The Microsoft Singularity 615
jose parinas writes ""Microsoft Research has published the first details of a wholly new operating system under development called Singularity, designed new from the ground up, built on a new language and designed with emphasis on dependability instead of performance.""
Oh, let me be the first to say it! (Score:4, Funny)
(Go ahead, mod me down... I deserve it.)
Re:Oh, let me be the first to say it! (Score:2, Informative)
Also - just great - now my Google News Email Alerts for the "singularity" keyword will be poisoned with MS' chaff. Maybe next week they'll come out with a "Nanotech" brand mouse too.
Re:Oh, let me be the first to say it! (Score:2)
There is, of course, another sort of singularity [wikipedia.org] ...
"when technological progress [accelerates] due to the advent of superhuman intelligence..."
Maybe this new Microsoft thingie is that.
Re:Oh, let me be the first to say it! (Score:4, Funny)
IMPORTANT (Score:4, Informative)
Look at page 31 of this PDF. Microsoft publish benchmark statistics showing Linux (and FreeBSD) to be better than Windows.
ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-1
Partial Summary and Comment (Score:4, Informative)
According to the benchmarks published there
- at most OS jobs like threading/process creation, Singularity is at least twice as fast as linux, Linux is very fast at process creation, while XP is good at threads
- in File Operations FreeBSD and Linux beat XP and Singularity at random reads
- in File Operations XP beats Linux and Singularity at sequential reads, with the exception of FreeBSD being fastest if blocksize is high(and very bad for small blocksize)
- linux executable size are larger than these of the other OSes, (whatever that means, more good coding, or less bad code SCNR)
Please bear in mind that a benchmark does not it tell whether the "slower" OS actually invested more time in doing some smart stuff that pays off in some other way.
Re:IMPORTANT (Score:5, Interesting)
The table shows the CPU cost of six different types of operations: "Read Cycle Counter", "ABI Call", "Thread yield", "2 thread wait-set ping pong", "2 message ping pong" and "Create and start process". For the first one, Windows seems to kick the butt of all others handily with Singularity being the worst of the bunch. For "ABI Call", each OS used different system calls that "operate on a readily available data structure in the respective kernels." The system calls seem to be completely different so I don't know if this test is valid, but the results show Singularity an order of magnitude more efficient than the others, with Linux beating Windows by a considerable margin and Windows beating FreeBSD by an equally considerable margin.
For the "thread yield" tests, FreeBSD & Linux are equal, Windows beats them by a reasonable percentage and Singularity is more than twice as fast as the Unixes. For the "2 wait-set ping pong", which measures "the cost of switching between two threads in the same process through a synchronization object", the chart shows that Singularity is somewhat more efficient than Windows and Windows is more than twice as fast as the Unixes. For the "2 message ping pong", which shows the cost of sending a 1-byte message back and forth between two processes, Singularity is 4 times more efficient than Linux, which is somewhat better than Windows, which kicks FreeBSDs butt decisively.
Lastly, for "Create and start process", Singularity is twice as fast as Linux, which is about 50% faster than FreeBSD. Windows comes out 7 times slower than Linux on this test. I don't know how much that matters in the real world since creating and starting a process is not something that is done hundreds of times a second.
All that said, it should probably be pointed out that there are many ways to measure an OS. The M$ guys may have simply picked the ones that support their "see we don't suck" position. And given that Singularity is not a complete OS, I would expect that more overhead will be added later that will bring down these numbers. I guess we'll see.
Singularity... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Singularity... (Score:5, Funny)
Tee hee giggle snort. That was funny! I'd say more, but Full House is on! Cya!
Re:Singularity... (Score:2)
singularity (Score:3, Funny)
Re:release date... (Score:2)
How is that different from every other OS Microsoft has ever released?
MS-DOS 7.0 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MS-DOS 7.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, try again.
Like a Black hole? (Score:4, Funny)
So much more advanced than a BSOD.
Not really (Score:3, Funny)
Reliability he says... (Score:2, Redundant)
They're talking about reliability and yet it looks like we already sladotted the page.
