Survey ID | 1228 |
Title | COMP3231/3891/9201/9283 07s1 |
Description | Course survey for Operating Systems |
Anonymous | Yes |
Fill Ratio | 75% (79/106) |
# Filled | 79 |
# Suspended | 1 |
# Not Filled | 26 |
|
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 |
53 (67%) |
23 (29%) |
6 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
General OS lectures |
29 (37%) |
46 (58%) |
6 (8%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Consultations |
21 (27%) |
25 (32%) |
33 (42%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
-1 (-1%) |
Your tutor |
40 (51%) |
30 (38%) |
10 (13%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Tutorials |
29 (37%) |
42 (53%) |
8 (10%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
-2 (-3%) |
Asst1: The Library |
21 (27%) |
35 (44%) |
18 (23%) |
7 (9%) |
1 (1%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
18 (23%) |
36 (46%) |
23 (29%) |
4 (5%) |
1 (1%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
18 (23%) |
33 (42%) |
22 (28%) |
8 (10%) |
1 (1%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Textbook |
18 (23%) |
27 (34%) |
32 (41%) |
2 (3%) |
1 (1%) |
-1 (-1%) |
OS/161 In general |
18 (23%) |
37 (47%) |
21 (27%) |
4 (5%) |
2 (3%) |
-3 (-4%) |
C Language |
22 (28%) |
38 (48%) |
17 (22%) |
3 (4%) |
2 (3%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Computing resources |
14 (18%) |
43 (54%) |
25 (32%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Course web page |
27 (34%) |
39 (49%) |
16 (20%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Message Board |
42 (53%) |
27 (34%) |
13 (16%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Help with technical questions |
33 (42%) |
27 (34%) |
22 (28%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Lecture slides |
32 (41%) |
34 (43%) |
14 (18%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Operating Systems overall |
29 (37%) |
42 (53%) |
10 (13%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
|
|
|
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 |
35 (44%) |
36 (46%) |
9 (11%) |
-1 (-1%) |
Chance to get hands dirty with low-level code |
23 (29%) |
31 (39%) |
26 (33%) |
-1 (-1%) |
Jobs propects for OS hackers |
7 (9%) |
41 (52%) |
32 (41%) |
-1 (-1%) |
Would llike to do OS research |
9 (11%) |
32 (41%) |
37 (47%) |
1 (1%) |
Course is core for me |
42 (53%) |
6 (8%) |
34 (43%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Friends told me it was good |
12 (15%) |
23 (29%) |
46 (58%) |
-2 (-3%) |
Chance to do challenging programming assignments |
29 (37%) |
29 (37%) |
23 (29%) |
-2 (-3%) |
|
|
3.
|
Any other factor that influenced your decision?
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (26 comments) |
|
4.
|
Would you recommend this course to another student such as yourself?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
73 (92%) |
|
No
|
9 (11%) |
|
N/F |
-3 (-4%) |
|
|
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 |
2 (3%) |
19 (24%) |
58 (73%) |
1 (1%) |
2 (3%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Low-level (implementation) issues |
3 (4%) |
15 (19%) |
51 (65%) |
9 (11%) |
3 (4%) |
-2 (-3%) |
Unix/Linux |
2 (3%) |
9 (11%) |
54 (68%) |
17 (22%) |
0 (0%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Windows NT |
1 (1%) |
4 (5%) |
33 (42%) |
32 (41%) |
12 (15%) |
-3 (-4%) |
OS/161 Internals |
4 (5%) |
11 (14%) |
56 (71%) |
8 (10%) |
2 (3%) |
-2 (-3%) |
Other Systems |
1 (1%) |
3 (4%) |
47 (59%) |
21 (27%) |
10 (13%) |
-3 (-4%) |
|
|
6.
|
What were the best things about this course?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (58 comments) |
|
7.
|
What were the worst things about this course?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (52 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 |
1 (1%) |
2 (3%) |
9 (11%) |
41 (52%) |
28 (35%) |
-2 (-3%) |
INFS courses |
2 (3%) |
2 (3%) |
13 (16%) |
19 (24%) |
32 (41%) |
11 (14%) |
Courses in general |
1 (1%) |
3 (4%) |
7 (9%) |
34 (43%) |
36 (46%) |
-2 (-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 |
44 (56%) |
30 (38%) |
4 (5%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Tutorials |
48 (61%) |
25 (32%) |
2 (3%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
5 (6%) |
-3 (-4%) |
Consultations |
28 (35%) |
13 (16%) |
8 (10%) |
2 (3%) |
1 (1%) |
29 (37%) |
-2 (-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 |
43 (54%) |
28 (35%) |
9 (11%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
-3 (-4%) |
COMP courses in general |
36 (46%) |
35 (44%) |
8 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
-2 (-3%) |
Courses in general |
43 (54%) |
22 (28%) |
15 (19%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
-3 (-4%) |
|
|
11.
|
Do you think it would be better if the course used Java-based assignments?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
18 (23%) |
|
No
|
64 (81%) |
|
N/F |
-3 (-4%) |
|
|
12.
|
Would it be preferable if more of the pre-requisite courses used C?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
56 (71%) |
|
No
|
26 (33%) |
|
N/F |
-3 (-4%) |
|
|
13.
|
What
background knowledge do you think you were missing that would have
helped you in this course? Is COMP2011/9024 and COMP2121/9032 (the
official pre-requisites) a suitable preparation? |
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (51 comments) |
|
|
14.
|
What topics caused you the most difficulty? You can select more than one item
|
|
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box |
|
|
|
System calls |
21 (27%) |
Processes |
5 (6%) |
Threads |
14 (18%) |
Low-level implementations issues |
37 (47%) |
Synchonisation and concurrency |
19 (24%) |
Deadlock |
13 (16%) |
Memory Management and Virtual Memory |
41 (52%) |
File Systems |
23 (29%) |
I/O Management |
23 (29%) |
Scheduling |
6 (8%) |
Multiprocessor Systems |
22 (28%) |
Security |
5 (6%) |
|
|
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 (58 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 (36 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 (38 comments) |
|
|
18.
|
Is the current mode of lecture delivery, using computer-projected slides, effective?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Yes
|
79 (100%) |
|
No
|
1 (1%) |
|
N/F |
-1 (-1%) |
|
|
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
|
20 (25%) |
|
Most of the time
|
50 (63%) |
|
Sometimes
|
8 (10%) |
|
Rarely
|
1 (1%) |
|
Never
|
1 (1%) |
|
N/F |
-1 (-1%) |
|
|
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
|
18 (23%) |
|
Most of the time
|
50 (63%) |
|
Sometimes
|
9 (11%) |
|
Rarely
|
0 (0%) |
|
Never
|
0 (0%) |
|
N/A
|
3 (4%) |
|
N/F |
-1 (-1%) |
|
|
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 (27 comments) |
|
22.
|
Any suggestions for improving lectures?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (38 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 (13 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 |
39 (49%) |
30 (38%) |
3 (4%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
6 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
The questions were appropriately timed |
17 (22%) |
37 (47%) |
15 (19%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
The questions were of appropriate difficulty |
15 (19%) |
36 (46%) |
22 (28%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
The questions should have increased difficulty |
3 (4%) |
9 (11%) |
44 (56%) |
11 (14%) |
7 (9%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
The number of questions was appropriate |
10 (13%) |
37 (47%) |
23 (29%) |
3 (4%) |
0 (0%) |
5 (6%) |
1 (1%) |
The number of questions should be expanded |
6 (8%) |
15 (19%) |
28 (35%) |
22 (28%) |
3 (4%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
I always prepared for the tutorials |
9 (11%) |
18 (23%) |
18 (23%) |
17 (22%) |
9 (11%) |
8 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
Preparation beforehand improved my understanding of the material |
25 (32%) |
17 (22%) |
17 (22%) |
6 (8%) |
1 (1%) |
13 (16%) |
0 (0%) |
Class participation is important for understanding the material |
30 (38%) |
20 (25%) |
17 (22%) |
4 (5%) |
3 (4%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
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 |
13 (16%) |
9 (11%) |
4 (5%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
40 (51%) |
13 (16%) |
Tutor B |
10 (13%) |
5 (6%) |
3 (4%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (1%) |
46 (58%) |
14 (18%) |
Tutor C |
25 (32%) |
6 (8%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
36 (46%) |
8 (10%) |
|
|
26.
