Survey ID | 1125 |
Title | COMP3231/9201/3891 05s1 |
Description | |
Anonymous | Yes |
Fill Ratio | 92% (161/175) |
# Filled | 161 |
# Suspended | 0 |
# Not Filled | 14 |
|
indicates required field |
|
|
Please provide us with as much constructive feedback as you can. We
do read these surveys and act on the information you provide. Thanks for
your input.
|
|
|
1.
|
Give a high rating if you have a good
opinion of something (e.g. interesting, useful, well-structured, etc.).
Give a low rating if you have a bad opinion of something (e.g. too slow,
confusing, disorganised, etc.)
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Excellent |
|
Satisfactory |
|
Poor |
N/F |
Lecturer: Kevin Elphinstone |
76 (47%) |
67 (42%) |
16 (10%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
Lecturer:
Charles Gray |
22 (14%) |
63 (39%) |
57 (35%) |
4 (2%) |
1 (1%) |
14 (9%) |
General OS lectures |
34 (21%) |
79 (49%) |
38 (24%) |
8 (5%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
Consultations |
12 (7%) |
37 (23%) |
85 (53%) |
10 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
17 (11%) |
Your tutor |
42 (26%) |
53 (33%) |
46 (29%) |
12 (7%) |
5 (3%) |
3 (2%) |
Tutorials |
33 (20%) |
60 (37%) |
56 (35%) |
8 (5%) |
3 (2%) |
1 (1%) |
Asst1: Restaurant |
23 (14%) |
67 (42%) |
63 (39%) |
6 (4%) |
2 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
20 (12%) |
54 (34%) |
52 (32%) |
26 (16%) |
9 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
25 (16%) |
42 (26%) |
50 (31%) |
34 (21%) |
9 (6%) |
1 (1%) |
Textbook |
34 (21%) |
51 (32%) |
56 (35%) |
13 (8%) |
2 (1%) |
5 (3%) |
OS/161 In general |
24 (15%) |
54 (34%) |
57 (35%) |
20 (12%) |
5 (3%) |
1 (1%) |
C Language |
35 (22%) |
54 (34%) |
54 (34%) |
15 (9%) |
3 (2%) |
0 (0%) |
Computing resources |
22 (14%) |
56 (35%) |
63 (39%) |
12 (7%) |
7 (4%) |
1 (1%) |
Course web page |
27 (17%) |
73 (45%) |
50 (31%) |
9 (6%) |
2 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
Message Board |
34 (21%) |
70 (43%) |
38 (24%) |
15 (9%) |
2 (1%) |
2 (1%) |
Help with technical questions |
21 (13%) |
57 (35%) |
60 (37%) |
12 (7%) |
6 (4%) |
5 (3%) |
Lecture slides |
29 (18%) |
83 (52%) |
40 (25%) |
7 (4%) |
2 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
COMP3231/3891/9201 overall |
32 (20%) |
78 (48%) |
41 (25%) |
8 (5%) |
2 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
|
2.
|
Please rate which of the following
factors influenced your decision to enrol in this course
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Major |
Minor |
No |
N/F |
Interest in operating systems as a field of
study |
63 (39%) |
59 (37%) |
36 (22%) |
3 (2%) |
Chance to get hands dirty with low-level code
|
48 (30%) |
58 (36%) |
50 (31%) |
5 (3%) |
Jobs propects for OS hackers |
26 (16%) |
61 (38%) |
70 (43%) |
4 (2%) |
Would llike to do OS research |
16 (10%) |
67 (42%) |
74 (46%) |
4 (2%) |
Course is core for me |
72 (45%) |
21 (13%) |
67 (42%) |
1 (1%) |
Friends told me it was good |
29 (18%) |
41 (25%) |
87 (54%) |
4 (2%) |
Chance to do challenging programming
assignments |
49 (30%) |
62 (39%) |
47 (29%) |
3 (2%) |
|
|
3.
|
Any other factor that influenced your decision?
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (60
comments) |
|
4.
|
Would you recommend this course to
another student such as yourself?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
115 (71%) |
|
No
|
45 (28%) |
|
N/F |
1 (1%) |
|
|
5.
|
Please provide feedback on the kind of
material covered
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Too much |
|
OK |
|
Too little |
N/F |
High-level OS issus |
8 (5%) |
24 (15%) |
120 (75%) |
5 (3%) |
1 (1%) |
3 (2%) |
Low-level (implementation) issues |
11 (7%) |
31 (19%) |
91 (57%) |
24 (15%) |
2 (1%) |
2 (1%) |
Unix/Linux |
10 (6%) |
16 (10%) |
108 (67%) |
19 (12%) |
7 (4%) |
1 (1%) |
Windows NT |
0 (0%) |
7 (4%) |
70 (43%) |
45 (28%) |
36 (22%) |
3 (2%) |
OS/161 Internals |
14 (9%) |
30 (19%) |
91 (57%) |
19 (12%) |
5 (3%) |
2 (1%) |
Other Systems |
2 (1%) |
6 (4%) |
84 (52%) |
43 (27%) |
24 (15%) |
2 (1%) |
|
|
6.
|
What were the best things about this course?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (124
comments) |
|
7.
|
What were the worst things about this course?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (121
comments) |
|
8.
|
How does the workload in this course
compare to workloads in other ...
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Much Lighter |
|
Similar |
|
Much Heavier |
N/F |
COMP courses |
0 (0%) |
7 (4%) |
28 (17%) |
60 (37%) |
63 (39%) |
3 (2%) |
INFS courses |
2 (1%) |
7 (4%) |
30 (19%) |
21 (13%) |
80 (50%) |
21 (13%) |
Courses in general |
0 (0%) |
7 (4%) |
26 (16%) |
50 (31%) |
73 (45%) |
5 (3%) |
|
|
9.
|
Did you get the impression that the
staff (lecturer, tutors, consultants) tried their best to answer your
questions and help you? Please tick N/A if you did not attend lecture,
consults, tutes)
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Disagree |
N/A |
N/F |
Lectures |
70 (43%) |
46 (29%) |
32 (20%) |
3 (2%) |
4 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
Tutorials |
59 (37%) |
50 (31%) |
28 (17%) |
6 (4%) |
9 (6%) |
6 (4%) |
3 (2%) |
Consultations |
22 (14%) |
16 (10%) |
37 (23%) |
4 (2%) |
1 (1%) |
76 (47%) |
5 (3%) |
|
|
10.
|
How does the quality/value of this
course compare to other....
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Among the best |
|
Average |
|
Among the worst |
N/F |
Year 3 COMP courses |
50 (31%) |
49 (30%) |
42 (26%) |
11 (7%) |
5 (3%) |
4 (2%) |
COMP courses in general |
50 (31%) |
50 (31%) |
43 (27%) |
10 (6%) |
6 (4%) |
2 (1%) |
Courses in general |
45 (28%) |
53 (33%) |
45 (28%) |
6 (4%) |
7 (4%) |
5 (3%) |
|
|
11.
|
Do you think it would be better if the
course used Java-based assignments?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
41 (25%) |
|
No
|
116 (72%) |
|
N/F |
4 (2%) |
|
|
12.
|
Would it be preferable if more of the
pre-requisite courses used C?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
105 (65%) |
|
No
|
52 (32%) |
|
N/F |
4 (2%) |
|
|
13.
|
What background knowledge do you think you were
missing that would have helped you in this course? Is COMP2011/9024 and
COMP2021/9022 (the official pre-requisites) a suitable preparation?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (109
comments) |
|
|
14.
|
What topics caused you the most
difficulty? You can select more than one item
|
|
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box |
|
|
|
System calls |
46 (29%) |
Processes |
18 (11%) |
Threads |
34 (21%) |
Low-level implementations issues |
66 (41%) |
Synchonisation and concurrency |
36 (22%) |
Deadlock |
24 (15%) |
Memory Management and Virtual Memory |
90 (56%) |
File Systems |
48 (30%) |
I/O Management |
30 (19%) |
Scheduling |
35 (22%) |
Multiprocessor Systems |
51 (32%) |
Security |
25 (16%) |
|
|
15.
|
Which material do you think you will be most
useful to you in the future?
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (110
comments) |
|
16.
|
What material related to operating systems, but
not currently in the course, would you like to have seen covered?
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (77
comments) |
|
17.
|
Which of the current topics would you like to see
scaled back or excluded?
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (83
comments) |
|
|
18.
|
Is the current mode of lecture
delivery, using computer-projected slides, effective?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
147 (91%) |
|
No
|
11 (7%) |
|
N/F |
3 (2%) |
|
|
19.
|
Was the subject material (lecture
notes, information on the subject web page, textbook, tutorials,
manuals, etc.) sufficient to follow the course?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Always
|
35 (22%) |
|
Most of the time
|
88 (55%) |
|
Sometimes
|
27 (17%) |
|
Rarely
|
6 (4%) |
|
Never
|
1 (1%) |
|
N/F |
4 (2%) |
|
|
20.
|
Did the explanations in the lecture
help you to understand the subject material? (please choose N/A if you
generally did not attend lectures)
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Always
|
34 (21%) |
|
Most of the time
|
75 (47%) |
|
Sometimes
|
38 (24%) |
|
Rarely
|
4 (2%) |
|
Never
|
0 (0%) |
|
N/A
|
5 (3%) |
|
N/F |
5 (3%) |
|
|
21.
|
If you have not been attending lectures, what
factors influenced your decision not to attend?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (56
comments) |
|
22.
|
Any suggestions for improving lectures?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (87
comments) |
|
23.
|
If you used other textbooks other than Tannenbaum
(e.g. Silberschatz, Stallings), how do you think they compare to each
other? Which gives the best explanations, which has the best structure,
etc....
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (40
comments) |
|
|
24.
|
The aim of the tutorials is to help
you understand the subject material better. Please convey how they
performed in this role
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Disagree |
N/A |
N/F |
The tutorials helped me understand the
material |
46 (29%) |
64 (40%) |
26 (16%) |
8 (5%) |
5 (3%) |
9 (6%) |
3 (2%) |
The questions were appropriately timed |
18 (11%) |
59 (37%) |
48 (30%) |
20 (12%) |
2 (1%) |
11 (7%) |
3 (2%) |
The questions were of appropriate difficulty
|
18 (11%) |
72 (45%) |
49 (30%) |
6 (4%) |
1 (1%) |
11 (7%) |
4 (2%) |
The questions should have increased difficulty
|
9 (6%) |
22 (14%) |
66 (41%) |
24 (15%) |
26 (16%) |
11 (7%) |
3 (2%) |
The number of questions was appropriate |
16 (10%) |
50 (31%) |
66 (41%) |
10 (6%) |
4 (2%) |
11 (7%) |
4 (2%) |
The number of questions should be expanded |
7 (4%) |
20 (12%) |
68 (42%) |
37 (23%) |
13 (8%) |
12 (7%) |
4 (2%) |
I always prepared for the tutorials |
8 (5%) |
23 (14%) |
58 (36%) |
43 (27%) |
14 (9%) |
12 (7%) |
3 (2%) |
Preparation beforehand improved my
understanding of the material |
26 (16%) |
63 (39%) |
41 (25%) |
8 (5%) |
3 (2%) |
17 (11%) |
3 (2%) |
Class participation is important for
understanding the material |
39 (24%) |
48 (30%) |
40 (25%) |
14 (9%) |
8 (5%) |
9 (6%) |
3 (2%) |
|
|
25.
|
Please rate how effective your tutor
was. Check N/A if you did not deal with the particular tutor.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Excellent |
|
OK |
|
Poor |
N/A |
N/F |
Tutor A |
12 (7%) |
13 (8%) |
17 (11%) |
2 (1%) |
2 (1%) |
90 (56%) |
25 (16%) |
Tutor B |
4 (2%) |
8 (5%) |
19 (12%) |
8 (5%) |
2 (1%) |
93 (58%) |
27 (17%) |
Tutor C |
8 (5%) |
13 (8%) |
16 (10%) |
2 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
97 (60%) |
24 (15%) |
Tutor D |
14 (9%) |
9 (6%) |
12 (7%) |
2 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
95 (59%) |
28 (17%) |
Tutor E |
6 (4%) |
12 (7%) |
12 (7%) |
4 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
95 (59%) |
29 (18%) |
|
|
26.
|
Any suggestions for improving tutorials?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (64
comments) |
|
|
27.
|
Please rate the level of difficulty of
the assignments
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Too easy |
|
Just right |
|
Too difficult |
N/F |
Asst1: Restaurant |
7 (4%) |
28 (17%) |
96 (60%) |
24 (15%) |
1 (1%) |
5 (3%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
0 (0%) |
2 (1%) |
51 (32%) |
69 (43%) |
34 (21%) |
5 (3%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
0 (0%) |
2 (1%) |
33 (20%) |
46 (29%) |
75 (47%) |
5 (3%) |
|
|
28.
