English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Coders > Coders. Asm / Hardware

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 26 December 2020, 19:08   #121
Gorf
Registered User

Gorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
Re-implementing Windows will not solve its architectural issues, like its horrible messaging system and its terrifying API complexity and redundancy (while still lacking basic and useful features). So from pure technical point of view it is more or less what Gorf said.
However putting Microsoft out of the equation looks like a good idea, especially if it's transparent to users.
It's not going to happen ... ReactOS is trying to reimplement some 20+ years old windows API - but like AROS-68k it will never be 100% binary compatible - and other than AROS it is aiming at a moving target. There is virtually no software out there, that is limiting itself to some old Windows APIs - they all have moved on or were needing some additional libraries and frameworks to begin with.
And now we did not even mention hardware drivers....

And even if they ever manage to provide good compatibility:
it is still f*** Windows!
WHY???
Gorf is offline  
Old 26 December 2020, 21:35   #122
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
There is no security issue in providing suitable APIs.
There is an issue because it breaks the isolation of components. Thus, a framebuffer is not a suitable abstraction. What is possible is rendering into an off-screen buffer, then using the GPU for rendering it to the screen, or rendering into an overlay that was reserved by the Os such that you cannot render directly into the framebuffer.


There is certainly a security issue by rendering into other windows. You could fake GUI elements, and by that convince the user to take an activity he wouldn't normally do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post

You wrote about video coding. I supposed this was encoding, for which latency does not matter that much. Else it would have been clearer to write video decoding.
I am talking about encoding, but this is not an MPEG video codec. It's an industrial low-latency codec, operating as a mezzanine codec.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


A brain damaged design remains what it is, even on a powerful machine.
You just haven't understood the motivation for the design - which does not suprise me as you do not understand stability and security issues. The point of an operating system is that it keeps the system *operating* even if an application crashes. You cannot guarantee that with the lack of abstraction.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post

It is nonsense to use resources for security if we're sure we'll never get attacked.
How do you ensure that you are never getting attacked? You can't. That's the point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


Nope. Security layers in the Os are for when the intruder is there (= for when it's too late).
Nope. They are there to keep the intruder out. They are there such that a misbehaving program does not run havoc, cannot attack the machine or take it down.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



Locks on the front door are there for when the intruder tries to enter (= security layers in the TCP stack).
The network stack is just one out of many possible attach points.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Nah, you missed the point. Amiga was fortress #1.
ROFL... Secured by *what*?


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





If you see it this way... Toys are enjoyable - they are designed for that. Productive work is boring.
Maybe so, but then don't call that an operating system, but a toy system. This is exactly what it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







And oops, you forgot the key inside.
Then don't forget the key. As in "don't forget the pasword". I haven't.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post






I haven't written that.
You have declared AmigaOs as "secure". Whch it isn't.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







But then you have to enter my home, and guess what : i will not let you in.
Now i can just plug some usb key in your laptop while you're looking elsewhere but have your session open, and install some malware. You won't notice it's there - but i would quickly see it on my Amiga.
Why would you? In the same situation, it would be immediate on the Amiga. On the laptop, you won't get in, the screen is locked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





Nah, still invalid. Lack of security layer in the operating system does not mean there is no security layer at all. It's just elsewhere.
Except that the "elsewhere" does not work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post






A component that comes with the Os, huh ? So it does not depend on what it is, but on how it is installed ? Where's the sense in that ?
By requiring appropriate credentials to allow that, obviously. Signed packages, root access. That's how it works on sane systems, obviously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







And you've just been caught moving the goalposts. You told about privacy. And now you're moving that to industrial spying.
Same problem. Some people trying to access data they shouldn't access. My private data, the private data of the company.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









Even worse then. A device can still be used by someone else, in case something bad happens to you. Nothing is lost. For your password, on the other hand...
The device can still be used. Reformat the harddisk, ready to use. The data is then lost, and that is the purpose of it.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









Then instead of taking shortcuts, tell how they are related in our particular context.
Freedom means that the state does not have access to my private data. It means that elections are private and anonymous. Security ensures privacy as it prevents intruders from stealing my private data. Not that this wasn't obvious to begin with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post








Frankly, you can't expect a malware to be detected by just reading source code, do you ? It could be anywhere in the system. Could even be a rootkit.
And the defense mechanism AmigaOs offers in that matter is zilch because it's none of its business - but at the end the defense could well be the same : a mailer program written for Amiga can encrypt its mails, too. Except it's done in the right place.
Encryption of mail is just one layer of security. But on the Amiga, everyone can install a handler into the input.device and read the keycodes that go into any window, and thus circumvent any encryption. On a sane operating system, getting keystrokes that target a differrent application requires sufficient privledges a program can only get with allowance of its user.


Hence, mail encryption on the Amiga is pointless. You can also get the mail from the framebuffer, or from the input buffer of the mailer as there is no memory isolation either.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










Then you haven't tested it.
Nice try. Just because you're incompetent...




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









Yes, except that the "small enough" is a lot smaller on the AmigaOs, which has the possibility of providing an interrupt.
Yet, you are claiming that they are not "small enough" on other systems? Why? An operating system will not provide user programs without priviledges access to the interrupt system. Interrupt code can take the system down as it runs with excalated privideges, and can block the system for arbitrarily long. The interrupt code can also access resources the user program cannot - hence, user code is blocked out from installing interrupts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









Why would i care, as properly written system processes will not lock my program out for a duration long enough for me to be annoyed ?
So why would the Os block you out on any other system but AmigaOs? There is no difference. On AmigaOs, any process can steal the CPU, so can any other system. Except you have additional mechanisms to control that on sane systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










Besides, if my program really can't accept to be locked out, there are ways to prevent this (yeah, take over).
In other words, it *blocks out any other program*. Now, why does that make sense? What if you want to run two of such programs?



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post











Sorry, but my program isn't for Linux. Try again.
Sorry, but I don't bother. You claim that its only possible on Amiga - just not true.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










Perhaps there is nothing to be found...
Lazyness is not an excuse for declaring any other system incapable. It's just your own incapability. Apparently, real-time video and audio playback does, in fact, also work on windows. So it certainly does work.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










Do it yourself !
My stuff works as it should, I have no reason to complain about other operating systems. You are doing that...


