Obligatory "ignore this space" : https://sacoronavirus.co.za

An American girl catching my eye for one she reminded me of, and capturing me by singing a song which I had cottoned on to as one my grandfather listened to with his family, I am grateful for a letter my aunt wrote which had something to do with state number fifty-one.

I know my mother's prayers had much to do with the letter: it was a bad job from the start. I have no sympathy for America.

But now that I'm as happy as a man living in the belly of a whale, for knowing what it's like to have a girl walk away with every last drop of blood, and then face her as if I found a source for more, which came down to the support of my parents, and they, now that I've stopped playing the silly game of independence, maintain their family ties in spite of everything, because that's what comes of not playing the silly game of independence, I find it difficult to shut up long enough to return to the thoughts that were occupying me before I started writing.

If you take the four words, practise what you preach, and can't shut up, you'll end up writing the bible word for word, including the passages in which some people can see things which others can't, which are referred to as devils. In modern times this difference of experience and opinion falls under the term fairy.

The existence of fairies is not even remotely in question. For a literal example, consider an unpractised author. Getting bored of tediously working out stories which he isn't sure anyone is reading, he puts down his pen, locks up his house, and flies away somewhere pleasant where he gets looked after like a King. A practised author not only makes sure his fairies don't use their wings, but gets them to sit up straight, even when they're wondering what computer game to play next.

This game isn't just about bashing the buttons and wiggling the joystick. Some games are marvels simply because the collaborative effort is seldom one that can produce true art. But there we have it: reading is not something I particularly fancy on a rainy day.

Today, however, the tv will stay off because I do not intend to look at an operating system designed around a graphics card. The collaborative effort called GNU is very far away from being able to look at the word game, beyond word games, and whenever anyone says the word daemon, without making it sound like a boy's name, we find ourselves with a halting problem because, yes, fairies and daemons and devils are the same thing, and the designers of Unix called a spade a fucking shovel.

What is the master of all the devils?

In this instance we use a euphemism because we are hopelessly attached to our computers and don't want Calvinists to create a perfect world without them; which they're likely to do if they realize that they have been looking at the Kernel Incarnate all these years.

Daemons are also called processes, but we then find it difficult to distinguish between them and processors.

But you're in luck. I got my toys together and they said they're quite happy to have fairies running the show. Obviously the processor is the one doing the running. But Turing theory allows us to dispense with the word virtual.

We assume Kernel always was and always will be.

Fairies, like creatures that virtually come from the land of dreams, do not start out with wings. Thus we see that winged fairies must tend the uninitialized ones. We call that state four because that happens to be what it is here.

The idea that a process has a parent isn't a well thought out one. All a daemon does is allocate it, initialize it, and kick it out. While that might mimic some parents, we can't be sure their children will get beyond word games.

A toy and the fairy driving it is much of a muchness with the term, virtual execution. A toyproc has a foreman fairy which sees to allocation and construction, and which cuts the ribbon if all goes well; which is to set it to the zeroeth state.

But zero is a digit and nought is a number, so this is just an exception.

It's easy to talk about verification of algorithms, and a moderate task to sketch out a programming language which makes such verification feasible. It's not so easy to explain why you are referring to a language which has not seen the light of day, instead of revising existing algorithms of questionable sense, that are written in an unquestionably sensible, existing language.

If we cannot verify, we must test. No-one refers to the verification of electronic circuits. Thus we see that programmers who have the know-how to achieve anything they like with a handful of components will naturally see careful testing as the right way of building code.

But this provides an unnatural ceiling to our skills. If you can only build code on a test-bed you won't get past scripting languages.

Naturally we must find ways of rigorously testing what we've made to ensure we haven't left anything out. But now I'm putting people to the test for whom I have no proof to offer.

Practical people don't make fine distinctions between a Microkernel and a Kernel; certainly not after they've realized that just about everyone is only interested in which one is the less poisonous.

The Linux kernel is built by people who are not the least interested in binary states which are indeterminate until observed. Calling it both a Microkernel and a Kernel is a perfectly appropriate way for them to stick their middle fingers up at Theoreticians.

Did I not, in my truest thoughts, always recurring and always dismissed, see past the beauty of the face, and, peering into the soul, discern the twin shadows of selfishness and of fickleness glooming at the back of it?