|
How well was each assignment specified
(taking into account a significant part of the assignments is
understanding the environment you solution must work within)?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Very clearly |
|
OK |
|
Confusing |
N/F |
Asst1: Restaurant |
31 (19%) |
33 (20%) |
65 (40%) |
26 (16%) |
3 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
9 (6%) |
29 (18%) |
50 (31%) |
40 (25%) |
30 (19%) |
3 (2%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
10 (6%) |
22 (14%) |
44 (27%) |
41 (25%) |
39 (24%) |
5 (3%) |
|
|
29.
|
Did the supporting material (manuals,
notes, comments in code) provide sufficient information for solving the
assignment?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Very much |
|
Somewhat |
|
Not at all |
N/F |
Asst1: Restaurant |
23 (14%) |
40 (25%) |
72 (45%) |
17 (11%) |
4 (2%) |
5 (3%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
13 (8%) |
35 (22%) |
50 (31%) |
41 (25%) |
18 (11%) |
4 (2%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
11 (7%) |
28 (17%) |
52 (32%) |
43 (27%) |
23 (14%) |
4 (2%) |
|
|
30.
|
Rate which factors (if applicable to
you) contributed to the assignments being difficult in your eyes
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Major |
|
Minor |
|
No |
N/A |
N/F |
Topics are conceptually difficult |
22 (14%) |
40 (25%) |
55 (34%) |
10 (6%) |
24 (15%) |
5 (3%) |
5 (3%) |
Implementation is difficult |
62 (39%) |
39 (24%) |
33 (20%) |
9 (6%) |
11 (7%) |
3 (2%) |
4 (2%) |
Lack of familiarity with C |
18 (11%) |
21 (13%) |
46 (29%) |
16 (10%) |
50 (31%) |
4 (2%) |
6 (4%) |
Lack of experience with a large code base |
50 (31%) |
52 (32%) |
25 (16%) |
10 (6%) |
16 (10%) |
4 (2%) |
4 (2%) |
Lack of experience debugging C |
32 (20%) |
36 (22%) |
36 (22%) |
20 (12%) |
27 (17%) |
5 (3%) |
5 (3%) |
Lack of previous low-level programming |
26 (16%) |
41 (25%) |
38 (24%) |
21 (13%) |
26 (16%) |
5 (3%) |
4 (2%) |
|
|
31.
|
The aim of the assignment work was for
you to develop practical skills with the concepts covered in lectures.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Not really |
|
Somewhat |
|
Very much |
N/F |
Did the assignment work help with this? |
10 (6%) |
16 (10%) |
55 (34%) |
44 (27%) |
32 (20%) |
4 (2%) |
|
|
32.
|
Do you have any specific comments about OS/161
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (62
comments) |
|
33.
|
Please indicate whether you (dis)agree
with the following statements about the use of CVS to manage the
assignment code base.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Disagree |
N/A |
N/F |
CVS greatly helps in developing a
collaborative assignment solution |
26 (16%) |
25 (16%) |
62 (39%) |
29 (18%) |
10 (6%) |
6 (4%) |
3 (2%) |
CVS is relatively simple to learn to use |
13 (8%) |
48 (30%) |
49 (30%) |
27 (17%) |
15 (9%) |
5 (3%) |
4 (2%) |
CVS just gets in the way and should be not be
used |
12 (7%) |
24 (15%) |
51 (32%) |
37 (23%) |
28 (17%) |
5 (3%) |
4 (2%) |
CVS is reliable with no real hiccups in use
|
10 (6%) |
32 (20%) |
67 (42%) |
27 (17%) |
16 (10%) |
5 (3%) |
4 (2%) |
CVS was useful to transport code between UNSW
and home |
11 (7%) |
13 (8%) |
49 (30%) |
25 (16%) |
22 (14%) |
38 (24%) |
3 (2%) |
|
|
34.
|
Please indicate whether you (dis)agree
with the following statements regarding group assignment work.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Disagree |
N/F |
Group work is a better than working as an
individual |
45 (28%) |
27 (17%) |
49 (30%) |
15 (9%) |
22 (14%) |
3 (2%) |
Groups reduce the assignment workload |
34 (21%) |
30 (19%) |
44 (27%) |
21 (13%) |
29 (18%) |
3 (2%) |
Groups should be optional, but every
submission is marked the same |
20 (12%) |
29 (18%) |
60 (37%) |
23 (14%) |
26 (16%) |
3 (2%) |
Groups are unfair as inevitably one member
does all the work |
31 (19%) |
44 (27%) |
53 (33%) |
21 (13%) |
9 (6%) |
3 (2%) |
Larger groups would be better |
24 (15%) |
24 (15%) |
35 (22%) |
27 (17%) |
48 (30%) |
3 (2%) |
Having a partner to help understand the
assignment really helps |
47 (29%) |
39 (24%) |
50 (31%) |
8 (5%) |
14 (9%) |
3 (2%) |
|
|
35.
|
What do you think of the advanced
assignments?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Great Idea!
|
19 (12%) |
|
|
29 (18%) |
|
Don't care
|
83 (52%) |
|
|
4 (2%) |
|
Abolish!
|
20 (12%) |
|
N/F |
6 (4%) |
|
|
36.
|
Any suggestions for improving the assignments?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (82
comments) |
|
7. COMP3891 Extended Operating Systems
|
|
Skip this section if you did not do COMP3891 Extended Operating
Systems.
|
|
37.
|
How would you rate extended OS as a
whole?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Excellent
|
9 (6%) |
|
|
4 (2%) |
|
Average
|
4 (2%) |
|
|
0 (0%) |
|
Poor
|
1 (1%) |
|
N/A
|
12 (7%) |
|
N/F |
131 (81%) |
|
|
38.
|
What were the strong points of COMP3891?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (12
comments) |
|
39.
|
What were the weak points of COMP3891?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (9
comments) |
|
40.
|
Any suggestions for improving COMP3891 Extended
OS?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (7
comments) |
|
|
41.
|
What do you think of the message
board?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Great idea |
|
OK |
|
Abolish |
N/A |
N/F |
The message board in general |
70 (43%) |
22 (14%) |
50 (31%) |
4 (2%) |
4 (2%) |
2 (1%) |
9 (6%) |
|
|
42.
|
Should we give feedback and answer
questions via the message board instead of using email to class account?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Definitely
|
53 (33%) |
|
|
27 (17%) |
|
Indiferent
|
42 (26%) |
|
|
11 (7%) |
|
No way
|
19 (12%) |
|
N/F |
9 (6%) |
|
|
43.
|
We always look for evidence of
cheating in assigments and try or best to catch and penalise cheaters.
Please tell us what you think about the treatment of cheaters in the
course.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Too soft
|
11 (7%) |
|
|
10 (6%) |
|
Just right
|
114 (71%) |
|
|
12 (7%) |
|
Too harsh
|
2 (1%) |
|
N/F |
12 (7%) |
|
|
44.
|
Any other comments/suggestions that might help us
to improve the course in the future?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (48
comments) |
|
45.
|
What do you think your final result
will be for the course?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
HD
|
10 (6%) |
|
DN
|
30 (19%) |
|
CR
|
47 (29%) |
|
PS
|
36 (22%) |
|
FL
|
18 (11%) |
|
No Idea
|
12 (7%) |
|
N/F |
8 (5%) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to Summary |
3.
|
Any other
factor that influenced your decision?
|
|
1: |
All the No's in qs 2 would now be Majors~:P |
|
2: |
Compulsary course |
|
3: |
Couldn't decide what other course to take, so I just took this
one. |
|
4: |
Course (overall) said to be challenging |
|
5: |
Curiosity in OS design. Really didn't know what I was getting
into |
|
6: |
Did a small course in OS before. |
|
7: |
Done almost all the other Computing subjects |
|
8: |
Everybody said it was challengin, so I wanted to see how hard it
was. |
|
9: |
Felt it to be neccessary for any coding job |
|
10: |
Friends were all doing it |
|
11: |
General interest in OS |
|
12: |
Had the impression that doing OS would make my resume look better |
|
13: |
I think I have to learn OS if I am a computer science student. |
|
14: |
I thought it was more about computer/human interaction. |
|
15: |
Just basically want to know more about the field |
|
16: |
Learning how to build/design large systems |
|
17: |
Minor |
|
18: |
No |
|
19: |
No |
|
20: |
No |
|
21: |
No |
|
22: |
No |
|
23: |
No |
|
24: |
None |
|
25: |
OS is a good subject to have under your belt |
|
26: |
OS is fundamental component in computing world |
|
27: |
OS knowledge is essential for all low level applications |
|
28: |
Relates to my other courses which I study |
|
29: |
The lecturer is good |
|
30: |
Think it forms basis for understanding framework that we write
applications upon. Will help optimise coding of apps. |
|
31: |
Useful |
|
32: |
Useful background information for any sort of programming |
|
33: |
Useful knowledge for software/system development |
|
34: |
Well known for its difficult and challenging nature |
|
35: |
ability to go on to opensource kernel hacking |
|
36: |
friends doing it as core, some as electives (elective for me as
well) |
|
37: |
good base knowledge |
|
38: |
had took embedded sys (3221) and comp arch (3211) in recent
sessions |
|
39: |
i just wanted to know why windows suck so badly |
|
40: |
interest |
|
41: |
knowing all the low level interactions of software and hardware |
|
42: |
no |
|
43: |
no |
|
44: |
no |
|
45: |
no |
|
46: |
no |
|
47: |
no |
|
48: |
no |
|
49: |
no |
|
50: |
no |
|
51: |
no |
|
52: |
not really. |
|
53: |
nothing |
|
54: |
nothing |
|
55: |
nothing really |
|
56: |
peer pressure |
|
57: |
seemed least boring of available options |
|
58: |
sound interesing |
|
59: |
there's no othre factor |
|
60: |
verification of L4 with NICTA FM group |
|
6.
|
What were the
best things about this course?
|
|
1: |
- Interesting lectures
- Extended Tutorial Topics
- Challenging assignments |
|
2: |
Assignments |
|
3: |
Assignments were challenging and prove to make students understand |
|
4: |
Asst0 |
|
5: |
Challenge course |
|
6: |
Challenging Assignments, C Programming, Course Contents |
|
7: |
Challenging assignment |
|
8: |
Challenging assignments, relaxed teaching style, comprehensive
lectures |
|
9: |
Coding. Really low level, dirty, bit-wise manipulation coding.
Working within another's framework and team coding was cool too. Did
some male-bonding with team member over late-night coding and more than a
couple of pots of coffee. |
|
10: |
Complexity and challenging nature of course.
Interesting content. |
|
11: |
Covering General Ideas and concepts about OS |
|
12: |
Entertaining and engaging lectures |
|
13: |
Finally getting some understanding of what actually sits between
applications and hardware. I enjoyed the assignments due to their
challenging nature BUT... |
|
14: |
First 'real' programming course. Not writing a game of life, or
other useless program. |
|
15: |
Gain knowledage of the interface between software and hardware. |
|
16: |
Gain some ideas about how OS works |
|
17: |
Gaining a knowledge of what goes on within an operating system,
especially an insight into why it seems OS's tend to have so many
problems. |
|
18: |
Gaining background knowledge, learning how things worked. |
|
19: |
Get in touch with kernel codes and low level codes. And know more
about hardware. |
|
20: |
Get many experiences on computer system aspecs. |
|
21: |
Get to learn a lot |
|
22: |
Get to learn more about operating system as well as its components
in OS. |
|
23: |
Getting to play around with the internels of a simplified OS |
|
24: |
Getting you hands dirty with lower level abstruction |
|
25: |
Good lecture material and a lecturer who added value to attending
class. |
|
26: |
Good lectures given. |
|
27: |
Got to work on code which was not mine, tackle real OS problems
which are still prevalent today |
|
28: |
High level OS issues. |
|
29: |
How everything could be related to real life issues and the fact
that such a hard course could be understandable |
|
30: |
I can have some knowledge of the core of software |
|
31: |
I can learn something about low level code, and get more
understanding about the intermedia between hardware and software. |
|
32: |
I learnt a lot. |
|
33: |
I leart a lot. Really a lot, and even though the course is pretty
hard and demanding, i find it really satisfying. |
|
34: |
I loved that now I've got this whole-system view of computers :D
...also getting my hands dirty with low level OS code was totally cool. |
|
35: |
I think the lecture slides were good, and the lectures could have
been good if Kevin spoke slower |
|
36: |
Interesting Information about OS, including current OS development
in the market explained by lecturer |
|
37: |
Interesting lecture. Lecturer not just going through lecture
notes. |
|
38: |
Interesting lectures. |
|
39: |
Interesting material and satifying assignments. Very well taught
in lectures and tutes. |
|
40: |
Interesting, fairly difficult programming assignments.
