|
|
|
|
| Survey ID | 1097 |
| Title | COMP9242 04 Final |
| Description | Course Evaluation Survey for COMP9242 Advanced Operating Systems. Version for Session 2, 2004. |
| Anonymous | Yes |
| Fill Ratio | 81.8% (18/22) |
| # Filled | 18 |
| # Suspended | 1 |
| # Not Filled | 3 |
|
 indicates required field |
|
|
Your comments will help us to assess and improve our courses, not
only for future generations, but for your further study in CS&E. We
really look at the results and appreciate your feedback!
Note: Please do not enter "no comment" or something similar into
comment boxes. If you don't have anything to say, just leave the box
empty. |
|
|
|
| 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 |
| Gernot Heiser |
12 (66.7%) |
5 (27.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Kevin Elphinstone |
12 (66.7%) |
5 (27.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Sergio Ruocco |
2 (11.1%) |
6 (33.3%) |
9 (50%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Jonathan Shapiro |
7 (38.9%) |
5 (27.8%) |
6 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Course web pages |
3 (16.7%) |
11 (61.1%) |
4 (22.2%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Exam |
7 (38.9%) |
8 (44.4%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Reference material |
4 (22.2%) |
12 (66.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Computing resources |
6 (33.3%) |
9 (50%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| COMP9242 overall |
12 (66.7%) |
4 (22.2%) |
2 (11.1%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
|
|
| 2.
|
Which factors most influenced your decision to enrol in this course?
|
|
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box |
|
|
Interest in operating systems as an area of study
|
14 (77.8%) |
|
|
Chance to build a system
|
15 (83.3%) |
|
|
Chance to get fingers really dirty
|
13 (72.2%) |
|
|
Would like to do some systems research
|
11 (61.1%) |
|
|
Looking for a challenge
|
16 (88.9%) |
|
|
Looking for an easy course
|
0 (0%) |
|
|
Friends told me it was good
|
2 (11.1%) |
|
|
|
| 3.
|
Other factors not mentioned above?
|
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (4 comments) |
|
| 4.
|
Would you recommend this course to another student such as yourself?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
|
Yes
|
18 (100%) |
|
|
No
|
0 (0%) |
|
|
|
| 5.
|
The
course is heavy on design and implementation issues. It also tries to
reamain close to present research issues. What do you think about this?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Too
much |
|
Just
right |
|
Too
little |
| Theory/general principles |
0 (0%) |
2 (11.1%) |
13 (72.2%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
| OS design and implementation |
0 (0%) |
3 (16.7%) |
11 (61.1%) |
4 (22.2%) |
0 (0%) |
| Current research issues |
0 (0%) |
3 (16.7%) |
14 (77.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
| 6.
|
What were the best things about this course?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (15 comments) |
|
| 7.
|
What were the worst things about this course?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (11 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 |
| COMP courses at this level |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (5.6%) |
10 (55.6%) |
7 (38.9%) |
| COMP courses in general |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (22.2%) |
14 (77.8%) |
| Courses in general |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
5 (27.8%) |
13 (72.2%) |
|
|
| 9.
|
How does the overall quality/value of this course compare to other ...
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Among
the best |
|
Average |
|
Among
the worst |
| COMP courses at this level |
14 (77.8%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| COMP courses in general |
16 (88.9%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| courses in general |
16 (88.9%) |
2 (11.1%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
| 10.
|
What
background knowledge do you think you were missing that would have
helped you in this course? Is credit in COMP3231/9201 and a
co-requisite of Computer Architecture a suitable preparation? |
|
Question type : Short-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (13 comments) |
|
|
|
| 11.
|
Please rate the relevance/appropriateness of the lecture topics.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Very
relevant |
|
Average |
|
Inappropriate |
| L4 general and L4 API |
9 (50%) |
7 (38.9%) |
2 (11.1%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Caching & TLBs |
8 (44.4%) |
10 (55.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Computer Security |
5 (27.8%) |
8 (44.4%) |
5 (27.8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Microkernels in general |
5 (27.8%) |
13 (72.2%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Microkernel/L4 implementation |
7 (38.9%) |
8 (44.4%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Real-time systems |
5 (27.8%) |
7 (38.9%) |
4 (22.2%) |
2 (11.1%) |
0 (0%) |
| SMP issues |
4 (22.2%) |
9 (50%) |
5 (27.8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| User-level device drivers |
8 (44.4%) |
9 (50%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Recent papers 1: file-systems etc |
5 (27.8%) |
13 (72.2%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Recent papers 2: threads, intrustions, TinyOS |
6 (33.3%) |
9 (50%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| SASOS & Mungi |
5 (27.8%) |
12 (66.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Local OS research |
9 (50%) |
9 (50%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
| 12.
|
Please tell us how interesting you found the lecture topics.
