To all our List friends in Russia! 50th Anniversary is today.
Please stay on topic, if you don’t and we begin listing American
technology, it will crash the list servers.
On 10/4/07, Neil Weicher wrote:
>
> To all our List friends in Russia! 50th Anniversary is today.
>
>
> —
> NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
> (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@gmail.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
This is precisley the bigger difference between both technologies: American advertising !
De: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] En nombre de OSR LIST
Enviado el: jueves, 04 de octubre de 2007 15:35
Para: Windows File Systems Devs Interest List
Asunto: Re: [ntfsd] Happy Sputnik Day!
Please stay on topic, if you don’t and we begin listing American
technology, it will crash the list servers.
On 10/4/07, Neil Weicher < xxxxx@netlib.com mailto:xxxxx > wrote:
To all our List friends in Russia! 50th Anniversary is today.
—
NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
(including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@gmail.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
— NTFSD is sponsored by OSR For our schedule debugging and file system seminars (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit: http://www.osr.com/seminars You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@pandasecurity.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com</mailto:xxxxx>
or perhaps a matter of education.
On 10/4/07, I?aki Castillo wrote:
>
> This is precisley the bigger difference between both technologies:
> American advertising !
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> De: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] *En nombre de *OSR LIST
> Enviado el: jueves, 04 de octubre de 2007 15:35
> Para: Windows File Systems Devs Interest List
> Asunto: Re: [ntfsd] Happy Sputnik Day!
>
>
>
> Please stay on topic, if you don’t and we begin listing American
> technology, it will crash the list servers.
>
> On 10/4/07, Neil Weicher < xxxxx@netlib.com> wrote:
>
> To all our List friends in Russia! 50th Anniversary is today.
>
>
> —
> NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
> (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@gmail.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
> — NTFSD is sponsored by OSR For our schedule debugging and file system
> seminars (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as:
> xxxxx@pandasecurity.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
> —
> NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
> (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: unknown lmsubst tag argument: ‘’
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
I disagree that this is off topic. It was a major technological and
historical landmark. Would acknowledging the fiftieth anniversary of the
invention of the transistor be off topic?
----- Original Message -----
From: OSR LIST
To: Windows File Systems Devs Interest List
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ntfsd] Happy Sputnik Day!
Please stay on topic, if you don’t and we begin listing American
technology, it will crash the list servers.
On 10/4/07, Neil Weicher < xxxxx@netlib.com> wrote:
To all our List friends in Russia! 50th Anniversary is today.
NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
(including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@gmail.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
— NTFSD is sponsored by OSR For our schedule debugging and file system
seminars (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as:
xxxxx@netlib.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Yes. Unless, of course, it’s a transistor that has a Windows file system associated with it.
Peter
OSR
> I disagree that this is off topic. It was a major technological and historical landmark.
Was it controlled by any NT-based OS? Unless it was and we discuss the specifics of a driver that actually dealt with it hardware, the whole thing is *DEFINITELY* on topic anywhere on OSR, but even if we discuss implementation of this hypothetical driver, the discussion should take place on NTDEV - no matter how you look at it, this topic just does not seem to belong on this forum…
Anton Bassov
> ----------
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of xxxxx@hotmail.com[SMTP:xxxxx@hotmail.com]
Reply To: Windows File Systems Devs Interest List
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 7:05 PM
To: Windows File Systems Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntfsd] Happy Sputnik Day!Was it controlled by any NT-based OS?
Definitely not. It didn’t fall down for 3 months 
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
>> Was it controlled by any NT-based OS?
Definitely not. It didn’t fall down for 3 months
Actually, this is why I thought that, probably, it was controlled by NT-based system - probably, it was meant to get back the same day, but the OS got hung, so that it kept orbiting the Earth until it just fell down (and the world got told that everything was meant to happen this way - this is how it normally worked in the USSR)…
Anton Bassov
>Actually, this is why I thought that, probably, it was controlled by NT-based system - probably, it was meant to get back the same day, but the OS got hung,
Anton, please do not offend people who devoted their life to space exploration.
it was meant to get back the same day
Who says you that? And how could it return back - it would burn in atmosphere, it was not protected.
It felt due to the simple physical rule - orbits lowering and lack of engines to correct orbit.
but the OS got hung
It didn’t have any OS, this was a passive device with radio transmitter.
> Anton, please do not offend people who devoted their life to space exploration.
What a wonderfull phrase - “people who devoted their life to space exploration”. You sound almost like “Pravda” paper…
> it was meant to get back the same day
Who says you that? And how could it return back - it would burn in atmosphere, it was not >protected.