Understanding how the OS works has helped in my general understanding of
programming and how user level apps interact with the low level code. |
|
41: |
It got me interested in the lower level side to my computer and
it's OS. |
|
42: |
It was interesting, and you got experience actually writing OS
code, which really helped me to understand the content, although it took
a while to understand the supplied os/161 code. |
|
43: |
Kevin, and the feeling that he is always there to answer your
[dumb]questions |
|
44: |
Learn from Assigment |
|
45: |
Learn many concepts |
|
46: |
Learn the things in OS where we never think of before |
|
47: |
Learning about the internals of an operating system - writing
partial code to implement our own operating system - found that pretty
rewarding. |
|
48: |
Learning clever methods of how to get stuff to work better... like
all the little things under the bonnet you take for granted need a lot
of smart tricks to get working at an efficient level |
|
49: |
Learning how operating systems work, and moving out of user
programming and into kernel programming |
|
50: |
Lecture notes and tutorials were helpful |
|
51: |
Lecturer are great , well structure lecture. Good presentation and
clarifying |
|
52: |
Lecturer tried to keep it interesting |
|
53: |
Lectures |
|
54: |
Lectures and Tutorials were very helpful to understanding the
material |
|
55: |
Lectures were fantastic. Lots of preparation and very well
delivered. |
|
56: |
Lectures were well presented, and were associated with lecture
slides weekly. |
|
57: |
Looking at how the kernel works. |
|
58: |
Low Level Programming Experience.
Kevin's Lectures & Consults |
|
59: |
Low level code
_Practical_
Clear specifications (THANK YOU!!!) |
|
60: |
Low-level issues of OS. |
|
61: |
Not many assignments |
|
62: |
Notes are structured and refrenced back to the book |
|
63: |
OS/161 was a convenient learning environment. |
|
64: |
Presents solid background of general OS systems |
|
65: |
Pricnple of a basic OS |
|
66: |
Principle of OP |
|
67: |
Really useful course. |
|
68: |
Seeing how large systems are built, cool algorithms, low level
code. |
|
69: |
Subject matter was both deep enough and broad enough to remain
interesting |
|
70: |
The Lectures and tutes |
|
71: |
The assignments and the ability to get stuck into real code and
tackle challenging problems. This is what makes this such an excellent
course. |
|
72: |
The assignments gave good insight into the operation of an os. |
|
73: |
The content was very interesting, and good support from lecturer
and tutors |
|
74: |
The extended lectures
The flexibility of lectures |
|
75: |
The extended lectures, the great depth of content. |
|
76: |
The feeling of "wow I might pass OS" |
|
77: |
The lecturer |
|
78: |
The lecturer
Well prepared lecture slides
The tutor |
|
79: |
The lecturer conveyed the concepts in a clear and concise manner |
|
80: |
The lectures are the best. The theories are clearly explained and
even if not properly understood during the lecture, we could turn to the
forums for a further explaination. |
|
81: |
The lectures were very interesting and the content of the course
really appeals to me |
|
82: |
The lectures, although done at a fast pace, were still
informative. Kevin seemed to know what he was talking about in all the
lectures and also when he was asked questions - which isn't always the
case in some courses. |
|
83: |
The topics covered are very interesting and relevant. |
|
84: |
The tutorials were good |
|
85: |
The tutorials, and the issues related to hacking. |
|
86: |
This course teaches a lot of OS issues. |
|
87: |
To really know something about "COMPUTERS" |
|
88: |
Very good detailed introductory course into OS |
|
89: |
When assignments worked! I was actually surprised to find that I
was quite interested in many of the os issues, I usually don't enjoy low
level things, but things like semaphores and concurrency problems are
quite cool. Also, I liked the comments in os161 - "I think I'll just die
now" :) |
|
90: |
actually buinding up an OS, feels pretty good |
|
91: |
assignments - hacking on semi-real kernel |
|
92: |
attending the lectures, very interesting. tutorial isn't bad
either, the tutor is one smart guy |
|
93: |
can't state out what is the best but i enjoyed this course even
though i don't have enough time to finish everything well. |
|
94: |
challenge.... |
|
95: |
chanllenging assignments, good lectures |
|
96: |
get to know how some basic stuff works inside the os |
|
97: |
get to know what an OS does and how it works |
|
98: |
good coverage |
|
99: |
got challenges to C programming, and got many good practices |
|
100: |
how the OS works and its inner structures |
|
101: |
interesting material. Dr Elfinstone presents well. Good
assignments |
|
102: |
interesting, learn a lot from this course |
|
103: |
learn a lot in assignments |
|
104: |
learn programming with a large source base |
|
105: |
learn what is OS |
|
106: |
lecture is pretty good! |
|
107: |
lecturer |
|
108: |
lecturer was interesting in presenting notes |
|
109: |
lecturer-- good presentation skills and show of knowledge |
|
110: |
lectures |
|
111: |
lectures |
|
112: |
letcure time tables |
|
113: |
n/a |
|
114: |
notes |
|
115: |
text book |
|
116: |
the assignments |
|
117: |
the assignments made u read the lectures and book |
|
118: |
the first assignment |
|
119: |
the lecturer and the forum really helps |
|
120: |
the lecturer structured the course and lectures very well
The lecture notes/slides were brilliant- summarised the textbook very
well
The lecturer spoke clearly and made the lectures more interesting |
|
121: |
the understanding of OS at the end of the course. |
|
122: |
to use os in our normal life |
|
123: |
tutes were good and related to the lecture material well. |
|
124: |
tutorial |
|
7.
|
What were the
worst things about this course?
|
|
1: |
- Lecture slides never posted on the website early
- Very difficult to get started on assignments..too much time taken in
understanding what was required in the assignments |
|
2: |
2 hour lectures are annoying, would prefer 3x1 hour lectures, but
realise this may be impossible/hard. |
|
3: |
A bit difficult but good challange |
|
4: |
Also assigment,not easy. |
|
5: |
Applying the theory to assignments, and understnding OS/161 |
|
6: |
As always, another uni course trying to cover too much material in
too little time.
The 3-4 weeks you gave us for assignments was fine but remember that
when you take into account the 3-4 other courses we might be doing the
effective time is only around 1.5 weeks.
|
|
7: |
Assignment is hard. |
|
8: |
Assignment marking schemas are not available and assignments are
marked so late that you have no chance to avoid making similar mistakes
in next assignment(s). I also found the manual marking a bit unfair,
maybe it's my problem but I've got worst practical component marks ever
(74.2 while it was always above 90) |
|
9: |
Assignment specifications. Automarking often test things that were
never mentioned or emphasized. |
|
10: |
Assignments |
|
11: |
Assignments
I think there should be more explanations on the os/161 coding |
|
12: |
Assignments - usually a bit clueless as to how to start and where
to start looking |
|
13: |
Assignments . . extended OS guy in my tute answers all the
questions, whilst the rest of class have no idea whats going on |
|
14: |
Assignments a little difficult at times and hard to get a good
handle on. |
|
15: |
Assignments are too HARD. No ideas how to do it, how to debug the
software. |
|
16: |
Assignments are too difficult which should require more time and
references to do |
|
17: |
Assignments are too hard... (except asst0 and restaurant one) |
|
18: |
Assignments done in groups |
|
19: |
Assignments somewhat very difficult |
|
20: |
Assignments were time consuming |
|
21: |
Assignments were very difficult. |
|
22: |
Assignments were very time consuming and difficult, although it
was clear that there has been a large improvement on this compared with
the past. |
|
23: |
Asst2 and Asst3 and time needed for the course and short amount of
time to do them taking into account work load of other subjects. |
|
24: |
Cant think of any!! |
|
25: |
Course is too broad, should make more concentrated. |
|
26: |
Coverage of Real Life Operating Systems. I wanted to learn few
distinguishing features about different operating systems but that was
not covered in great detail. |
|
27: |
Doing assignment 3: virtual memory |
|
28: |
For the assignment, I couldnt figure out how to test as we went
along. We had to basically finish the assignment, then test and debug
the whole thing. |
|
29: |
Group work on the assignments. My partner did very little for
assn1&2, and i was forced to do most of the work myself. He did do a
lot in assn3, but none of it made sense, and so i had to try and work
with code that was useless. |
|
30: |
High workload sometimes a drawback |
|
31: |
I think there's too little resource about OS 161. Say, if you type
"OS161" in google, there are less than 10 available pages, which means
the only way we can learn OS161 well is the lectures and tutorials,
excluded self-study. |
|
32: |
It is hard for me to get a high mark:( |
|
33: |
It's hell hard and the assignments are crazy even if you spend
heaps of time on it. |
|
34: |
Kevin talks way too fast, makes it hard to understand on the spot
as he moves on too quickly. Also one thing that is much much much worse
than Kevin's talking speed is the fact that the lecture slides aint up
before the lecture as personally i prefer to write down notes next to
the relevant slide printout during lecture for studying purposes. |
|
35: |
Lecture notes could be a bit more verbose . |
|
36: |
Losing marks because my partner was crap and did no work
whatsoever. |
|
37: |
Most of the (basic) assignments were not challenging enough to be
very interesting. |
|
38: |
NO |
|
39: |
No testings provided in assignments that gaurantee a certain level
of correctness. I passed ALL tests in the testing method provided in
asst1 yet failed ALL tests cases during automarking.
Impossible asst3. |
|
40: |
No windows relation |
|
41: |
Not applicable to any system used commercially, ie, I did not see
any possibility of application of what I've learnt from this course into
Windows API and stuff, which is what most people use. |
|
42: |
Not enough hands-on practice on coding os system features. Labs
exercises should be introduced |
|
43: |
Not enough support for assignments |
|
44: |
OS/161 programming. after a year of little to no required C
programming, the shock of getting back into it at a level much more
complex than before is very hard to adjust to |
|
45: |
OS/161 unfamiliar. |
|
46: |
Perhaps some parts of the assignment is a little too hard.
Figuring it out really takes a lot of time. Compared to other
assignments in other courses, the assignments are much harder. In other
courses, I knew exactly what to do and how to achieve it. |
|
47: |
Prolonged discussions about conceptually trivial algorithms to
poorly solve various problems. The introduction of Monitors seemed
irrelevant. |
|
48: |
Really hard to realize the assignment.
too less hint to do the assignment |
|
49: |
Really long hours. Assignments. Thank goodness there weren't labs. |
|
50: |
Rex Vowels makes you feel sleepy.
Kevin can talk too fast sometimes, not giving people time to digest the
information as to him it is very simple, but when he says long sentences
in short times, it is hard to understand and people who would otherwise
understand can be left behind |
|
51: |
Slow assignment feedback/marking time |
|
52: |
Some ideas and topics were quite hard to understand and the
lecturer did not bother to "dumb down" his explanation of these ideas.
Assuming that everyone doing the course is a potention HD student wasnt
very productive to average students. |
|
53: |
Stuck to traditional unix/linux stuff, alternative OS's would have
been interesting if covered regularly. |
|
54: |
The Assignment takes too much time and was extremely challenging |
|
55: |
The amount of time that need to be invested into assignments.
Lecture should cover more details on OS/161 to aid practical
programming. |
|
56: |
The assignments |
|
57: |
The assignments |
|
58: |
The assignments are difficult, if a student has a heavy workload;
they can be overwhelming. |
|
59: |
The assignments are hard :p |
|
60: |
The assignments were hard to complete, and even harder to begin |
|
61: |
The assignments were too much! Because it was hard to see how the
course content related to the assignments when it came to actually
coding. The idea was there, but OS161 was just too much code. |
|
62: |
The assignments were very hard to start because it took lots of
time to understand the low-level details of OS161. I know there was a
lecture on how to start the Virtual Memory assignment, however I think
the assignment specs could have been more helpful on how to start. |
|
63: |
The assignments. They consumed way too much time on a full load of
study. This is the reason I wouldn't recommend OS to anyone else.
Although I went OK in the assignments all my other courses have suffered
this semester due to OS. |
|
64: |
The awful assignments - i detested the low level coding, havng to
understand and read so much other code |
|
65: |
The dry material, even though it is core to the course. |
|
66: |
The group work part of the assignments was particularly bad, this
is probably because I ended up doing the assignments by myself. I feel
that the assignments were not really structured in a way to allow two
people to work on them. They appeared to be fairly sequential in nature.
I also believe that the assignments were not released early enough to
allow students sufficient time to complete them. It would be better if
assignment specs were available at least 3 weeks before they were due,
if not a little longer. |
|
67: |
The harmonics that is applied for class mark and exam marks. I
feel that the weightage of the projects are a bit too high. This may
have caused the high failure rate. |
|
68: |
The high chance that you won't pass OS :D |
|
69: |
The last 2 assignments |
|
70: |
This course teaches too much.