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Very
interesting |
|
Ok |
|
Boooooring! |
| L4 general and L4 API |
6 (33.3%) |
5 (27.8%) |
5 (27.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Caching & TLBs |
8 (44.4%) |
5 (27.8%) |
5 (27.8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Computer Security |
3 (16.7%) |
5 (27.8%) |
6 (33.3%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Microkernels in general |
5 (27.8%) |
9 (50%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Microkernel/L4 implementation |
7 (38.9%) |
6 (33.3%) |
5 (27.8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Real-time systems |
5 (27.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
4 (22.2%) |
5 (27.8%) |
3 (16.7%) |
| SMP issues |
5 (27.8%) |
4 (22.2%) |
6 (33.3%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
| User-level device drivers |
9 (50%) |
4 (22.2%) |
5 (27.8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Recent papers 1: file-systems etc |
5 (27.8%) |
9 (50%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Recent papers 2: threads, intrustions, TinyOS |
6 (33.3%) |
8 (44.4%) |
4 (22.2%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| SASOS & Mungi |
7 (38.9%) |
7 (38.9%) |
3 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Local OS research |
13 (72.2%) |
3 (16.7%) |
2 (11.1%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
| 13.
|
Several
lectures were dedicated to material presented at recent conferences.
Here we'd like your comments on this feature (rather than the specific
papers presented)
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Good
more |
|
Ok |
|
Bad
less |
| Was this useful? |
8 (44.4%) |
6 (33.3%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Was it interesting? |
9 (50%) |
7 (38.9%) |
2 (11.1%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| Was it the right amount? |
3 (16.7%) |
7 (38.9%) |
7 (38.9%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Was it the right depth? |
4 (22.2%) |
8 (44.4%) |
6 (33.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
| 14.
|
Which material do you think will be most useful to you in the future?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (18 comments) |
|
| 15.
|
Which material, not currently in this course, would you liked to have seen covered?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (8 comments) |
|
| 16.
|
Which of the current topics would you like to see scaled back or excluded?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (8 comments) |
|
|
|
| 17.
|
What factors caused you to attend lectures?
|
|
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box |
|
|
I had enough spare time
|
6 (33.3%) |
|
|
The lectures were too good to miss
|
15 (83.3%) |
|
|
Given the pace and lack of a textbook, I could not afford to miss the lectures
|
7 (38.9%) |
|
|
It was as good a place as any to take a nap
|
3 (16.7%) |
|
|
I wanted to be seen to be there
|
1 (5.6%) |
|
|
None, I skipped most
|
1 (5.6%) |
|
|
|
| 18.
|
What were the reasons for skipping lectures?
|
|
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box |
|
|
Overall workload in this and other courses
|
8 (44.4%) |
|
|
Lecture notes and references cover the material adequately
|
1 (5.6%) |
|
|
Lectures are boring
|
1 (5.6%) |
|
|
There was not enough material to justify attending lectures
|
0 (0%) |
|
|
First half of the course was more interesting than second half
|
2 (11.1%) |
|
|
None, I attended (almost) all
|
11 (61.1%) |
|
|
|
| 19.
|
Any suggestions for improving lectures?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (7 comments) |
|
|
|
| 20.
|
What was the level of difficulty various parts of the project?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Too easy |
|
Just right |
|
Too hard |
| Milestone 0 |
1 (5.6%) |
8 (44.4%) |
7 (38.9%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 1 |
0 (0%) |
6 (33.3%) |
10 (55.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 2 |
1 (5.6%) |
2 (11.1%) |
12 (66.7%) |
2 (11.1%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 3 |
0 (0%) |
2 (11.1%) |
13 (72.2%) |
2 (11.1%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 4 |
1 (5.6%) |
3 (16.7%) |
12 (66.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 5 |
0 (0%) |
1 (5.6%) |
10 (55.6%) |
6 (33.3%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 6 |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
8 (44.4%) |
8 (44.4%) |
2 (11.1%) |
| Milestone 7 |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
10 (55.6%) |
6 (33.3%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 8 |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
10 (55.6%) |
6 (33.3%) |
2 (11.1%) |
| System documentation |
0 (0%) |
2 (11.1%) |
13 (72.2%) |
2 (11.1%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Project overall |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
14 (77.8%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
|
|
| 21.
|
How well was the project specified?
