Self restarting property of RTOS-How it works?

del cecchi wrote:

>Please note that the attributions got messed up below.

That tends to happen to people who set their line wrap too small
and thus mess up the number of ">" characters in the replies.

Or, to put it another way...


>>That tends to happen to 
people 
>who 
>>set their line wrap too 
>small and 
>>thus mess up the number 
>of
>> ">" characters in the 
replies.

del cecchi wrote:
>
>"Casper H.S. Dik" <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote in message
>news:420e7916$0$28988$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Ed Beroset <beroset@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> >Del Cecchi wrote:
>> >> Ed Beroset wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have also noticed that the programmers from a computer science
>> >>> background tend to be much better at working out a system
>architecture
>> >>> and planning first.
>> >[...]
>> >>>
>> >> Those comp-sci geniuses are the ones that gave us a software
>paradigm
>> >> that is susceptible to attacks as simple as buffer overruns, and
>store
>> >> data in randomly scattered chunks linked by pointers.   And put
>multiple
>> >> unrelated locks in the same cache line?  That the ones you are
>talking
>> >> about?

[snip]

Everyone else here manages to post without screwing up the ">"
characters.  Please study how the rest of us manage that and
learn how to do it in your posts.  Thanks!

Guy Macon wrote:
> del cecchi wrote:
> 
>> Please note that the attributions got messed up below.
> 
> That tends to happen to people who set their line wrap too small
> and thus mess up the number of ">" characters in the replies.
> 
> Or, to put it another way...
> 
> >>That tends to happen to
> people
> >who
> >>set their line wrap too

No, it happens to those who use a newsreader too dumb to not wrap
quotations, and to quotations from those readers too dumb to wrap
the originals at 65 or so.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

CBFalconer wrote:

>No, it happens to those who use a newsreader too dumb to not wrap
>quotations, and to quotations from those readers too dumb to wrap
>the originals at 65 or so.

I was hoping to get the post-mangler to see that he has a problem
before getting into the specifics of the best way to solve it.
This being Usenet, there is a large chance that the thread will
continue with: "I *like* mangling repies!  It's convenient!"  :(

In article <110ulclcdibpp0d@corp.supernews.com>,
Guy Macon  <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
>I don't think it makes him look foolish at all; I read the same 
>meaning into your words.  The fact that your reply borders on 
>being a personal attack rather than striving to correct any 
>misunderstanding adds weight to Ed's interpretation.

Let me explain in VERY, VERY simple words.

One of my hobby horses is the need for a precise computational model
before starting any design, and another is the need for precisely
defined, logically consistent specifications.  I am probably rather
a bore on both of them, and anyone following comp.arch for more
than a few days would have difficulty not noticing my views.  Enough
threads where I have banged on about those have been cross-posted
to comp.arch.embedded that I am surprised you haven't noticed.

Secondly, the fact that both he and you read the same thing into my
words merely shows that you are unaware that design comes at many
levels.  Even if you were to regard them as ambiguous (which IS
reasonable, if you were unaware of my views), it is absolutely clear
that there were two interpretations.  At least if you have any
experience of designing practical, complex systems, that is.

I have pointed out the difference between "broad brush" and detailed
designs in other postings, and don't plan to expand them here.  But,
if you are unaware of the vast number of the former that have been
produced by computer scientists and have been quite impractical to
turn into working, detailed designs, then I am afraid that I have to
say your experience is severely limited.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
> Ed Beroset <beroset@mindspring.com> writes:
[snip]
> >I can answer that question easily because I've studied a
> >little computer science.  Can you?  If not, how can you
> >properly engineer the system?
> 
> My favourite example: people without comp-sci hardly ever
> get floating point comparison right.

That sounds more like numerical analysis than compsci.

And just what is this wonderful trade secret that compsci
people know about FP comparison that others don't?

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>In article <110ulclcdibpp0d@corp.supernews.com>,
>Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>>
>>I don't think it makes him look foolish at all; I read the same 
>>meaning into your words.  The fact that your reply borders on 
>>being a personal attack rather than striving to correct any 
>>misunderstanding adds weight to Ed's interpretation.
>
>Let me explain in VERY, VERY simple words.

No.  I won't let you do that.  I have no further interest in reading
anything else after the above, so I hit the delete to end of file key
without reading the rest of your post, and I will now hit the killfile
key so that I will not see any future posts by you.  Bye-bye, flamer.

*plonk*

"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:110umeugrunot41@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> del cecchi wrote:
> >
> >"Casper H.S. Dik" <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote in message
> >news:420e7916$0$28988$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> Ed Beroset <beroset@mindspring.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >Del Cecchi wrote:
> >> >> Ed Beroset wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I have also noticed that the programmers from a computer
science
> >> >>> background tend to be much better at working out a system
> >architecture
> >> >>> and planning first.
> >> >[...]
> >> >>>
> >> >> Those comp-sci geniuses are the ones that gave us a software
> >paradigm
> >> >> that is susceptible to attacks as simple as buffer overruns, and
> >store
> >> >> data in randomly scattered chunks linked by pointers.   And put
> >multiple
> >> >> unrelated locks in the same cache line?  That the ones you are
> >talking
> >> >> about?
>
> [snip]
>
> Everyone else here manages to post without screwing up the ">"
> characters.  Please study how the rest of us manage that and
> learn how to do it in your posts.  Thanks!
>
We will see if the defaults in Outlook Express are better than the
defaults in Thunderbird.

apparently this thread, or this part has been trimmed to only follow up
to cae.  So bye bye.
Sorry for disturbing you folks.

del

> The problem was deliberately phrased as an engineering problem.  But of 
> course in order to solve it, it's useful to know a little about queueing 
> theory which is certainly in the domain of computer science.

I'd put queueing theory into probability theory, i.e., mathematics.

	Jan

In article <37b4dtF5be8jdU1@individual.net>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=  <jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> wrote:
>> The problem was deliberately phrased as an engineering problem.  But of 
>> course in order to solve it, it's useful to know a little about queueing 
>> theory which is certainly in the domain of computer science.
>
>I'd put queueing theory into probability theory, i.e., mathematics.

Either there or into statistics, a very closely related branch of
mathematics.

Most queuing theory taught in computer science is bad, because it is
over-simplistic.  There clearly isn't time to go into much detail
(there isn't even in full-time statistics courses), but it is really
bad to omit the general probabilistic background that shows that
some of the standard assumptions are not universally true.  And, as
probabilists and statisticians have known for centuries, some of the
problem cases are common in practice.

For example, it is common for the distribution of file sizes to have
effectively no mean - which has more consequences in queuing theory than
might appear.  Typical computer science concentrates on what is now
called 'discrete mathematics', which gives a false sense of simplicity.
A related example here is the bogus claim that bucket sorting is O(N) in
the number of elements, and that has close analogues in common mistakes
in queuing theory.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.