Somehow, this leaves me wanting more</toungeincheek>
Re:Reliability he says... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reliability he says... (Score:2)
Re:Reliability he says... (Score:2)
I'll mark you as a foe, if that makes you feel better... :-)
/.'ed (Score:5, Funny)
Server Error in '/' (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, that page came up pretty fast. I guess their web server is built for performance instead of dependability.
Except that (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm..... (Score:2)
How about security? God knows their OS'es need some.
that's different (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdotted in six comments. (Score:5, Funny)
Current setup was slashdotted within six comments.
Future setup will place an "emphasis on dependability instead of performance".
I'd say it sucks galactic black holes through buckytube, but that still wouldn't approach the Singular suckitude we're looking for.
Bite my dimly red-shifted neutronium ass.
Re:Slashdotted in six comments. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think "Singularity" is not worth a hill of beans, but mostly because its novel ideas have already been tried and made little headway. Java systems have applied similar approaches to securing multiple processes within an address s
Re:Slashdotted in six comments. (Score:2)
Because, like every other piece of software on the planet, we can't be bothered to actually keep track of what's going on in the program so we could tell you what the cause was. You'll notice our "new language" can't do that, either.
Besides, we like issuing stupid error messages like every other Geek Moron(TM). Communication is not our strong suit.
Besides, it would cost Bill money to do that - and that's not allowed around
New UI? (Score:5, Funny)
At last, an honest ship date! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At last, an honest ship date! (Score:3, Funny)
Well.... (Score:2, Insightful)
"designed with emphasis on dependability instead of performance."
Well since there goal has always been to have both dependability and preformance and they never succeded I suppose it is rather wise for them to cut back on the complexity and just try to get one of them.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Text from the second link (Score:2, Insightful)
One interesting concept is the abstraction of Software Isolated Processes (SIPs).
SIPs provide the strong isolation guarantees of OS processes (isolated object space, separate GCs, separate runtimes) without the overhead of hardware-enforced protection domains. In the current Singularity prototype SIPs are extremely cheap; they run in ring 0 in the kernel's address space. Singularity uses these advances to build more reliable systems and applications. For example, because S
In "math speak" singularity means... (Score:2)
[paraphrasing of course, sure the math battallion will come in to clarify]
Not the greatest marketing name I would think
Google cache (Score:2, Interesting)
singularity on MS' channel 9 vlog (Score:5, Informative)
I hacked on this... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was designed for performance? (Score:3, Funny)
hahahahaha (Score:2)
Built on a new language? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Built on a new language? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually its an extended version of Spec# which is in turn an extension of C#. It might help to acquaint yourself with what that actually means. The first significant different is that Spec# allows for explicit pre and post conditions and other formal specificiation syntax, and hence allows for model checking, extended static checking, and formal proof if required.
It's more like someone writing an OS in BitC [coyotos.org] because it can be formally verified and hence be more secure. It does make sense, and there is good logic behind it. Comparing it to an OS in Java is just silly. Comparing it to an OS written in Java using JML [iastate.edu] and associated theorem provers [key-project.org] is getting a little closer. Of course that doesn't address the issue of designing the OS to be more secure and reliable from the outset, and not just relying on formal verification.
If you actually bothered to read some of the material on Singularity you would see that it is an ambitious, but remarkably interesting and promising project. It is also, I would expect, something that will permanently remain buried in MS research like so many other projects. I would be interested in seeing a good open source equivalent though - such a project might have some hope of surviving.
Jedidiah.
Executing in ring 0 (Score:2)
But from the second link it seems that almost everything - including user programs - executes in socalled Software Isolated Processes (SIPs), and that these SIPs all run in ring 0.
[sarcasm] Looks to me like Microsoft is working hard to keep their current security leadership... [/sarcasm]
good for niche marked (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess... (Score:2)
It's named "WinUX."
They aren't the first (Score:5, Informative)
apples and oranges (Score:5, Interesting)
EROS uses C and relies on memory management hardware for isolation. EROS also can't analyze or verify code it loads.
