Re: mutex overkill ?

Regarding "appealing to the author". Dictionary defintions are to be taken
literally, in the case regarding TESTIMONY it defines "authority" as the
"person" to whom a decision can be demurred. Testimony can come only from a
person. You can not call a book to the witness stand. The previous
definitions were applicable to books and not persons.

"Which particular book" is a good question, considering that Windows
Internals is in its fourth edition. My copy is by Matt Pietrek, so,
technically, I can not comment on the contents of the fourth edition, except
to note that the back-cover description is the same as the first edition.

To summarize: the book Windows Internals is not an authoritative source
because

1) it is not a list of citations, it is a set of observations linked to some
citations.
2) it is not the source of the citations, it interprets the interatctions of
the things cited
3) it does not make a set of conclusive statements, esp wrt. WDM
4) decisions based on it do not set precedent (and, if used sloppily, can
cause great damage)
5) it contains incorrect information (search MSDN for list of corrections)

The authoritative sources are the DDK header files, distributed executable
and other files, and MSDN.





"anton bassov" <soviet_bloke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159674853.730310.32600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lesbee,

The book is described as
valuable to those wanting to understand how Windows runs "applications",
not
device drivers.

Are you sure you know which particular book we discuss, in the first
place????
Your above statement is just incredible "masterpiece". "Windows
Internals" is all about kernel mechanics, rather than about actual
programming - it is not a book about writing drivers, and it is
*DEFINITELY* not a book about running user-mode applications


you may appeal to the authors -- we can wait
and see if they join the discussion.

This is *EXACTLY* what you do when you quote their book - you appeal
for their expertize.
Therefore, in order to demonstrate their expertize, they don't need to
participate in a discussion. I am afraid you understand things too
literally

WDM received only 1 chapter in
the book

As well as Memory Manager, Cache Manager, kernel dispatcher, etc. Do
you want to say that we cannot quote this book when we speak about
these issues either?????

In any case, I am out of this discussion - it seems to be just a waste
of time

Anton Bassov


Lesbee Honest wrote:
So we see that the book is disqualified as having "authority", because no
decisions based on it set precedent, because it is more a collection of
observations than a list of citations, because it is not the source of
those
citations, and because it is not a conclusive set of statements wrt WDM. .

According to this definition, the DDK header files have "authority"
(decisions based on them set precedent), as do the executables themselves
(the source of citations), and MSDN (a list of citations).

You mention 1 c TESTIMONY -- you may appeal to the authors -- we can wait
and see if they join the discussion. But, WDM received only 1 chapter in
the book, and is not listed on the back cover. The book is described as
valuable to those wanting to understand how Windows runs "applications",
not
device drivers.


"anton bassov" <soviet_bloke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159427853.778175.309910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi mate

Anton - find a dictionary and lookup authoritative!

Here we are - this is how Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it

Main Entry: au·thor·i·ta·tive
Pronunciation: &-'thär-&-"tA-tiv, o-, -'thor-
Function: adjective
1 a : having or proceeding from authority : OFFICIAL <authoritative
church doctrines> b : showing evident authority : DEFINITIVE <a most
authoritative literary critique>
2 : DICTATORIAL 2
- au·thor·i·ta·tive·ly adverb
- au·thor·i·ta·tive·ness noun


Please look at (b) - "showing evident authority"

Now let's look at "authority" in the same source dictionary:

Main Entry: au·thor·i·ty
Pronunciation: &-'thär-&-tE, o-, -'thor-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English auctorite, from Anglo-French auctorité, from
Latin auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor
1 a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or
support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn b (1) : a
conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a
court) (2) : a decision taken as a precedent (3) : TESTIMONY c : an
individual cited or appealed to as an expert
2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b :
freedom granted by one in authority : RIGHT
3 a : persons in command; specifically : GOVERNMENT b : a governmental
agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public
enterprise <the transit authority>
4 a : GROUNDS, WARRANT <had excellent authority for believing the
claim> b : convincing force <lent authority to the performance>

Look at 1c - it is "authority " may be "an individual cited or appealed
to as an expert", i.e. *EXACTLY* what Russinovich and Solomon are - no
matter what they write about, they demonstrate in-depth knowledge of a
subject


Concerning WDM, "Windows Internals" speaks about it in Chapter 9 (it is
called I/O System) and explains what types of WDM drivers are defined
(i.e. bus-function-filter) -
whatever it says, it demonstrates in-depth knowledge of a subject.

This is why I quoted it as an authoritative source
.

Anton Bassov


m wrote:
Anton - find a dictionary and lookup authoritative!



"anton bassov" <soviet_bloke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159298808.753937.204580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lesbee,

I am afraid you really have no clue what the "discussion" is all
about.....

