还不是和你们一样,初中在无线电修理部鬼混,高中在图书馆鬼混,大学在自由的刷院鬼混.
铁板现在干吗呢?现在我和aph一起工作,有机会mumu你们几个可以过来玩玩:)
mumu你说过了,其实做好那项工作都会有好的前途.plan 9没看过,那么超前的结构怕是最近几年还看不出来结果.里齐早该退了吧.
笑了你也露面了:)
哪些说Windows不好的就让他们说就是了.
NT的源码漏出来了,你让他们看看,看懂了再批评.NT4的设计者很令人倾佩,技术和市场需求的艰难结合,不知道他的总管有没有累出病来.
LInux现在仅适合于我们系一小部分人.学习各种系统设计很不错,投身浩如烟海的源码中,只要淹不死,你就是英雄.
确实不同的系统为不同目的设计,你要用95或OS 9作个服务器我服你.
研究技术实现是我们专业的事,这些系统的设计师都是令人尊敬的,进入了商业就是另一回事了.
例如日志文件系统,在我们上学的时候就流行了,NT也早早的引入,而一向号称世界最好的公司却不懈一顾.这不是技术问题,而是对待用户的态度问题.现在MS面临的也是这个问题. --------------------

其实做好那项工作都会有好的前途

现在我可不敢这么说了。

我快一年的Python开发经历告诉我，Python代码写的好，国内也是没人要的。（公司小，机会也少）（我自己觉得现在我写程序结构和算法方面可以比较讲究了，很优雅：）……害我从亮马桥搬到上地，找着做linux了。

不过，Python让我的视野开阔了很多，长了不少中国传统程序员不会有的见识：~也算2003年没有白过。

有机会mumu你们几个可以过来玩玩

我常到aph&tieban家带片看的。。。

其实我也很想*—*；再失业了就准备好好休息一下，反省一下自己，顺便回学校补充点理论东西。|+

当初在学校天天堕落打帝国的日子虽然不值得珍惜，却也充满了回忆：（（

里齐早该退了吧

2000时才退。
人家做了一辈子程序员。

不象中国人，不到30就首席技术官，架构师什么的，算个屁！

还有，Unix你玩上三年，不太可能还是菜鸟。（你在跟shell&kernel打交道，很开放）

Wins大部分人，玩一辈子还不过是个菜鸟。（你在跟UI打交道，太透明）

这是方便和易用的代价。 [ 2004-04-02 14:52:16 mumu 修改 ]

如果不相信MAC，请相信它背后的IBM！
-------------------- looks like dog

Python没用过,觉得学那种语言倒是次要的,学会学习的方法和解决问题的方法是正经.
并不是玩wins的人就不成,看他怎么玩.
楼上的,没说过不信任苹果,你们都是计算机终端用户,不应当因为崇拜一个公司或一个技术去决定购买.
IBM值得信任吗,
OS/2 Wrap,拒绝兼容16bit应用,被MS打败.
PS/2 拒绝开放,被厂商和客户排斥,被自己打败.
著名的IBM玻璃硬盘,明知有问题还要把返回的产品重新投入到市场,这回乖了,把这破东西踢给了日立.
但IBM不值得信任吗,他的笔记本不是很好吗?
所以看怎么选.
Mac有IBM的靠山就值得信任,那就更错了,IBM只给Mac提供CPU, Lucent给他提供芯片组(G4,G5不知变没),NVidia&ATI给他提供显卡,还有RAM, Disk....只一个CPU就信任了?
但Mac不值得信任吗.
唐山一报社用PC PageMaker出报纸,发现"社会主义"变"资本主义"了,吓出一身冷汗,用Mac OS/9+PageMaker一点事没有.
之所以给Mac迷泼冷水,还不明白吗?
相信你自己的判断和承受能力吧,你用PC说是搞艺术的,不少人会认为你就一二流混混,当然你也别硬说Mac什么都第一.
中国用户真是可怜,这也Fans那也Fans, 什么AMD Fans, Intel Fans, Mac Fans MS Fans...自己挺高兴,有人更高兴.
我用Linux因为我需要从Application一直看到our PCI Card,你说LInux好还是MS的好,如过给你LInux你不什么也干不了!
别论这些破玩艺了.