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









Much better than the AmigaOs ?! This is awfully, terrifyingly wrong.
Of course precise timing measurement is done with interrupts on the Amiga, and there higher priority tasks can't steal the cpu.
User code need to keep out of interrupts on a sane Os, and of course other higher priority interrupts can steal the CPU. If your interrupt takes too long, you can take the whole machine down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









Sure, doing complex things where a simple interrupt would have done it in a very easy way. It's not in any manner "better".
It is much better because the interrupt cannot take down the system. On Amiga, it can. On a sane Os, you cannot get hands on the interrupt. Instead, you forward just the information to the task, and trigger there a message.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post











If the timing is precious then it's done with interrupts, as already mentioned. Then, regardless of the system load, it won't get bust.
It will, or might, by you or other interrupts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









If enough load is made, this *does* happen on a multi-core system. Don't tell me lies, i've seen it numerous times.
I tell you lies. You simply haven't understood. If there is too much load, the operating system cancels the processes that run out of control. However, it cannot take down interrupts that run out of control. The problem is always the same: Demanding too much from the system it cannot take. "Too much" can be "too much computation in an interrupt", or "too much computation in a thread". The difference is that the Os can take down a thread, but it cannot take down an interrupt. Thus, interrupts are certainly not a mechanism user codes should be allowed to use.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









But do i want "busy cores" ? Do i want to have some core 100% busy all the time just to handle timing issues ?
If I need nanonsecond precise timing, that's the way to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post











No, this is just not true.
Yes input.device and floppy (but not harddisk, no) will regularly get some cpu. But, and this is where the difference is important in comparison to your "modern Os", only a tiny fraction of time. And in a predictable manner.
Same as on a modern Os. These services get only a fraction of the CPU time, and on a different CPU, and only a tiny fraction of the time. And no, that's not *predictable* on the Amiga because the activity is triggered by the user.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









But on a "modern" machine, these services are so numerous and eat so much resources that you will never have enough cores to handle them all. Unlike on the Amiga.
Then you have an underpowered system if it cannot take care of the system services. Demands grew over the years, obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










If you encode, you can hardly miss frames.
Of course I can. That's a mezzanine codec. It encodes live signals. That's not "encoding from disk". It's "encoding from camera".

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post











And we can suppose you used very expensive machine for doing a single task anyway.
That depends on the resolution. For 8K, yes, you need a poweful machine. For 4K, a standard modern desktop is Ok, for 1K a mobile system is ok.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







Exactly. I don't leave the front door open, but if for some reason i needed to, i could do it.
Why don't you? You don't thrust your neighbours? Why do you on your computer?


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post











Nah, sorry, i don't run bloatware and/or badly written software on the Amiga.
How do you know what's bloatware or not?




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post











And ? The point is that they don't do that randomly, without anything special being made on the machine.
They do that randomly, because the IO accesses are triggered by the user in a non-predictable way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post












Indeed you don't need to care, as you are not the true owner of the machine. You're just a user.
I am the true owner, and I can find out whenever I need to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










Ok so tell me how i can write a "window manager" on Windows, as Linux isn't my target.
I do not care how to do that on windows. I don't use windows if I can avoid that.




Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post












Yes sometimes restrictions come from technology, and ? Multi-core stuff also comes from technology, and you seem to have perfectly accepted it in spite it makes things more complex for coding.
And much more performing, as well. With more power comes more responsibility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post

If you had single core fast enough for the work, you would just use it.
Except that there are physical limitations on the speed, which is exactly why we have multicore now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


In the same way, the screen moves vertically at next to zero cpu expense, and it's perfectly fine.
No, you just accepted the restriction, but that is a choice you made. Thus, there is nothing natural about it, except that you are used to it. That is exactly your problem: You only wear "Amiga glasses", accept the restrictions of the machine because you grew up with it, and ignore the freedom you get on modern architectures.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




This turns something easy into something overly complicated.
No, it exchanges one obsolete technology with another technology that operates in different ways, but removes restrictions of the older technology.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





You can remove your door and replace it with another, very different model, if you want. Tell me how to do that with protection.
You change the Os components that provide the protection, obviously. This, of course, requires the necessary priviledges, a standard user cannot do that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





Just throw away security. Less resources.
Just throw away your front door. Less resources.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post






In addition, when the program becomes big enough the difference in code density will cover the cost of the VM and we end up using less resources.
Hardly. You still need *more* resources for running the machine. Maybe you use less RAM, but RAM is only one resource.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







Fine if you do, but you're not alone in that world. Your needs aren't everyone's needs.
That's obvious. But what is also obvious is that my needs are apparently more in line with what many other people need, and that includes professionals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







There is a difference between learn and blindly agree. Perhaps one day i will explain it to you.
I don't blindly agree, there are certainly things that are broken in Linux (systemd, pulseaudio and wayland, to name some, along with removable device management and unstable kernel interfaces), but it is not *broken by design* as AmigaOs is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post








What makes you think i don't ? I'm not following all the old ideas. And yes, i do make a change.
Then, where? You don't write an Os, and even if you would, it would become an irrelevant niche, so it's not much of a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post








There are good concepts in aos and 68k. Why not just design something new which keeps them - instead of blindly following current standards (yes, this is what you're doing).
There are certainly some good ideas in AmigaOs. However, I'm a practical person - it does not make sense for me to create something new because nobody would use that. I would remain an academic exercise at best. The days of "new operating systems" are over. I'm a practical person, I'd rather design software that provides some value to its users. A new "all great" operating system does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post










Ahem. You should first clean up your own back yard before writing such things.
My backyard is fine, thanks. You're just riding in the wrong direction.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post









You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
Tells me the person who things that security and stability are irrelevant. Yeah, right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
The crux of this, is in the "today's needs". You are locked in the present, I see a possible future bringing back good ideas that have been left behind.








Whoever is designing the future of operating systems, it's not you. It's not me either. That's out of my reach. I design the future in other areas, where I can make an impact.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 03:13   #123
Gorf
Registered User

Gorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Maybe so, but then don't call that an operating system, but a toy system. This is exactly what it is.
Come on now...
You know very well, these terms are not mutual exclusive.

You can argue that some things are missing, or that it is outdated, or has many flaws, but of course AmigaOS is an operating system by definition.

And there are many OS out there, that are smaller, have fewer feature and do less ... but still are of course operating systems.

On all other points this (off topic) discussion has long reached a level, where neither of you will convince the other side of anything - at least that is the impression a third party is getting here....
Gorf is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 04:38   #124
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 44
Posts: 3,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorf View Post
of course AmigaOS is an operating system by definition
Why anyone would think it's not is utterly beyond me.
Thorham is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 07:31   #125
Minuous
Coder/webmaster/gamer
Minuous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canberra/Australia
Posts: 2,210
Yes, its name is rather self-explanatory: "Amiga Operating System" :-D
Minuous is online now  
Old 27 December 2020, 12:27   #126
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 48
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
There is an issue because it breaks the isolation of components. Thus, a framebuffer is not a suitable abstraction. What is possible is rendering into an off-screen buffer, then using the GPU for rendering it to the screen, or rendering into an overlay that was reserved by the Os such that you cannot render directly into the framebuffer.