Well, once it did not get back on the same day, they would not tell you that it could, don’t you think??? Certainly, they would tell you that it was unprotected, no matter how things were meant to happen in actuality.
Actually, I am not so sure about this particular launch, but I am pretty sure that the one with dogs
that never came back was a fuck-up - objectively, it just does not make sense to send dogs to space, unless you want to examine them after the flight and see how mammal’s body may react to so dramatic changes in gravity in a matter of minutes. Therefore, apparently they just failed to return them back, and then claimed that they were never meant to come back, in the first place.
Taking into consideration that the sole objective of USSR’s space exploration at the time was impressing the world with its “achievements”, rather than doing scientific research that may have practical applications, it would be naive to expect them to tell you the truth…
>but the OS got hung
It didn’t have any OS, this was a passive device with radio transmitter.
Don’t you have any sense of humour??? Of course it just could not have had an OS, because microprocessors did not exist back then, so that the whole thing just could not have been controlled by a programmable chip. Furthermore, as far as software is concerned, the very concept of OS (as it is currently known) did not exist either. In fact, all major developments in basic computer science
(abstract data structures, searching and sorting algorithms, recursive calls, etc) took place in late 1950s- early 1960s, and programming was an area of interest mainly for mathematicians, rather than for engineers, at the time…
Anton Bassov
> … Of course it just could not have had an OS, because microprocessors
did not exist back then, so that the whole thing just could not have been
controlled by a programmable chip…
No comments.
… the very concept of OS (as it is currently known) did not exist either
…
Please, give the “current” definition for OS.
Taking into consideration that the sole objective of USSR’s space
exploration at the time was impressing the world with its “achievements”,
rather than doing scientific research that may have practical
applications, it would be naive to expect them to tell you the truth…
Are you those guy who boasted by the lack of any formal education?
–
Slava Imameyev, xxxxx@hotmail.com
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
>> Anton, please do not offend people who devoted their life to space
>> exploration.
>
> What a wonderfull phrase - “people who devoted their life to space
> exploration”. You sound almost like “Pravda” paper…
>
>>> it was meant to get back the same day
>
>> Who says you that? And how could it return back - it would burn in
>> atmosphere, it was not >protected.
>
> Well, once it did not get back on the same day, they would not tell you
> that it could, don’t you think??? Certainly, they would tell you that it
> was unprotected, no matter how things were meant to happen in actuality.
>
> Actually, I am not so sure about this particular launch, but I am pretty
> sure that the one with dogs
> that never came back was a fuck-up - objectively, it just does not make
> sense to send dogs to space, unless you want to examine them after the
> flight and see how mammal’s body may react to so dramatic changes in
> gravity in a matter of minutes. Therefore, apparently they just failed to
> return them back, and then claimed that they were never meant to come
> back, in the first place.
> Taking into consideration that the sole objective of USSR’s space
> exploration at the time was impressing the world with its “achievements”,
> rather than doing scientific research that may have practical
> applications, it would be naive to expect them to tell you the truth…
>
>>>but the OS got hung
>
>> It didn’t have any OS, this was a passive device with radio transmitter.
>
> Don’t you have any sense of humour??? Of course it just could not have had
> an OS, because microprocessors did not exist back then, so that the whole
> thing just could not have been controlled by a programmable chip.
> Furthermore, as far as software is concerned, the very concept of OS (as
> it is currently known) did not exist either. In fact, all major
> developments in basic computer science
> (abstract data structures, searching and sorting algorithms, recursive
> calls, etc) took place in late 1950s- early 1960s, and programming was an
> area of interest mainly for mathematicians, rather than for engineers, at
> the time…
>
> Anton Bassov
>
Guys, you are both brilliant, but, for God’s sake!
This is a very interesting and exciting topic, but, alas, for a different forum.
Pravo slovo, dostatochno or, the way they would put it here, enough is enough, really.
xxxxx@OSR, where is your standard “children!”?
I swear, I am almost ready to post something about some president of some country in this particular thread…
Just to make a point.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: “Slava Imameyev”
> > … Of course it just could not have had an OS, because microprocessors
> > did not exist back then, so that the whole thing just could not have been
> > controlled by a programmable chip…
>
> No comments.
>
> > … the very concept of OS (as it is currently known) did not exist either
> > …
>
> Please, give the “current” definition for OS.
>
> > Taking into consideration that the sole objective of USSR’s space
> > exploration at the time was impressing the world with its “achievements”,
> > rather than doing scientific research that may have practical
> > applications, it would be naive to expect them to tell you the truth…
>
> Are you those guy who boasted by the lack of any formal education?
>
> –
> Slava Imameyev, xxxxx@hotmail.com
>
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
> >> Anton, please do not offend people who devoted their life to space
> >> exploration.
