As I started reading the first paragraphs the thing that kept popping in my mind was Java. It almost seemed like they were describing java. Specially the part about garbage collection, although they did not named it garbage collection. They simply described that resources would be released once nobody was using them.

The point is sort of that they're taking ideas from languages like Java and actually using them for OS/system code. You're right, it's all old hat for programming languages, but using it for the OS itself (usually done in C or assembler) is quite unusual.

So it's at least an interesting experiment.

Exactly. Dig deep enough in any modern OS and you'll find a heritage that dates back to the 60s. Since then we've come a long way. Byte-code VMs, advanced garbage collection, rich and robust interoperability between modules and services (JARs, .NET assemblies, WSDL, etc, etc.) But all of this is layered on top of the OS, which still has very primitive foundations.

Shockingly, there's been very little research in operating system fundamentals. One of the most important OS breakthroughs in the past 20 years was little more than an open source re-implementation of POSIX UNIX (linux), but very little has been done in terms of honest to goodness green field OS development.

I suspect we're not quite "there" yet in terms of having all of the tools and techniques available to finally justify kicking over the old OS foundations and starting anew. I'm certain that byte-code VMs (perhaps even LLVM itself), high-level interop, and garbage collection will play a big role. I suspect that some of the hot new (or rejuvenated) trends in computing especially functional languages, immutable data based programming, noSQL data stores, and especially event-based systems will be key parts in the foundations of the next re-invention of operating systems.

Java popularized the idea of a VM but it wasn't the first language to do so, nor the last. Today that idea has spread much farther. The JVM is a general purpose platform (Scala, Clojure, JRuby, etc.) And the .NET Common Language Runtime has taken many of the same ideas and run with them (indeed, that's where a lot of the technical underpinnings for the Singularity project come from). Not to mention LLVM and many other projects.

Your hunch is correct. Singularity uses a C# dialect. C# "borrows" heavily from Java.

Why is it that school is so important for an MBA? School is certainly important regardless of career but there seems to be a strong emphasis when it comes to MBA degrees. In Engineering or Computer Science, if you go to MIT that is going to be awesome. But if you go to a state college you will still be able to get almost any job that an MIT guy can get. Besides, skill is far more important in these fields, as per my experience. Any comments?

Among other things it's a form of validation/filtering. If you're hiring you want to filter down the applications to a measurable amount, and one of the best ways to do this is by seeing if they've done something in the past which requires high ability.

In CS this could be having gained entry to MIT or having worked at Google. In these cases you have an institute that you respect saying "we've evaluated this person previously and they've met our high standards". So regardless of the fact that went to MIT or worked at Google, the very fact they got in conveys valuable information to the future employer.

I'm willing to bet that if you applied to hundred companies with two applications both otherwise identical but one having a MIT degree and one having a state college degree, the MIT degree application would get you far more interviews.

Also there's the fact that schools are different. There are plenty of college which are essentially "java schools" which have very minimal coverage of CS beyond programming, which is significantly different from what you'd get at somewhere like MIT. The same applies to MBA schools, but even more, there's no standardised curriculum and the quality of the teachers varies far more, you could be taught by the person who invented in industry the business practices he teaches, or alternatively by a teacher with no real interest in the subject and no industry experience.

There's a lot that can be learnt from books, but there's a huge amount of knowledge that can only be learnt from people with industry experience and that's a rare thing.

Because what matters is not what you learn there, but your rolodex. As they say, it's not what you know, but who you know.

If you go to one of the top MBA programs then you'll meet some of the people that will be hired by other big corporations and you will be either competing against them or negotiating with them.

Or cooperating with them. You will pull them, they will pull you.

sure, if you have the skill and you can show the boss you have the skill, you can get the (technical) job... that's what really matters.

However, assuming you don't have (or can't show me that you have) the skill or experience I'm looking for yet (this applies to everyone who is just out of college, who didn't do significant work as an intern or significant project work, e.g. most recent grads.) I'll take a programmer from MIT over a programmer from woodland community college.

True, your first job may cost you a bit more work to get. Once you get past that challenge it pretty much disappears forever.

key is "can you show me how good you are" if you can overcome that hurdle, yes. you are right, where you came from no longer matters.

