28-Mar-2024 18:28 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 313 items in your selection (but only 163 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 313]
[Web] Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans!ANN.lu
Posted on 07-Nov-2002 05:12 GMT by Scott Pistorino313 comments
View flat
View list
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans only at AmigaSource! AmigaSource! is pround to anounce what hopes to be the first of many interviews with the big names in the Amiga Community. Drop on in and read the exclusive interview with Ben Hermans of Hyperion Entertainment!!!
Thanks
Scott Pistorino
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 151 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 07-Nov-2002 18:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 117 (Anonymous):
> You dont get it.
_I_ don't get it? Really?
> One board, lets call it P.
Yes, let's.
> Get a AmigaOS liscense for P and you have P* (and some kind of software
> and/or hardware protection, eg a different bios maybe).
>
> P* must be sold with an OEM AmigaOS license - P need not.
> P is not licensed and Amiga has no say in how, when or where you try to
> sell it.
Absolutely correct! Since P isn't capable of running AOS it may be sold without a copy of AOS, and since P* is capable of running AOS is must be sold with a copy of AOS.
That was what "Anonymous", the executive update and I said, and Ben Hermans said that it was wrong.
So, what do I not get?
- Marcus Sundman
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 152 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 07-Nov-2002 18:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 151 (Marcus Sundman):
Ben says exactly that only hardware licensed (ie has a dongle) has to be sold with AOS4. Don't want AOS4 ? Fine buy the non licensed hardware.
He's not saying anything else.
/Björn
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 153 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 07-Nov-2002 18:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 150 (Björn Hagström):
> "capable of running"
> Translates to -> Has the OS4 dongle.
> Same hardware without the dongle can be sold without AOS4.
Yes. Still the hardware without the dongle is not capable of running AOS and hence may be sold without a copy of AOS whereas the hardware with the dongle (or perhaps the dongle by itself) must be sold with a copy of AOS. So, besides this (which I've been saying all along), what is your point?
- Marcus Sundman
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 154 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 07-Nov-2002 18:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 152 (Björn Hagström):
> He's not saying anything else.
That's a lie.
He's saying that what "Anonymous" is saying is wrong, which is what I quoted.
- Marcus Sundman
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 155 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 07-Nov-2002 18:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 154 (Marcus Sundman):
The point is that this does not contradict this (And neither does the executive update):
(107) <Ben Hermans/Hyperion wrote:>
> Wrong.
>
> Only hardware targetted towards people who specifically want AmigaOS4 must
> come with an OEM version of OS 4.
Which originates from post 106 which is incorrect.
Well it is correct in the sence that a volvo is named volvo whether the driver wants the volvo to be named a volvo or not. But that is probably not what the writer wanted to say. Since that would be a very stupid comment.
Ben simply wanted to say to that comment that if the user does not want AOS4, then (s)he can buy the same hardware without the AOS4 dongle scheme. Ie, don't buy what you don't want.
/Björn
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 156 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Rob on 07-Nov-2002 18:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 98 (Anonymous):
>If I buy pegasos now I won't be able to run OS4 when it is available
So you couldn't just re-flash the bios like people with BPPC have done
in order to use G-rex.
The fact is that the A1 bios is re-flashable and I would be very
surprised if the pegasos bios wasn't.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 157 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 07-Nov-2002 18:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 155 (Björn Hagström):
> Ben simply wanted to say to that comment that if the user does not want
> AOS4, then (s)he can buy the same hardware without the AOS4 dongle scheme.
If a part of one thing of two that are the same is left out then the two aren't the same anymore.
The hardware without the AOS4 dongle scheme isn't "hardware capable of running AmigaOS", and since post 106 didn't mention such hardware it (such h/w) is irrelevant to the discussion.
I should only have quoted "Wrong" of what Ben Hermans said, since the rest of his post was just too vague, but I didn't think that people would blame me for things they thought I thought Ben meant with his vague description. Yes, I know that I am stupid for not remembering that most people don't listen to what one says but instead tries to interpret what was said in some other way and then assumes that their interpretation is correct.
So, bottom line: I apologize for quoting anything else than "Wrong" of what Ben said.