There is certainly a security issue by rendering into other windows. You could fake GUI elements, and by that convince the user to take an activity he wouldn't normally do.
What i mean by frame buffer is what it is in reality : a buffer holding a frame.
What you mean here is the front buffer.
Two different things.
I didn't ask for direct access to front buffer, i just wanted an array of pixels.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I am talking about encoding, but this is not an MPEG video codec. It's an industrial low-latency codec, operating as a mezzanine codec.
So this is a very specific application. Not a good example to illustrate how all machines should be designed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
You just haven't understood the motivation for the design - which does not suprise me as you do not understand stability and security issues. The point of an operating system is that it keeps the system *operating* even if an application crashes. You cannot guarantee that with the lack of abstraction.
I perfectly know the motivation of the design, thanks - actually much better than you do. It is not the base principle of security i'm criticizing here, but the way it has been implemented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
How do you ensure that you are never getting attacked? You can't. That's the point.
It is not bullet proof. But neither are security measures.
You can not ensure they will not backfire by preventing a legitimate action (actually, they do that all the time).
You can not ensure they will always counter the attack.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Nope. They are there to keep the intruder out. They are there such that a misbehaving program does not run havoc, cannot attack the machine or take it down.
If there is a misbehaving program to counter, then said program is inside so the intruder hasn't been kept out at all. I thought this was obvious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
The network stack is just one out of many possible attach points.
But it's its job to counter an online attacker, and this does not even require memory protection.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
ROFL... Secured by *what*?
Learn to read. Secured by its power user.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Maybe so, but then don't call that an operating system, but a toy system. This is exactly what it is.
See Gorf's reply.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then don't forget the key. As in "don't forget the pasword". I haven't.
Everyone ensures his security the way he wants. Or at least should be able to do so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
You have declared AmigaOs as "secure". Whch it isn't.
It is as secure as its user is. Because there he is in full control.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Why would you? In the same situation, it would be immediate on the Amiga. On the laptop, you won't get in, the screen is locked.
It would be immediate on the Amiga but quickly noticed after i return.
On the laptop, you certainly don't lock the screen for just making a small pause. Nobody does that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Except that the "elsewhere" does not work.
Of course it does. You just don't know what it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
By requiring appropriate credentials to allow that, obviously. Signed packages, root access. That's how it works on sane systems, obviously.
This is still "how it is installed".
But i notice you mention here "root access".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Same problem. Some people trying to access data they shouldn't access. My private data, the private data of the company.
Not exactly, no. The likeliness of an attack isn't the same at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
The device can still be used. Reformat the harddisk, ready to use. The data is then lost, and that is the purpose of it.
Sorry, i didn't want to lose the data.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Freedom means that the state does not have access to my private data. It means that elections are private and anonymous. Security ensures privacy as it prevents intruders from stealing my private data. Not that this wasn't obvious to begin with.
Did you know that the state (or whatever authorities) can actually access your private data for "security" purposes ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Encryption of mail is just one layer of security. But on the Amiga, everyone can install a handler into the input.device and read the keycodes that go into any window, and thus circumvent any encryption. On a sane operating system, getting keystrokes that target a differrent application requires sufficient privledges a program can only get with allowance of its user.
If you really think i will not see it if there is a keylogger on my Amiga, then you don't know how the machine works.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Hence, mail encryption on the Amiga is pointless. You can also get the mail from the framebuffer, or from the input buffer of the mailer as there is no memory isolation either.
Except that such a program will not be able to send that data anywhere and I will notice it is there before it has an occasion to do so - as contrary to peecees, an Amiga isn't online permanently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Nice try. Just because you're incompetent...
Again writing insults because you're out of arguments.
But really, you should test your nanosleep's accurary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Yet, you are claiming that they are not "small enough" on other systems? Why?
Because it's true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
An operating system will not provide user programs without priviledges access to the interrupt system. Interrupt code can take the system down as it runs with excalated privideges, and can block the system for arbitrarily long. The interrupt code can also access resources the user program cannot - hence, user code is blocked out from installing interrupts.
Here you take as granted that every program in the world attempts to do bad things.
But a well written interrupt handler does not bring the system down.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
So why would the Os block you out on any other system but AmigaOs?
Because it does filthy things in the background. Look at your HDD activity led - provided you still have one - and see that it's never idle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
There is no difference.
Of course yes there is one, and a big one. AmigaOS isn't bloated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
On AmigaOs, any process can steal the CPU, so can any other system. Except you have additional mechanisms to control that on sane systems.
Control how the cpu is used on so-called modern system ? It's a joke. You don't control anything.
The system is in control (and does bad things). Not the program which needs the cpu.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
In other words, it *blocks out any other program*. Now, why does that make sense? What if you want to run two of such programs?
First, there is a condition for full take over. It is : the user wants to do something and not be disturbed by anything else running in the background. That makes sense.
Second, if the program has something critical to do, it can take control for a short while, which of course does not prevent running two of such programs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Sorry, but I don't bother. You claim that its only possible on Amiga - just not true.
I didn't write it was only possible on Amiga - just that it was much easier (aka a PITA on anything else).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Lazyness is not an excuse for declaring any other system incapable.
Of course it is. If more work is needed for achieving the same result, then the system can not in any manner be considered "better".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It's just your own incapability.
Here you go again. But personal attacks just prove you are wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Apparently, real-time video and audio playback does, in fact, also work on windows. So it certainly does work.
Considering the amount of time it takes just to start a video playback, and that even audio will stutter if you attempt to do heavy duty tasks in the background, no, it doesn't really work.
Real life experience : Delitracker playing music on the Amiga. Never fails. Same software, same system, under Winuae : frequent buffer underruns and audio failing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
My stuff works as it should, I have no reason to complain about other operating systems. You are doing that...
My stuff works as it should, I have no reason to complain about AmigaOS. You are doing that...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
User code need to keep out of interrupts on a sane Os, and of course other higher priority interrupts can steal the CPU. If your interrupt takes too long, you can take the whole machine down.
Measuring time doesn't take too long and certainly can't take the whole machine down.
Besides, AmigaOs has mechanisms to prevent this. We have software interrupts. We can signal a task from an interrupt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It is much better because the interrupt cannot take down the system. On Amiga, it can. On a sane Os, you cannot get hands on the interrupt. Instead, you forward just the information to the task, and trigger there a message.
A well written interrupt cannot take down the system either.
Having to use a message on the task just makes matters needlessly complicated - especially in the cases it's not ready to take a message. It can not be qualified as "better" in any manner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It will, or might, by you or other interrupts.
No. Certainly not by me, and not by other interrupts either because i don't have bogus programs installed, stealing resources like crazy.
Again you take as granted programs do bad things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I tell you lies. You simply haven't understood. If there is too much load, the operating system cancels the processes that run out of control. However, it cannot take down interrupts that run out of control. The problem is always the same: Demanding too much from the system it cannot take. "Too much" can be "too much computation in an interrupt", or "too much computation in a thread". The difference is that the Os can take down a thread, but it cannot take down an interrupt. Thus, interrupts are certainly not a mechanism user codes should be allowed to use.
I have perfectly understood, on the contrary.
But two problems arise here.
First, you always assume programs misbehave. I wonder why. Do all of your programs misbehave ?
Second, a proper operating system really wanting to prevent users from using interrupts has to provide APIs that look like interrupts but are not. And what you qualify as "sane" just don't do that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
If I need nanonsecond precise timing, that's the way to go.
For nanosecond it is quite acceptable, but not for something in the 1/10th millisecond range.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Same as on a modern Os. These services get only a fraction of the CPU time, and on a different CPU, and only a tiny fraction of the time.
This is what they should be doing. But it's not what they do in reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
And no, that's not *predictable* on the Amiga because the activity is triggered by the user.
That is precisely what makes it predictable !
The user can't be surprised by the machine using resources when he is the one triggering it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then you have an underpowered system if it cannot take care of the system services. Demands grew over the years, obviously.
The demands haven't grewn this much over the years. But the bloat level, yes. And the proper reply isn't "you have an underpowered system".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Of course I can. That's a mezzanine codec. It encodes live signals. That's not "encoding from disk". It's "encoding from camera".
That does not look like an easy task.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Why don't you? You don't thrust your neighbours? Why do you on your computer?
No i don't thrust my neighbours
Note that i could somehow trust them, though. Neighbours are sometimes friends as well - even if that has become rare nowadays.
And of course i control who accesses my computer so it does not need to defend against anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
How do you know what's bloatware or not?
I really have to explain this ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
They do that randomly, because the IO accesses are triggered by the user in a non-predictable way.
No. It's not "randomly" in the sense it will not do that at unexpected times.
If the user triggers IO accesses, then he knows what's happening. NOT when the OS or whatever service does that by its own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I am the true owner, and I can find out whenever I need to.
Believe that if you want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I do not care how to do that on windows. I don't use windows if I can avoid that.
Then don't pretend it's better than AmigaOS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
And much more performing, as well. With more power comes more responsibility.
This is not "responsibility", this is "added complexity".
Responsibility would be ensuring security yourself instead of trusting some OS attempting to do that at your place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Except that there are physical limitations on the speed, which is exactly why we have multicore now.
Yes but the point is that multicore isn't by itself required. It's just the way hardware uses to give more computational power.
Frankly with a 68k-like machine running properly written programs, the power of a single core we have today would be enough for all my needs (and most people's, actually).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
No, you just accepted the restriction, but that is a choice you made. Thus, there is nothing natural about it, except that you are used to it. That is exactly your problem: You only wear "Amiga glasses", accept the restrictions of the machine because you grew up with it, and ignore the freedom you get on modern architectures.