汗, 你们现在视野都那么开拓, 偶现在好自卑啊
俺发现俺学什么都学得没着没落的, 看着大侠们嗖嗖的猛进, 俺的心啊, 那是拔凉拔凉的.
偶都开始严重鄙视我的智商, 鄙视我的人品 -------------------- 当个好的屠夫一直是我的梦想

Python没用过,觉得学那种语言倒是次要的,学会学习的方法和解决问题的方法是正经.
并不是玩wins的人就不成,看他怎么玩.
楼上的,没说过不信任苹果,你们都是计算机终端用户,不应当因为崇拜一个公司或一个技术去决定购..

我不崇拜

但我尊重IBM在计算机基础技术研究上的努力和成果，我尊重MAC在人机交互界面上的设计深度（不仅是软件界面，还有它产品的工业设计都属人机交互界面设计）

关于IBM硬盘的反修率问题还有迈拓硬盘取消3年质保好像都和中国市场、渠道和消费者素质有关，曾经见了一篇文章细说其中缘故，不要全怪在IBM身上…… -------------------- looks like dog

Python真是挺伟大的，推荐看看它。。。

语言的争论没有必要，不过用喜爱的语言来思维会很爽快！

语言作为工具而论，是开通了一扇交流和沟通的窗户。

英文好去读莎士比亚，法文好去读卢梭。领悟自然不同。

"why not Python."

" You need Python."

曾经看到国外有这样的文化衫卖：））

http://expert.csdn.net/Expert/topic/2849/2849355.xml?temp=.4956171
挺有意思。

据creater of Python说，Python最大的优点是代码量很少，表达力很清晰。

Chapter 20.

Plan 9:The Way the Future Was


We know what Unix's future used to look like. It was designed by the research group at Bell Labs that
built Unix and called ‘Plan 9 from Bell Labs’[152]. Plan 9 was an attempt to do Unix over again, better.
The central design challenge the designers attempted to meet in Plan 9 was integrating graphics and
ubiquitous networking into a comfortable Unix-like framework. They kept the Unix choice to mediate
access to as many system services as possible through a single big file-hierarchy name space. In fact,
they improved on it; many facilities that under Unix are accessed through various ad-hoc interfaces like
BSD sockets, fcntl(2), and ioctl(2) are in Plan 9 accessed through ordinary read and write operations on
special files analogous to device files. For portability and ease of access, almost all device interfaces are
textual rather than binary. Most system services (including, for example, the window system) are file
servers containing special files or directory trees representing the served resources. By representing all
resources as files, Plan 9 turns the problem of accessing resources on different servers into the problem
of accessing files on different servers.
Plan 9 combined this more-Unix-than-Unix file model with a new concept: private name spaces. Every
user (in fact, every process) can have its own view of the system's services by creating its own tree of file
server mounts. Some of the file server mounts will have been manually set up by the user, and others
automatically set up at login time. So (as the Plan 9 From Bell Labs survey paper points out)
“/dev/cons always refers to your terminal device and /bin/date to the correct version of the date
command to run, but which files those names represent depends on circumstances such as the
architecture of the machine executing date.”
The single most important feature of Plan 9 is that all mounted file servers export the same file-systemlike
interface, regardless of the implementation behind them. Some might correspond to local file
systems, some to remote file systems accessed over a network, some to instances of system servers
running in user space (like the window system or an alternate network stack), and some to kernel
interfaces. To users and client programs, all these cases look alike.
One of the examples from the Plan 9 survey paper is the way FTP access to remote sites is implemented.
There is no ftp(1) command under Plan 9. Instead there is an ftpfs fileserver, and each FTP connection
looks like a file system mount. ftpfs automatically translates open, read, and write commands on files and
directories under the mount point into FTP protocol transactions. Thus, all ordinary file-handling tools
such as ls(1), mv(1) and cp(1) simply work, both underneath the FTP mount point and across the
boundaries with the rest of the user's view of the namespace. The only difference the user (or his scripts
and programs) will notice is retrieval speed.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/plan9.html (1 / 3) [2003-7-3 1:52:25]
Plan 9: The Way the Future Was
Plan 9 has much else to recommend it, including the reinvention of some of the more problematic areas
of the Unix system-call interface, the elimination of superuser, and many other interesting rethinkings. Its
pedigree is impeccable, its design elegant, and it exposes some significant errors in the design of Unix.
Unlike most efforts at a second system, it produced an architecture that was in many ways simpler and
more elegant than its predecessor. Why didn't it take over the world?
One could argue for a lot of specific reasons — lack of any serious effort to market it, scanty
documentation, much confusion and stumbling over fees and licensing. For those unfamiliar with Plan 9,
it seemed to function mainly as a device for generating interesting papers on operating-systems research.
But Unix itself had previously surmounted all these sorts of obstacles to attract a dedicated following that
spread it worldwide. Why didn't Plan 9?
The long view of history may tell a different story, but in 2003 it looks like Plan 9 failed simply because
it fell short of being a compelling enough improvement on Unix to displace its ancestor. Compared to
Plan 9, Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust spots, but it gets the job done well enough to hold its
position. There is a lesson here for ambitious system architects: the most dangerous enemy of a better
solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough.
Some Plan 9 ideas have been absorbed into modern Unixes, particularly the more innovative open-source
versions. FreeBSD has a /proc file system modeled exactly on that of Plan 9 that can be used to query
or control running processes. FreeBSD's rfork(2) and Linux's clone(2) system calls are modeled on Plan
9's rfork(2). Linux's /proc file system, in addition to presenting process information, holds a variety of
synthesized Plan 9-like device files used to query and control kernel internals using predominantly
textual interfaces. Experimental 2003 versions of Linux are implementing per-process mount points, a
long step toward Plan 9's private namespaces. The various open-source Unixes are all moving toward
system-wide support for UTF-8, an encoding actually invented for Plan 9[153].
It may well be that over time, much more of Plan 9 will work its way into Unix as various portions of
Unix's architecture slide into senescence. This is one possible line of development for Unix's future.
[152] The name is a tribute to the 1958 movie that has passed into legend as “the worst ever made”, Plan
9 from Outer Space. The legend is, unfortunately, incorrect, as the few who have seen an even worse
stinkeroo from 1966 called Manos: the Hands of Fate can attest. Documentation, including a survey
paper describing the architecture, along with complete source code and a distribution that installs on PCs,
can be readily found with a Web search for the phrase ‘Plan 9 from Bell Labs’.
[153] The tale of how UTF-8 was born involves Ken Thompson, Rob Pike, a new Jersey diner, and a
frenzied overnight hack.