Singularity uses C# and does not use memory management hardware for protection; it guarantees isolation via runtime checks, and it can perform extensive code analysis on load.
I don't know whether Singularity is going to make it, but I have used and developed on systems like it (the idea isn't new), and it is a lot nicer than either UNIX kernels or EROS-like kernels.
Re:apples and oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to re-hash our previous argument on this subject [slashdot.org], but the above statement is trivially falsifiable. Singularity is built on a microkernel. EROS is built on a microkernel. Anything that can be built on Singularity, can be built on EROS, including verifiers, virtual machines, Software Isolated Processes, etc.
EROS has a default mechanism for isolating faults and loading untrusted cod
Re:apples and oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
All that has nothing whatsoever to do with Eros. The two projects are not even similar.
Of course a verifier could be written as an application for Eros (or for DOS, for that matter). That statement is like saying that C++ is no different from assembly, because they're both built atop similar hardware and can be used to implement the same things.
The Coyotos OS is based on Eros and is quite similar. Additionally, Eros is not completely revolutionary. From the eros web page, What's new about Eros?: "Each of these faclities is...essential to providing scalable reliability, and all of them have appeared in prior systems. No prior system, however, hasMicrosoft: ActiveX considered harmful (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, Microsoft, I think I'm with you on this one...you're telling us not to use ActiveX, right?
Re:Microsoft: ActiveX considered harmful (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they're saying that the OS should only run software from the original developers and never be enhanced by anyone else - ESPECIALLY anything that could remotely be considered "open source."
In other words, users must only run Microsoft Windows - and stop asking us for updates and security patches because updates and patches are not reliable or secure.
In other words, give us your money and shut the fuck up.
Oh, yeah, this project has Bill's seal of approval on it, all right.
These are the sort of "brilliant
I hope they market this SOB (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Be nice to have some real competition versus Linux/OS X in terms of architecture. XP/2003 just aren't there. Vista won't be, most likely.
2. Where such a beast (research OS) ever to become a product, would it demonstrate a high level of backwards compatibility? If not, would it actually have to compete on merits, rather than vendor lock-in?
3. It's taken ~10 years to write Wine to the point where it is in _beta_. Now, I'm sure MS can do it faster, because they have the documentation; after all, they designed it. But how long will it take? Or will they use a virtual machine architecture?
In any case, if MS switches to an entirely different OS architecture, I forsee the end of the MS monopoly. Release of a non-Win32 based OS, one that runs older applications (either desktop OR server) in emulation validates Linux/OS with QEMU/Virtual PC/VMware/Xen/Whatever.
4. I doubt this will ever leave the lab. Singularity will be a test bed for MS researchers who want to play with various concepts. These things will be ported over to Vista, or whatever comes into the future. I cannot imagine a world in which MS actually started from scratch; having to market such a product against mainline-Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, AIX, and FreeBSD would be pure madness. It's already extremely difficult for MS to push Office against older versions of Office; this has generated substantial pressure towards alternative Office packages.
It'll be significantly harder for MS to push towards a non-Windows MS operating system. Every single CIO willing to consider moving from Windows will be willing to consider moving to Linux/OS X/whatever instead.
Re:I hope they market this SOB (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope they market this SOB (Score:3, Insightful)
Architecturally, NT is better than both Linux and OS X.
Release of a non-Win32 based OS, one that runs older applications (either desktop OR server) in emulation validates Linux/OS with QEMU/Virtual PC/VMware/Xen/Whatever.
Except that Microsoft would expend a great deal of effort to make the emulation transparent, seamless and easy to use. It's doubtful the same would b
And they are hiring ... (Score:4, Informative)
We are hiring! If you are interested in a full-time Researcher position, please email a C.V. or resume, a research statement, and the email addresses of three reference letter writers to Galen Hunt [microsoft.com]. You may also email copies of two publications you feel represent your best work. Minimum education requirement for a Researcher is a Ph.D. in Computer Science or equivalent.