You have accepted many more restrictions than me, just for the sake of "security". Modern architectures don't give any freedom.
If you see glasses, they're on your very nose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
No, it exchanges one obsolete technology with another technology that operates in different ways, but removes restrictions of the older technology.
No, it removes restrictions of the older technology and replaces them by different, more numerous restrictions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
You change the Os components that provide the protection, obviously. This, of course, requires the necessary priviledges, a standard user cannot do that.
And then discover none of your programs still work because you made architectural changes.
Anyway, not all "modern" OSes will allow that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Just throw away your front door. Less resources.
A front door does not use resources.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Hardly. You still need *more* resources for running the machine. Maybe you use less RAM, but RAM is only one resource.
Less disk space used (and less disk activity). No additionnal network activity.
What else ? CPU maybe ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
That's obvious. But what is also obvious is that my needs are apparently more in line with what many other people need, and that includes professionals.
Many wrongs don't make a right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I don't blindly agree, there are certainly things that are broken in Linux (systemd, pulseaudio and wayland, to name some, along with removable device management and unstable kernel interfaces), but it is not *broken by design* as AmigaOs is.
AmigaOs isn't broken by design. It's just a 1990 system that didn't have the chance of being properly upgraded.
And yes Linux is broken by design, like every other OS running on peecees. Less so than Windows but still.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then, where? You don't write an Os, and even if you would, it would become an irrelevant niche, so it's not much of a change.
Yes i can write an OS.
But I take notice you have changed the meaning of "make a change here". Reread previous posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
There are certainly some good ideas in AmigaOs. However, I'm a practical person - it does not make sense for me to create something new because nobody would use that. I would remain an academic exercise at best. The days of "new operating systems" are over. I'm a practical person, I'd rather design software that provides some value to its users. A new "all great" operating system does not.
Ok if this suits you, but then you have absoluetly nothing to do on that thread.
Perhaps you have no dreams about how technology should have been, but please don't attempt to shatter other people's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
My backyard is fine, thanks. You're just riding in the wrong direction.
You have charged me of doing something you do yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Tells me the person who things that security and stability are irrelevant. Yeah, right.
Very nice example of a strawman fallacy.
I haven't told that security and stability are irrelevant. Just that the way they are handled is bad in modern systems and that AmigaOs isn't as insecure as you want it to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Whoever is designing the future of operating systems, it's not you.
Could have been.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It's not me either. That's out of my reach.
Sure thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I design the future in other areas, where I can make an impact.
Then again, you have nothing to do on that thread. Maybe not even on that site.
meynaf is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 13:01   #127
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorf View Post
[...] And even if they ever manage to provide good compatibility:
it is still f*** Windows!
WHY???
This is a personal interpretation : maybe because it's the OS that has the largest market share and maybe because providing an "identical OS" (Linux is too much different) may help people take the plunge. Trying to get around the "resistance to change" ? ReactOS is still young, and nobody has a crystal ball, so let's wait and see...
malko is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 14:07   #128
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 44
Posts: 3,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by malko View Post
ReactOS is still young
It's almost 23 years old.
Thorham is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 15:01   #129
Gorf
Registered User

Gorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by malko View Post
This is a personal interpretation : maybe because it's the OS that has the largest market share and maybe because providing an "identical OS" (Linux is too much different) may help people take the plunge. Trying to get around the "resistance to change" ?
What plunge? What change?
If you provide an identical system, as you propose, then there ist no change at all.
So what is it good for?
There are literally hundreds of millions of old Windows licenses out there, so for everyone who wants to run Windows it it de facto free of cost.
Get some old Windows 2000 or XP and you have a relatively clean OS and 100% compatibility for old software instead of just 90%.