如果不相信MAC，请相信它背后的IBM！


--------------------
looks like dog

还有Motorola哦！我太爱苹果了，我把我的PC都改成MAC风格了！所以我的机子现在太漂亮了！ -------------------- Bandari

但我尊重IBM在计算机基础技术研究上的努力和成果，我尊重MAC在人机交互界面上的设计深度（不仅是软件界面，还有它产品的工业设计都属人机交互界面设计）

同意,我们上学的时候,如果书中没有提到s/360和PDP-11就不算是计算机的书,S/360的领军人物Brooks当时才27,8岁,而且写的<人月神化>竟然畅销20年,令人敬佩,IBM进入中国后,平均每年为中国的计算机教育捐资达到5000万美元.IBM硬盘的错误仍然是IBM的主要责任,现在开发的质量控制已经很成熟了,这与中国的JS无关,错了就是错了,没什么,程序界更少不了错误.至于Apple,其实大家都希望它能更强大一些,网上有一Mac的程序设计者发过这样的牢骚,说现在谈论wxWindows的都比谈论aqua的多,大家都知道独立程序撰写人对一个系统的重要性(直译,应该指的是大众编程者),但是Apple却只想者去制造神话,而忽略的这些(指的是用偷换概念的方法得出的评测结果来制造神话),而计算机界的人却没人会理会这些神话,各大公司的产品现在首先公布的都是windows版对Mac更是很大的打击(功能和效率均差于原生板,例如Founder的Fits用的是MS的MFC Mac版本进行开发的,现在应该已经停止了).开放现在虽然好多了但还作的不够(指的是Apple太重视自己的那一点专利,如其他机器不能使用只有单键的鼠标,不能开发aqua风格的themes,即如果windows使用摹仿Mac界面风格的themes则违法等,但由于os/x来自于freeBSD,编译器用的是gcc等,所以底层是开放的).Apple在工业艺术设计上的成就有目共睹,但近来也牺牲不少人机工程学,而把艺术放在了第一位.有更多的批评才会进步,MS就是这样起来的,Mac也是在崇拜中衰落的.
PowerPC970 IBM竟然开放其体系结构,比我预想的公板设计还进一步,看来百家争鸣的盛世有望更进一步发展:).

dabou,听aph说你们现在每天讨论进步神速:),那天我也加入到你们的行列

我也想加入，
不过我打算放弃技术，
嘿嘿，不知道能不能进。 -------------------- 嘿嘿，YZ95！