- Marcus Sundman
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 158 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 07-Nov-2002 18:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 157 (Marcus Sundman):
Anonymous said in 106 that comment 91 is wrong. Which it isn't. As Ben confirmed in post 107.
So when ben said that 106 is wrong in saying that 91 is wrong, ben is right.
Complicated enough for ya? ;)
/Björn
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 159 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 07-Nov-2002 18:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 158 (Björn Hagström):
Björn, Marcus,
You guys are agueing about nothing really, it's all schemantics.
An A1 board without the 'dongle' isn't allowed to come with AOS4
An A1 board with the 'dongle' has to come with the AOS4.
A Pegasos with a 'dongle' would have to come with AOS4.
A Pegasos without the dongle isn't allowed to come with AOS4.
Simple right?
And no Marcus, i don't want to hear about "Ben is wrong, Anon is right" for what's basicly just a misunderstanding
Amon_Re
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 160 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 07-Nov-2002 18:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 159 (Amon_Re):
Nah, quite innocent arguing if so :) Atleast from my part :)
/Björn
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 161 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 19:03 GMT
Hello priest,
About A-Box being the only thing of MorphOS:
Yes and no,
You can also compile PPC apps for MorphOS. Of course for know you'll
surely have to use some of the Amiga APIs (like Intuition, MUI...etc)
and so the MorphOS PPC apps run on the A-Box.
THis wil be the same for OS 4. When you'll make an OS 4 apps you'll
use some Amiga APIs stuff liek intuition, MUI...etc
For now they don't plan to put the memory protection activated for
4.0, and Ben Hermans said that for legacy apps compatibility they'll
need to use a sandbox (a bit like the A-Box of MorphOS so :) ). So
this will be the same OS 4 apps that will use legacy softwares like
MUI, Intuition...etc will run inside the sandbox even OS 4 PPC apps
because of legacy compatibility.
So yes the MorphOS Q-Box is not ready yet, but at least it already
have some stuff (the ABox is a QBox app for example :) ). The "QBox"
equivalent of OS 4 is not started at all (or just a few parts of what
it'll be are started) :)
Bye
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 162 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Linus Gustafsson on 07-Nov-2002 19:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 161 (Frodon):
The QBox of AOS would be AOS. Intuition and alot of other parts are almost ready. They only need to compiled for PPC...
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 163 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 19:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 162 (Linus Gustafsson):
Hello,
@linus
Just read past comment for Ben Hermans on other threads.
OS 4 > 4.0 will also use a sandbox, so the "QBox" like things of OS 4
will not be the OS 4.0 sandbox of OS 4.x > 4.0. I mean memory
protected apps will run outside the OS 4.0 sandbox to avoid any
conflicts with OS 3.x and OS 4.0 (I don't speak about OS 4 > 4.0) PPC
apps which will run under the sandbox as they'll use legacy APIs that
are incompatible with the memory protection.
So no sorry, the "QBox" like things of OS 4 will be something else
that does not exist for now. In fact it'll be logically all the new
APIs that'll be memory protection compatible and used by memory
protection compatible apps. ANy apps that'll use legacy APIs as
implemented in OS 4.0 will un in the future in a sandbox. This can't
be done in an other way without risking conflicts and so apps that'll
not running.
And this is why there is already the A-Box and the Q-Box in MorphOS.
Regards
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 164 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 19:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 93 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
If I have to replace bPlan's OF firmware with your Das U-Boot firmware, that's a deal breaker.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 165 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Linus Gustafsson on 07-Nov-2002 19:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 163 (Frodon):
I've seen post where Ben says that AOS4 will not use a sandbox. Atleast not initially because they don´t think that it is a good solution.
That is if I´m not completely mistaken...
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 166 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 19:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 113 (Anonymous):
>You got to be kidding?
You've got to be stupid
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 167 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 19:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 165 (Linus Gustafsson):
Hello Linus,
It's what I've said. No sandbox will be used for OS 4.0 (after knowing
if it's because it's not a good solution, it's subjective. I think
it's a really good one). But for later OS 4.x a sandbox will be used
because Hyperion plan to add memory protection and adding it without
separating clearly non memory protection apps (every app which use
legacy APIs (so OS 3.x apps, WarpUP, PowerUP and OS 4.0 apps) and new
memory protected apps.