We have to study OS/161 by ourself for assignment. |
|
71: |
Too hard. Too much work. |
|
72: |
Too little preparation on C (This is probably an issue outside the
scope of the course hence the need for prerequisites). Heavy workload
compared to most other subjects. |
|
73: |
Too much dirty codes in assignments and lack of explain in such
codes. |
|
74: |
Too much low level stuff, assignments are hard and lecture are not
well structured (very hard for later study, hard to find corresponding
chapter in text boo) |
|
75: |
Tutes |
|
76: |
Unix/Linux and OS/161. |
|
77: |
Very hard assignments |
|
78: |
Virtual Memory assignment was hard to impliment in stages, it was
an all-or-nothing approach |
|
79: |
When assignments didn't work! Having to look through other
people's code for 9 hrs just to understand what the hell was going on to
get started on an assignment. |
|
80: |
Working with someone else on the assignments - in the end I
practically wrote all the assignments myself save some of the second
assignment. |
|
81: |
assignment deadlines |
|
82: |
assignment too difficult |
|
83: |
assignment too hard |
|
84: |
assignments |
|
85: |
assignments are a little bit difficult! |
|
86: |
assignments are too difficult. |
|
87: |
assignments too hard |
|
88: |
assignments were hard to begin. knowing the lecture content only
gave an idea of what the program should do, but not how to start the
assingment. (dont know where and how to start writing) |
|
89: |
assignments with specs that doesnt tell what to do. |
|
90: |
assignments, tutorials, lectures notes |
|
91: |
assignmets too complex and hard to follow |
|
92: |
coding stuff takes a lot of time that i don't really have and
consequently some of my assignments weren't finished. not much you can
do about this though i guess... |
|
93: |
difficult assts |
|
94: |
everything except text book |
|
95: |
group mate |
|
96: |
it's hard to get marks from the assignments |
|
97: |
learn what is OS |
|
98: |
lectures hardly related to assignments. thrown into the DEEP DEEP
end in terms of assignments. |
|
99: |
moron assignment partner. |
|
100: |
n/a |
|
101: |
no |
|
102: |
no automarking data put up |
|
103: |
no way to debug last assignment (as functions) |
|
104: |
not as hard as claimed to be |
|
105: |
sometimes the amount of work demanded became too much during the
intense weeks of uni - perhaps shifting the timing of OS assignments to a
week before or after the week other assignments are due might help |
|
106: |
the assignment is too challenging |
|
107: |
the assignments were way too hard and not specified adequately.
The specs posted were merely an overview of the situation and not at all
helpful. If the specifications had simply said what what needed to be
implemented the assignments would have been made a lot easier.
Also our tutor did not even look at the assignments and so was
completely unable to help us in that regard |
|
108: |
the implementation |
|
109: |
the last assignment |
|
110: |
the last assignment was too hard |
|
111: |
the workloads is bit heaver |
|
112: |
time assigments took |
|
113: |
too complicated programming assignments. |
|
114: |
too hard. and composery for me... |
|
115: |
too much challenge |
|
116: |
too much low level C coding |
|
117: |
too much time to fix up bugs in os161 |
|
118: |
too much work to be done and i just don't have enough time as a PG
student |
|
119: |
tutor |
|
120: |
tutors-- tut period too short and insufficient time to go through
all qs with the tutors. |
|
121: |
well, this is the hardest subject in cse after all, but i have to
say that programming os/161 is a hell. although programming in pair dose
help, but it always ends up one person in the group is putting more
weights than the other, and panalize this group member certainly dose
not help to increase overall marking for someone that is trying hard.
dose this seems fair to you? |
|
13.
|
What
background knowledge do you think you were missing that would have
helped you in this course? Is COMP2011/9024 and COMP2021/9022 (the
official pre-requisites) a suitable preparation?
|
|
1: |
........ I think the prerequisites are good |
|
2: |
1)Components of computer.
2)I think they are suitable preparation. |
|
3: |
1. None
2. COMP2011 and COMP2021 are both suitable preparations. |
|
4: |
1.c
2.yes |
|
5: |
1021/1721 and 2021 are basically all you need for this course.
2041 gives you a nice heads up for CVS and gdb, but they are covered
within early OS lectures anyway. |
|
6: |
2011 and 2021 give only basic insights into the stuff for 3231.
Perhaps a 3UOC introductory course could be run (easier) so that less
students struggle when they get to 3231 |
|
7: |
2011 and 2021 should be enough |
|
8: |
C language |
|
9: |
C programming. |
|
10: |
COMP2011 |
|
11: |
COMP2021 covers what is needed, but this course should have gone
over it again and in more detail, as COMP2021 was a while ago. Plus
while doing COMP2021, older students told me the topics were useless, so
I didnt pay much attention. thus a review of the material would have
been useful. |
|
12: |
COMP3211 and COMP3221 would be good for pre-requistes |
|
13: |
COMP3221 |
|
14: |
Coming from the ELEC1041 prerequisite instead of COMP2021, it was
slightly difficult to understand, but not so bad. |
|
15: |
Comp2011 and 2021 did not really help that much, most of the
material covered in 3231 did not seem related to the prerequisites |
|
16: |
Comp2011 is required as that's the introduction to C but I think a
student who have not done comp2021 will be able to handle the course
just as well as student who have done it. |
|
17: |
Comp3221: micros - should be a prereq for the exposure to writing
assembly and working with memory segments and registers at a low level |
|
18: |
Considering I am doing this as part of a post-graduate course I
haven't done the subjects mentioned. But in general a strong back ground
in C and a good general interest in operating systems would be the main
things. Also a fairly good understanding and background in Unix systems
helped me. |
|
19: |
Data structures using C and MIPS assembly language |
|
20: |
Didn't really help at all. |
|
21: |
Electrical engineering doing some comp electives. Background was
COMP1B/2011, ELEC2041/2042/3041. These were sufficient. |
|
22: |
Generally yes, for myself there wasn't a problem (having done a
lot of C work previously) but the actual C level taught prior to this
could be improved. |
|
23: |
Having done microprocessors was a big help because many processor
issues were covered there. Computer architecture is also an advantage
due to the fairly detailed coverage of MIPS architecture in that course. |
|
24: |
I brief revision of required C programming skills and management
of large amount of code. eg. code editing, browsing and archiving. |
|
25: |
I did COMP2041 in second year, which kept my C skills at an
acceptable level. A C course in second year is recommended. |
|
26: |
I did COMP3211 before and therefore I have better understanding of
some low level issues than some of my friends who didn't |
|
27: |
I don't know if this is my fault but I still don't feel confident
coding in C. |
|
28: |
I don't think I was missing any background knowledge. However, I
don't think the pre-req offered me any preparation, I mostly used
knowledge from higher comp 1b. |
|
29: |
I don't think any course could have been any great help. Perhaps
just knowledge of C and experience in programming is enough. The rest is
up to how smart the person is. |
|
30: |
I dont think 9022 is appropriate prerequisite. For postgrads it
could be just 9021 and 9024 since they would have had studied computer
architecture in their bachelors. Having said that there could be PG's
from other undergrad fields. But in general 9022 looks a little
inappropriate to me. |
|
31: |
I found little use for my knowledge of COMP2021, and think that
COMP3221 would be a much more useful prereq (as it covers bus
architectures, interrupt handling, and IO access mechanisms in great
detail) |
|
32: |
I have enroled these two. |
|
33: |
I have not done microprocessors and a lot of my friends that had
said that this was helpful. |
|
34: |
I mainly had problems with the actual OS161, not with learning
ABOUT OS's. I thought the lectures were interesting and easy to learn.
So actually, nothing would have prepared me unless someone taught me the
whole of OS161 beforehand! |
|
35: |
I previously took computer architecture and that made it easier
for me to understand the content, although I don't think it is necessary
to understand the course. |
|
36: |
I think they were essential although I did the ELEC
equivalent...and that was 4 years ago. |
|
37: |
It was a fair preparation for the C-code involved in coding for
this course. The ideas introduced were quite new and needed a lot of
time to get used to. |
|
38: |
It would have been helpful to have been exposed to assembly
language to understand the low level code more. Also, the students are
automatically thrust into low level C code after doing
preparatory/prerequisite courses which don't come anywhere near the low
level expected knowledge here. This was a setback and should be
addressed in the future, either by introducing labs, or teaching
low-level C programming in a prerequisite course. |
|
39: |
Lack of C programming experience as the only time i encountered C
programming was back in comp1b (ie.. 1st yr!!) so asst2 and asst3 were a
bit harder due to this. Maybe should have a few labs or tuts in
refreshing C programming.
2011 is suitable as it helps with designing data structures (in
assignments) and programming in general but i do not see how 2021 is
relevant to/how it helps understanding of this course. |
|
40: |
Microprocessors |
|
41: |
More C maybe. |
|
42: |
More C programming practice would have helped a lot. C not covered
in 2011. 2021 wasnt satisfactory as a preparation. |
|
43: |
More info about OS161 and how to start the assignments |
|
44: |
More knowledge of C |
|
45: |
More on data structure practical issues.
Yes |
|
46: |
More real debugging work using GDB |
|
47: |
No, 2011 and 2021 are nowhere useful in this course.
Should have picked some intensive C course (harder than 1B) that covers
more complex C implementations. |
|
48: |
None |
|
49: |
None really... |
|
50: |
None really; just a sound knowledge of C, and a willingness to
learn new concepts. |
|
51: |
None. COMP2021 is bad preparation - it only shows us 1. why we
should _not_ use VHDL 2. how some tutors/lecturers are not accountable
for marking (I still don't know what mark I got in the assignment) |
|
52: |
Not really no |
|
53: |
Not sure DSS was particularly useful, software construction would
have been more so I think (debugging, shells, etc). |
|
54: |
OS161 is really complex and difficult to use. 2011 was not very
helpful. 2021 was ok but microprocessors is then both of these. |
|
55: |
Official prerequisites were suitable. |
|
56: |
Prereqs are fine |
|
57: |
The basic mechanism of OS/161 would be a suitable preparation for
this course.
But COMP9024 provided a well background knowledge of arithmetic and
COMP9022 gave an elementary preparation of C language. |
|
58: |
The current prerequisites offer sufficient background knowledge
for this course. |
|
59: |
The only background knowledge that I found useful was from 1021. |
|
60: |
The pre-reqs are sufficient. In fact, just 1021 and bits of 2021
would have been alright. It'd be nice, but not necessary to have
streamlined 2011 to use C and 2021 to use more MIPS. Then again, though
it made OS easier, it'd have been overkill if that was the case. |
|
61: |
The preperations were suitable. |
|
62: |
They are suitable preparation. Networks could have helped a bit -
but not necessarily |
|
63: |
This is the first subject when I enrolled in university. As I was
given advanced standing in the pre-requisites, I did not go thru them.
But i think that i require a higher level of proficiency in programming.
There are many times where I am unable to express my algorithms into C
language. |
|
64: |
Unit programming |
|
65: |
Unix programming, algorigthem |
|
66: |
Yeah that was fine - I learnt everything I needed to know as I
went along. |
|
67: |
Yep, they're definately good background. |
|
68: |
Yes |
|
69: |
Yes |
|
70: |
Yes |
|
71: |
Yes for 2011, not really for 2021 |
|
72: |
Yes those are enough prereqs.
I'd done micro which helped, but it wasn't needed. |
|
73: |
Yes, but credit in 1021 should have |
|
74: |
Yes. COMP2011 really isn't neccessary though if one did COMP1721. |
|
75: |
Yes. That is quite suitable |
|
76: |
assembly language |
|
77: |
comp2011 |
|
78: |
comp2011 and comp2021 doesn't help very much. |
|
79: |
comp3221 |
|
80: |
computer arthitecture |
|
81: |
everything was covered in the pre-requisite courses but none of
them was enough. |
|
82: |
hardware background knowledge |
|
83: |
how to use the GDB and the os161 in general. |
|
84: |
its enough. however personally i forgot alot. since its been a
year and a half since i studied those courses. some material to refresh
concepts, much like giving c exercises in the beginning of the course
would be appreciated |
|
85: |
knowledge from comp2011 and comp2021 may not be sufficient. eg on
topics like syscall |
|
86: |
low level language |
|
87: |
may be |
|
88: |
may be good to open a new course such as "Introduction to OS"
before "OS"~ like in networking we have "3331" -> "9332" or "9334"
-> "9333" |
|
89: |
maybe some bridging course....like introduction to OS....which
deals with much fewer low level programming in C than COMP3231... |
|
90: |
more c coding
i struggled with the c coding in the assignments even though i did it in
comp1021 as comp2011 and comp2021 didnt have c |
|
91: |
more low level coding stuff |
|
92: |
most likely yes |
|
93: |
no |
|
94: |
non |
|
95: |
none |
|
96: |
none |
|
97: |
none |
|
98: |
none |
|
99: |
not much background knowledge is needed as concepts are explained
well, but because of the LARGE amount of C code in the assignments, more
C knowledge in the courses current state may be desirable |
|
100: |
passing 2011 wasn't good enough, the C involved is heaps harder
and the leap is too great from 2011. |
|
101: |
should have more pre-requisites such as courses that involve
concurrency |
|
102: |
sure |
|
103: |
the approaches used to solve various OS problems |
|
104: |
the official pre-requisites is a suitable preparation |
|
105: |
there's really not much more preparation you can do unless you
split the course in two, because OS occupies the space between the low
level/hardware part of the system and the higher application level, and I
don't know of any other courses other than OS that talk about this
area. Maybe if you spent a bit of time talking about the interaction
between the lower and higher levels in COMP 2011 and 2021 it might help? |
|
106: |
would be good to have better grounding in the area between
hardware design and programming. There seems to be little in the way of
linking the two areas prior to this course. |
|
107: |
would have helped if we were introduced topics in 3231 (threads,
deadlocks, security) in earlier programming courses. maybe just a simple
description so we have a very basic idea and feel slightly more
confident in seeing them in 3rd year courses. |
|
108: |
yes |
|
109: |
yes they are suitable preparation |
|
15.