To facilitate our hiring process, we strongly encourage interested fulltime researcher candidates to submit their application materials as soon as possible and preferably by February 15, 2006.
In evaluating candidates, we pay particular attention to demonstrated qualities of research taste, innovation, and first-hand system building. We value highly a proven research track record as demonstrated by strong publications in top venues.
If you are an exceptional Ph.D. candidate interested in a research internship, please use the MSR Internship Application [microsoft.com].
Microsoft is an equal opportunity employer and supports workforce diversity.
Re:And they are hiring ... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, we keep you separate from anybody with a clue. Can't have you getting one.
That's why we want PhDs with a proven track record of publication in top venues. Got forbid you've ever written a program for a real end user that has to do a real job.
And no way we want anybody who knows what the words "antitrust" or "truth" means.
Looks interesting, could lead to a better foundati (Score:3, Insightful)
Direct Link to Microsoft PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Yay, 1979 Again! (Score:4, Informative)
In case you never heard of them, they are a mainframe based computing system that is used heavily in stock markets, banks and ATM devices. Basically in places where up-time and reliability is rather important. I personally don't like programming on them too much (COBOL anyone!..language with no stack...just wrong) but it can be a fun learning experience. At least there is a program called "OSH" that emulates the bash shell, rather poorly I'll admit...but nice for a guy like me anyways.
I guess a neat thing about Tandem, that also makes them awkward to use initially, is that they don't have a typical file structure. Everything is "Volumes" and you write all these "Servers"....just different. In the end, there is a one-to-one mapping of their file system to something most of us find traditional.
I heard of this (Score:3, Funny)
Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
I already wrote about this four days ago [pl.atyp.us] so I won't repeat the whole thing here. Short version:
Even shorter version: lots of great ideas, lots of work still to be done. Anybody with a clue about operating systems should be following this with interest.
Re:another longhorn? (Score:4, Informative)
Come to think of it - has MS EVER written their own OS from scratch?
Go figure.
Re:another longhorn? (Score:3, Interesting)
CP/M. Some device specific OS's like the C64. The Apple Lisa (which begat the MacOS 1-9). I'm not even sure I'd count Unix, since there's so many flavors all based on something from before. Even Linux was heavily dependant on GNU, which pre-existed it.
Look at the failures. BeOS. Rhapsody. Plan 9, etc.
Re:another longhorn? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:another longhorn? (Score:3, Informative)
Err, Rhapsody was based off of OPENSTEP, which is based off NEXTSTEP, which is based off 4.2BSD (based off AT&T Unix 32V) and Mach from CMU. Mac OS X is based off of Rhapsody. Rhapsody was never released to the public, and the only reason why Rhapsody "failed" (i.e., Apple decided to abandon it and do a different approach with transforming OPENSTEP to OS X) is because Rhapsody would have forced developers to develop all of their applications for OPENSTEP APIs (now known as Cocoa). Developers didn't f
Re:another longhorn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better question: when's the last time anybody wrote an OS from scratch?
As far as I can see, the answer to that is really "never". Before there were OSes, there were collections of macros to act like device drivers and such. The first OSes were based on those, and added slightly more uniform interfaces and such.
Pretty much everything since can be traced back to something previous.
DOS 1.0 was based on QDOS, but DOS 2.0 was essentially a complete rewrite that was really based much more closely on UNIX than on QDOS.
In fairness it should also be added that QDOS was based on (according to some, just a re-compile of) CP/M. Lest any CP/Mers get all holier-than-thou about it, in his original announcement letter about it to "Doctor Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia", Gary Kildall openly stated that CP/M was derived from DEC RT/11. I'll assume there aren't enough DECies left to bother debunking the notion that RT/11 was entirely original.
I'd say the others are much the same way: on one hand, MS contributed more originality than you imply, and on the other hand, others contributed less than you imply.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:another longhorn? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many OSes have ever been written from scratch?
I can think of only 3, none of which has even 0.1% market share. In fact, Plan9 is the only one of them alive.
What is the big deal with bashing microsoft for copying ideas from people?