So yes there will not be a sandbox for OS 4.0 but as soon as the
memory protection is used and so new APIs comaptible with it are
developped, a sandbox will be used for all the apps that use legacy
APIs. That's what have said Ben Hermans.
Regards
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 168 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Linus Gustafsson on 07-Nov-2002 19:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 167 (Frodon):
Sorry. That was a misunderstanding...
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 169 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 19:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 168 (Linus Gustafsson):
Hello Linus,
Don't be sorry :) It's not bad to misunderstand and in fact I'm sure
that your comment here help lot of other people. Because I'm quite
sure you weren't the only one who had misunderstood.
So thank you to have commented about this :)
Regards
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 170 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 19:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 122 (priest):
I don't have any official information, but I was under the impression they implemented some form of x86 emulation to initialize cards and register an OF device, then added a general OF VESA driver so OF can use the frame buffer and resolutions.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 171 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 127 (Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]):
Ah yes, there's where I read it.
I much prefer this solution (on paper) and I'm not going to buy a Pegasos if it's flashed with "Das U-Boot"
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 172 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (priest):
1) Stop calling it the BIOS! Grr!
2) The Teron CX/PX already has Open Firmware. Hyperion probably had to author their own firmware to create their infamous dongle.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 173 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 171 (strobe):
Explain, giving technical reasons, why not?
Ive flashed the bios of an entire lab of systems ( 200 ) prior to Y2K for a vast array
of different hardware ( not all PC by a long way ) and it is no big deal. In fact
most people don't even notice the bios.
Ahhh for the days when all there was to an OS was a bios and a thin shell around it
for programming...
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 174 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 172 (strobe):
You do know what a BIOS is don't you?
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 175 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 141 (priest):
>AmigaOS4 can not be a virtual machine, it is a OS on it's own, that's not the case with A-Box.
priest, don't take offence but you don't have a fúcking clue what you're talking about.
If you want to run applications which make assumptions which are broken you HAVE to run it in a virtual machine! Saying AmigaOS "is a OS on it's own" makes negative sense. It actually sucks sense out of the reast of this thread. It's like saying MorphOS isn't an OS on it's own, whatever the hell you mean by that.
3.x apps have to run under different rules than apps which have things like memory protection. This is why AmigaOS4 only offers memory protection for applcations specifically written for it! Do you get it now?
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 176 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 146 (tonya):
MorphOS already runs on the Teron CX/PX (A1 without the license).
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 177 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 20:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 175 (strobe):
Hello strobe,
Just to avoid misinformation, according to Ben Hermans, AmigaOS 4.0
will not offer the ability to use the memory protection.
This will be offered in the future and old apps that use legacy APIs
will run in a sandbox (this include also future OS 4.0 PPC apps (again
I don't speak about OS 4.x > 4.0 apps) ).
Regards
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 178 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 07-Nov-2002 20:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (Quantum-3):
>What do you want? A free OS you can run on what ever you want? Get yourself Linux.
Uh no. We want to BUY the OS separately! You know, buy, with money. Novel idea isn't it?
>Sounds more like you're a Windows user and because of this expect to be able to grab
a copy of OS4.0 and run it on any hardware.
OH THE HORROR! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CAN WE?!?!
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 179 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (Quantum-3):
>What do you want? A free OS you can run on what ever you want? Get yourself Linux.
Uh no. We want to BUY the OS separately! You know, buy, with money. Novel idea isn't it?
>Sounds more like you're a Windows user and because of this expect to be able to grab
a copy of OS4.0 and run it on any hardware.
OH THE HORROR! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CAN WE?!?!
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 180 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 152 (Björn Hagström):
> Ben says exactly that only hardware licensed (ie has a dongle) has to be sold with AOS4. Don't want AOS4 ? Fine buy the non licensed hardware.
So in other words if you want to buy hardware which at some point you MAY want to run AmigaOS 4 you're SCREWED
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 181 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 175 (strobe):
Ahem
Well I come down on this issue someway between you both. Instruction translation
layers are not always virtual machines for one thing but you rightly point out
in modern times to allow superceeded assumptions to operate some level of emulation
of the broken requirements is needed.