|
Any suggestions for improving tutorials?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (27 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: Library |
1 (1%) |
11 (14%) |
49 (62%) |
11 (14%) |
7 (9%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
32 (41%) |
33 (42%) |
14 (18%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
21 (27%) |
27 (34%) |
29 (37%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
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: Library |
14 (18%) |
24 (30%) |
26 (33%) |
9 (11%) |
6 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
6 (8%) |
19 (24%) |
32 (41%) |
13 (16%) |
9 (11%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
4 (5%) |
14 (18%) |
30 (38%) |
21 (27%) |
10 (13%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
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: Library |
12 (15%) |
26 (33%) |
30 (38%) |
8 (10%) |
3 (4%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst2: Syscalls |
5 (6%) |
16 (20%) |
46 (58%) |
8 (10%) |
4 (5%) |
0 (0%) |
Asst3: Virtual Memory |
6 (8%) |
22 (28%) |
26 (33%) |
19 (24%) |
6 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
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 |
7 (9%) |
19 (24%) |
31 (39%) |
6 (8%) |
14 (18%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
Implementation is difficult |
21 (27%) |
29 (37%) |
18 (23%) |
6 (8%) |
3 (4%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
Lack of familiarity with C |
17 (22%) |
13 (16%) |
26 (33%) |
7 (9%) |
14 (18%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (3%) |
Lack of experience with a large code base |
32 (41%) |
12 (15%) |
17 (22%) |
6 (8%) |
11 (14%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (1%) |
Lack of experience debugging C |
24 (30%) |
18 (23%) |
18 (23%) |
6 (8%) |
10 (13%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (4%) |
Lack of previous low-level programming |
21 (27%) |
20 (25%) |
20 (25%) |
9 (11%) |
8 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (1%) |
|
|
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? |
4 (5%) |
2 (3%) |
22 (28%) |
25 (32%) |
26 (33%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
32.
|
Do you have any specific comments about OS/161
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (25 comments) |
|
33.
|
Please indicate whether you (dis)agree with the following statements about the use of Darcs to manage the assignment code base.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Disagree |
N/A |
N/F |
Darcs greatly helps in developing a collaborative assignment solution |
9 (11%) |
17 (22%) |
26 (33%) |
8 (10%) |
11 (14%) |
8 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
Darcs is relatively simple to learn to use |
8 (10%) |
24 (30%) |
25 (32%) |
7 (9%) |
10 (13%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
Darcs just gets in the way and should be not be used |
12 (15%) |
11 (14%) |
24 (30%) |
16 (20%) |
10 (13%) |
6 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
Darcs is reliable with no real hiccups in use |
3 (4%) |
12 (15%) |
31 (39%) |
16 (20%) |
10 (13%) |
7 (9%) |
0 (0%) |
Darcs was useful to transport code between UNSW and home |
6 (8%) |
13 (16%) |
21 (27%) |
12 (15%) |
13 (16%) |
14 (18%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
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 |
31 (39%) |
22 (28%) |
20 (25%) |
4 (5%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
Groups reduce the assignment workload |
28 (35%) |
19 (24%) |
16 (20%) |
11 (14%) |
5 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
Groups should be optional, but every submission is marked the same |
20 (25%) |
16 (20%) |
34 (43%) |
7 (9%) |
2 (3%) |
0 (0%) |
Groups are unfair as inevitably one member does all the work |
18 (23%) |
18 (23%) |
31 (39%) |
8 (10%) |
4 (5%) |
0 (0%) |
Larger groups would be better |
13 (16%) |
10 (13%) |
16 (20%) |
24 (30%) |
15 (19%) |
1 (1%) |
Having a partner to help understand the assignment really helps |
27 (34%) |
29 (37%) |
21 (27%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
35.
|
What do you think of the advanced assignments?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Great Idea!
|
20 (25%) |
|
|
10 (13%) |
|
Don't care
|
37 (47%) |
|
|
6 (8%) |
|
Abolish!
|
5 (6%) |
|
N/F |
1 (1%) |
|
|
36.
|
Any suggestions for improving the assignments?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (36 comments) |
|
7. COMP3891/9283 Extended Operating Systems
|
|
Skip this section if you did not do COMP3891/9283 Extended Operating Systems.
|
|
37.
|
How would you rate extended OS as a whole?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
Excellent
|
3 (4%) |
|
|
5 (6%) |
|
Average
|
3 (4%) |
|
|
0 (0%) |
|
Poor
|
0 (0%) |
|
N/A
|
6 (8%) |
|
N/F |
62 (78%) |
|
|
38.
|
What were the strong points of COMP3891/9283?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (7 comments) |
|
39.
|
What were the weak points of COMP3891/9283?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (4 comments) |
|
40.
|
Any suggestions for improving COMP3891/9283 Extended OS?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (3 comments) |
|
|
41.
|
Answer the following questions to convey your opinion of the final exam
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
N/F |
The exam overall was too hard |
6 (8%) |
14 (18%) |
36 (46%) |
21 (27%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
The exam overall was too short - i.e. it should be 3 hours |
10 (13%) |
12 (15%) |
24 (30%) |
26 (33%) |
6 (8%) |
1 (1%) |
The exam should contain more True/False questions |
4 (5%) |
9 (11%) |
24 (30%) |
33 (42%) |
8 (10%) |
1 (1%) |
The exam gave me the oppurtunity to demonstrate my understanding of operating systems |
6 (8%) |
51 (65%) |
17 (22%) |
3 (4%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
I think my exam result will be representative of my operating systems knowledge |
5 (6%) |
35 (44%) |
23 (29%) |
11 (14%) |
4 (5%) |
1 (1%) |
The final assessment should be weight ed more towards the exam |
8 (10%) |
16 (20%) |
27 (34%) |
20 (25%) |
7 (9%) |
1 (1%) |
|
|
42.
|
Do you have any particular comments you would like to make about the exam?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (32 comments) |
|
|
43.
|
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 |
50 (63%) |
16 (20%) |
12 (15%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
44.
|
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
|
39 (49%) |
|
|
13 (16%) |
|
Indiferent
|
14 (18%) |
|
|
4 (5%) |
|
No way
|
9 (11%) |
|
N/F |
0 (0%) |
|
|
45.
|
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
|
4 (5%) |
|
|
5 (6%) |
|
Just right
|
65 (82%) |
|
|
1 (1%) |
|
Too harsh
|
3 (4%) |
|
N/F |
1 (1%) |
|
|
46.
|
Any other comments/suggestions that might help us to improve the course in the future?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (16 comments) |
|
47.
|
What do you think your final result will be for the course?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
HD
|
8 (10%) |
|
DN
|
21 (27%) |
|
CR
|
17 (22%) |
|
PS
|
18 (23%) |
|
FL
|
3 (4%) |
|
No Idea
|
12 (15%) |
|
N/F |
0 (0%) |
|
|
|
48.
|
In
2008, UNSW is moving to a 12-week session from the existing 14 week
session. What would you like to see changed in the current operating
systems course in order to be able to run it in the shorter 12 week
session? |
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (55 comments) |
|
|
|
|
| Back to Summary |
3.
|
Any other factor that influenced your decision?
|
|
1: |
Challange |
|
2: |
Course material seemed helpful for writing a gameboy emulator. |
|
3: |
I spend a lot of time at work playing with linux systems |
|
4: |
Interest in understanding how an OS works |
|
5: |
Interesting subject |
|
6: |
My project invloved driver programming, so i decided to take the course and have some learning of the OS. |
|
7: |
N/A |
|
8: |
NO |
|
9: |
No |
|
10: |
No |
|
11: |
No |
|
12: |
OS is useful |
|
13: |
OS sounded fun |
|
14: |
Want to understand computers from ground up, ie: from physics to chip architechure to OS and beyond |
|
15: |
Wide scope |
|
16: |
Yes, I have to do the course, compulsory |
|
17: |
challenging course, good lecturer |
|
18: |
core |
|
19: |
no |
|
20: |
no |
|
21: |
no |
|
22: |
none |
|
23: |
none |
|
24: |
nope |
|
25: |
nup |
|
26: |
obtain units of credit |
|
6.