> >
> > What a wonderfull phrase - “people who devoted their life to space
> > exploration”. You sound almost like “Pravda” paper…
> >
> >>> it was meant to get back the same day
> >
> >> Who says you that? And how could it return back - it would burn in
> >> atmosphere, it was not >protected.
> >
> > Well, once it did not get back on the same day, they would not tell you
> > that it could, don’t you think??? Certainly, they would tell you that it
> > was unprotected, no matter how things were meant to happen in actuality.
> >
> > Actually, I am not so sure about this particular launch, but I am pretty
> > sure that the one with dogs
> > that never came back was a fuck-up - objectively, it just does not make
> > sense to send dogs to space, unless you want to examine them after the
> > flight and see how mammal’s body may react to so dramatic changes in
> > gravity in a matter of minutes. Therefore, apparently they just failed to
> > return them back, and then claimed that they were never meant to come
> > back, in the first place.
> > Taking into consideration that the sole objective of USSR’s space
> > exploration at the time was impressing the world with its “achievements”,
> > rather than doing scientific research that may have practical
> > applications, it would be naive to expect them to tell you the truth…
> >
> >>>but the OS got hung
> >
> >> It didn’t have any OS, this was a passive device with radio transmitter.
> >
> > Don’t you have any sense of humour??? Of course it just could not have had
> > an OS, because microprocessors did not exist back then, so that the whole
> > thing just could not have been controlled by a programmable chip.
> > Furthermore, as far as software is concerned, the very concept of OS (as
> > it is currently known) did not exist either. In fact, all major
> > developments in basic computer science
> > (abstract data structures, searching and sorting algorithms, recursive
> > calls, etc) took place in late 1950s- early 1960s, and programming was an
> > area of interest mainly for mathematicians, rather than for engineers, at
> > the time…
> >
> > Anton Bassov
> >
>
>
>
> —
> NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
> (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@comcast.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Alex,
You made just a brilliant point. However, from the very beginning this thread was meant to be off-topic one, as it follows from its title - after all, no one is going to mistake it for anything related to FS development, so that OSR guys will, probably, just remove it from the archieves. However, if someone attempted this discussion in context of a thread that had started off as FS-related one and eventually diverted to something completely unrelated, I am pretty sure Peter would immediately turn up with his standard “Children!” warning…
Anton Bassov
>> … the very concept of OS (as it is currently known) did not exist either
Please, give the “current” definition for OS.
Well, I would say the most general definition of any “modern” OS would be " a layer that provides complete separation of user program’s logic from the hardware" (for example, reading or writing data to/from the disk by a program does not require it to deal with disk controller or with BIOS calls). AFAIK, “in the Stone Age of computing” this concept did not exist. Please note that I am not mentioning the requirements like “capable of multitasking”, “capable of running on SMP architecture”," provides a separation of privileged code from and non-privileged one", etc, because these requirements imply at least some level of sophistication, and some modern, but primitive, OS
that is optimized for a very small set of tasks, probably, does not necessarily have to meet them.
However, it still has to isolate the program logic from the hardware - otherwise, it just would not qualify for being an OS. However, AFAIK, early “OSes” did not do it…
This is *my* definition of a “modern” OS. However, if you need more qualified opinion, I would
advise you to ask Don or Tim - after all, they have an experince of working with “not-so-modern” OSes in the early days of their careers, so that they can provide you with more reliable info on the subject…
Are you those guy who boasted by the lack of any formal education?
Actually, “those” is plural, so that the very term “those guy” may apply only to someone like Russian Tsar Nicholas II, who always referred to himslef in a plural form, and started all his decrees with the words “We, Nicholas II…”. However, I am just a “commoner”, so that I am just “this guy”…
In any case, I just wonder how lack of formal computer training/education may be possibly related
to critical (in fact, just ironical) reaction to Soviet propaganda…
Anton Bassov
There is only one definition for OS, yet it is broad and encompassing all
OSes ( small, large, old, new, premature, infants, todler … )
OS is a resource manager. Nothing more and nothing less.
-pro
On 10/5/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> … the very concept of OS (as it is currently known) did not exist
> either
>
> > Please, give the “current” definition for OS.
>
> Well, I would say the most general definition of any “modern” OS would be
> " a layer that provides complete separation of user program’s logic from the
> hardware" (for example, reading or writing data to/from the disk by a
> program does not require it to deal with disk controller or with BIOS
> calls). AFAIK, “in the Stone Age of computing” this concept did not exist.