Here is where it gets fuzzy. Microsoft defines the post 3.11 DOS environment as
running in a protected mode virtual machine. Oak was written and then ported
onto the "Java" virtual machine.
The problem is that both of these examples meet the challenge of
emulation in a radically different way in fact there are more differences
than similarities in basic design. However both are termed virtual machines
in the technical documentation.
Then we get onto the VM systems from the multiplexing implementation of z/VM to
low end VMWare which actually have a reasonable amount in common.
Then we have emulators, which to some are not VMs. Then we have transcoding
which some prefer not to classify as VM. Then we have high level programming
languages ( e.g. REBOL, SML ) which require a runtime - and are "interpreted" and
some might say they are VMs too.
So whats the real beef here, VM is a heavily overloaded term with far too much
baggage to be remotely useful in a conversation like you two are having.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 182 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 165 (Linus Gustafsson):
If you live in a desert then what's the point of calling it a sandbox?
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 183 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 177 (Frodon):
Until we know more information about the implementation a sandbox could mean
anything from a protected address space with all memory management functions
limited to that or it could go as far as a so called "virtual machine" ( ;) ).
Who knows and it pays not to second guess design documents that few on here
have seen.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 184 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 174 (DaveW):
Basic
Input
Output
System
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 185 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 177 (Frodon):
Yes, that has been crystal clear from the beginning (even before this thread began).
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 186 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 184 (strobe):
Yep. Thats what it stands for, now define what its role is and then define
the role of Open Firmware.
Even OS/390 has a "BIOS" that is dispatched after you IPL ( you can configure
it with DIP switches if you really feel like it ) and is responsible for
the stages of startup after a POR.
In fact not all BIOS are in firmware and not all firmware are BIOS but Open Firmware
has the role of BIOS in all this. :)
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 187 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 186 (DaveW):
But it does so much more |-)
Calling it the BIOS kind of belittles it.
Oh well.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 188 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 187 (strobe):
I know what you mean. So much more than a *basic* BIOS that most people
were introduced to with the PC :-)
I can't recall which demo group did this but there WAS a graphics demo that you could
run with a Voodoo (3000?) and an SB16 on a bog standard PC that was flashed
into a certain version of a BIOS that was absolutely amazing. Freed from the
shackles of running a fully fledged OS the pace was astounding.
A demo "BIOS"!
Actually I think I picked it up at a computer fair in Denmark and might be
able to find the floppy used for the flash update somewhere around here.
If its not copyrighted Ill upload somewhere!
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 189 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 188 (DaveW):
Oh and Ive thought of another cool BIOS, the ones shipped with the X-stations
that IBM used to sell ( pre "NC" days, it was just a small system with a tiny
footprint that gave you a keyboard, mouse and display adapter for X11 sessions
with a remote UNIX system ) which booted off the network with BOOTP and
was totally configurable.
You see there is little really new out there, including the ability for a BIOS
to boot an OS image off the network ;-)
Still f*cking cool tho and Hyperion should be proud of what they have done with
PPCBoot to get it so far. BIOS network boot will make my little project even
cooler :-)
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 190 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 20:46 GMT
Hello,
About the A-Box, I don't think it can be called a virtual machine
neither an emulator.
As in fact it does not simulate any machine (like a virtual machine
do) or emulate anything but the 68k processor, it's more an app that
implement rewritten from scratch, natively and improved AmigaOS APIs
from legally and publicly available docs and so it's more something
like Wine.
Wine is an app for linux that offer rewritten Windows APIs and so
launch Windows softwares. The difference is that you have to run an
instance of wine for each apps, the A-Box is just run once and then
everything is multithreaded inside of it.
Regards
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 191 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 188 (DaveW):
Open Firmware isn't "basic", so you'll have to take the B out of BIOS |-)
You can write graphical programs in OF like a boot volume selector or a game. Apple's boot selection screen is graphical and uses the mouse to select the system you wish to boot. At one point I could select a MacOS icon, an OS X icon, or a penguin icon.