However, this is different from just getting your first job. Lots of people under perform. Sure, if I'm hiring sysadmins, I have a pretty good idea who's good and who's not. But if I'm hiring outside my area? I can't tell a good physicist from a bad one. hell, I can evaluate basic C proficiency, and I can search for kernel patches, but if I was hiring a kernel dev, while I could probably filter off the completely unqualified, I wouldn't know the really good from the mediocre. In those cases your school still counts, especially during the early parts of your career. (in the later parts of your career, the prestige of previous companies you have worked for takes some of that.)

Generally, hiring outside of your area is a bad idea and best avoided, but it happens. Some of that is necessary. I mean, I /need/ an accountant for all the same reasons why I'd be bad at evaluating an accountant.

Now, even then, school isn't the be-all and end-all... I chose my accountant because she ran a free question-and-answer blog[1], and seemed to know what she was talking about, and as far as I can tell, I chose well.

Still, I think that if you are going to school for the 'accreditation' value of a diploma, a diploma from a top tier school is worth rather a lot more than a diploma from a place I have not heard of.

[1]http://www.biztaxtalk.com/

First, there are an awful lot of schools that offer semi-worthless MBA degrees as a profitable business. Much more so than in engineering or CS.

Then, it's because business expertise and talent is hard to verify. Programming or engineering ability is easy to prove, even at entry level. You can't prove you can manage a large group until you're already in charge of a large group. This means a company is taking a big risk on hiring MBAs versus CS grads, and needs to look for some clear, objective signals before going ahead.

Finally, executives like hiring managers who went to the same school they did. I don't know exactly why this is the case -- reciprocity, maybe, or some notion of a shared vision of how to run a business.

Finding a co-founder is probably harder than finding a life time soul-mate. Unless the union between you and your co-founder feels 100% natural don't even try it. I say that it is better to be alone than to be in bad company. In this case you might as well start the journey alone, if you happen to find a great co-founder along the way great, if not, continue the journey alone. To advise somebody to not start a company until you find a co-founder is bad advise. Good if you have one, not terribly bad if you don't.

Well I disagree that it is harder than finding a soul-mate, but I do agree it is tricky, and I do agree that you shouldn't partner up with someone you are not feeling great about. I actually wrote that you shouldn't wait to start your business, so we're in agreement fmora, but there are good reasons why you should continue to seek a complementary partner and not be overly stingy in order to bring them on board. Obviously have vesting schedules and protect yourself in case it doesn't work out.

I think this is just a storm in a cup of water. Seriously, read the entire patent application. The usage of the screen may fall under fair use just to make a point in the patent application. Don't get lawyers involved. Those parasites are not worth it for something like this. That is just my gut feeling.

This is Apple. They will bring the lawyers into it. You can't even talk about their pre-released products without a lawsuit hovering overhead.

And ... this is Apple. They win this patent, they'll sue. They've always done this.

I think that is wishful thinking. My gut is that they are seriously considering this if it allows them to grow.

If they go through with this it may be the beginning of the end for Google. At least for the google we once liked. Too many people are being hired by them. When they hire a lot of people not all them can be that great. I guess is time for the next great startup to come. The great next challenger of google may still be but an idea on the mind of an entrepreneur at this point. May explain why google likes to buy a lot of startups. Better kill them now before they kill google.

I know I'm suppose to like this feel good small houses thing. It makes a lot of sense to sleep in a small house if that is within your means. But you know, I still like my average sized american home. Although I used to live in a tiny studio and loved it because it was only me. I could not imagine myself raising a family in a small place like that. I like small living spaces if I'm by myself. I need a bigger space for my family.

Wow. I had no idea pays were this low. How do you live? Is the job really that great? Why put up with it? I started making 50K a year when I first graduated from college and I still complained it was too low after a year there. And now I think that making $100K a year is still too low. You need to choose a different career. Else no point in complaining.

Agree, it feels very disturbing. Although what he is describing is pretty much life in the real world. This is what is called "Playing the game". Idealistic persons will probably have the hardest time with this. To you I tell you to create your own startup. Google is already too big to provide any of the excitement and benefits of when it was just ramping up.