> Please note that I am not mentioning the requirements like “capable of
> multitasking”, “capable of running on SMP architecture”," provides a
> separation of privileged code from and non-privileged one", etc, because
> these requirements imply at least some level of sophistication, and some
> modern, but primitive, OS
> that is optimized for a very small set of tasks, probably, does not
> necessarily have to meet them.
> However, it still has to isolate the program logic from the hardware -
> otherwise, it just would not qualify for being an OS. However, AFAIK, early
> “OSes” did not do it…
>
> This is my definition of a “modern” OS. However, if you need more
> qualified opinion, I would
> advise you to ask Don or Tim - after all, they have an experince of
> working with “not-so-modern” OSes in the early days of their careers, so
> that they can provide you with more reliable info on the subject…
>
>
>
> > Are you those guy who boasted by the lack of any formal education?
>
> Actually, “those” is plural, so that the very term “those guy” may apply
> only to someone like Russian Tsar Nicholas II, who always referred to
> himslef in a plural form, and started all his decrees with the words “We,
> Nicholas II…”. However, I am just a “commoner”, so that I am just “this
> guy”…
>
> In any case, I just wonder how lack of formal computer training/education
> may be possibly related
> to critical (in fact, just ironical) reaction to Soviet propaganda…
>
>
> Anton Bassov
>
>
> —
> NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
> (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@gmail.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
“Prokash Sinha” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
> There is only one definition for OS, yet it is broad and encompassing all
> OSes ( small, large, old, new, premature, infants, todler … )
>
> OS is a resource manager. Nothing more and nothing less.
>
> -pro
>
Sorry, I first heard that claim about 35 years ago, and two professors who
both worked on the Atlas project (one of the first modern computers) said
fine now define resources and managing them. Sorry that is just moving
the problem of what is an OS not solving it.
–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
Oh, one more thing it does not have to be digital.
And being a res manager it has its policies and decisions.
Finally as resources becomes complex and of natures that widely varies, it becomes complex and more complex …
-pro
----- Original Message -----
From: Prokash Sinha
To: Windows File Systems Devs Interest List
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ntfsd] Happy Sputnik Day!
There is only one definition for OS, yet it is broad and encompassing all OSes ( small, large, old, new, premature, infants, todler … )
OS is a resource manager. Nothing more and nothing less.
-pro
On 10/5/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:
>> … the very concept of OS (as it is currently known) did not exist either
> Please, give the “current” definition for OS.
Well, I would say the most general definition of any “modern” OS would be " a layer that provides complete separation of user program’s logic from the hardware" (for example, reading or writing data to/from the disk by a program does not require it to deal with disk controller or with BIOS calls). AFAIK, “in the Stone Age of computing” this concept did not exist. Please note that I am not mentioning the requirements like “capable of multitasking”, “capable of running on SMP architecture”," provides a separation of privileged code from and non-privileged one", etc, because these requirements imply at least some level of sophistication, and some modern, but primitive, OS
that is optimized for a very small set of tasks, probably, does not necessarily have to meet them.
However, it still has to isolate the program logic from the hardware - otherwise, it just would not qualify for being an OS. However, AFAIK, early “OSes” did not do it…
This is my definition of a “modern” OS. However, if you need more qualified opinion, I would
advise you to ask Don or Tim - after all, they have an experince of working with “not-so-modern” OSes in the early days of their careers, so that they can provide you with more reliable info on the subject…
> Are you those guy who boasted by the lack of any formal education?
Actually, “those” is plural, so that the very term “those guy” may apply only to someone like Russian Tsar Nicholas II, who always referred to himslef in a plural form, and started all his decrees with the words “We, Nicholas II…”. However, I am just a “commoner”, so that I am just “this guy”…
In any case, I just wonder how lack of formal computer training/education may be possibly related
to critical (in fact, just ironical) reaction to Soviet propaganda…
Anton Bassov
—
NTFSD is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule debugging and file system seminars
(including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@gmail.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
— NTFSD is sponsored by OSR For our schedule debugging and file system seminars (including our new fs mini-filter seminar) visit: http://www.osr.com/seminars You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@garlic.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Don,
Sorry, I first heard that claim about 35 years ago, and two professors who
both worked on the Atlas project (one of the first modern computers) said
fine now define resources and managing them.
You made just a wonderfull point - indeed, what is “managing”??? For example, let’s say OS allows access to IO ports to anyone who wants it. Does it manage IO ports then ??? Don’t be too quick with a negative answer - in order to make it possible or impossible, the OS has to specify an IO bitmap in TSS. Therefore, we can say that it still manages them, and the fact that, in actuality, it does not, is just its management policy. Ridiculous, but nonexistent management can still qualify for being just a management policy…
Anton Bassov