|
What were the best things about this course?
|
|
1: |
+ Lecturer,
+ Lecturer Interaction,
+ Lecture Notes,
+ Tutorial, and
+ Sample Questions + Exam. |
|
2: |
- Assignments are challenging
- Lecturer and tutor both explain the material clearly
- Lecture notes and tutorials are well prepared |
|
3: |
-Good content actually explains how things work
-good lecturer, explains concepts well |
|
4: |
Assignment and Tutorial |
|
5: |
Assignments (1st and 3rd especially), OS161 (fun to poke around), tutorials (XXX was really good), nfd. |
|
6: |
Challenging assignments, excellent lectures, willingness to discuss related issues, active forums. |
|
7: |
Hands on with an OS.
|
|
8: |
Have chance to see the low level of OS, that is COOL. |
|
9: |
Having to touched the internals of os161 |
|
10: |
I learned a lot of os stuff which is fun to know how the computer works |
|
11: |
Interesting and challenging assignments. Good explanations of concepts in lecture notes. |
|
12: |
It is well organized. |
|
13: |
Learn a lot things about computer system, in particular, concurrency and security. |
|
14: |
Learned
the most doing the assignments. The difficulty of the assignments was
actually manageable once you finally got the hang of how to approach
them in general. The tuts complemented the assignments quite well |
|
15: |
Learning the depth of OS. |
|
16: |
Lecturer and Tutor. |
|
17: |
Lecturer and tutors were great |
|
18: |
Lectures and lecture slides were clear and well prepared. Message board response was amazing. |
|
19: |
Lectures
were great, course material delievered clearly, tutorials and tutors
were excellent. Consultations were great as well as the lecturer. |
|
20: |
Lectures were quite well done |
|
21: |
OS concepts give a broader view of OS in general. |
|
22: |
The assignments and going through source code of a real operating system |
|
23: |
The assignments are really helpful for understudenting these concept. |
|
24: |
The assignments were genuinely challenging which i enjoyed |
|
25: |
The assignments, even though very challenging it helped me understand the core stuff of the project. |
|
26: |
The
assignments. Really enjoyed the difficulty of them and getting some
more hands on experience in C, especially far more advance C then
before. The lectures were great, very interesting, well spoken and
strcutured. |
|
27: |
The
assignments. The opportunity to "get my hands dirty" really assisted in
understanding the underlying concepts (particularly with VM). |
|
28: |
The lectures were interesting |
|
29: |
The lectures were interesting and the tutes clarified the ideas from the lectures. |
|
30: |
The
lectures were well presented and I also thoroughly enjoyed and learnt a
lot from tutorials because of the participation encouraged by my tutor. |
|
31: |
The lecures |
|
32: |
The
really best thing should be the lecturer, I have to say that Kevin make
me interested more in OS subject, his way to explain things is so
clear. He explain slowly when the material is hard and faster when the
material is esay. Tutorial is ok. Assignment is reasonable good. |
|
33: |
The tutorials. I had an excellent tutor. |
|
34: |
Tutorial participation marks. |
|
35: |
Tutorials and assignments |
|
36: |
Tutorials. |
|
37: |
Very
systematic and comprehensive. The flow of the lecture followed the flow
of argument for and against certain technologies, making it easier to
understand their relevance. The lecturer seemed to take any measure
possible to explain concepts clearly, which I found appealing. He also
seemed to have a good idea of what he considered to be important (or
less important), so that he could balance the emphasis on each topic
appropriately without time unduly wasted.
All in all this made the lectures a very educationally effective and
motivating experience. |
|
38: |
Was a very challenging course and covered a lot of interesting topics. Very good course! |
|
39: |
Wealth of interesting information. |
|
40: |
assignments |
|
41: |
challenging assignments.
good overview of OS which is helpful. |
|
42: |
diving into code to find answers to useful questions |
|
43: |
easy exam |
|
44: |
from knowing little about os to get a general picture of it and understand sth in real world |
|
45: |
good assignment |
|
46: |
good assignments, interesting material, taught well. |
|
47: |
improve teamwork skill |
|
48: |
interesting topics |
|
49: |
lecture |
|
50: |
lecture slides and tutorials A++ |
|
51: |
lecturer and course admin are very good.
and especially I like kevin's voice. Maybe I should
get into radio :) |
|
52: |
lectures |
|
53: |
lectures on OS issues |
|
54: |
message board provides very quick answers to questions |
|
55: |
the challenging programming assignments |
|
56: |
the lectures and notes were fascinating |
|
57: |
the material is interesting |
|
58: |
understand the detail of OS |
|
7.
|
What were the worst things about this course?
|
|
1: |
- Some materials are a bit hard |
|
2: |
- Too many assignments, and
- Too much coding. |
|
3: |
2nd assignment - it wasn't too bad, just the least interesting of the three. |
|
4: |
Assignments |
|
5: |
Assignments are too hard. |
|
6: |
Assignments, some more explicit guidance would have helped. |
|
7: |
Didnt really know what we did wrong for some of the assignments (i.e. the virtual memory one) |
|
8: |
Difficulty |
|
9: |
Drew
too many "rectangles" without really specifying what they represent and
how they fit into the big picture(ie the whole system). Eg. when
drawing virtual and physical memory and especially stacks...and how
they fit into the big picture of the memory in a system |
|
10: |
Extended lectures were sometimes not held. Assignments took a while to get marked. |
|
11: |
Final exam paper questions, nearly no question from security or I/O why we have to read a lot. This is just no good |
|
12: |
Getting stuck in the assignments. Spending a lot of time on the assignment and not knowing what is wrong. |
|
13: |
I
can't really think of any! Maybe the lecturer going too fast sometimes
was a bit of a problem, especially during the two hour lectures where
it's hard enough to stay awake. |
|
14: |
I
have to say it is the marking scheme for assignment. The problem is
there is too much marks for code style and performance mark from the
marker, and also each marker have different standard of marking. I
found out that my tutor is harder to give mark to student than another
tutor. When I compare my mark with my friend, I always get higer
auto-mark, but lower mark in total even his coding style is similar to
mine, but the mark was too much different (more than 5 marks for each
assignment, so totally about 10-15 marks different for 3 assignment...
It is quite a lot). My suggestion is:
1. Less weight on performance mark from marker OR
2. Let's each marker mark each whole assignment OR
3. Do a scale for performance mark in order to make all marks from each
marker get the same scale |
|
15: |
I would like to say it is also the programming assignment if I can not think out of it in a proper way. |
|
16: |
Insufficient
time given for completion of very difficult assignments - only because
other COMP subjects have assignments at the same time. |
|
17: |
Its too hard |
|
18: |
Lectures got very tedious at times.
(see answer to Q22) |
|
19: |
Less intense assignments. |
|
20: |
Many complex issues and the assignments were a bit of a challenge. |
|
21: |
No attendance marks.
Sometimes, you don't know the answer, you tried in the tuts and you might not get a mark.