Quote:
is still young, and nobody has a crystal ball, so let's wait and see...
No it is old. Over 20 years. And it is targeting an old Windows API - most software has moved on and will no longer run on it. Old programs might ... but again: you can just use an old Windows XP for that...

ReactOS provides no benefit to the end user - just a bunch of new imperfections and incompatibilities, driver problems and so on.
It is absolutely futile.

It is like trying to convince people to use an old rusty bicycle instead of their new shiny e-bike or a car ... people will ask you:
"why should I do that? I have a new comfortable bike ... I even got a car .. and by the way, I already do have an old bicycle in my garage I no longer use. So why should I use your ugly rusty bike?"
Even if you give it away for free: people don’t want to use it.

Last edited by Gorf; 27 December 2020 at 16:17.
Gorf is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 16:18   #130
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
I didn't ask for direct access to front buffer, i just wanted an array of pixels.
Then who stops you? Every system I know allows you to get an array of pixels, and draw into it, and render it to the screen. If you want to have a nice Os-abstraction of it, get SDL. It's an Os-independent interface for graphics that allows you also to get a frame buffer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
So this is a very specific application. Not a good example to illustrate how all machines should be designed.
Of course it is a specific application. However, it contradicts your claim that you cannot time correctly except under AmigaOs. This application does time correctly, and hasn't lost a frame since. Hence, your claim is just wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post

I perfectly know the motivation of the design, thanks - actually much better than you do. It is not the base principle of security i'm criticizing here, but the way it has been implemented.
Wait, your "implementation of security" is no implementation at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post

It is not bullet proof. But neither are security measures.
You can not ensure they will not backfire by preventing a legitimate action (actually, they do that all the time).
You can not ensure they will always counter the attack.
Nobody can, that's the principle of the problem. But in how far *no* security is an improvement is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


But it's its job to counter an online attacker, and this does not even require memory protection.
Memory protection will help in case the network stack does have a defect. There is nothing perfect on this world, and it is better to have multiple layers of security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



Learn to read. Secured by its power user.
That falsely assumes that the system does have a power user. The majority of systems does not have. In your world, a computer should only be used by people that fully understand its details. However, that is not managable, neither practical. You would exclude probably 99% of computer use.


It's quite the reverse: The system should be as simple to use as possible, helping its user.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





It is as secure as its user is. Because there he is in full control.
That forbids usage of computers to the majority, because the majority of users do not have the background - neither have to have. I cannot look at every incoming network packet, that's the Os to look after. I, as the power user, will make mistakes, and it is the operating system that helps me to detect them and recover from them. This is why we have memory protection, for example - on every sane Os, I get a core dump. I did something wrong, I can look for my mistake. Not so on Amiga Os. Reboot the system is the only chance to recover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


It would be immediate on the Amiga but quickly noticed after i return.
On the laptop, you certainly don't lock the screen for just making a small pause. Nobody does that.
The Laptop does that by itself. It is not at all immediate on the Amiga. You wouldn't notice. After all, you do not remember the state of all binaries or recall all its contents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



Not exactly, no. The likeliness of an attack isn't the same at all.
You again seem to follow the principle "security by obscurity". Note that this argument falls away as soon as a system becomes popular. You seem to say that "non-popular rare systems are secure", but that's an absurd argument for designing a system. It means that one must make a system as unpopular as possible to make it as "secure" as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


Sorry, i didn't want to lose the data.
Then don't loose the password.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


Did you know that the state (or whatever authorities) can actually access your private data for "security" purposes ?
Hardly. Not in this state, not on my laptop. In their wet dreams, they may, but that's not reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



If you really think i will not see it if there is a keylogger on my Amiga, then you don't know how the machine works.
No, you won't see it, that's how it would work. Would you check every vector in the system? Hardly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


Except that such a program will not be able to send that data anywhere and I will notice it is there before it has an occasion to do so - as contrary to peecees, an Amiga isn't online permanently.
An Amiga is an outdated machine, but a modern machine would be online at some point. A computer that isn't online has only very limited use nowadays, for a majority of its users.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Here you take as granted that every program in the world attempts to do bad things.
Any (non-trivial) program in the world does have bugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


But a well written interrupt handler does not bring the system down.
How do you know that it is well-written? You seem to assume that programs can be perfect. That's not how this world works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


Because it does filthy things in the background. Look at your HDD activity led - provided you still have one - and see that it's never idle.
I look at my HD led right now, and it is completely idle. Why shouldn't it?
If it's not idle, I can check which program uses it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


Of course yes there is one, and a big one. AmigaOS isn't bloated.
No, it's just outdated and uncapable, and it cannot provide what a modern user demands. It's not stable, and it provides very limited services to its users. What you call "bloat" are just services that came to be because somebody needed and demanded them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Control how the cpu is used on so-called modern system ? It's a joke. You don't control anything.
The system is in control (and does bad things). Not the program which needs the cpu.
Then, again, you just haven't learned how to do that. What else can I say. I can certainly tell the Os what to schedule on a particular CPU, or to keep hands off a core in first place, or pin a thread to it.


Just because you do not know does not mean that there isn't a way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post


First, there is a condition for full take over. It is : the user wants to do something and not be disturbed by anything else running in the background. That makes sense.
Second, if the program has something critical to do, it can take control for a short while, which of course does not prevent running two of such programs.
Forbid() does that. It prevents two programs from "doing something critical at the same time".


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Considering the amount of time it takes just to start a video playback, and that even audio will stutter if you attempt to do heavy duty tasks in the

background, no, it doesn't really work.
Strangely, it works very well for me, and in my applications. How old is your system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



Real life experience : Delitracker playing music on the Amiga. Never fails. Same software, same system, under Winuae : frequent buffer underruns and audio failing.
Because you run a player in an emulation. Get a music player for Windows. Or, in my case, for Linux. Nothing stutters, everything plays smoothly.


On the contrary, if I try delitracker on the Amiga, some songs take the machine down completely, and then I need to reboot. On a sane Os, this would at worst kill the player, but not the machine.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




My stuff works as it should, I have no reason to complain about AmigaOS. You are doing that...
Yes, because it's quite lousy at providing elementary services of the Os. One single malfunctioning program is enough to bring it down or corrupt my data. Crash? Then reboot. If you didn't save your data, bad luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Besides, AmigaOs has mechanisms to prevent this. We have software interrupts. We can signal a task from an interrupt.
That's how it works on a real Os, yes. Signal a process from an (Os-provided) interrupt. However, on a real operating sytem, that is the *only* way how to handle interrupts. Not from user programs, namely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



A well written interrupt cannot take down the system either.
Again, how do you know that its well written?