Isn't that what OSS is built around, copying good ideas?
Re:another longhorn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, ALL operating systems borrow concepts from earlier versions and the existing state of the art. Trying to determine the degree (or not) of "innovation" is akin to arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, with no prior agreement as to the size of an angel...
Re:another longhorn? (Score:5, Informative)
Recently I heard a talk about the Windows kernel given by a guy from Microsoft. At the beginning of a talk, he said, "There are only two operating systems that matter." After the audience buzzed for a while, saying to eachother, "That jerk, Linux matters too!" or "That jerk, OS X matters too!" or "That jerk, BSD matters too!" He said something like, "You guys don't seem to like that, so what's the third?" One guy shouted out, "Windows!" The MS guy said, "Well, if you mean 'evil Windows', that is, Win95/98/ME, then it probably isn't even third. There are two operating systems that matter and they are Unix and VMS." He explained that for the most part ideas from VMS, rather than from Unix, shaped the design of the NT kernel. Looking at the Russinovich article, many of the things he lists as similarities are also similarities with Unix and many are similarities with any modern OS. Some, like the Object Manager, are specific to VMS and Windows. But overall, as long as DEC and MS came to some kind of agreement over any shared concepts or code, it's no knock on Microsoft, just as it's no knock on Linus for implementing a Unix-like OS. Better to borrow some things from a proven design and get a good product than to forge off on your own and make wierd mistakes.
Re:another longhorn? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're ignoring the fact that the relationship was Dave Cutler, and 20 of his team members.
a respected former DEC engineer who worked on later versions of VMS, being the primary designer of the original NT kernel, and using many of the same ideas (as you'd expect him to do.)
The story actually goes much farther than that. You see, when Cutler was working at DEC, he was pushing a complete rewrite of the VMS Operating System. His new version of the OS wou
Re:another longhorn? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft Research is always making things Microsoft never uses. Remember all the 3D navigator stuff they were crowing about years ago?
I think Microsoft Research is a place to keep eggheads working and happy so they don't go working somewhere else.
Re:another longhorn? (Score:3, Informative)
A few things they've come up with have been used (ClearType off the top of my head, and quite a few usability things, although I'm sure there's more), but it is quite disappointing that there's not been more — the quality and originality of the ideas that come out of Microsoft Research is really quite surprising.
Re:another longhorn? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's written in Sing# which is an extension of Spec# which is an extension of C#. People really ought to pay more attention to Spec# - it's a nice extension of C# that allows for more formality if and when you require it. It's in the same class of language as SPARK [praxis-his.com] which is an extension of Ada, JML [iastate.edu] which extends Java with specification semantics, BitC [coyotos.org], Extended ML [ed.ac.uk], HasCASL [uni-bremen.de], and I guess to a lesser extent things like Eiffel [eiffel.com] and D [digitalmars.com].
Think of it this way: static types and type signatures for functions allow you to specify things about the software that the compiler can statically check and make sure there aren't any silly errors. The languages listed above (to varying degrees) allow for more exacting specification about the software, and hence you can (with the right tools) do far more comprehensive static checking and ensure various properties of the software. The difference is that, with most of these languages, the amount of specification is optional - you can be as exacting as you want where you need it, and not bother where you don't. It's like a dynamically typed language that lets you declare and use static types (and check them)just for those areas of code where it matters (except you start with static types and can provide more exacting specification where it matters). It's well worth checking out.
Jedidiah.
Re:Papers? (Score:5, Informative)
The Singularity project is run by top-notch researchers with very good reputations in the academic community. This is the real deal.
I think Slashdot has an acronym for things like the parent post... FUD, was it?
Re:Papers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Papers? (Score:5, Informative)
MSR isn't the first research group to think of using new language constructs to enforce security. Check out this paper on Asbestos [mit.edu], appearing at SOSP, for something similar. But one thing is certain: MSR has a large pool of talent and the money to push this research endeavor farther than any other company or academic institution could, and that is something exciting.