Also, group assignments, usually 1 person does most of the assignment and the other person bludges. |
|
22: |
None. |
|
23: |
Not enough assignments. :-)
keeping the assigns small and constant i feel teaches more than a few large ones |
|
24: |
The Assignments were too hard. And exam multiple choice was also too hard...the negative marks made it very nerve wrecking :) |
|
25: |
The amount of stuff have to remember. |
|
26: |
The
assignments - it required a lot of understanding and a lot of time to
work on, which meant less time was spent on other subjects. |
|
27: |
The assignments are challenging and very hard to debug. |
|
28: |
The assignments... but mostly because I put in too little effort. |
|
29: |
The difficulty of asssignments |
|
30: |
The long assignments. |
|
31: |
The
provided testing cases for the assignments were too general. If a
solution pass the sample output answer from the specs 100% then it
shouldn't loose 30% of the marks because additional testing were
conducted during the actual marking ,some of the issues were not
obvious so the student isn't even given a chance to debug their code
them because he/she assume their solution is correct if it has the same
sample outputs from the specs. So either provide the full testing cases
from the start or cut down to only obvious ones. |
|
32: |
Tough assigments, but still good learning. |
|
33: |
Using
'darcs' as version control software. imo it is too buggy for seriously
use like assignments. My group lost at least 6 marks for assignemnt3
only because we had a darcs problem (cant do darcs push) on submission
night and spent 3 hours to fix it. Finally we did fix it problem (with
darcs push) , we were too happy to remember to properly test the
.patches file. And when the marking came out , we realized there were a
'darcs record' problem , the result of that was our final patch was not
recorded at all. |
|
34: |
Well,
it did require somewhat more effort than other courses, particularly in
the assignments. I do not think that is a bad thing, and I was
certainly warned about it beforehand. |
|
35: |
When you got stuck in an assignment you don't know what to do... hard to get help.
Assignments were very vague as to what we need to do. |
|
36: |
assignments percentage |
|
37: |
boring lectures especially later topics, esp:security. |
|
38: |
got stuck when c-programming |
|
39: |
hard assignments and harmonic scaling |
|
40: |
hmm consultation hours werent enough |
|
41: |
marking problems |
|
42: |
people who didn't know low-level C (but Java perhaps) were stuffed. |
|
43: |
programming assingment especially asst2 and 3 were very hard
|
|
44: |
some boring sections, like filesystems. |
|
45: |
take too long to understand the code and function provided and how do they relate to practical issues. |
|
46: |
the assignment is not explained clear enought in the lecture |
|
47: |
the assignments |
|
48: |
the lecturer went through the topics too fast |
|
49: |
there
was a slight gap between theory and implementation of os161. I would
like perhaps a little more direction to start off on assignments. |
|
50: |
too many assignments. harmonic mean. no scaling.
final exam still did not cover every topic or a board range of topics
|
|
51: |
too many programming assignments |
|
52: |
unreliable partner |
|
Regarding missed extended lectures (2 of), my apologies, it is very
difficult to get somebody to cover the advanced material when I was
unavailable.
Regarding assignment difficulty - it is trade-off between exposing
student to semi-realistic examples - or token problems. My feeling is that
the extra work involved with realistic assignments is worthwhile -
even if it hurts a little at the time. I am looking at ways of
reducing the load and/or adding labs to shepherd students next year.
|
13.
|
What
background knowledge do you think you were missing that would have
helped you in this course? Is COMP2011/9024 and COMP2121/9032 (the
official pre-requisites) a suitable preparation? |
|
1: |
2011 used java. A course which involved C would have been better as a prequisite. Compu1021 was clearly not enough. |
|
2: |
2121 helped but not really necessary. |
|
3: |
A much stronger background with C programming. |
|
4: |
Bitwise operators? |
|
5: |
C C and more C. Too much C knowledge was assumed. |
|
6: |
C skills. I only did one course that required C, thanks to the 1011 haskell course. |
|
7: |
COMP2011 is helpful while COMP2121 is not. |
|
8: |
COMP2011/9024 and COMP2121/9032 are suitable
|
|
9: |
COMP2121
should encourage the use of C. Surely teaching people how to write
useful, portable embedded applications in C is a better skill than
writing pages of assembly that does nothing. |
|
10: |
Comp2011
in C is a good preparation for C skills need in OS. I was missing Hash
tables. Non of the comp courses that i have down have ever covered hash
tables. I know in previous years those course have, but not when i have
done them. |
|
11: |
Comp3211 |
|
12: |
Could have had more C practises |
|
13: |
Deeper understanding in C would have helped. Yes, they are a suitable preparation. |
|
14: |
Familiarity
with C is essential. Being able to read ASM code did not seem a huge
factor since general purpose register machines were mentioned in
earlier courses. |
|
15: |
Had
never covered macros (e.g. # and ## operators in #defines, it took me
so long to discover what they did because it's impossible to google for
'#' and '#define' at the same time. Also function tables I didn't know
anything of. COMP2011 could probably go into a bit more depth with
tricky C syntax. |
|
16: |
I found my previous courses a suitable preparation for what I faced in COMP3231. |
|
17: |
I
have not enough knowledge on hardware, e.g. registers and their use
I did not do comp2121 because I did something else before this course
started to offer, maybe this is why I don't have enough knowledge on
hardware |
|
18: |
I
think it is enough. Most of the material you can pick up on the go in
the course itself so I didn't find it such a problem. It is not so much
as the c programming rather than the concepts. |
|
19: |
I
think my background on asm language is not enough to catch up with this
course. Yes of course the comp9024 and comp 9032 are good preparation
of this course |
|
20: |
I think the pre-req were sufficient. |
|
21: |
I was a PG student from EE&T, but still had quite a good background of c language programming. |
|
22: |
Just
dealing with large amounts of C code. Not so much understanding the
code, previous courses had covered that well enough generally. But just
getting a development enviornment established to work with lots of C.
Defielntly don't change to Java at all. I like Java but enough courses
use it already I always like it when courses don't so I can pick up a
new language or improve my knowledge of it since I know Java pretty
well even before starting my degree.
What I mean by large scale c, is that since Java is the language I have
the most experience with, I familiar with all the tools I need to help
me manage large code bases (e.g Eclipse, Ant, JUnit... e.c.t). C on the
other hand my previous experiences have been assignments of 1000 lines
perhaps max and just a few source files I compile by hand. Picking up
the new tools to handle it took time (as well as just finding the right
ones, ended up using Vim with cscope and ctags).
Also, Learning to GDB took a fair while, Im far more used to using a
graphical debugger (as in the eclipse debugger).
I can't see any way these skills could be added to as a pre-requisites,
but maybe 1 lecture or even just some information on the course web
page could be provided to tools to help manage lots of C code. e.g
suggest a complete sort of development enviornment.
So for me that would be vim, ctags, cscope, gdb, gcc, general unix
tools.
Knowing about ctags and cscope from day 1 would have helped. |
|
23: |
Macro in C |
|
24: |
Maybe better understanding of computer hardware would have helped. Yes they are suitable preparation, especially comp2121. |
|
25: |
Need
advanced C knowledge, especially how the compiler compiles code (for
the stack based transitions to and from assembler and C code |
|
26: |
No background knowledge missing, but more guidance or time (ie. starting earlier) with assignments would've helped. |
|
27: |
No. |
|
28: |
None
really. There were a couple of steep learning curves but I've forgotten
what they were. Just the short amount of pain they involved. |
|
29: |
None. |
|
30: |
Probably
is C, since my last time for C is comp 1B, 2-3 years a go. So for OS,
it like I have to do quite hard for for C in order to finish
assignment. Sometimes I feel I have problem with assignment because of
C, not the algorithm of assignment itself. |
|
31: |
Should
have been another course in 2nd year that requires using C language.