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



Having to use a message on the task just makes matters needlessly complicated - especially in the cases it's not ready to take a message. It can not be qualified as "better" in any manner.
It can be qualified better because the interrupt code would be much shorter and simpler to debug (or would be Os provided in first place), so the chances to get a problem there would be minimal. If then something crashes, it is the main program, and there the Os can help to recover. That is quite a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



No. Certainly not by me, and not by other interrupts either because i don't have bogus programs installed, stealing resources like crazy.
Again you take as granted programs do bad things.
And yet, reality shows that programs do bad things, simply because they are written by humans, and humans make mistakes.



Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




First, you always assume programs misbehave. I wonder why. Do all of your programs misbehave ?
Programs misbehave because that's my experience. Of course I try my best to avoid that, but reality shows that everybody does mistakes, and that of course includes me. Assuming the contrary would be just folly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



Second, a proper operating system really wanting to prevent users from using interrupts has to provide APIs that look like interrupts but are not. And what you qualify as "sane" just don't do that.
They would provide services to regularly time a job, for example. That's not too hard to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



For nanosecond it is quite acceptable, but not for something in the 1/10th millisecond range.
Then AmigaOs does often do something quite unacceptable for busy-waiting. The trackdisk.device does that (busy-waiting), the keyboard.device does that (busy-waiting). Simply because the precision by the timer.device is not sufficient, and the time span is too short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




That is precisely what makes it predictable !
The user can't be surprised by the machine using resources when he is the one triggering it...
What makes you think that the user always knows about these resources and dependencies between programs? You seem to assume power users, but that's not reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post



The demands haven't grewn this much over the years. But the bloat level, yes. And the proper reply isn't "you have an underpowered system".
Yes, of course demands have grown over the years. From a today's machine, I would expect that it plays video from the internet, just to name one example. You cannot do that on the Amiga. Denying that is just being ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





No. It's not "randomly" in the sense it will not do that at unexpected times.
If the user triggers IO accesses, then he knows what's happening. NOT when the OS or whatever service does that by its own.
But the Os never does something "on its own". It does things because ultimatively, there is a service for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Then don't pretend it's better than AmigaOS.
It's certainly better because it provides services AmigaOs does not, but services that are helpful, and needed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




This is not "responsibility", this is "added complexity".
Responsibility would be ensuring security yourself instead of trusting some OS attempting to do that at your place.
How do you know that every program you install is bug-free? I do not know that, not on the Amiga, and not anywhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




Yes but the point is that multicore isn't by itself required. It's just the way hardware uses to give more computational power.
Are computers "required"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





Frankly with a 68k-like machine running properly written programs, the power of a single core we have today would be enough for all my needs (and most people's, actually).
Hardly. Do I need to remind you that we don't have a workable web-browser? A working email client? A working movie player?

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







You have accepted many more restrictions than me, just for the sake of "security". Modern architectures don't give any freedom.
They do. You just do not see the restrictions of the Amiga system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




If you see glasses, they're on your very nose.
Frankly, the Amiga is way too restricted for my daily needs. I don't know what your business is, but if it's IT related, you'll certainly don't run it on Amiga. How might that be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





No, it removes restrictions of the older technology and replaces them by different, more numerous restrictions.
Rather not. The problem you seem to have is that the rules of the game changed. You cannot program a modern PC like you did the Amiga, and the Amiga is differently to operate than a C64. The way how you "do things" changed of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




A front door does not use resources.
Of course it does. Space, wood, a lock, costs money to install, and time to operate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post






AmigaOs isn't broken by design. It's just a 1990 system that didn't have the chance of being properly upgraded.
It is "broken by design" because there is no chance to add the needed components. Memory is shared. You cannot change that - message passing requires it. Resources are not managed - you cannot change that as programs depend on exchanging them without telling the Os.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post




And yes Linux is broken by design, like every other OS running on peecees. Less so than Windows but still.
Less so. If you believe Linux is broken, or windows is broken - how so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post





Yes i can write an OS.
Then, why do we talk? I can hardly wait...

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post






Ok if this suits you, but then you have absoluetly nothing to do on that thread.
But that's the point. This thread is completely utterly pointless. Nothing that is discussed here will change a thing, because nothing will materialize from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post







Perhaps you have no dreams about how technology should have been, but please don't attempt to shatter other people's.
Because you don't have a "dream" either. You just want to have the past back. That's all human, but please don't call this "a dream". That's just how computing worked back then, but no longer does nowadays. There were reasons for such a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post