|
Which
material do you think you will be most useful to you in the future?
|
|
1: |
All of it |
|
2: |
Concurrency |
|
3: |
Concurrency and I/O management |
|
4: |
Concurrency and synchronisation. |
|
5: |
Depends what work I will end up in |
|
6: |
File system related info |
|
7: |
File systems |
|
8: |
General info |
|
9: |
General knowledge |
|
10: |
General knowledge gained from all areas, probably mostly memory
management related topics. |
|
11: |
General knowledge of how operating systems work, perhaps allowing
me to write more efficient code? |
|
12: |
I/O Management |
|
13: |
I/O management, and Security |
|
14: |
Implementation skills |
|
15: |
LABS |
|
16: |
Lecture notes. |
|
17: |
Mem Management |
|
18: |
Memory Management and Virtual Memory |
|
19: |
Memory Management and Virtual Memory |
|
20: |
Memory Management, Virtual Memory and File Systems |
|
21: |
Memory and threading |
|
22: |
Memory management & VM |
|
23: |
Memory management, system calls, threads, synchronisation and file
systems |
|
24: |
Most of it |
|
25: |
Most of it if i enter the computer field. |
|
26: |
Multiprocessor systems |
|
27: |
Multiprocessor systems/Concurrency |
|
28: |
Multithreading, File systems, Synchronisation, Low level
Implementation |
|
29: |
Mutliprocessor System |
|
30: |
Not sure. |
|
31: |
OS Fundamentals and low level C programming |
|
32: |
OS implementations |
|
33: |
OS knowledge |
|
34: |
Probably security |
|
35: |
Probably security, IO management, Mulitprocessor systems, maybe
mem management |
|
36: |
Process |
|
37: |
Processes and threads, synchronisation, file systems, memory |
|
38: |
Scheduling, Synchronisation, Processes |
|
39: |
Security |
|
40: |
Security |
|
41: |
Security |
|
42: |
Security |
|
43: |
Security |
|
44: |
Security |
|
45: |
Security |
|
46: |
Security |
|
47: |
Security & Performance Issues |
|
48: |
Security and I/O Management and file system |
|
49: |
Security and Memory Management |
|
50: |
Security and Synchonisation |
|
51: |
Security,Deadlock, Synchonisation and concurrency,Multiprocessor
Systems |
|
52: |
Synchonisation and concurrency |
|
53: |
Synchonisation and concurrency |
|
54: |
Synchro & Concurrency |
|
55: |
Synchronisation, deadlock, scheduling, and security |
|
56: |
Syncro & Concurrentcy , Security |
|
57: |
System calls |
|
58: |
The deadlock and VM bits. |
|
59: |
The overall view of how the OS interacts and runs the computer. |
|
60: |
The stuff on how the OS talks to the system bus, memory
management, threading and syncro. |
|
61: |
Thread,System call |
|
62: |
Threading / Concurrency |
|
63: |
Threads |
|
64: |
Threads and processes |
|
65: |
Threads, Synchronisation and concurrency, security |
|
66: |
Threads, processes and synchronisations |
|
67: |
Understanding concurrency |
|
68: |
Understanding the compromises that are made to achieve a good
performing OS for a wide variety of purposes and security. |
|
69: |
Virtual Memory |
|
70: |
Virtual mem and multiprocessing |
|
71: |
Virtual memory |
|
72: |
all of it? |
|
73: |
all, a good knowlege of os is the way to go |
|
74: |
deadlock, threads, scheduling |
|
75: |
everything |
|
76: |
everything in general |
|
77: |
file system, multipal task |
|
78: |
i/o managment, sync, scheduling, multiproc |
|
79: |
low-level implementation, VM, file system, IO |
|
80: |
memory management, security, processes |
|
81: |
most of them.. |
|
82: |
multiprocessor systems and security? |
|
83: |
n/a |
|
84: |
no |
|
85: |
none |
|
86: |
not sure |
|
87: |
nothing |
|
88: |
our assignments |
|
89: |
process |
|
90: |
processes, file systems and security |
|
91: |
security |
|
92: |
security |
|
93: |
security |
|
94: |
security |
|
95: |
security |
|
96: |
security - I would like to see more of it taught |
|
97: |
security i guess |
|
98: |
synchonisation and concurrency |
|
99: |
synchronisation, memory management |
|
100: |
system calls |
|
101: |
text |
|
102: |
textbook |
|
103: |
the design of os |
|
104: |
thread and scheduling |
|
105: |
threading and file system |
|
106: |
threads |
|
107: |
understanding and programming OS system |
|
108: |
understanding of the OS. |
|
109: |
virtual memory |
|
110: |
vm |
|
16.
|
What material
related to operating systems, but not currently in the course, would
you like to have seen covered?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
A bit more "real world" detail, perhaps some delving (probably not
assessable as too complex) into the Linux code, etc. |
|
3: |
Design of the operating system. |
|
4: |
Examples of specialised OS's such as the one run by Google |
|
5: |
GUIs |
|
6: |
Hardware drivers |
|
7: |
How to hack. |
|
8: |
I have no idea |
|
9: |
MacOS X case studies |
|
10: |
Maybe some current trends in non-Linux OSs (I accept this may be
hard to find out) |
|
11: |
More info on current research and algorithms used in practice
today. |
|
12: |
More on multi-proc systems, seeing as this seems to be the future
focus of computing |
|
13: |
More on security... |
|
14: |
More real life things like using OSs closer to windows perhaps |
|
15: |
More windows related discussion since it was mostly unix/linux and
the windows os are the operating systems people use the most! |
|
16: |
Multiprocessing using internet-connected computers' idle time for
calculations, ie a variable number of processers in a multiprocessor
system |
|
17: |
Multiprocessor Systems |
|
18: |
N/A |
|
19: |
N/A |
|
20: |
N/A |
|
21: |
N/A |
|
22: |
N/A |
|
23: |
NOthing |
|
24: |
No ideas. |
|
25: |
None |
|
26: |
None |
|
27: |
None |
|
28: |
None. |
|
29: |
Not sure. |
|
30: |
OS for different market segments. E.g. Win for home VS Solaris for
enterprise and their fundamental differences |
|
31: |
Other obscure OS systems |
|
32: |
Perhaps a bit more coverage of non-Unix systems would be
interesting. Something like WinNT or VMS could really provide a good
basis for comparison with Unix. |
|
33: |
Real Life OS Codes (Few Chunks) and explanaation/comparison of the
same |
|
34: |
Real-time os issues in more detail. |
|
35: |
So far enough |
|
36: |
Sockets |
|
37: |
The details of each operating systems |
|
38: |
The material included at the moment is more than enough |
|
39: |
Windows, Security |
|
40: |
Writing device drivers |
|
41: |
anything more interesting. |
|
42: |
booting up off a network, differences between Macs and PCs |
|
43: |
current and future trends would be interesting to finish on. |
|
44: |
design of I/O controller and its application into real OS |
|
45: |
distributed systems |
|
46: |
guis |
|
47: |
mac os |
|
48: |
more background on workings of os/161. good sources on net were
difficult to find |
|
49: |
more coverage on how upcoming 64-bit and multiple processor
systems would be good, considering that both mainstream consumer PCs and
servers are seemingly moving in that direction. |
|
50: |
more detail on device driver architecture & implementation. |
|
51: |
n/a |
|
52: |
n/aa |
|
53: |
networking |
|
54: |
networking |
|
55: |
no |
|
56: |
no |
|
57: |
no |
|
58: |
no |
|
59: |
none |
|
60: |
none |
|
61: |
none |
|
62: |
none |
|
63: |
none |
|
64: |
none |
|
65: |
none |
|
66: |
not sure |
|
67: |
not sure |
|
68: |
not sure-OS was pretty well covered, maybe more of the actual
coding |
|
69: |
nothing |
|
70: |
nothing |
|
71: |
nothing |
|
72: |
nothing |
|
73: |
nothing |
|
74: |
operating system design |
|
75: |
something like how the modern cpu runs, not only for unix, but
also windows |
|
76: |
thats enough thanks... |
|
77: |
yes |
|
17.
|
Which of the
current topics would you like to see scaled back or excluded?
|
|
1: |
File Systems and VM and scheduling |
|
2: |
I/O Management |
|
3: |
I/O Management |
|
4: |
IO management |
|
5: |
It's all good =) |
|
6: |
It's all very important to understand this material as a computer
engineer. I'd leave it all in! |
|
7: |
Low-level implementations |
|
8: |
Low-level implementations issues |
|
9: |
Low-level implementations issues and file system |
|
10: |
Maybe a bit on memory management and virual memory |
|
11: |
Multiprocessor systems |
|
12: |
Multiprocessors |
|
13: |
N/A |
|
14: |
N/A |
|
15: |
N/A |
|
16: |
N/A |
|
17: |
NO |
|
18: |
None |
|
19: |
None |
|
20: |
None |
|
21: |
None |
|
22: |
None |
|
23: |
None |
|
24: |
None |
|
25: |
None as the topics are sort of related |
|
26: |
None of them |
|
27: |
None really, all are important, perhaps all the talk about the
R3000 or other (if i am right in saying, outdated) in-depth
implementation discussion... |
|
28: |
None, all useful |
|
29: |
None, i think its all relevant |
|
30: |
None. 3231 is a well balanced course with respect to the area of
study |
|
31: |
None. All are important and should be covered as it is at the
moment. |
|
32: |
Nothing |
|
33: |
Nothing. |
|
34: |
Security - it is redundant when 3441 and 3331 both cover it |
|
35: |
Security should be scaled back |
|
36: |
Security. More focus on "kernel" security instead. |
|
37: |
Security...... |
|
38: |
There are all important issues towards OS. |
|
39: |
Theres just alot but i cant imagine excluding anything |
|
40: |
Think it is fine as it is. |
|
41: |
This subject can perhaps be split in two because of the extent of
course coverage which is not limited to just OS. |
|
42: |
VM |
|
43: |
Virtual Memory Assignment |
|
44: |
all assignment topics. |
|
45: |
deadlocks |
|
46: |
dunno |
|
47: |
file system |
|
48: |
it seems fine as is |
|
49: |
low-level implementation issues |
|
50: |
low-level issues and topics |
|
51: |
n/a |
|
52: |
n/a |
|
53: |
no |
|
54: |
no |
|
55: |
no |
|
56: |
no |
|
57: |
no |
|
58: |
nohing |
|
59: |
none |
|
60: |
none |
|
61: |
none |
|
62: |
none |
|
63: |
none |
|
64: |
none |
|
65: |
none |
|
66: |
none |
|
67: |
not sure |
|
68: |
nothing |
|
69: |
nothing |
|
70: |
nothing |
|
71: |
process and threads..... |
|
72: |
processes |
|
73: |
security |
|
74: |
security |
|
75: |
security |
|
76: |
security and scheduling |
|
77: |
security, should be a whole new branch in regards to security. |
|
78: |
seems alright |
|
79: |
system calls would be better if scaled back. as the concept is
fairly straightforward |
|
80: |
system calls? |
|
81: |
they all seem pretty important to me... |
|
82: |
too much high level textbook stuff, need actual implementation to
learn else becomes memory test |
|
83: |
virtual memory |
|
21.
|
If you have
not been attending lectures, what factors influenced your decision not
to attend?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
As suggested before, Rex Vowels in general has bad air ventilation
so can make people sleepy and therefore waste time if people go to the
lecture and sleep. |
|
3: |
Assignments |
|
4: |
Assignments from this and other courses, and because I had the
textbook |
|
5: |
BORING |
|
6: |
Bad schedule (only class on that day)
Weather
Deadlines in this course and others |
|
7: |
Boring |
|
8: |
Course clashed with other courses. |
|
9: |
Depends on the topic. I did not attend most of the lectures that
involved topics i did not like (also happens to be the confusing and
important ones) |
|
10: |
Essentially the same experience reading the textbook. Lack of
emerging technologies discussed. |
|
11: |
Explanation of tougher topics were not much different from the
lecture slides that we could download. |
|
12: |
General workload was overbearing |
|
13: |
I attended 90% of lectures. |
|
14: |
I attended 90% of the lectures. I did not attend a few because of
other assignments and illness |
|
15: |
I attended lectures. |
|
16: |
I attended most but sometimes with assignment deadlines for this
course and other courses influenced me not to attend |
|
17: |
I attended some of the lectures but certainly not all of them. The
main reason is that I work full-time and the lectures were during the
day. It would have been good if they were video/audio taped. Or put the
lectures on after hours ;-) |
|
18: |
I did the course without really knowing anyone there, and it put
me off attending. Also jsut got lazy. |
|
19: |
I felt that on the whole not a lot was added that wasn't covered
in the slides and in the text. I attended the vast majority anyway but
didn't feel they were essential. The tutorials were more advantagous. |
|
20: |
I studied 3 comp courses this semester, AI, Networks and OS as
well as Elec A. I attended lectures for the first 10 weeks of session
but the last 5 weeks I had so many assignments that I was unable to get
to lectures. Assignments all inconveniently occurring at the same time
plus 30 hours at work a week made it completely impossible to attend
lectures. |
|
21: |
Later on during the session the quantity of assignemnts I had to
complete caused me to miss some lectures. |
|
22: |
Lecturer seems focused on nurturing the HIGHER OS/smarter people.