- shadowmatter
Re:Papers? (Score:3, Informative)
False. "Sponsored" by Microsoft means they donated money to it. It's a USENIX sponsored conference (which, if you're not aware, is an organization that sponsors highly respected systems conferences). It does not mean that Microsoft ran the show. Out of a 12 person committee [usenix.org], only two are from Microsoft Research.
pseudo-academics should be careful what they bash (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an OS academic, and we take Microsoft Research seriously, because they're fucking good.
HotOS is a pretty serious workshop for Operating Systems research. Microsoft Research, among others, pays for the conference room. Singularity isn't far enough long yet to get into a bigger conference like SOSP or OSDI, but you can be sure it will in a year or two.
I wouldn't call Singularity pseudo-academic.
Re:Papers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Papers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike MS production software and business practices as much as the next guy. But don't make the mistake of underestimating MS Research just because you dislike MS.
Re:Define "innovation" in that context. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try checking out the Microsoft Research page, and their past systems stemming from there. You might be surprised.
Re:Define "innovation" in that context. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Define "innovation" in that context. (Score:2)
Can you really name a positive contribution the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Define "innovation" in that context. (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely, but to generalize their contribution to modern computing as nothing more than theft and good marketing is pure garbage.
Ok, that's your opinion. I however beleive that they have only copied and stolen products without any real innovation.
Microsoft started by selling BASIC intepreters for the old Altair computers. However, their compilers were mainly based on public domain alternatives at the time. (Copy and/or stolen, not innovation)
As we progress to the era of DOS, When M$ was approach by I
Heres one: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is somewhat murky, myself (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue, however, that later generations can be innovative - provided they do something revolutionary in and of itself. For example, CERN's webserver was the first (and therefore innovative by being first) but I'd consider NCSA's webserver to to have posessed qua
Re:Papers? (Score:3, Funny)
Well let's see, there was Bob. Now that was real innovation.
Re:Benefit of the Doubt (Score:2)
Of course, this would really suck for all those developers who have fine-tuned their software to Windows madness only to have it all exploded a few years down the line.
Perhaps that would be a valuable lesson about developing your software to a propietary, closed API, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure what would be gained from doing this, as opposed to doing what Apple did, and put a slick user interface onto a decades-tested BSD core.
Re:Singulary = Black Hole? (Score:2)
And how would that be different from every other OS Microsoft has ever released?
They're all money sinks into Bill's pocket. They have no other purpose, let alone trying to extend the state of computer science or IT productivity.
Re:Singulary = Black Hole? (Score:2)
There's no need to be bitter; You too can get in on the action with an Ameritrade account at $26.44 per share for MSFT plus a transaction fee.
PS - No guarantees on ever having another dividend payout like once a while back.
Re:can pigs fly? (Score:2)
Re:This just in MS sucks...already Slash Dotted (Score:2)
Or, that despite notions to the contrary, a lot of Slashdot readers actually read the stories.
Posters and submitters might be a different situation though.
Re:This just in MS sucks...already Slash Dotted (Score:3, Insightful)
So when
Re:This just in MS sucks...already Slash Dotted (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, and the last time I saw a /.'ed site spewing MySQL and Apache errors I thought it was just me. Because, well, I've heard that using open source will automagically upgrade your DSL to a T3. Free!
Moron.
Re:Lack of Dynamic Loading (Score:2)
Re:Lack of Dynamic Loading (Score:5, Informative)
A quote from Galen Hunt (apparently someone working on it) from the Channel9 video page (I have to say I've not watched the video, at least yet, it's just interesting wherever developers actually reply to queries), says something about this:
I don't know if that directly answers your question, but I think it kinda explains how they're dealing with this sort of thing.
Re:Device Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting point! I guess that's exactly what it would mean, yes, since they seem to be treating all of these things at similar levels.
Re:My guess: (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the paper, the idea is that, yes, it'll be slower, but the reliability will be built in from the beginning, rather than other systems which take something fast and bolt reliability on. They make a good point that they will be able to use optimising compilers for CLR languages in this context, too.