Before this course starts, its been a long while without using C. The
official pre-reqs are fine. Also it would be good if several
consultations/tutorials were held for teaching the basic use of gcc as
it wasn't really covered in Comp 1B. Although there is tutorial page
provided, it would have been better to see someone teach it. |
|
32: |
The current prerequisites are enough. |
|
33: |
The general understanding of C, only did one semester on C. |
|
34: |
The pre-requisites are enough for this subject |
|
35: |
They are a suitable preparation. |
|
36: |
Understanding of MIPS 3000 and assembler code. |
|
37: |
Well,
I completed those pre-reqs (or their equivalent) several years ago, and
I didn't know C before starting this course, and I think I went fairly
well. As I said before, the opportunity to get your hands dirty quickly
with the assignments served, for me, as suitable preparation in itself. |
|
38: |
Yes |
|
39: |
Yes |
|
40: |
Yes, they are a suitable pre-req. |
|
41: |
Yes. None needed. |
|
42: |
c language |
|
43: |
definitely
C cant remmeber much of it since i am studing part time by the time i
get to third year, first year C class have been forgotten |
|
44: |
for me , those were enough
and I did cs4001(OO) together with os , I feel it helped with some topic such as synchroniztion at the very beginning |
|
45: |
missing os/161 knowledge |
|
46: |
more practicals |
|
47: |
my C skills are a bit below par even though I have done it b4. |
|
48: |
none |
|
49: |
not bad |
|
50: |
the knowledge of C programming , since most students haven't touched it for 2 years plus. |
|
51: |
yes, they are, and it doesn't require too much. |
|
15.
|
Which material do you think you will be most useful to you in the future?
|
|
1: |
All the concurrency and multiprocessing things. |
|
2: |
Almost all materials covered are useful |
|
3: |
Assignments |
|
4: |
Everything would come in handy someday |
|
5: |
File Systems |
|
6: |
File Systems and Memory Management |
|
7: |
I'd say all of them - they cover so many broad topics, they're all useful. |
|
8: |
In Depth knowledge of OS. |
|
9: |
Knowledge of virtual memory systems, understanding paging, and multithreading, |
|
10: |
Most of them. |
|
11: |
Most of what was covered |
|
12: |
Multiprocessor System |
|
13: |
Multiprocessor System |
|
14: |
Multiprocessor Systems |
|
15: |
Multiprocessor Systems |
|
16: |
Multiprocessor Systems |
|
17: |
Multiprocessor system |
|
18: |
Security |
|
19: |
Security. |
|
20: |
Sync and concurrency |
|
21: |
Synchonisation and concurrency, deadlock |
|
22: |
Synchronisation and concurrency |
|
23: |
Synchronisation and concurrency |
|
24: |
Synchronisation and multiprogramming |
|
25: |
Synchronisation, concurrency, deadlock - though I believe most of the material will turn out useful |
|
26: |
Synchronisation, deadlock, memory management |
|
27: |
Syscalls/Processes/Threads/FS/Scheduling |
|
28: |
System Calls |
|
29: |
The hands on practical experience in C coding. |
|
30: |
Threads |
|
31: |
Threads, File Systems, System Calls, IO Management, Security, Multiprocessor Systems |
|
32: |
Threads, processes, multiprocessor systems, scheduling, hell everything is gonna be useful |
|
33: |
VM |
|
34: |
VM, System calls, scheduling, io management, threads, processes |
|
35: |
all |
|
36: |
all of above |
|
37: |
all of them useful |
|
38: |
deeper knowledge of computers |
|
39: |
have lecture nots at least a week piror so we can prepare |
|
40: |
hopefully all |
|
41: |
i/o management |
|
42: |
i/o management, synchronisation and concurrency |
|
43: |
just the concepts in general |
|
44: |
lecture podcasts |
|
45: |
memory management and file systems |
|
46: |
mm,vm, file sys,processes,threads,sync. |
|
47: |
nothing really stood out in particular |
|
48: |
processes, threads and concurreny |
|
49: |
security |
|
50: |
security and virtual memory |
|
51: |
synchonisation and concurrency |
|
52: |
system calls |
|
53: |
text book |
|
54: |
textbook |
|
55: |
threads |
|
56: |
threads and sync |
|
57: |
understanding concurrency, so that i can write multithreaded application code. |
|
58: |
virtual memory, security, threads |
|
16.
|
What material related to operating systems, but not currently in the course, would you like to have seen covered?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
64bit OS. |
|
4: |
A bit on writing drivers |
|
5: |
A device driver for something. Writing code for massively parallel architectures, like the newer graphics cards. |
|
6: |
Assigment based on Linux, not OS161 Linux is too complex to do real work with - it is
even harder to debug, algorithms more complex, commenting
targeted towards experts etc... :( |
|
7: |
Bootloaders,
BIOS. Microkernel/Server approach Vs Monolithic Kernels in more detail.
How current OS's are progressing in regard to this or other approaches
(e.g what the future holds). |
|
8: |
Can't think of any - it's already jammed packed! |
|
9: |
Can't think of any. |
|
10: |
Don't know |
|
11: |
Dont know |
|
12: |
Graphical User Interface |
|
13: |
I don't know |
|
14: |
I have no idea, since I am not really interested in OS |
|
15: |
If possible more about networking. But for a introductory course the material is well balanced. |
|
16: |
N/A |
|
17: |
N/A |
|
18: |
N/A |
|
19: |
Nil - I found the course to be a very thorough introduction to all major OS issues. |
|
20: |
None |
|
21: |
Not sure, I though it was pretty good. A bit more Linux/Unix examples maybe??? |
|
22: |
current developments in kernels, minix 3, L4 etc. |
|
23: |
dont know |
|
24: |
mmmmmmm not much there is too much contains in it already, probably a lil more embeded systems |
|
25: |
more on interoperability between segments |
|
26: |
more on security and hacking |
|
27: |
mutimedia and more examples on popular OSes |
|
28: |
n/a |
|
29: |
no |
|
30: |
no idea |
|
31: |
none - what there is now is a good variety. |
|
32: |
not sure |
|
33: |
not sure |
|
34: |
talk more about other os like mac os or even os in handphone or PDA |
|
35: |
virtualisation |
|
36: |
windows more |
|
17.
|
Which of the current topics would you like to see scaled back or excluded?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
File systems |
|
4: |
I/O management |
|
5: |
IO Management |
|
6: |
Maybe scale back file systems |
|
7: |
N/A |
|
8: |
N/A |
|
9: |
None |
|
10: |
None |
|
11: |
None |
|
12: |
None. |
|
13: |
None. |
|
14: |
Security |
|
15: |
Security (I liked it but there is already a course on it, which I've done) |
|
16: |
Security was a little... boring. By then I was used to low-level topics! |
|
17: |
Some part of Security |
|
18: |
Synchronisation and Concurrency. |
|
19: |
Sys-calls |
|
20: |
all of it seems relevant |
|
21: |
all the above i have problems with |
|
22: |
asst2 and asst3 hope to get clearer explaination on what to do |
|
23: |
filesystems is a bit boring |
|
24: |
i dont know |
|
25: |
i think they are all equally important |
|
26: |
low level implementation issues |
|
27: |
multi processor |
|
28: |
multiprocessor |
|
29: |
multiprocessor systems |
|
30: |
multiprocessor systems |
|
31: |
no |
|
32: |
none |
|
33: |
none |
|
34: |
none |
|
35: |
none - I feel like there is sufficient information on all areas and cutting back will not explain all the concepts thoroughly |
|
36: |
security |
|
37: |
security |
|
38: |
security, its already covered in another course. |
|
Security is the most likely target for
scaling back next year.
21.
|
If you have not been attending lectures, what factors influenced your decision not to attend?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
I
attended all I could, about 50%.
Would have liked to make all lectures but outside factors such as
medical, work, family, etc made it hard. I was away for over 2 weeks
for medical reasons |
|
4: |
I attended every lecture |
|
5: |
I have assignments for other subjects. |
|
6: |
I have attended all lectures. |
|
7: |
I just missed 1, busy doing project... :( |
|
8: |
I overloaded this session (which, in retrospect, was a rather silly decision!). I just didn't have the time. |
|
9: |
I skipped the few after the paper ball was thrown around. I am extremely shy. I did return though. |
|
10: |
Living almost 2hours away.