Lecturer talked with a sense that everyone had a lot of assumed
knowledge about memory and computers and the cpu. |
|
23: |
NA |
|
24: |
Other commitments |
|
25: |
Skipped a few lectures to work on assignments for this and other
subjects. |
|
26: |
Sometimes i got sick of the guy who asked stupid questions, and
wouldnt come back to the second lecture. |
|
27: |
Sometimes lecturer talks too fast and cannot keep up and I fall
asleep |
|
28: |
The few times i did not attend lectures, were mainly because it
was hard to follow the lecturer's ideas, tended to go relatively
quickly, and seemed to assume his audience had background knowledge on
the topic. He also went on tangents that were extremely hard to follow
and understand their relation to the covered topic. |
|
29: |
Too many computing assignments have to be done, I spent most of
the time figure out how to do the OS assignments. |
|
30: |
Too much assignment |
|
31: |
Too noisy in the back. Dry, but important information is hard to
learn enough already without the distractions in the back. |
|
32: |
Was boring. Material becaome too complex for me to understand.
Only lecture on day. None of my friends went. |
|
33: |
Working on other assignments. |
|
34: |
assignments |
|
35: |
assignments from other courses |
|
36: |
attend most of time except for bad weathers... |
|
37: |
attended most but sometimes because of time constraints couldn't
attended |
|
38: |
busy with assignments |
|
39: |
doing other assignments |
|
40: |
have to work |
|
41: |
i always attend
if i do. maybe lazy |
|
42: |
i did attend but the material covered is gone through very fast
that if you lose attention even for a minute, which is likely to happen,
u become lost in the rest of the lecture
and this happens especially in the 2 hour lectures |
|
43: |
i felt the time was better spent dealing with the assignments |
|
44: |
lazy... |
|
45: |
lecture's slides and textbooks |
|
46: |
n/a |
|
47: |
n/a |
|
48: |
never |
|
49: |
no |
|
50: |
none |
|
51: |
not understand what the contents in the lecture |
|
52: |
nothing |
|
53: |
skipped for a week because i was not following lecture content,
also because lecture notes was not up for that week.. found it harder to
concentrate |
|
54: |
thursday afternoon lecture, 6pm is very late to finish.
(but its better than lunchtime) |
|
55: |
too long |
|
56: |
work |
|
22.
|
Any
suggestions for improving lectures?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
3x1 hour lectures instead of a 2 hour lecture and a 1 hour lecture |
|
3: |
5-6pm classes are a real drag and it'd be good to have lessons
earlier in the day when the grey matter's still active. |
|
4: |
Animation visualising happening things would be great |
|
5: |
Better lecture slides because it hard to follow sometimes and more
practical example about OS161 |
|
6: |
Demo of some theories or algorithms on real situations would be
useful and more clear to understand |
|
7: |
Don't know |
|
8: |
Don't tell everyone that you're not going to go into the details
of some solution to a problem because you now do it in extended os -
it's extremely annoying to know that there is a solution but you don't
get told what it is. I'm interested, but not interested enough to
actually go to an extended lecture just to find out. |
|
9: |
Dumb it down. a lot. |
|
10: |
Going a little slower at times on confusing topics such as kernels
etc, and not assuming everyone does advanced os and can whizz through
the hard parts |
|
11: |
Going through what a completed assignment should be doing |
|
12: |
I found lectures to be quite enjoyable |
|
13: |
I found that reading the text book could have replaced lectures,
as most slides were straight from the text. Although, interactivity of
lectures was a bonus. |
|
14: |
I think that there should be more interative material. This would
probably help to assist imagining some of the examples the lecturer was
explaining. |
|
15: |
I understand it is hard to cover all the material in the limited
amount of time, but in my case, I find that energy deficiency tends to
hamper concentration and so I am always looking forward to breaks which
help revive the energy and concentration. This could probabily also have
to do with lack of oxygen in the lecture theatres... |
|
16: |
I want to use java if possible. |
|
17: |
It would be better if the lecture notes can provide more details
instead of the outline. |
|
18: |
Lecture slides should be put up in advance. The later weeks'
slides were pretty late. To have the slides before hand is much more
useful in the lectures. |
|
19: |
Less background noise would be nice. |
|
20: |
Live demonstrations on how things work, i.e. using actual code or
something similar |
|
21: |
Maybe go a bit slower and talk to the whole class rather than a
subset sitting at the front. |
|
22: |
More animations |
|
23: |
More codes can be shown or demonstrated so that we can use as a
guideline of what're excepted in the assignment, rather than just words
in spec. |
|
24: |
More delegation of theory to reading the textbook to avoid
overlap. This should leave more time to worked examples in lecture. |
|
25: |
More examples included in the actual lecture slides (even if not
truly related) would help in the understanding of the topic. |
|
26: |
More examples might be better for certain topics |
|
27: |
More examples please |
|
28: |
More interactive media format...
More examples... |
|
29: |
More on the actual coding for the assignments
-otherwise, generally well done |
|
30: |
More small assignments and not too difficult. |
|
31: |
N/A |
|
32: |
N/A |
|
33: |
Need some of example OS software as a case study towards the
assignments. |
|
34: |
No |
|
35: |
None i can think of atm. |
|
36: |
Nope!! The lecturer is the most important part of lectures for me.
Kevin's lectures have been wonderful. |
|
37: |
Nope. All great. |
|
38: |
Not really |
|
39: |
Not sure they can be - I find them an extremely poor teaching
tool. |
|
40: |
One hour slots |
|
41: |
One very minor thing:
Please address both sides of the lecture theatre, it was mildly
offputting having Kevin mostly face the diagonal opposite (where the AOS
people were sitting).
|
|
42: |
Overall lectures are excellent! |
|
43: |
Overall they were pretty good. |
|
44: |
Possibly exclude some of the material.
More guidance with coding assignments, so that not so much effort is
spent investigating what to do. |
|
45: |
Problem solving Class should be useful |
|
46: |
Should clear point out the topic/subtopic for each lecture |
|
47: |
Some more detail (e.g. explanations that were talked through
during the lecture) to be included in the actual online notes. |
|
48: |
Some real life OS (Windows, UNIX, Mac, Solaris) introduction and
explanation of the routines would be beneficial if possible to cover in
the lecture. |
|
49: |
Talk slower and have lecture slides up on website for printing
before the lecture.. (yes even if its 5mins before lecture) it makes
note taking much simpler. |
|
50: |
Talk slower, and talk to the right hand side of the class as well.
Kevin always seem to only talk to his left hand side, where the smart
people sit. He tells the people who don't understand to go to sleep and
stop talking. They only started talking because they were having trouble
understanding and therefore tuned out |
|
51: |
The lectures present a lot of theory. Maybe there could be some
practical examples or movies or demonstrations of some sort.
Also, once I get lost in an OS lecture I will be totally lost for the
rest of the lecture. Again, maybe some more examples or demonstrations
would help. |
|
52: |
They go through material *REALLY FAST*. Thats perfect for me; I
learn best that way but i think some people got a bit lost. I loved it
:D |
|
53: |
Try to slow the lectures down a bit. I know that you needed to go
that fast to cover all the topics, but some areas, such VM etc, require a
more relaxed pace so we can take it in. I had to go and read the
lecture notes and text book after that lecture as I didn't pick up
anything in the lecture. |
|
54: |
UPDATE THE LECTURE SLIDES ON TIME |
|
55: |
Well from the ones I did attend, I think maybe a little bit more
humour wouldn't hurt in the delivery. Content was a cause for slight
boredom at times, but I suppose thats just from my point of view. |
|
56: |
better tutors |
|
57: |
don't use homornic |
|
58: |
eliminate consecutive lectures |
|
59: |
explain the topics more interestingly |
|
60: |
improve the lecture notes |
|
61: |
it could be better if the lecture speak not too fast. it can be a
barrier to understand the lecture, especially for internatioan students. |
|
62: |
it's good enough |
|
63: |
more audience participation - keeps everyone awake more |
|
64: |
more contact hours |
|
65: |
more example and explain it more |
|
66: |
more examples will be better! |
|
67: |
more interaction with students |
|
68: |
n/a |
|
69: |
n/a |
|
70: |
need more examples on how os161 works, not only explanation, also
codes, which i think will help students with their assignments |
|
71: |
no |
|
72: |
none |
|
73: |
none |
|
74: |
none |
|
75: |
none |
|
76: |
please give more detaied instructions directly based on the assts. |
|
77: |
please help more on assignments, me an most of my friends didnt
know how to begin the assignment even after doin a lot of study ( for
weeks) |
|
78: |
posting lecture notes prior to lectures. |
|
79: |
probably dont assume we know alot..you might be surprised... |
|
80: |
provide examples using some kind of simulator |
|
81: |
put lecture notes on website a few days before lecturing that
topic |
|
82: |
put them on days when students tend to goto uni |
|
83: |
should give more infomations/walkthrough/approach to our
assignments. |
|
84: |
slow it down a notch
and wear a party hat |
|
85: |
sometimes lecture speaks too fast and lost me...slow down
please... |
|
86: |
speak slowly and use less jargons.
I am an International student.
The lectuer is the best for English background speakers, but not for me. |
|
87: |
talking slower and allowing people to disgest 'simple'
information. an example is simple, but if it is told extremely fast, it
takes time to process |
|
23.
|
If you used
other textbooks other than Tannenbaum (e.g. Silberschatz, Stallings),
how do you think they compare to each other? Which gives the best
explanations, which has the best structure, etc....
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
Did not use any textbooks |
|
4: |
Didn't use it. |
|
5: |
Haven't read any other textbook. |
|
6: |
I havn't use other textbooks. |
|
7: |
I like to refer to both Tannenbaum & Silberschatz. Although
Tannenbaum has better explainations, structure, Silberschatz has more
windows reference. |
|
8: |
I stay with the original textbook |
|
9: |
Most OS books keep the reader interested. Tanenbaum was friendlier
to read. |
|
10: |
N/A |
|
11: |
N/A |
|
12: |
N/A |
|
13: |
NA |
|
14: |
NA |
|
15: |
No |
|
16: |
No other textbooks |
|
17: |
Only used Stallings, found it helpful. |
|
18: |
Operating Systems Concept 6th edition, covers most of the relevant
topics |
|
19: |
Other textbook |
|
20: |
Stallings - Not as easy to follow as Tanenbaum - Tanenbaum is
still the better choice |
|
21: |
Stallings was excellent supplemental for syscall topic. Tanenbaum
seemed best overall theory book. Would appreciate more code examples
though. |
|
22: |
Tannenbaum are hard to understand (read), too much text and
explainations are hard to following (because most of them are only in
text) |
|
23: |
Tannenbaum's books are pretty good especially on the inner
structure of processor, hardwares |
|
24: |
Tannenbaum's good |
|
25: |
Unix Internals by Uresh Vahalia was very useful during this course
mainly for background reading and the VM section covers the MIPS cpu. |
|
26: |
better coverage |
|
27: |
current text |
|
28: |
didn't use a txtbook |
|
29: |
n/a |
|
30: |
n/a |
|
31: |
never try |
|
32: |
no |
|
33: |
no |
|
34: |
none |
|
35: |
only Tannenbaum |
|
36: |
only used tannebaum |
|
37: |
similar |
|
38: |
the recommand one is perfect |
|
39: |
they are all good |
|
40: |
well, Tannenbaum is cool, Silberschatz isn't bad either, and
Stallings is a great author too, but did not get the chance to read his
OS book. Overall, I think reading Tannenbaum is enough, students dose
have other subjects' textbooks to read, you know. |
|
26.
|
Any
suggestions for improving tutorials?