Someone said that "Windows Internals" is not authoritative source on
WDM. This is wrong, because, in order to qualify for being "not
authoritative source", the book has to make some wrong statements on
the subject it speaks about. Although "Windows Internals" is not
focused on WDM, it makes few statements that are WDM-related. Once
these statements are perfectly correct, they can be quoted and used in
technical discussions as a reference whenever it applies - even if the
book is not focused on WDM. Taking into consideration the fact that
this book has been written by widely respected and recognized Windows
experts, making such statements about it is really stupid things to
do.


Therefore, I questioned the "expertize" of someone who made the above
stupid statement about the book, and it turned out that this person
claims to be an "expert".
Therefore, I asked him to present the source of any description that
confirms his recognition by other people. Taking into consideration
the
fact that this person actively participates in MSFT newgroups, his
"recognized expertize" is more than likely would have gained him MVP
status. This is the only reason why the issue of MVP has arised, in
the
first place.

Now, it seems you claim that R&S is NOT an authoritative source.....

In fact, I claim*EXACTLY* the opposite

but because
they are NOT MVP, and extended this claim to all persons who are NOT
MVP.

The above statement demonstrates your profound misunderstanding of the
whole discussion - I think it is a good idea to learn what the
discussion is all about before trying to participate in it

FYI, Russinovich and Solomon are both MVPs - the only reason why you
did not find them on the list is because this is the list of those who
gained their nomination via participation on MSFT newsgroups, and this
is not the only possible way to get a nomination. I tried to explain
it
to you already, but it looks like I just wasted my time -
you came to totally different conclusions that are , in fact,
*EXACTLY*
the opposite of what I am saying


I take issue with your claims because I represent myself as an
authoritative
source, but I am not an MVP.


Unless you happen to be writing books and/or articles, you cannot
qualify for *ANY* source - either authoritative or non-authoritative
one. Therefore, I really have no idea why you decided that this
"discussion" may be somehow related to you


Anton Bassov


Lesbee Honset wrote:
"anton bassov" <soviet_bloke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159114958.695346.55800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lesbee,

The discussion is not "what constitutes an MVP", it is "what is an
authoritative source".

I am afraid you missed the point - this is *NOT* what the
discussion
is
all about. ......

The original statement with which you took issue was this: "the R&S
book
Windows Internals is not an authoritative source on WDM". This is a
TRUE
statement, because the book is NOT about programming device drivers
using
the Windows Driver Model (WDM).

Now, it seems you claim that R&S is NOT an authoritative source, but
because
they are NOT MVP, and extended this claim to all persons who are NOT
MVP.
This is NOT correct. Being an MVP is not pre-requisite to being an
authoritative source.

You should agree that the book is not an authoritative source on WDM
because
it is not about WDM.

And, you should agree that it is possible to be an authoritative
source
without being an MVP.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Are you really just
pretending to not understand this? Is this some sort of joke?

I take issue with your claims because I represent myself as an
authoritative
source, but I am not an MVP.

If people with whom I do business happen to read your postings, they
may
get
it in their minds that because I am not an MVP, then I am not an
authoritative source, and I may suffer economically due to your wild
statements.

If that does happen, I can now reference my previous posting wherein
it
is
proved that your statements are false. Because, really, it is
simple.
The
book is not about programming WDM, so obviously, it is not an
authoritative
source on WDM. And, R&S are authoritative sources, but not MVPs,
like
me.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mutex overkill ?
    ... valuable to those wanting to understand how Windows runs "applications", ... the DDK header files have "authority" ... Someone said that "Windows Internals" is not authoritative source on ... "recognized expertize" is more than likely would have gained him MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: mutex overkill ?
    ... So we see that the book is disqualified as having "authority", ... and because it is not a conclusive set of statements wrt WDM. ... Someone said that "Windows Internals" is not authoritative source on ... "recognized expertize" is more than likely would have gained him MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: mutex overkill ?
    ... Now let's look at "authority" in the same source dictionary: ... Concerning WDM, "Windows Internals" speaks about it in Chapter 9 (it is ... Someone said that "Windows Internals" is not authoritative source on ... "recognized expertize" is more than likely would have gained him MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: mutex overkill ?
    ... "Which particular book" is a good question, considering that Windows ... and because it is not a conclusive set of statements wrt WDM.. ... the DDK header files have "authority" ... "recognized expertize" is more than likely would have gained him MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: mutex overkill ?
    ... Someone said that "Windows Internals" is not authoritative source on ... focused on WDM, it makes few statements that are WDM-related. ... "recognized expertize" is more than likely would have gained him MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)