I haven't told that security and stability are irrelevant. Just that the way they are handled is bad in modern systems and that AmigaOs isn't as insecure as you want it to be.
There is no security in the system design at all, which makes it competely insecure. You simply deny reality.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 18:42   #131
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 48
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then who stops you? Every system I know allows you to get an array of pixels, and draw into it, and render it to the screen. If you want to have a nice Os-abstraction of it, get SDL. It's an Os-independent interface for graphics that allows you also to get a frame buffer.
I'm not stopped. It's just that it's a magnitude more complex than it should be.
I tried SDL. Several shortcomings, the main one being it does not provide good enough scaling (and no access to it).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Of course it is a specific application. However, it contradicts your claim that you cannot time correctly except under AmigaOs. This application does time correctly, and hasn't lost a frame since. Hence, your claim is just wrong.
No way. A frame is 10 to 20 ms, quite a bit larger than the timings i need.
You call THAT precise timing ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Wait, your "implementation of security" is no implementation at all.
I didn't say anything about how i would implement security when doing an OS myself.
About AOS, often in life it is better to do nothing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Nobody can, that's the principle of the problem. But in how far *no* security is an improvement is beyond me.
Indeed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Memory protection will help in case the network stack does have a defect. There is nothing perfect on this world, and it is better to have multiple layers of security.
If the network stack has a defect then this defect must be fixed, that's all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
That falsely assumes that the system does have a power user. The majority of systems does not have. In your world, a computer should only be used by people that fully understand its details. However, that is not managable, neither practical. You would exclude probably 99% of computer use.
Using an Amiga already excludes 99% of computer use, in case you didn't know.
If i design a system all "protection" will be optional.
But what you want is having it mandatory. It's like building cars giving no access to their engine because 99% of drivers don't have mechanical abilities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It's quite the reverse: The system should be as simple to use as possible, helping its user.
Then it's a complete failure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
That forbids usage of computers to the majority, because the majority of users do not have the background - neither have to have. I cannot look at every incoming network packet, that's the Os to look after. I, as the power user, will make mistakes, and it is the operating system that helps me to detect them and recover from them. This is why we have memory protection, for example - on every sane Os, I get a core dump. I did something wrong, I can look for my mistake. Not so on Amiga Os. Reboot the system is the only chance to recover.
I don't deny simple memory protection is useful as a debugging tool. I just want to have the choice to disable it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
The Laptop does that by itself.
But after a while. A long enough while.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It is not at all immediate on the Amiga. You wouldn't notice. After all, you do not remember the state of all binaries or recall all its contents.
I can spot unusual disk activity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
You again seem to follow the principle "security by obscurity". Note that this argument falls away as soon as a system becomes popular. You seem to say that "non-popular rare systems are secure", but that's an absurd argument for designing a system. It means that one must make a system as unpopular as possible to make it as "secure" as possible.
The Amiga system isn't gonna be popular again. Even if it got "security" it wouldn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then don't loose the password.
Or don't use one at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Hardly. Not in this state, not on my laptop. In their wet dreams, they may, but that's not reality.
Gullible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
No, you won't see it, that's how it would work. Would you check every vector in the system? Hardly.
A keylogger has to write its data somewhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
An Amiga is an outdated machine, but a modern machine would be online at some point. A computer that isn't online has only very limited use nowadays, for a majority of its users.
It can be online, but only when we want it to. A machine that's useless when not connected isn't a computer - it is a terminal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Any (non-trivial) program in the world does have bugs.
Bugs can be fixed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
How do you know that it is well-written? You seem to assume that programs can be perfect. That's not how this world works.
It's either programs i use for a long time, or programs i wrote myself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
I look at my HD led right now, and it is completely idle. Why shouldn't it?
If it's not idle, I can check which program uses it.
I've seen linux machines and the led wasn't idle.
Now look at a normal windows box. Task manager never stops showing changes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
No, it's just outdated and uncapable, and it cannot provide what a modern user demands. It's not stable, and it provides very limited services to its users.
AOS, not stable ? Preposterous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
What you call "bloat" are just services that came to be because somebody needed and demanded them.
There is a name for this : feature creep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then, again, you just haven't learned how to do that. What else can I say. I can certainly tell the Os what to schedule on a particular CPU, or to keep hands off a core in first place, or pin a thread to it.
Your shedule/thread pinning/whatever can be denied by the "OS" any time. It's not "control".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Just because you do not know does not mean that there isn't a way.
It doesn't mean there is one either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Forbid() does that. It prevents two programs from "doing something critical at the same time".
There is no problem with that. If you hurt your finger, don't blame the hammer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Strangely, it works very well for me, and in my applications. How old is your system?
It is recent enough. Most of the time it works well. But not always.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Because you run a player in an emulation. Get a music player for Windows. Or, in my case, for Linux. Nothing stutters, everything plays smoothly.
That depends what you want to play.
Music players for windows won't play everything correctly.
Running in emulation shouldn't fail more than running natively - there is no valid reason for that, especially when showing less than 25% cpu use.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
On the contrary, if I try delitracker on the Amiga, some songs take the machine down completely, and then I need to reboot. On a sane Os, this would at worst kill the player, but not the machine.
I wonder what you could be trying to play, it never happened to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Yes, because it's quite lousy at providing elementary services of the Os. One single malfunctioning program is enough to bring it down or corrupt my data. Crash? Then reboot. If you didn't save your data, bad luck.
I save before there is a risk of a crash. And at worse i can scan the memory after the reboot, to find out the unsaved data.
But it happened a few times i got a mysterious, complete freeze on the pc. No possible data recovery then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
That's how it works on a real Os, yes. Signal a process from an (Os-provided) interrupt. However, on a real operating sytem, that is the *only* way how to handle interrupts. Not from user programs, namely.
But i can't ask the OS to call me at a regular small interval, say 1ms, without either eating 100% cpu or having time that's much larger than what has been asked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Again, how do you know that its well written?
Usually, because i wrote it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It can be qualified better because the interrupt code would be much shorter and simpler to debug (or would be Os provided in first place), so the chances to get a problem there would be minimal. If then something crashes, it is the main program, and there the Os can help to recover. That is quite a difference.
Shorter and simpler to debug ? Not at all, no. Threaded programs are a PITA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
And yet, reality shows that programs do bad things, simply because they are written by humans, and humans make mistakes.
Reality also shows mistakes can be fixed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Programs misbehave because that's my experience. Of course I try my best to avoid that, but reality shows that everybody does mistakes, and that of course includes me. Assuming the contrary would be just folly.
Again, mistakes can be fixed. Just don't release something before it's stable enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
They would provide services to regularly time a job, for example. That's not too hard to do.
You mean something like this ?
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...twaitabletimer


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then AmigaOs does often do something quite unacceptable for busy-waiting. The trackdisk.device does that (busy-waiting), the keyboard.device does that (busy-waiting). Simply because the precision by the timer.device is not sufficient, and the time span is too short.
You said it yourself : the time span is too short. And if it is too short, it is harmless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
What makes you think that the user always knows about these resources and dependencies between programs? You seem to assume power users, but that's not reality.
If users are stupid enough to not understand that their machine will take some resource doing the thing they're just asking, they shouldn't be using a computer at first place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Yes, of course demands have grown over the years. From a today's machine, I would expect that it plays video from the internet, just to name one example. You cannot do that on the Amiga. Denying that is just being ignorant.
The Amiga cannot do this because the hardware is underpowered for the task. It's not the fault of the AOS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
But the Os never does something "on its own". It does things because ultimatively, there is a service for it.
Yes the Os does things on its own.
I open task manager and see "System" process taking cpu and even disk activity while i'm not doing anything on the machine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It's certainly better because it provides services AmigaOs does not, but services that are helpful, and needed.
Video playback and internet browsing (with current standards) are the two only things i miss on the Amiga.
Your "services" are not useful at all for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
How do you know that every program you install is bug-free? I do not know that, not on the Amiga, and not anywhere else.
They don't need to be bug free. Most bugs are harmeless, actually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Are computers "required"?
Probably not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Hardly. Do I need to remind you that we don't have a workable web-browser? A working email client? A working movie player?
There exist IBrowse, YAM, Riva.
Not up to current standards, but not so far that a few hundred more mhz wouldn't be able to handle it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
They do. You just do not see the restrictions of the Amiga system.
I'm not saying it's perfect, i'm completely aware of its restrictions.
It is just that these restrictions do not make it a completely useless system (contrary to what you pretend).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Frankly, the Amiga is way too restricted for my daily needs. I don't know what your business is, but if it's IT related, you'll certainly don't run it on Amiga. How might that be?
I use an Amiga for fun, not for business.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Rather not. The problem you seem to have is that the rules of the game changed. You cannot program a modern PC like you did the Amiga, and the Amiga is differently to operate than a C64. The way how you "do things" changed of course.
What was simple before is now complex, this is all i see. And i don't like that change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Of course it does. Space, wood, a lock, costs money to install, and time to operate.
But it does not eat my time when i'm not using it. It's not consuming any energy once installed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
It is "broken by design" because there is no chance to add the needed components. Memory is shared. You cannot change that - message passing requires it. Resources are not managed - you cannot change that as programs depend on exchanging them without telling the Os.
A new set of API can be added, that don't have these limitations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Less so. If you believe Linux is broken, or windows is broken - how so?
By the mere fact they have to run on peecees or similar machines.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Then, why do we talk? I can hardly wait...
I don't think you're actually waiting for anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
But that's the point. This thread is completely utterly pointless. Nothing that is discussed here will change a thing, because nothing will materialize from it.
So every time you find something useless, you try to convince people it is ? You must have a lot of free time then