|
|
1: |
(Note: Attended advanced OS tutorial) Interesting to see some real
research information as well as going over various topics in more
detail than could be covered in the normal lecture. Highly reccomend
keeping / extending this advanced portion of the course. |
|
2: |
Answer the questions clearly instead of only giving 'little hints'
to the questions. Tutorials are not exam/assignment and students should
get the answers. |
|
3: |
Cover the normal questions in the extended tutorial. Some people
are too shy / intimidated by others in the tutorial to ask. |
|
4: |
Extended Tutorials were fun :) |
|
5: |
Fewer questions. |
|
6: |
Have less tutorial questions. |
|
7: |
Have more contact hours for tutorials. Sometimes it is not easy to
understand what is explained in the forum, and we need these tutors to
assist in the understanding face-to-face. |
|
8: |
I didnt know my tutor's name, but he was a champ. |
|
9: |
I have had Harvey Tuch twice, once for this subject and once in
2011. He's a nice guy, but he needs to lift his enthusiasm about the
course and the subjects that are covered if you expect us to get "into"
OS. I found his tutorials fairly boring, as 90% of the time I did the
tutorials before had and only showed up for the participation mark. |
|
10: |
It's good enough but I don't even know who is my tutor. |
|
11: |
Just make sure the tutor finishes on time. We had Simon finishing
5-10 minutes into the OS lecture. |
|
12: |
Less people per class |
|
13: |
Make sure students understand the fundamentals first |
|
14: |
Maybe having a couple of extra ones for assignment questions. |
|
15: |
Maybe some more pointers for assignments |
|
16: |
More should be focus on assignment |
|
17: |
More time (2 hrs) |
|
18: |
My tute was chucked into Applied Science 301 on Tuesdays. The dust
was unpleasant and it was noisy outside. I think my tutor, Nic,
would've done better with a projector or screen at his disposal to show
off some code, rather than pass his laptop around, which he did. |
|
19: |
My tutor was solid in his understanding, but someone more
assertive was needed. If everyone prepared for tutorials and had
questions I think he'd be great because he really knows his stuff but
sadly because so many of us are so committed outside of uni with work
etc. it just isn't feasible to always prepare for a tutorial. |
|
20: |
N/A |
|
21: |
N/A |
|
22: |
No |
|
23: |
No |
|
24: |
No |
|
25: |
No |
|
26: |
No participation |
|
27: |
No, it's already quite good |
|
28: |
None, Nick is a great tutor. Words the question well to encourage
participation and understanding. |
|
29: |
Not really |
|
30: |
Replacing more theoritical part by questions from the OS/161
(practically in general) will be better since the theoritical part is
not that hard compare to the OS/161 we have to deal with. |
|
31: |
Scrap the participation marks. Some people don't mind learning
silently at all. |
|
32: |
Sometimes, I felt like my tutor was not prepared for my questions
regarding tutorial. Tutors should be prepared for questions during
tutorial. |
|
33: |
The tutor could help with getting started on the assignments, by
explaining what we have to do. Eg. for the system calls assignment,
explaining about the trap code being executed which then calls syscall()
which calls read() or write() etc. |
|
34: |
The tutorials are pretty good. |
|
35: |
They should be attendance marks not participation marks, im shy
hehe heh |
|
36: |
Tute was top notch. Had few people coming so 1:3 staff:student
ratio was nice for us. |
|
37: |
We often went overtime. Perhaps only reviewing simple material
briefly would have been better |
|
38: |
a review tutorial |
|
39: |
encourage more interaction with non-participating participants.
many did not answer questions or otherwise get involved unless they were
asked directly. |
|
40: |
explain wide range of knowledge instead of being
problem-specific... |
|
41: |
force tutors to do all the questions clearly. |
|
42: |
longer tutorial. at least 2 hours |
|
43: |
more contact hours |
|
44: |
my tute had 6 or so people in it. a few more might have been
better. |
|
45: |
n/a |
|
46: |
n/a |
|
47: |
na... |
|
48: |
no |
|
49: |
no |
|
50: |
no |
|
51: |
no suggestion |
|
52: |
none |
|
53: |
none |
|
54: |
none |
|
55: |
not to make attendance mandatory |
|
56: |
often ran out of time, but I don't think the questions could get
cut down much more. |
|
57: |
plz make everyone understand, not just certain people in the tut |
|
58: |
possibly making tutorial submissions.. at least having the tutor
to come around to check whether the student has made an attempt to have
answers on their homework sheet. (to reduce last minute cramming for
them) |
|
59: |
slow it down and make sure that they go through all the questions
and also go through background info on questions which can help us in
further understanding OS. |
|
60: |
spend more even time over most questions rather than most tute
time on one or two question |
|
61: |
the tutes and lectures were at one point out of sync |
|
62: |
tutor should have at least read through assignments |
|
63: |
tutors have to always prepare the tut questions well. |
|
64: |
write more codes on the board, not just explain in month |
|
32.
|
Do you have
any specific comments about OS/161
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
1.the workload is extremely large. I think it will be better if we
can have labs which cuts large assignment jobs into smaller peices,
and thus reduce the workload of assignments
2. It's hard for groupmates to share assignments' work. |
|
3: |
Clear no nonsense course. Pretty much all other courses pale in
comparison to its practicality and interest. Specs were unbelievably
brilliant in stark contrast to _many_ other courses, hence true ability
was shown rather than ability to decipher poor documentation and
discover the purpose of the assignment. |
|
4: |
Consider report based assignments. |
|
5: |
Good cross reference, but don't have GUI platform..., not
applicable |
|
6: |
Good learning tool, can take a while to understand being new to a
big project. |
|
7: |
Good, fairly easy to read and understand basic implmenation of an
OS for teaching purposes. |
|
8: |
I couldnt figure out how to test and debug a small section of the
assignment. It seemed that we had to program the whole assignment, and
only then could we test and debug it. |
|
9: |
I found that the course was too much work for a 6U subject. It
wasnt necessarily too hard, it just took heaps of work, and with 3 other
big workloads, i couldnt keep up. Also, reduce the assn workload and
ditch the partner scheme, if you get stuck with a useless partner,
you're doomed. |
|
10: |
I think one main issue that needs to be addressed is doing GDB in
an earlier course in greater detail, such as COMP2041 or COMP1721. We do
touch on it, but maybe add an assignment or labs on GDB that force us
to use it in those subjects, because if we have to learn it while were
doing OS, its too late. OS/161 itself is fine though. |
|
11: |
I think that the assignments need to be more gradual. I felt they
were like teaching a kid in kindergarten to read by handing them a copy
of Great Expectations! I simply did not have the time to devote to them,
and I think they should be individual. Because I was doing 3 comp
subjects and my partner was only doing OS and all comp courses schedule
their assignment too close so I ended up not pulling my weight and feel
extremely bad about this situation. I really think that CSE students
should be warned not to take a heavy load of comp courses with OS as the
assignments take a long time to understand, although not long to
implement. I think that if education was made more valuable rather than
assessment then we could have been walked through assignments gradually
and still learnt just as much by doing them, without imposing an
impossible work load. I really liked this subject, I think it should be
compulsory in any computing degree because it gave me important insights
that I've already found myself making use of at work. As someone
without an interest in OS programming the assignment taught me very
little. It is the conceptual understanding of what an OS does that is
valuable to me, not the mess that abounds when you attempt to implement
anything. |
|
12: |
I would like to see more supporting material (comments in code)
for the OS. Maybe addition comments like how different is linux/windows
with the same chunk of code. |
|
13: |
Is pretty nice. :-) |
|
14: |
It is very nicely commented and structured. |
|
15: |
It is very well commented but some explanation of OS161 during
tutorial and lectures would help a lot. |
|
16: |
It was my first experience with an OS. My thinking with regards to
OS concepts has entirely changed after working with OS/161. Now I have a
fair idea as to how things could be in real world as opposed to
concepts in texts. |
|
17: |
It would have been better if LXR was put up at an earlier date. |
|
18: |
It's good cause its simple enough that if i spend many hours i
might have a chance to get the gist of it. No sarcasim here I beleive
that a proper OS would probably involve much more time, im just being
humble |
|
19: |
It's nice to start with, but I wish more it had more apps to play
around with so that it resembled more like a common Unix flavour, and
less like the poor cousin of a Unix-wannabe. |
|
20: |
It's too big, and too confusing. It was extremely difficult to
read and comprehend what it was trying to do |
|
21: |
Its a nice environment. |
|
22: |
Its nice and simple to understand |
|
23: |
Its too hard! Why does it have to be a core subject for computer
engineers?! The theory is good but i dont like the amount of workload |
|
24: |
Just large and abit daunting for n00bs |
|
25: |
More comments on the coding will be very helpful for students who
will do this course later on. |
|
26: |
Mostly quite well documented. Good learning platform. |
|
27: |
NO |
|
28: |
No |
|
29: |
No |
|
30: |
No, it's HARD. |
|
31: |
Nope~ |
|
32: |
Not a very well laid out and styled code base, difficult to find
code and to familiarise with the base. |
|
33: |
Not really, it is rather large, and I found snavigator useful to
use. |
|
34: |
Quite interesting. |
|
35: |
The assignments were too hard |
|
36: |
The codes are too dirty. |
|
37: |
The system is ok but not that easy to use |
|
38: |
Thought it was entirely appropriate for our needs. |
|
39: |
Too hard to understand those implementation (system call, low
level code)
spent so much time on just reading and try to understand the OS/161 code
(bad!) |
|
40: |
Too slow at display and input. Buggy. |
|
41: |
Useful, clear, straightforward |
|
42: |
a good start in OS |
|
43: |
even building up a simple OS is very difficult..... |
|
44: |
i found the low-level coding very difficult and demanding
I highly did NOT enjoy OS/161, however, having said that, i have not
really dealt with other OSes - so they might be worse |
|
45: |
n/a |
|
46: |
no |
|
47: |
no |
|
48: |
no |
|
49: |
no |
|
50: |
no |
|
51: |
no |
|
52: |
no |
|
53: |
no |
|
54: |
no |
|
55: |
none |
|
56: |
none |
|
57: |
nothing |
|
58: |
nothing |
|
59: |
please give more instructions based on that in the Lecture.
sometimes it works much better if u just tell people what's going on
rather than let them read by themselves. it's true that we do need the
skills of self-learning but OS/161 is too big and we all gotta other
jobs to do. |
|
60: |
pretty okay |
|
61: |
takes a great effect to understand it |
|
62: |
too hard to understand |
|
36.
|
Any
suggestions for improving the assignments?
|
|
1: |
- Increase the information provided in the spec, possibly include
more info on problems that might be encountered.
- Have more lecture time dedicated to assignments. The bit that was done
to explain asst3 was VERY useful. |
|
2: |
-faster assignment feedback, we can't improve unless we know whats
previously wrong
-more idiot proofing of CVS e.g. check if design.txt was diff'ed (thanks
for the marks deducted!), or get rid of it altogether
-assignment 1 should have mentioned that there was a 60sec time limit
since it might be the case that the solution timed out not because of a
deadlock but it took too long, it isn't right to penalize correctness
marks because of that |
|
3: |
A little more guidance as to what to do. The spec at times is
rather good at pointing out what needs to be done, but it is somewhat
general. |
|
4: |
A set schedule for when the assignments are to be released so that
the people attempting the 48 hour bonus can plan ahead such that they
have free time to do this once the assignment is released. |
|
5: |
Allow for greater creativity, e.g. writing a scheduler |
|
6: |
Another big hurdle (for me anyways) was working with a partner.
Finding a partner was really just "post on the message board and hope
someone responds. My partner and I did not know eachother outside of
class, lived nowhere near eachother, and ended up communicating via
e-mail and consequently ended up stepping on eachothers toes on more
than one occassion. The assignments lent themselves to coordinated group
effort, but at the same time it's hard to coordinate when you just
grabbed the only person who responded to your plea for a partner and
your schedules don't coincide. Depending on the group, the assignment
can be much more difficult than it really is. |
|
7: |
Can't you find something else to use besides OS161? |
|
8: |
DEFINITELY make group work optional |
|
9: |
Every assignment should be even more clearly explained and should
include some labs to help give the "lost" some idea what is going on. |
|
10: |
Get rid of them |
|
11: |
Give lecture note/text book references about the relevant concepts
required to implement the assignment in the assignment specs. |
|
12: |
Group work is a good way to brainstorm and figure out an approach
to an assignment. It also gives experience working with people which is
what one would be doing out there in real world. Not all work in
projects get done by one person. Group members should be interviewed at
the end of the course and marks should be assigned for the quality of
work and work eithcs followed by a group. This would ensure both
partners have put in proportionate amout of effort. |
|
13: |
Have more of them covering diverse issues. |
|
14: |
I think you'll find what i wrote above covers this :) |
|
15: |
I'd probably hate myself for saying this if I was doing the
course, but have more assignments. They weren't as tough as reputation
has os assignments and they really do help understand the concepts, I
understand the topics that assignments were based on a lot more
concretely than those that didn't have an assignment. Assignment 2
needed to be explained better, everyone understood the theory, but it
took ages to understand what actually needed to be implemented. |
|
16: |
I'd strongly prefer to use subversion over CVS. CVS is just so
archaic; it makes baby jesus cry. subversion (SVN) is just like CVS
except it just works... |
|
17: |
If you're going to have group work then you also need a mechanism
for allowing group members to assess each other. What's to prevent
successful freeloading?!?! |
|
18: |
Inclusion of real life OS code-concepts would be beneficial. |
|
19: |
Increase support for OS161 at home - for those of us capable and
running linux at home. |
|
20: |
Its probably unavoidable, but if the spec wasnt 8-20 pages long,
it would be easier to read. |
|
21: |
Like I said, more apps to tinker with and watch the OS go would be
good. It beats using just thread tests and the like to test
implementations, and makes completing assignments a bit more rewarding.
