In that case, from Wikipedia: Before joining Microsoft in 1991, Rashid had been the developer of the Mach kernel <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29> during his tenure as a professor of computer science <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science> at Carnegie Mellon University <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_University>.[2] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rashid#cite_note-:1-2> The Mach multiprocessor operating system kernel <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28operating_system%29> developed by Rashid has had a lasting influence in the design of modern operating systems <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system>, including the design of Windows NT <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT>,[3] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rashid#cite_note-3> and remains at the core of several operating systems such as NeXTSTEP <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP>, GNU Hurd <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd>, macOS <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS>, iOS <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS>, OSF/1 <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSF/1>, and Tru64 UNIX <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tru64_UNIX>.[2] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rashid#cite_note-:1-2>
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:50 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I don’t normally like celebrity stories, but that is neat. > > On Oct 21, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As for "NeXT machine's software RIP", Rick Rashid, who was central in the > development of that software, was my office neighbor. He left to take a > position at Microsoft as VP of Research. I wonder if the software is > RIPing. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 3:08 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FWIW, I dipped into the higher levels of real-time-systems development >> several times in my career. The earliest being a control system (circa >> 1981) for the LANL Proton Storage Ring where one naturally can't afford >> anything *but* failsafe implementations, etc. The stakes are just too >> 'ffing high and the coupling to electrooptomechanical systems quite >> intimate. >> >> The "digital" components of such systems might have had the opportunity >> to ignore timing issues and simply "execute the same steps" regardless >> of timing. But in fact many software-driven (sub)systems represented >> time-critical processes and sometimes were up agains the timing limits >> of the analog components which had no leeway in their "execution". >> >> There are all kinds of analogies in federated (distributed) simulation >> environments which Glen (and others here) probably know much better than >> I, where different "clocks" matter, and different levels of >> synchronization and reproducibility are in play. The Postscript >> interpreters, printers, and film recorders were also pseudo real-time >> systems since some of the timing components were in fact software >> controlled (for example, the film recorders were "stroke" devices with >> software driving D-A converters to "sweep" out vectors and "clip" the >> on/off of the beam with appropriate analog component delays/biases/gains >> needing to be calibrated for. Fortunately failures in this step did >> not (usually) damage anyone or risk anyone's health and safety (like the >> beam in the PSR did). >> >> Regarding identity and equivalence, I prefer the phrase: "close enough >> for who it's for"... >> >> >> On 10/21/22 11:18 AM, glen wrote: >> > Ha! If we're going to argue about words, then let's stick with the >> > word "identity" and skip the "metaphor" nonsense. You and Frank seem >> > to be using the word in a weird way. Identity means "the exact same >> > particular thing over any differencing available" or somesuch. I mean, >> > it's used that way in phrases like "identity theft" as well as >> > mathematical identity. It's equivalence sets all the way down. I just >> > can't imagine any working computationalist would ever say anything >> > like "executed identically" unless ... well ... the exact same >> > process, with the exact same steps, happened. >> > >> > I suppose there are deep philosophical intuitions pried at by the >> > words "emulation" versus "simulation". And one can argue (again with >> > help from Christian List) about whether there exist fully closed >> > ontological walls like we try to create with things like Jails, >> > HyperV, Docker, VM's like Java's, etc. But "execute identically" is a >> > phrase that would only be used by someone who worked *way* above such >> > levels (assuming levels even exist at all). It's a bit like talking to >> > the kids programming websites these days, with access to infinite disk >> > space, infinite memory, steeped in continuous delivery, etc. [⛧] >> > >> > Layers of abstraction are fine. Use 'em when you need 'em. But we >> > shouldn't posture by invoking things like "instruction sets" and >> > "execute identically" in the same breath. (Not that you did that ... >> > just sayin'.) >> > >> > >> > [⛧] Rant: This is a good talk >> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ab3ArE8W3s>. But I get super >> > irritated when people use *toy* code in their rhetoric and leave large >> > scale deployment as an exercise for the reader. Yeah, fine. The REPL >> > is cool and all. But when my simulation takes a fvcking WEEK to >> > execute, it's difficult to sympathize. I've recently been playing >> > around with VSCodium, which is pretty cool. But whatever, man. I still >> > have to upload the code somewhere and execute it. Get off my lawn! >> > >> > On 10/21/22 09:24, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> >> >> As a counter-example, we ran film recorders whose "guts" were built >> >> by Ed Fredkin's Information International company and were built to >> >> the spec of Dec PDP-11 (I think 11?) and it was anecdotally agreed >> >> among the user community (of a few thousand delivered units in the >> >> world?) that these PDP-clones *never* failed to execute the code >> >> identically to the machines they were patterned after. I don't >> >> remember the details of implementation of these 70's era hardware >> >> designs, but I understood that they III designed their own PCBs but >> >> (obviously?) used the same CPU chips... I don't know about all the >> >> other support components... A likely answer to this pondering is that >> >> these machines did not run a general purpose OS and the III >> >> software/system people probably made up for any differences in >> >> Software/Timing/Error Handling? >> >> >> >> If Owen is listening in here, I think he was there for more than a >> >> little of this from inside Apple/Sun? >> >> >> >> - Steve >> >> >> >> PS. To concede/confront glen's sentiment that: " 'Metaphor' is an >> >> evil word, used only by manipulators and gaslighters", I would >> >> offer that the use of *conceptual metaphor* is to thinking as noise >> >> is to simulated annealing, and his point about "tighter or looser >> >> equivalence" might well be the best argument *for* the use of >> >> metaphorical thinking? I can't believe I'm stirring/kicking this can >> >> of worm-hornets down the street again... >> >> >> > >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
