controller to support the hypervisor gracefully shutting it down. Otherwise GCP will wait 90 seconds after it has sent the shut down signal to give up and terminate the VM itself.
The problem I was trying to solve was (a) OS can shut itself down in GCP (b) restarts in GCP from the GCP console would be instant, rather than take 90+ seconds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue isn't advertising, it's targeted advertising which is a very different and far more problematic beast than the advertising of your grandparent's time. In the interest of not getting bogged down in semantics, let's just always assume that when people say "advertising" in this era, they mean "targeted advertising". Then we can avoid yet another tired attempt at excusing Meta's behavior.
people should use the correct words
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are kinda wasting your time, the only way to make it work is to make the hobby OS Linux. Not the parent, but of course they're wasting their time... That's the point of a hobby OS. I'm working on a hobby OS, and I have no illusions that it's most likely fewer than 10 people will ever run it, and less than 100 will hear about it, but it lets me explore some interesting (to me) ideas, and forces me to learn a lit…
I didn't say they were wasting their time on their hobby OS, they are wasting their time trying to get it to do very esoteric thing on GCP. They aren't trying to get reboot to work, they are trying to get their version of kexec to work so their hobby os reboots faster. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Kexec The biggest scam in the OS world is drivers, we should demand more out of our hardware. Drivers shouldn't be ne…
I was actually just trying to support "power off" in GCP, with the stretch goal of being able to support graceful power off from the GCP console (which is part of supporting power off then power back on restart).
The point of R&D is the time horizon is long, and the uncertainty is high. Making JS slop that then has to be constantly babysat is opex, not capex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being a meta engineer and not taking Carmack's advice seriously. Why the fuck is he even hired there if you are not going to listen to him. Dude has forgotten more things about game development than you will ever know...
There were quite a few of high-caliber individuals with equally impressive resumes in the organization to match Carmack's wisdom and ego.
You could write a book on why it's practically impossible to create a new OS these days. Love Carmack for stating it so clearly. I also love that called out TempleOS, I also have a weird respect for it. Plan 9 is the probably the best example of a totally new OS and I hope someday it becomes viable because it's really a joy to use. But ultimately it just makes sense to adapt existing kernels / OS (say, arch) and adap…
I've written a lot of low level software, BSPs, and most of an OS, and the main reason to not write your own OS these days is silicon vendors. Back in the day, they would provide you a spec detailed enough that you could feasibly write your own drivers. These days, you get a medium-level description and a Linux driver of questionable quality. Part of this is just laziness, but mostly this is a function of complexity.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have mixed feelings about this. In one part, JC is someone I look up to, at least from the perspective of engineering. On the other hand, putting myself in the shoes in someone who got the once in life chance to build a new OS with corp support for a new shiny device…I for hell would want to do this.
Reading on from that he says: > If the platform really needs to watch every cycle that tightly, you aren't going to be a general purpose platform, and you might as well just make a monolithic C++ embedded application, rather than a whole new platform that is very likely to have a low shelf life as the hardware platform evolves. Which I think is agreeable, up to a certain point, because I think it's potentially naive.…
Exactly! I picture the choice being grandfathering in compatibility with existing OSes (having the promised performance of their product in fact indirectly modulated by the output of all other teams of world's smartest throughout computing history and present day), vs wringing another OS-sized piece of C++ tech debt upon unsuspecting humanity. In which case I am thankful to Carmack for making the call.
I can understand how "what you're doing is fundamentally pointless" is something they can only afford to hear from someone who already has their degree of magnitude of fuck-you money. Furthermore in a VC-shaped culture it can also be a statement that's to many people fundamentally incomprehensible