Virtual memory assignment was a real pain because it required some
unorthodox hacking to complete the frametable. A lot of time was spent
figuring out that first part whereas the AS part was a walkover by
comparison. Perhaps the weightage could reflect that a bit more? |
|
22: |
MAke them a little easier. |
|
23: |
Make getting started easier by having better specs and maybe
getting the tutors and lectures explain them. |
|
24: |
Make it easier and code with java. |
|
25: |
Make it more easier, show how to implement using some case study. |
|
26: |
Make the spec clearer |
|
27: |
Make them individual and reduce the amount of work involved in
them. |
|
28: |
Making them smaller, would diffuse the issue of large workloads. |
|
29: |
More guidance on the "tricky" bits of the assignments would be
appreciated |
|
30: |
More guidance, rather than just "this is for you to implement'
comments |
|
31: |
More hints on VM assignment will be helpful |
|
32: |
More specific information will be appreciated |
|
33: |
NO MORE PARTNERS! |
|
34: |
Need to give students a better understanding of the background of
the assignment and not just throw us in the deep end and let us figure
out how to go about it. Assignment specs could have been clearer. |
|
35: |
No |
|
36: |
Note: For my assignment I had the misfortune of being partnered
with someone who it turns out didn't help *at all* with the assignment.
So no group work skills were developed and I ended up doing them myself
anyway.
As to the advanced: great idea, I wish I had actually managed to make
time to attemp them though :( |
|
37: |
Personally i'm doing all the work in my group. i'm really angry
about this because i have 4 courses and 3 part-time jobs to do for
living, and unfortunately i'm not a superman. I just can't finish all
the assignments and my partner barely did anything for contrubution. he
did not even finish reading the specification of every asst. Personally
i'm angry but i can't do anything because i don't make a bad
relationship between us. so i think it would be better if everyone just
HAS TO do all the assts all by themselves. that would makes me feel much
better that they don't get the same mark as me without doing anything. i
didn't get a higher mark but at least i tried. |
|
38: |
Please migrate to SVN (subversion) from CVS. CVS is awful. |
|
39: |
Provide clearer instructions and don't hide specific details of
information from students |
|
40: |
Provide testing methods that are INDICATIVE of the correctness of
solutions. Not tests that run fine for hundreds of times and then
failing everything in automarking. |
|
41: |
Removing the slightly artificial restaurant assignment and merging
that into one of the others and adding an additional more
challenging/interesting assignment. |
|
42: |
SVN beats CVS. |
|
43: |
Should be more information on them or os/161 |
|
44: |
Should consider having labs to help us with low level programming
and maybe even debugging C using gdb. I have not used gdb greatly as i
still do not fully understand how to use it to my advantage. |
|
45: |
Spend a bit more time clarifying the assignment spec in lecture |
|
46: |
Tasks could be outlined clearer, a way could be breaking the tasks
down to smaller tasks. |
|
47: |
The assignments should divide into few stages(like 3 or 4) so it
will be much clear that which part should be deal with first and
possibly the first few stages is aim at correctness but quality
(efficiency) for the last stage. |
|
48: |
The assignments workload couldn't really be split up...so each
person ended up doing their own version and submitting the bersion that
works... This definitely defeats the point of having a group member.
This means that we have to do much more work compared to previous
offerings of OS |
|
49: |
The last 2 assignments were hard to get marks for people that
could not do them, especially assignment 2. Hard to tell if some codes
are working or not as well. Could make the assignments have a marking
scheme with easy, moderate, and hard marks, and some how easier to check
whether the parts are working or not. |
|
50: |
The testing for the assignments is only as good as the imagination
of the student. For something as big as os/161, there are a lot of
cases that the student might not have considered, but are tested in the
automarking. Although this doesn't have to be explicit in the test case,
it could have been hinted to in the assignment specs. |
|
51: |
This's mission impossible for a non-retake student to submit his
assignment by 48 hours after assignment release. |
|
52: |
Unfortunately I wasn't able to attempt any of the advanced
assignments but I reallly wanted to. Mainly I ran out of time with
finishing the basic assignment.
I have previously commented on the group work but I will add that the
assignments need to be reworked to fit better with a group work
setting.
Also I think a rough marking guide would be useful. Something that gives
the students an idea of the weighting of particular parts of the
assignment. |
|
53: |
Want more description about assignments, especially full explain
in codes. Such as which part should us to do, which parts has been
provided already. |
|
54: |
Well... hard enough! |
|
55: |
clear specification |
|
56: |
do the Ass3 before the Ass2 to help understand of VM |
|
57: |
even though the spec is pretty clear the aim...but I am still not
sure how to implement.... |
|
58: |
give more guidelines as to where we should be heading. Give more
checkpoint style aims. |
|
59: |
have some peer review mechanism, so if one person does nothing
then their marks reflect that. |
|
60: |
lecturer should explain assignment during lectures (instead of
having to read the spec of 12 pgs) to give us a brief idea, and ideas on
how to get started. Starting to write the first few lines of code were
much harder and implementing the solution. |
|
61: |
make it easier to understand |
|
62: |
more consultation |
|
63: |
more help getting started |
|
64: |
more hint. it's too hard(2nd and 3rd one) |
|
65: |
more hints |
|
66: |
more hints on how to do them |
|
67: |
more test data |
|
68: |
no |
|
69: |
no |
|
70: |
no |
|
71: |
no group work |
|
72: |
no. |
|
73: |
no. |
|
74: |
none |
|
75: |
none |
|
76: |
some actual concrete explanations of what to do. most people
seemed lost until the weekend before the assignment was due. |
|
77: |
stress more use of snavigator. it was really useful |
|
78: |
teach more OS/161 codes |
|
79: |
the amount of work (ie. hours) required to complete the tasks is
very high compared with other comp subjects. more background and
implementation/conceptual information and resources would help with
implementation without detracting from learning experience. |
|
80: |
too difficult poor help material |
|
81: |
try to give students hint on how to start |
|
82: |
well, in terms of difficulty, it hard, but still doable, i like
the idea that last min assignment doers could not get it finish on time.
but i think in terms of marking, it is a bit harsh. |
|
38.
|
What were the
strong points of COMP3891?
|
|
1: |
A look at in depth issues of OS |
|
2: |
Advanced stuff was very interesting to learn |
|
3: |
Cool ideas presented. |
|
4: |
Current research / cutting edge topics |
|
5: |
Extended tutorial topics were fascinating. |
|
6: |
It covered extra content which I found really interesting. |
|
7: |
More detail, viewing of some real research, etc. |
|
8: |
The extended tutorials went above and beyond the scope of the
lectures and really made the course a much more enjoyable experience. |
|
9: |
The lectures |
|
10: |
We got to learn cool stuff! |
|
11: |
none |
|
12: |
nothing |
|
39.
|
What were the
weak points of COMP3891?
|
|
1: |
Basic assignments + other commitments took too much time and I
never had the time to really start the advanced assignments - even
though they seemed interesting and I had hoped to. |
|
2: |
Failed to cover core tutorial questions. Lack of lecture notes.
Stressed over material until told that it wasn't examinable. |
|
3: |
I wanted to complete the advanced assignments but I had difficulty
doing this. Partly because of the quantity of work this required - I
simply didn't have the time, and also because I didn't get much help
from my partner in the assignments. |
|
4: |
N/A |
|
5: |
Seemed to lack formality (which was in some was a *good* thing) --
No final exam, for example. |
|
6: |
The new stuff in EOS wasnt really linked to any practical work
along the course. |
|
7: |
We didn't do anything with any of that knowledge - like, we did
the advanced assignments but we never played with any of the cool
content that we learnt in the extended tutes. It would be nice for that
stuff to be examined somewhere or *something* |
|
8: |
none |
|
9: |
nothing |
|
40.
|
Any
suggestions for improving COMP3891 Extended OS?
|
|
1: |
A couple more lectures on the stuff that makes up the advanced
assignments rather than research topics would have been nice. Better
timing with regular course work (ie, the extended raid tutorial after
the regular raid lecture). No major problems though, enjoyed extended
tutorials a lot. |
|
2: |
More info on current research, more of a look at real work OS's
(linux code, etc.). |
|
3: |
More material/information to look further into the topics.
Possibly weblinks or book references. |
|
4: |
Skip the first assignment - it was way too easy, and get started
on the more advanced assignments earlier. |
|
5: |
none |
|
6: |
nothing |
|
7: |
possibly should have more extended content, more large topics
covered, rather than lots of small independant topics. |
|
44.
|
Any other
comments/suggestions that might help us to improve the course in the
future?
|
|
1: |
1) Give us the softcopy of the lecture notes. Meaning the
powerpoint presentation with moving parts.
2) Include labwork to assist the lost
3) Additional tutorials.
4) Lectures should not be put 1 day after the other. Should be spaced
out by a day or two. It takes time to absorb the material. |
|
2: |
A quiz in the lecture in the first few weeks (week 2-4) dealing
with the basic knowledge of C (and possibly gdb) worths a few proportion
to the final mark combine with assn0 may help. (I got a 5% quiz related
to VHDL in week 2 in Comp. Arch. last semester and I think that helps
many students since they got time to study in the first few weeks and
knowing that VHDL is important in the course) |
|
3: |
Abolish the harmonic mean system |
|
4: |
Do the VM before the Syscall assignment |
|
5: |
Fantastic course. |
|
6: |
For the assignments, either explain them better, or have less
focus on 'cheating', most of the time spent on the assignments was just
understanding them, and that tended to require asking other people; but
this was discouraged because of high focus on 'cheating', this made it
even harder to understand what was going on in the assignments |
|
7: |
Give all marks above 35 pc's :) |
|
8: |
Going through more examples in lectures would be great, and
releasing the tutorial questions relating to the assignments BEFORE the
assignment is due would counter the somewhat blurry assignment
specifications |
|
9: |
Good course. Lots of fun. Thanks! :D |
|
10: |
Have Kevin do every future sessions of OS and provide better
testing methods in assignments. |
|
11: |
I can't really talk about cheating in assignments because no one
was caught and hung out to dry in public. But I once witnessed a 'public
hanging' in a BIOM class where assignment similarities were highlighted
and the 'Christmas Tree' was shown to the whole lecture. Now, THAT'S a
real deterrent, and while this may sound mean, but I'd like that to
happen to dishonest fellas around because I put some serious effort in
my work and it's only fair. If you can't do an assignment, suck it up
and work on it. |
|
12: |
I wish i knew my marks for the other assignments so I know how
much i have to stress about the final exam. Why havent we been given our
marks for the final two assignments? |
|
13: |
IDEALLY - more practical work - i.e. exchange lecture time with a
lab/practical consult and increase difficulty of assignments? The mix
is almost right but I think this sort of thing would help. |
|
14: |
If can slow down the speed of go through slides, I think it's
better for us to understand the contents of lectures immediately during
the class. |
|
15: |
It is a liitle bit difficult to follow. |
|
16: |
My assignment partner did very little. Need a way to catch the
slackers. |
|
17: |
No |
|
18: |
No |
|
19: |
Not really. |
|
20: |
OS Would be better if it had LABS, covering specific concepts.
Less assignments as well if this were to happen. |
|
21: |
Probably not possible but synchronise assignment deadlines with
other courses
so that they dont overlap using some synchronisation primitive. |
|
22: |
Some people (like me) work night and day just to cover all the
work required in all there subjects, then the cheaters get the answers,
or a large chunk of them of someone else and have the assignments done
in 5 minutes. It's frustrating. They should have no warnings, just kick
them out of the uni, it's not as if they don't know its wrong the first
time they do it. |
|
23: |
Try to make available in the bookshop (as a supp text) Tanenbaum's
book with minix as an appendix. I havent been able to find a copy
anywhere, and have the feeling that it would've done worlds of
difference to have another case study to compare. |
|
24: |
Would have preferred to go more indepth over a greater period of
time - say 2 instead of 1 session.
Suppose that's what aos is for... |
|
25: |
Yes, improve the tutorials, make it more fun so ppl would
participate |
|
26: |
a course called introduction to OS...do this before COMP3231.... |
|
27: |
better, more understandable lectures. |
|
28: |
change the assignments structure somewhat to help students
understand more things |
|
29: |
course is too difficult and the student does not receive any
scaling for the amount of he/she puts in. entire cse knows OS is crazy
yet no scaling provides no incentive for students to choose that course
as electives. |
|
30: |
group work should be optional as the assignments are much more
suited to be done by individuals |
|
31: |
improve specification and more reliable tutors |
|
32: |
it is a very good course. Nothing major needs to be changed just
adjust the assignments for group work. |
|
33: |
labs to solidify concepts learnt would be great. able to cover
more concepts than two assignments. and more direct assistance to |
|
34: |
make more interesting, and more related to the windows |
|
35: |
more Comparisons between real world operating systems and os/161
would help a great deal to see the scale of our work in assignments |
|
36: |
need labs!!!!! |
|
37: |
no |
|
38: |
no |
|
39: |
no |
|
40: |
no comments |
|
41: |
no. |
|
42: |
none |
|
43: |
none |
|
44: |
nothing |
|
45: |
some one does the assigment and some one else copies it, the guy
who copies gets better mars that thr one who does it |
|
46: |
the assignment deadlines were the same time as all other comp
courses-this made it very difficult |
|
47: |
the assignments materials should be covered more in lectures |
|
48: |
you are doing a great job. thx! |
|
|