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
Because you don't have a "dream" either. You just want to have the past back. That's all human, but please don't call this "a dream". That's just how computing worked back then, but no longer does nowadays. There were reasons for such a change.
I do not want to return to the past, just take back what was better then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
There is no security in the system design at all, which makes it competely insecure. You simply deny reality.
Nothing for security or broken/annoying/inefficient security features ? I have chosen.
meynaf is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 19:34   #132
phx
Natteravn

phx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Herford / Germany
Posts: 1,823
Anybody else here who thinks that this forum is in serious need for moderation?
At least some moderator should move this crap into some OT-section.
phx is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 19:42   #133
jeff b00toNic
Registered User

jeff b00toNic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Arnsberg Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by phx View Post
Anybody else here who thinks that this forum is in serious need for moderation?
At least some moderator should move this crap into some OT-section.
I fully agree.
jeff b00toNic is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 20:58   #134
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorf View Post
[...] No it is old. Over 20 years. [...]
Yes..
and not so much. If you look at a lot of open-source project, the way they go forward depend on the resources involved. People or money wise.
UAE also is old, but as long as people will find usefulness in it, it will be developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorf View Post
[...] And it is targeting an old Windows API - most software has moved on and will no longer run on it. Old programs might ... but again: you can just use an old Windows XP for that... [...]
Except if I have missed an episode, old windows versions are not free. Same for DOS. Thus except if you still have a valid license and the CD somewhere, you can't just use it.
Applications have followed the system they run under.
People have moved to Win10 because they were forced to do so, not because it is a better OS than Win7 was.
malko is offline  
Old 27 December 2020, 22:36   #135
Gorf
Registered User

Gorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Munich/Bavaria
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by malko View Post
Except if I have missed an episode, old windows versions are not free. Same for DOS. Thus except if you still have a valid license and the CD somewhere, you can't just use it.
as I said before: there are hundreds of millions old PCs out there - each with a valid Windows key.

Everybody who wants to run an old Windows or DOS can do so legally without paying anything. There is absolutely no demand for something like ReactOS. Zero.
It is a total waste of effort and time.

Quote:
Applications have followed the system they run under.
People have moved to Win10 because they were forced to do so, not because it is a better OS than Win7 was.
Both are almost equally bad. So there is no point in debating which version is more or less shitty.
Gorf is offline  
Old 28 December 2020, 01:16   #136
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorf View Post
[...] It is a total waste of effort and time. [...]
Factually, the people involved in this project are there to contradict this opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorf View Post
[...] Both are almost equally bad. So there is no point in debating which version is more or less shitty.
I agree concerning the general quality of this OS. However, I am still convinced that the least worst of the two was Win7. Too much unwanted new "features" in Win10.
malko is offline  
Old 28 December 2020, 08:02   #137
Bruce Abbott
Registered User

Bruce Abbott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Hastings, New Zealand
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by malko View Post
Except if I have missed an episode, old windows versions are not free. Same for DOS. Thus except if you still have a valid license and the CD somewhere, you can't just use it.
This is not quite true. Microsoft released the source code for MSDOS 2.0 under MIT License which gives permission to "deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software", and they don't seem to have a problem with websites hosting later versions of DOS and Windows 3.x either. Windows 95/98 and XP need a product key, but I don't think Microsoft cares much about them either.

Quote:
People have moved to Win10 because they were forced to do so, not because it is a better OS than Win7 was.
Windows 7 went end of life in January 2020, so it's now officially a 'toy' OS (according to some ) because security updates are no longer provided.

Running an old OS purportedly means your system isn't secure, but it's the reason I got back into using the Amiga. I was accused of being criminally negligent for using XP and a 2 year old web browser, even though I have never been hit with malware despite not using a real-time antivirus program.

Experts will tell you that running a 'toy' OS is a huge security risk, but in practice it's much less likely to be targeted when the usual malware tools don't work and there aren't enough 'toy' users to justify making a special version. If it can't run a 'modern' web browser then you aren't doing Internet banking etc. on it so there is nothing worth stealing, and if it can't go on the net at all then it is highly secure even if the OS itself isn't. Maybe they could trick you into running some malware on a game disk, but the worst they can do is trash some files on your hard disk (if you have one). Can't infect the OS when it's in ROM!

They do keep trying though. I tied up one scammer on the phone for over an hour while he tried to trick me into installing PC spyware on my A1200. Today I got an email from my 'bank', with a rather obvious error. C'mon guys, if you are serious about scamming us at least get the spelling right!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	there.png
Views:	35
Size:	19.1 KB
ID:	70087  

Last edited by Bruce Abbott; 28 December 2020 at 08:08.
Bruce Abbott is offline  
Old 28 December 2020, 12:40   #138
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 977
Unlike AmigaOs, Windows from NT onwards does have means to protect itself, so that's definitely not a toy.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 28 December 2020, 15:46   #139
bloodline
Registered User

bloodline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: London, UK
Posts: 360
@meynaf

Why are you doing this? At first I was intrigued, even amused by your passion, but now you are just needlessly gain saying everything Thomas posts. You can’t just sprout out an opinion and think it has a much value as a fact. I live in a country torn apart by people assuming their options are a meaningful as facts.
bloodline is offline  
Old 28 December 2020, 15:53   #140
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 48
Posts: 4,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodline View Post
@meynaf

Why are you doing this? At first I was intrigued, even amused by your passion, but now you are just needlessly gain saying everything Thomas posts. You can’t just sprout out an opinion and think it has a much value as a fact. I live in a country torn apart by people assuming their options are a meaningful as facts.
Why targeting that at me instead of Thomas ? He does worse than me here.
meynaf is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
68k & PPC CPU Usage monitor for OS3 ancalimon support.Apps 1 30 June 2020 00:42
68k CPU pause (bubble) kamelito Coders. Asm / Hardware 9 27 January 2020 16:09
Bad weather for the 68K socket cpu cards Solderbro support.Hardware 0 14 July 2018 11:19
Looking to get max CPU performance in WinUAE 68k OS GunnzAkimbo support.WinUAE 1 12 May 2016 12:18
Apollo / Phoenix CISC CPUs m68k compatible Snake79 News 3 05 March 2015 21:20

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.14340 seconds with 16 queries