One man, two kernels, and a lot of RISC-V
theregister.com
theregister.com
QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture (qsoe-dev.blogspot.com)
44 points by ymz5 3 days ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 27 comments
Over the last few years, he has:
* Taken the last public source code snapshot of QNX, version 6.4, got it building again and then ported this 32-bit kernel to 64-bit RISC-V
* Built a new RISC-V based IBM-PC-like personal computer from scratch on an FPGA
* Built a little-endian IBM S/360-like mainframe on the same FPGA
* Built a new RISC-V RTOS inspired by QNX but FOSS, with 2 alternate kernels: his own multiprocessor microkernel, or seL4.
Which is you see too much to fit into an HN title.
The Register editor doesn't need that refresher course you're offering after all.
Not even a word from the title.
and kernels and risc-v
That's like writing an article about a world cup game and titling it "some guys, a ball and a field".
The Register editor doesn't need that refresher course you're offering after all.
I think you're hallucinating things that were never said.
Since you mention it though, this is journalism 101 taught in middle school english. You don't need a where on the internet, but there is no who, what and why.
Not even a word from the title."
Fucking first sentence let alone the rest "Yuri Zaporozhets of QRV Systems is a busy chap. He's built a new RISC-V-based personal computer, a mainframe on an FPGA, and rewritten QNX – twice."
What do you get out of this? It's bizarre.
I don't know why you're having a meltdown trying to defend clickbait. That's what's really bizarre.
The first sentence of an article isn't the title and the title is wasted, it's just manipulative clickbait, but some people are so in love with it they defend it like it's part of their identity.
Thank you!
(And for the implicit acknowledgement that, as a mere reporter, I don't have much influence over the headlines at all, and most often the editors don't use my proposed headline, subhead, or often intro paragraph.)
So it's a bad low information title and you aren't defending it and know it's bad, or it's just fine to have a low information title? Seems like you're playing both sides here and not taking responsibility.
I am a reporter; I write the articles. The editors write the headlines. That is how most publications work: it is completely normal and plain and standard.
I've been both a reporter and an editor, and in some roles, combined both. I have done paid writing for nearly 20 different publications in Britain, Europe, America, and Australia, starting in 1995. This is standard industry practice.
I've been both a reporter and an editor, and in some roles, combined both. I have done paid writing for nearly 20 different publications in Britain, Europe, America, and Australia, starting in 1995. This is standard industry practice.
A person, their resume and a lot of irrelevant information.
It is not bad.
The problem here is your lack of understanding, and also your hostile confrontational attitude... and in addition, apparently, poor reading comprehension.
Yes.
It is not bad.
It is bad. Notice how you didn't give any reason that you can defend it, you just keep saying "nu uh", while also placing the blame on someone else.
It is bad because it contains no information on purpose, that's clickbait. Keeping as much information out of the title as possible.
The problem here is your lack of understanding,
If that were true you could explain it, but you haven't done any of that, you think you can just reply "No." without explanation.
your hostile confrontational attitude
Criticism with explanations and reasons behind it is not 'hostile and confrontational' just because you don't like it. This is projection, you getting upset over something you can't defend.
and in addition, apparently, poor reading comprehension.
Imagine calling someone 'hostile', then trying to just reply with variations of 'no, nope, nu uh' while flinging insults. The fact that you can't explain your opinion and for some reason think you don't have to while avoiding it with insults is very self righteous.
This is how the job is done, and there are good reasons, and it works. Since you are a random angry shouty man with a made-up name on the internet, I am not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you, as you will just shout insults at me from behind your silly offensive pseudonym.
You don't understand and it is very clear that you don't want to. You prefer to hide behind a made up name and throw insults.
I am not playing your childish game.
None of this is true. If it was true you could explain how and why and you haven't explained any claim you made.
You display shock and anger
This never happened.
the notion that different people have different roles in which they do different work
You are hallucinating this as some sort of back peddle. It has nothing to do with anything.
Since you are a random angry shouty man
Seems like projection since all your posts are you getting upset instead of being able to back up anything you say.
I am not playing your childish game.
All you ever had to do was explain exactly why this isn't a purposely low information clickbait title and you can't. Instead you try to say there is nothing wrong, which you can't explain, and that it isn't your fault.
I think childish is making up hallucinations about things that don't matter and getting upset instead of giving evidence. I would think someone who "knows so much about publishing" would be able to explain themselves better than making the same claims with no evidence over and over. It's like you have never been challenged before and don't understand what's happening.
> If it was true
Of course it is true. That is why I explained the length of my relevant experience.
> you could explain how and why
Why bother to an annoying troll?
ELI5:
My job is to understand complicated computer stuff and explain it in easy words.
My editor's job is to write headlines that will get people to read what I wrote.
I know the tech. The editor knows the readers.
That's not how things work. It's literally an appeal to authority fallacy.
Why bother to an annoying troll?
That's dismissive, but you've had so many chances and instead of explaining anything you have to resort to insults.
My editor's job is to write headlines that will get people to read what I wrote.
So just admit it's a terrible headline, stop trying to play both sides and say it's fine while also taking no responsibility.
If you want to pin it on your editor, at least admit it's intentional low information clickbait 'journalism'.
If you don't want to admit that then explain how it isn't true.
You can't do any of these things after so many chances and your 'journalism' skills seem like all they have taught you is school yard insults.