You can write filesystem drivers so it can load kernels from different filesystems.
You can fix things which you wouldn't ordinarily be able to in a PC BIOS, like if the device tree wasn't correct or if the firmware should wait a couple seconds for a drive to spin up before looking for it.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 192 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 190 (Frodon):
Not that the original AmigaOS was good at seperation but THREADS? Well I suppose
its so close to the Exec concept of a Task that it will work and be as
subject to the same crashes of "badly written applications(hah!)" as AmigaOS3.x.
However Frodon you do miss one trick here, I would agree with you that there
was no emulation involved if this was pure PPC. However some level of 68k
to PPC translation has to take place for 68k applications to run and establish
pragmas with PPC based libraries and to even be executed on a PPC dispatch thread
no matter how clever.
At some point, it is "emulating", and as I said "virtual machine" is such a fuzzy
term these days you will have to convince the world that it is merely transcoding
68k binaries into PPC for execution not to be considered a "VM" or "emulating".
Developer/design docs would nail it for us. Anyone got any to share?
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 193 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 20:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 190 (Frodon):
Multithreaded doesn't have anything to do with it. Java virtual machines also are multithreaded. In MacOS X every Java thread is equivalent to a Mach thread.
That Petunia page has the correct terminology:
http://amigos.amiga.hu/rachy/petunia.html
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 194 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 193 (strobe):
Address space seperation problems inside JVMs up to 1.3.1 had serious problems
with naming, threads and a few other things. Witness what happens if you
write your own classloader to run two instances of the same "complex" multithreaded
application inside a JVM. There are good reasons why the Java Operating System project
never got far in 1996/7.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 195 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 20:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 191 (strobe):
OK, Im game for this. How about we say it "subsumes" a BIOS. Takes on the
role of a BIOS and then does more?
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 196 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 21:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 192 (DaveW):
Emulator: emulating an entire machine. Bochs, UAE, and MAME are examples.
Virtual Machine: An environment which provides conditions for certain programs to run. Programs are often said to be run "natively" since there is no emulation involved. Classic, VMWare, and seemingly A-Box are examples.
I don't find this confusing in the least.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 197 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by Frodon on 07-Nov-2002 21:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 193 (strobe):
Hello strobe,
Ok sorry, the virtual machine definition seems to be more open than
what I thought.
So in this case it's a virtual machine and so any kind of "sandbox"
seems to be one too according to the definition in the Petunia
website.
Regards
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 198 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 07-Nov-2002 21:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 194 (DaveW):
Apple's implementation is such that every Java app runs in it's own address space AND the JVM is only spawned once. In other implementations each Java app uses 30MB+ because it has it's own copy of the VM. Apple's implementation also supports native threading so Java apps are using separate native Mach threads/scheduling/blocking.
PS: I'm not a fan of Java (in fact I hate it)
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 199 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 21:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 196 (strobe):
No Im sure you don't. However my point is that what is well defined from your
perspective might also be well defined from another perspective but not
match up with each other in the slightest. Thats the whole problem with the
computing industry.
Now Ive been in the industry for ... errm... a long time and Ive heard the
term "emulation" being used for "backwards compatibility" and the term
virtual machine being used many times over and yes Ive also heard
similar definitions to those that you cite.
Problem is, these terms are overloaded and misused constantly. I have heard
"official" definitions that do not agree with other "official" definitions
just because the two professional bodies work in different contexts.
Witness the rows over "firmware" and "hardware" on computing forums.
When it comes down to it the only thing you are really arguing over is the
jargon. What you are debating over on the other hand is the nuts and bolts
of implementation.
Stick to the nuts and bolts and you cant go wrong.
Exclusive interview with Ben Hermans! : Comment 200 of 313ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 07-Nov-2002 21:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 198 (strobe):
Cool!
Sounds like hotpooling Java as implemented by IBM on z/OS a long time back
and the Shiraz JVM ( which is resettable for reasons I wont go into here ).
So yes, there are workarounds but in Suns codebase which we all share the
default flaws survived to 1.3.1 JRE. :)
Anonymous, there are 313 items in your selection (but only 163 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 313]
Back to Top