Missing one train meant I'd arrive an hour later, which can mean I turn up just as the lecture ends on Wednesday... |
|
11: |
Material is too heavy. Lecturer enthused life in it, but lecture is stil too draining. |
|
12: |
Material
usually covered too slowly in lectures, I get bored, prefer to teach
myself. I'm just don't like learning from lectures. |
|
13: |
My job. |
|
14: |
N/A |
|
15: |
N/A |
|
16: |
N/A |
|
17: |
Not so much missed whole lectures, but constantly missed 30 minutes of it due the fact I have no other free time to have lunch |
|
18: |
Other subjects =P |
|
19: |
Small lecture room. |
|
20: |
assignments and labs for other subjects |
|
21: |
i always attend |
|
22: |
i missed 1hr each week because of timetable clash, but otherwise it was good. |
|
23: |
i
missed one class cause i am sick i wish i could have went it was the
double. and another class because i had presentation for comp arch and
also thesis presentation. |
|
24: |
i went to lectures! |
|
25: |
sometimes boring |
|
26: |
too many assignment |
|
27: |
wake up too late |
|
Too fast, too slow - can't please
everybody. |
22.
|
Any suggestions for improving lectures?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
Bigger lecture room. The rest is great. |
|
4: |
Briefly discuss new developments in each area as they're taught, so we have an idea of things to look up if we're interested. |
|
5: |
Go just a bit slower. The material explanation is wonderful but I find it hard to keep up sometimes. |
|
6: |
It've already good enough for me. |
|
7: |
Kevin should speak slowly than what he do now. |
|
8: |
Kevin speaks fast. May not able to follow sometimes.
Lecture notes post up on web too late, should be 1 or 2 days before lecture. |
|
9: |
Lectures were useful with the lecture slides which provide a good summary. I wouldn't change anything. |
|
10: |
Lighter reads as slides. |
|
11: |
More examples of code in Lectures |
|
12: |
More handouts. |
|
13: |
More practical contends to show the real implementation. |
|
14: |
More practical? Demonstrate there and then how certain concepts work on windows/linux/sys161 |
|
15: |
N/A |
|
16: |
N/A |
|
17: |
N/A |
|
18: |
No - lecture notes were brilliant to work off, particularly for studying for the final. |
|
19: |
Nope.
Make sure you keep adding things that are not examinable but
interesting such as references to people you know working at blah blah
who are making blah blah etc. It is interesting and gives ppl motivation |
|
20: |
One
issue I had was tieing all the sepperate things together. So we learnt
about memory allocators, and later we learnt about VM. I was never sure
how they worked together so much. Also I was quite confused at the
start of assignment 3 as to how memory was allocated in an OS from boot
to running processes. So how the OS got its memory itself, since the VM
isnt up yet... e.c.t
Would be nice to do sort of a high levelish overview where we look at
an OS life cycle from computer boot to shutdown. So look at BIOS
process, boot loader... |
|
21: |
Probably more demos on Unix/Linux |
|
22: |
Provide recorded lectures. |
|
23: |
Sometimes
i couldnt print out the lectures slides before attending the lecture.
Having both infront of me is how i learn the best, otherwise i seem to
turn off after a while =( |
|
24: |
The
1 hr lecture is not a good decision. There should be just one 3 hour
lecture in a week. Dividing the lecture was not the good idea. |
|
25: |
The lecture notes are fine while you're there however a lot of the slides are purely diagrams, hard to revise off of. |
|
26: |
We
need more description about the assignment, such as the description
about the activities of the functions to help us do it in a proper way.
I found when I was doing my assignment, I usually follow the right
path, this make me waste so much time. |
|
27: |
Would
be good if we could get a bit of an overview on where a particular
lecture topic fits in with the rest of the OS before too much low level
detail is given. (Sometimes Kevin gave too many details too early on in
the lecture while some of us hadn't even caught on to what he's talking
about yet)
E.g. When he was doing the RAID lecture. He started talking about Raid0
raid1 and we understood the concepts fine, but weren't too sure why he
was talking about RAID in the first place (like: What's it got to do
with OS??). =) |
|
28: |
bit more C related material maybe include revision |
|
29: |
explain more about os161 and its practical use |
|
30: |
have more breaks |
|
31: |
kevin could do some demostration on coding tricks and going through some code like he did in EOS lecture |
|
32: |
less content on the lecture slides, more content on the boards and delivered vocally |
|
33: |
make it more interesting |
|
34: |
maybe show some more coding in terminal might help |
|
35: |
more detail of how provided functions work |
|
36: |
no |
|
37: |
not really.. maybe just ask more questions to keep people from sleeping :) |
|
38: |
split the 2 hour lecture. |
|
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: |
Didn't use a different book |
|
3: |
Different books seem to have strong and weak points. For introductory course Tannenbaum is good. |
|
4: |
N/A |
|
5: |
N/A |
|
6: |
N/A |
|
7: |
N/A - only used Tannnbaum |
|
8: |
Text
book was never used. I don't like that idea. Students should be
incouraged to read text book. I just bought the text book and never
touched it becuase i thought everything is in slides.... :( |
|
9: |
Used no other textbooks. |
|
10: |
did not have a text |
|
11: |
none |
|
12: |
tannenbaum was fine |
|
13: |
this textbook is good but just wonder if there were more later version |
|
26.
|
Any suggestions for improving tutorials?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
Better explanations, especially in how it relates to exams and assignments |
|
4: |
Decrease
number of tute questions, but make each question more involved in the
topic, e.g. each question involves more concepts and details. |
|
5: |
Fewer questions in some cases. |
|
6: |
Forcing
people to interact probably won't get the best out of students. Having
good, encouraging tutors will.
Although the tutor is there to help us, if s/he can't get students to
participate at least let students separate into groups to discuss
topics. Supervise as required! |
|
7: |
I
heard that one of the tutor bring the labtop to show what the system
call functions and internal of os161 in the tut. hope that every tutor
will be the same |
|
8: |
Let XXX run all of them, he's one of the best tutors I've had. |
|
9: |
Maybe cover some more OS161 code. Tutorials were very good at covering high level theory but not much code. |
|
10: |
More linux kernel code demo |
|
11: |
More time. |
|
12: |
My
tutorials were fine but for the other ones, there should be less
emphasis on participation and more on just going through the questions,
otherwise students become nervous and tend not to show up. |
|
13: |
N/A |
|
14: |
None |
|
15: |
Our
tutor almost demanded participation of us by picking on us and while it
was a bit scary at first, I found that it really kept me awake and up
to date cause I had to prepare myself. |
|
16: |
XXX is the best |
|
17: |
XXX should teach all of the tutorials. |
|
18: |
The tutor has a demoralising demeanour if you give a blunt or wrong answer. They should try to be a bit more supportive. |
|
19: |
The
tutorial questions were generally uploaded pretty late for my class, so
i didn't get sufficient time to review them. This made it a bit
difficult to prepare for them fully and participate. |
|
20: |
already good. |
|
21: |
could maybe have some code to explain assts etc a little more |
|
22: |
good job |
|
23: |
XXX did a good job, XXX was a bit harsh at marking assignments. |
|
24: |
longer tutorials so we can do more questions |
|
25: |
make is longer |
|
26: |
n/a |
|
27: |
no |
|
32.
|
Do you have any specific comments about OS/161
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
Always hoped kevin could give a lecture on what does each file do in os161 folder |
|
4: |
I attended the course becuase i wanted to study linux. But yea its useful to go through OS161 and then dive into Linux. |
|
5: |
I think i found it a bit difficult because i wanted to understand it in entirety so i knew what i was doing but it was hard.
It was different to what i was expecting. |
|
6: |
I
wish there was more explanation regarding the different features of the
code or perhaps that is only because of my lack of knowledge regarding
C. |
|
7: |
It was hard to know how efficient to make our code when there were inefficient parts of OS/161 |
|
8: |
N/A |
|
9: |
N/A |
|
10: |
N/A |
|
11: |
Nope |
|
12: |
Pretty ok. |
|
13: |
Seems pretty neat, presents each subsystem cleanly to the student, with useful abstractions in place. |
|
14: |
Slightly confusing to navigate at first, especially if you don't know how to use 'grep' or 'find'. |
|
15: |
Some comments in os/161 are not clear. |
|
16: |
The OS concepts to sys161 translations were not as direct as i hoped. |
|
17: |
Tough to understand thoroughly. |
|
18: |
confusing |
|
19: |
hard |
|
20: |
i
realise that part of the assignments involved understanding the code
already in place, however a pdf manual or something giving some details
of the processes called and what they do at a higher level would have
made it easier to start |
|
21: |
its
crap and outdated. there are otherways of making us develop practical
skills in os other than assignments and os/161
we also spent more time trying to get darcs working than actually doing
assignments themselves we needd to learn svn.. something practical and
commerical at the same time, there are more chances of us encountering
svn than darcs, so why are we learning it? Hmmm,
OS/161 is actually the most recent teaching OS out there. Real
OSes are too complex to start with. I
made the point at the start of the course - it is not about
system admin. Regarding darcs - exposure to different tools
and ways of managing code broadens your knowledge. |
|
22: |
no |
|
23: |
no |
|
24: |
nope |
|
25: |
separation into code for arch/mips was probably more confusing than useful |
|
36.
|
Any suggestions for improving the assignments?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
- |
|
3: |
Add
peer review to it. My partner contributed about 30% in assignments 1
& 2 and none at all in 3, yet gets the same amount of marks as me.