I'm not sure about this one; having, as I have had, a painful lesson in vanity.

I therefore beg a favour of a friend: I'm a hopeless poser for I have enemies enough. We might find ourselves poised to receive a drink, for instance, and then find ourselves shouted down, still waiting, for the fact that girls of my kind in South Africa find the only thing they can make of their life has a term which, in the language I find the most natural, offends them.

I did observe a creature that was placed, by the foreman, into the zeroeth state. Her language not being my language, except insomuch that words like coffee don't need translation (but a banana is its own verb), she couldn't see the problem of the country staring at her both in the mirror and from the other side of the bar: it's only acceptable for such a person to allow a foreigner to take it to state one; the locals it must dominate or be called Easy.

This suggesting girls and fairies have nothing in common, we'll call state one just that.

In actual fact, we expect Kernel to give processor time to fairies in the zeroeth and for them to respond by choosing between the other permissible as part of what else they do in their first flight.

Fairies taking it easy certainly do come back down to earth, to fly no more, though we know nothing of longevity. At this stage it might be easiest to think of a butterfly. Landing on the earth it takes to walking; thus its friends know it's had enough.

'I've had it with this game!'

When this happens every other fairy, or toyproc, is given processor time, in which time it must acknowledge this change of state in the one now on the ground. As hinted at, we do not have a process tree. Once Kernel has noted that all acknowledgments have been made, what happens to the creature is none of our fucking business; the kernel simply deallocates the memory.

'Good Day, Mr Turing!'

Making use of machines to give the facts of life to children has something to do with our present situation. An author around the time an inventor or two were invited to talk alongside those who spoke of the bright future free from all restraint that machines must bring us, described unrestrained talkers as if four hundred years in the future. To them, he suggested, the car factory represents the beginning of time.

He didn't quite foresee that even if the savage had full restraint, and went on to live in the lighthouse, he would be driven insane for the people who kept coming to tell him he would be happier if he had an epsilon semi-moron making dinner for him. It is yet assumed that a woman leads a man to the altar. It is yet assumed that a boy who has been sighted by a girl can only avoid marriage if he doesn't like girls at all. The general populace don't mind whether a savage prefers girls or boys.

Bottle people are often jealous of savages. A savage alone in a lighthouse, even with a wife and children, is nothing to be jealous of. But perhaps, after some mistaken signals, a lone savage discovers, a great way off, another lone savage with a similar history to his.

Savages aren't fairies.

The ones on this world, which is a flat one, are boys. Boys who are savage are ones who find out that the question of their innocence is only made a big deal of because of gender confusion imposed on them with gender equality. An honourable boy doesn't take what might be given to another honourable boy.

Firstly, we look at how the two savages might have communicated all this to each other; to do so we assume that both lighthouses have two lights, and the second one has three colours.

Thus this data light could communicate the letters A to D, for instance. By a painstaking process they work out that sixty-four is four to the power of three; with such a data word the first twenty-six letters and the space are obvious.



The signal light shows that the data light has been configured. Once the data has been noted, a lever which runs underneath the world is used to turn the signal light off.

Finding that we've made ourselves a diaorama, we see that two boys are playing at this game; we therefore dispense with the data light, because this is a game of fair play and not secrecy.

The Linux Micro-Kernel, as well as those who look at Kernels which aren't just posing as Micro-Kernels, must assume that all daemons will try to do their worst. We, however, have a somewhat childish attempt at a reference implementation in which we get to ensure that if the fairies are daemons, they're more methodical than grandpa. Thus we may assume that all signals are dealt with when a player is given their turn.

However savages discover each other, we don't like to think about the construction of more lighthouses and the introduction of more operators for them. Communication dealt with, we note that fairies consider communication a matter of individual expression; thus we ask the boys to make themselves and their diaorama invisible until called.

But now we have a screen in front of us. Display communication having a double meaning, and a boot screen not being something we can leave until after we've perfected at least one of those meanings, we must assume that Kernel can create gui windows. Allowing each proc to have a window, optionally, which is created when the proc is allocated, means we are not looking at relationships between things before we have a hope of creating a tool to show relationships.


To my fellow savage, who helped me realize which of us needs to be told to shut up, and, it seems, learnt long before I did how to make himself invisible.