Definately not fair, since the idea is to develop skills and work
together. His lack of participation affects my final mark. This was a
random partner and it's rather difficult to ask "Are you going to
contribute your weight?" at the onset - they're not going to say "No". |
|
4: |
As I mention about the marking schem earlier |
|
5: |
Assignment spec is not clear sometimes and no answers for the questions in the spec. |
|
6: |
Assignments should be individual. |
|
7: |
I am not sure. For someone who it was very difficult for, I'd say make them easier, but how that can be managed, I do not know. |
|
8: |
I had to do all the work... but not enough time, since i also did 2 other Comp subjects. |
|
9: |
I
suggest not having 'break' between assignment i.e release assignment
one after the other , this will allow more time for each assignment, so
that we could have more time to attend the adv. part |
|
10: |
I
think the assignments themselves were fine but the timing could be
improved. I found that especially with the last assignment if it was
due earlier (released earlier), I could have done a better job because
it was due at the same time as all other assignments from other
subjects. |
|
11: |
Individual Assignments. |
|
12: |
Make group bigger, maybe 3 per group |
|
13: |
Make the specifications a bit more clear. |
|
14: |
Maybe
having a little bit more information on the required output for more
tests, as we got docked marks for the last assignment, but we could do
everything people on the forum could do, so we had no idea what we did
wrong. |
|
15: |
Maybe some (optional) friendly competition (such as seeing whose code is fastest). |
|
16: |
More
guidance so we don't spend 2 weeks trying to figure out where to start.
It would be fine if we didn't have other subjects to worry about. |
|
17: |
More time. |
|
18: |
Now that you've mentioned it, a Java OS would be interesting. |
|
19: |
Personally, I find SVN easier to use - just as a suggestion. |
|
20: |
Please Make them easier or ABOLISH! |
|
21: |
Replace
the system calls assignment with something related to multiprocessors;
everything seems to be going multiprocessor, so it would be a useful
skill for the future. |
|
22: |
a little more guide into them |
|
23: |
it should have a undisclosed survey saying how much effort each partner spend on the assignment to be fair. |
|
24: |
it should have a undisclosed survey saying how much effort each partner spend on the assignment to be fair. |
|
25: |
it should have a undisclosed survey saying how much effort each partner spend on the assignment to be fair. |
|
26: |
it should have a undisclosed survey saying how much effort each partner spend on the assignment to be fair. |
|
27: |
maybe i should have tried harder |
|
28: |
maybe making them just slightly less difficult |
|
29: |
maybe more explaination on how os/161 program internal is will help and show on the terminal will help too
|
|
30: |
no |
|
31: |
no
more darcs please!! and the assignments schedual are hard to fit in
with assignments from other computing subjects some of the deadlines
between subjects were concurrent and it was difficult to keep out of a
deadlocking situation. |
|
32: |
not really know |
|
33: |
perhaps one more. especially since Assignment 0 was a joke |
|
34: |
provide
better test cases, so when submitting the assignment can be reasonably
certain that it'll pass the tests. New code in the real world goes
through iterations.
why is there a performance component to the marker's section as well as
the automated tests? |
|
35: |
some of the requirements, especially for vm, wasnt all that clear. |
|
36: |
when
releasing the assignment, you shouldn't release it on midnight or close
too , since students who want to do 48 hrs complete already lost their
hours and don't expect someone will be awake and wait for the lecturer
to release that late night |
|
The course outline states groups need to contribute equally, and
are assumed to do so unless YOU state otherwise.
groups size in an issue - we actually used to do assignments as
individuals, the switch to pair had a dramatic effect on level of
student support needed via consultations - student in pairs could work
it out together with each others help - instead of getting
stumped. Educationally, a much better result. As a side issue, we
don't really have the man power to mark individual assignments - they
are very time consuming to mark at the level to detail we strive to
look at.
|
38.
|
What were the strong points of COMP3891/9283?
|
|
1: |
Didn't do it. |
|
2: |
Interesting extended lectures |
|
3: |
Interesting extra information and technologies. |
|
4: |
Lectures were good when they were on |
|
5: |
Topics learned are quite useful for most computing degrees. |
|
6: |
learn extra stuff about os is great |
|
7: |
the extra discussions with the researchers was perhaps the best tutorial i can remember. |
|
39.
|
What were the weak points of COMP3891/9283?
|
|
1: |
Didn't do it. |
|
2: |
I
am not very familiar about the assessment system, but here is my
suggestion: Since ext. students dont have normal tutorials , dont have
'free' tutorial participation mark, and are expected to attemped the
adv. part of assignments. I think ext. students's final result needs to
be scaled up as a reward of doing more work than others.
|
|
3: |
Lectures weren't always on |
|
4: |
lack of any real incentive to do the subject over the other one in terms of difficulty |
|
40.
|
Any suggestions for improving COMP3891/9283 Extended OS?
|
|
1: |
Didn't do it. |
|
2: |
More extended lectures |
|
3: |
as above |
|
42.
|
Do you have any particular comments you would like to make about the exam?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
A couple of T/F questions were slightly ambiguous (or I just didn't understand what they were asking) |
|
3: |
Don't put it in the morning |
|
4: |
I felt that the exam concentrated on a small section of the entire course and is not indicative of my OS knowledge. |
|
5: |
I guess exam should be purely true/false or multiple choice. At this level having to write things is not good. |
|
6: |
I hope I did well :-) |
|
7: |
I
think the exam is not cover the main part of course, it just covered
some small part. It's better to make it 3 hours with more questions to
cover more material |
|
8: |
I
would prefer if there was no multiple choice section at all. Sometimes
there are factors which affect the way a question is approached, but
are not given in the question, and multiple choice does not give me the
ability to explain my reasoning, or make assumptions and list them. |
|
9: |
Maybe
provide more in each short answer type question what we are to
write/discuss about. As they all worth a substaintial amount of marks,
but they could be answered with different levels of details. |
|
10: |
Really Tough! |
|
11: |
Should cover more topics. |
|
12: |
Should explain what is needed in the answer more. |
|
13: |
Surprisingly, I enjoyed it. |
|
14: |
Thanks for the sample paper and questions. That is a great help. |
|
15: |
The exam was fair, testing things we learnt with no surprises. |
|
16: |
Was rather straight forward and the materials made available prior to the exam were extremely helpful. |
|
17: |
a lot of content not even refered to |
|
18: |
assignments should play a bigger part as more time is spend in it. |
|
19: |
assignments should play a bigger part as more time is spend in it. |
|
20: |
assignments should play a bigger part as more time is spend in it. |
|
21: |
assignments should play a bigger part as more time is spend in it. |
|
22: |
didn't
cover eenough of the topics... get rid of the negative marking, your
setting marking standards by decades if you have that.. have more
multiple choices. then give more multiple choice questions.
the sample exam does not relect the actual exam which is unique in my
experiences of CSE and unsw |
|
23: |
hope that the true/false question were not negative marking |
|
24: |
i should have studied and it would have been better |
|
25: |
i
thought some of the true/false questions could have been more
definitely defined. I walked away from some of those questions thinking
that alot of them were simply opinions. |
|
26: |
no |
|
27: |
none |
|
28: |
removing negaitive marking and making the true/false questions multiple choice |
|
29: |
the distribution of topics on the exam question are extremely poorly done, according to the material on I/O and security. |
|
30: |
too
many questions are come from the sample, so people can get high mark
even they didn't realy understand the topic if they remember the
question beforehead |
|
31: |
too
much emphasis on coding, could have emphasised more on topics
understanding. we spent enough times on coding with the assignments
already. that was really unexpected. |
|
32: |
tutorial question answers help a lot! |
|
Regarding the exam coverage - it is very hard to cover everything
evenly. The true/false section actually does this, and gives a pretty
reasonable bell curve mark distribution with an average around
13/24. I think this is appropriate as it is the more difficult part of
the exam.
|
46.
|
Any other comments/suggestions that might help us to improve the course in the future?
|
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
-
Perhaps the first assignment should be individual and very hard.
This is to encourage students to drop the course if they are having
difficulty before they become a burden for a group partner.
- Lecture recordings will help with assignment preparation and exam
study, it will only help students gain better understanding of the
material by listening to them again.
It's like watching a movie where you pick up on things you didn't pick
up on the first time. |
|
3: |
Add
peer marking / review for assignments to make it fairer for students
who contribute more for their assignments. I know it's hard when it's 1
student's word vs. another, but I think it's clear when you talk to
them about the code, concepts etc who really did the work. |
|
4: |
All suggestions have been stated above , and I wanna see CSE make os complusory to everyone :D |
|
5: |
Just use cse forum rather than seperate message board |
|
6: |
Less intense assignments. |
|
7: |
More
feedback on assignments, I got marks but few comments.
Do not even consider java. Java is a high level language, with some
nice OO, and horrible everything else. It is so obviously inappropriate
for low level work. No bitfields, no pointers, no unsigned numbers, no
access to anything low level which is absolutely critical for
programming operating systems.
|
|
8: |
No |
|
9: |
No idea bout the cheating bit really, dont know whether there were any in the first place, let alone their punishment. |
|
10: |
The
lecture/tutorial/content side is fine, which doesn't require
improvements. I'd suggest Kevin continue to teach the course because he
really is very confident and he knows his theory. |
|
11: |
do
everything possible to improve lecture attendance rate - really make
the point hard at the beginning - "if you don't attend most days and
don't know OS, quit now because you WILL fail" |
|
12: |
hope that assignment can be made more understandable. |
|
13: |
i have no idea |
|
14: |
i
suggest a midsession instead of 4 assignments. considering many ppl
that have to do OS as core, they will have Comp Arch at the same time
which is almost 3 major assignments as well + midsession. so maybe the
assignments can be decreased to 2 assignments and have a midsession i
believe thats fairer to individuals who are not C hackers. |
|
15: |
no |
|
16: |
not really |
|
48.
|
In
2008, UNSW is moving to a 12-week session from the existing 14 week
session. What would you like to see changed in the current operating
systems course in order to be able to run it in the shorter 12 week
session? |
|
1: |
- |
|
2: |
Carefully
consideration to the amount of time allowed for assignments. This might
mean cutting down some of the requirements, or releasing them earlier.
This is because I believe the amount of time we got was just right. |
|
3: |
Definitely do not remove the comprehensive low-level coverage. I'd suggest shortening the later topics. |
|
4: |
For
the short 12 week session, the assignments will become a little heavy
workload. In order to let the student learn much things from them, I
think the tutor can give more hints to let the student follow the right
way, and save time. |
|
5: |
Forced to choose, I'd say security since it can be taught elsewhere. |
|
6: |
Hmm...maybe cover 1 less topic. Something like security should be dropped as it is quite straightforward |
|
7: |
How on earth do you fit OS into 12 weeks???
Maybe less on the security section? It was interesting but a bit hand-wavy. |
|
8: |
I believe the material is not that much, 12 weeks is OK. |
|
9: |
I don't care, because I'll graduate this session. |
|
10: |
I think the second assignment should be removed. Also, the sections about security could be lessened. |
|
11: |
Just cut out RAID or securrity. |
|
12: |
Less assignments, more weighting on final exam. As such, change the structure of the course a bit.
In terms of preparation of exam: Tutorials > Lectures > Assignments |
|
13: |
Less intense assignments. |
|
14: |
Make some topics optional and provide them as recordings.
They may/may not be assessible. |
|
15: |
Maybe less assignments' workload |
|
16: |
Maybe less details on I/O management. |
|
17: |
Maybe shorter assignments with the same level of complexity. |
|
18: |
More lectures in a week and maybe introduce labs to using OS161 rather than assignments. |
|
19: |
No changes. The course as it is well balanced and good for students interested in the subject. |
|
20: |
No
idea. It's quite jam packed, but all relevant, esp. multiprocessors in
this day and age, but you also need fundamental topics. Good luck
trying to trim it down Kevin! Very good lecturer and very nicely
delivered course! |
|
21: |
None |
|
22: |
Nothing,
sounds really difficult. Wouldnt want to change the content or the
delivery time. Definately wouldnt want to drop any of the assignments.
Good luck figuring it out =D |
|
23: |
One less assignment would help. |
|
24: |
Reduce the introduction to the course part |
|
25: |
Remove
sections on security and RAID. I believe security is covered in detail
in another course? And RAID seems a little irrelevant compared to the
relevance of the rest of the topics covered. |
|
26: |
Remove some lecture materials and 1 assignment |
|
27: |
Run out of timetable lectures :)
Somehow get 14 week sessions back.
Seriously though, maybe drop the introductory and final lectures. |
|
28: |
Skip or shorten some parts such as secure and multiprocess |
|
29: |
TAKE OUT A LOT OF THE MATERIAL! Make the assignemnts easier. |
|
30: |
The
12 week session will be horribly detrimental to EVERYTHING. The only
positive thing is that I only need to put up with it for 1 year. For OS
I think that the material on security could be compressed by a week,
you could give a lot less time for assignment 0, and I guess save time
by giving fewer examples of "Bad Things". |
|
31: |
cut virtual memory assignment and section of the course |
|
32: |
dnt give the memory assignment.. its too hard... i couldnt even understand it to do it :( |
|
33: |
easier assignment, longer exam |
|
34: |
get rid of some of the "side" subjects like RAID |
|
35: |
i feel RAID and security are related, but not core to the course and so could be ommitted. |
|
36: |
less assignments |
|
37: |
less assignments? |
|
38: |
less topics |
|
39: |
make assignments less lengthy, combine all scheduling topics into one |
|
40: |
mmm, yes |
|
41: |
nothing just all faster, start faster thats all |
|
42: |
one less assignment |
|
43: |
one
less assignment if the assignment is still the same people will die
considering people will be having other course too. For other part i
think all still be great |
|
44: |
reduce content - maybe remove the securty lectures |
|
45: |
reduce filesystems & security. they're the less interesting sections. |
|
46: |
scrap asst0. |
|
47: |
security topic should not be covered in detail.
week 1 and week 2 can be combined into 1 lecture. |
|
48: |
shorter version of assignments , else not many students will finish it on time |
|
49: |
smaller assignments |
|
50: |
sure |
|
51: |
yes definately |
|
52: |
yes definately |
|
53: |
yes definately |
|
54: |
yes definately |
|
55: |
yes less bloody assignments!!!!! and kill off harmonic mean.. this is the only subject with it and with no scaling
also some materials needs to be cut and changed in order to fit into 12 weeks. |
|
Yes, I think the move to 12 weeks is detrimental too.
My current vision for next year is likely to be a reduction in
lecture material - yes, RAID and security are likely candidates. Also,
a reduction in the number of assignment - probably just 2 (no freebie
assignment 0 anymore), but I'm still thinking about it.
Regarding darcs - the balance for and against is pretty even. I'm
tempted to switch to svn next year (and make it optional). 12 weeks
does not give one very long to overcome to learning curve of the tools
involved.
A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE WHO RESPONDED. Your input is valued greatly.
|
|