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Very clear |
|
Ok |
|
Confusing |
| Milestone 0 |
5 (27.8%) |
4 (22.2%) |
5 (27.8%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 1 |
5 (27.8%) |
6 (33.3%) |
5 (27.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 2 |
5 (27.8%) |
3 (16.7%) |
8 (44.4%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 3 |
5 (27.8%) |
3 (16.7%) |
6 (33.3%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 4 |
4 (22.2%) |
4 (22.2%) |
6 (33.3%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 5 |
2 (11.1%) |
4 (22.2%) |
6 (33.3%) |
5 (27.8%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 6 |
4 (22.2%) |
3 (16.7%) |
9 (50%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 7 |
4 (22.2%) |
5 (27.8%) |
7 (38.9%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Milestone 8 |
4 (22.2%) |
4 (22.2%) |
7 (38.9%) |
2 (11.1%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| System documentation |
4 (22.2%) |
4 (22.2%) |
6 (33.3%) |
4 (22.2%) |
0 (0%) |
| Project overall |
3 (16.7%) |
5 (27.8%) |
8 (44.4%) |
1 (5.6%) |
1 (5.6%) |
|
|
|
|
| 22.
|
What was the quality of...
|
|
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button |
|
| |
Excellent |
|
Ok |
|
Poor |
| Documentation/reference material |
3 (16.7%) |
8 (44.4%) |
6 (33.3%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Supplied code |
0 (0%) |
9 (50%) |
8 (44.4%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Help/support |
7 (38.9%) |
6 (33.3%) |
4 (22.2%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
| Hardware platform |
6 (33.3%) |
4 (22.2%) |
4 (22.2%) |
3 (16.7%) |
1 (5.6%) |
| Simulator |
3 (16.7%) |
5 (27.8%) |
9 (50%) |
1 (5.6%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
| 23.
|
Any suggestions for improving the project?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (11 comments) |
|
|
|
| 24.
|
Any other comments/suggestions that might help us to improve the course in the future?
|
|
Question type : Long-answer |
|
Answer at the bottom page (9 comments) |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Back to Summary |
| 3.
|
Other factors not mentioned above?
|
|
1: |
My friend needed a partner |
|
2: |
need to invest time in hacking |
|
3: |
needed more comp credit points |
|
4: |
no |
|
| 6.
|
What were the best things about this course?
|
|
1: |
* Interesting lectures
* Fun to build an OS basicly from scratch, and see how it interfaces with the hardware. |
|
2: |
- Writing C codes
- Playing around with L4
- Take home exam |
|
3: |
- students told what to expect and how to be prepared
- excellent project structure |
|
4: |
Being able to get really involved in a "real" system |
|
5: |
Challenging, however it was well structured. One of the best structured courses actually.
Overall I quite liked it, it was hard work, but well worth it (No pain no gain :) ).
Gave me the confidence to work on a large system. I was not sure before, now I know I can do it. So thanks. |
|
6: |
Getting really deep into building the system. Learn a lot more by doing it. |
|
7: |
The assignment |
|
8: |
The
chance to actually do a real project. The quality of the teaching,
having lecturers that actually know what there on about is a refreshing
change. |
|
9: |
The project |
|
10: |
The project... you gotta love spending sleepless hours every day from Week 2 onwards trying to get the OS to run ! |
|
11: |
The room to make design decisions which could either really help or hinder you later is really valuable I feel. |
|
12: |
everything, great fun overall! |
|
13: |
the lab work |
|
14: |
the project and how in the end we (mostly) had a working system |
|
15: |
very interesting lectures. whatever kev and gernot had to talk about was interesting. |
|
| 7.
|
What were the worst things about this course?
|
|
1: |
- Sleepless nights...
- Debugging badly-behaved code
- 3 Hrs lecture, should have spread it evenly throughout the week. Usually lost concentration after the first hour.
- Freezing inside the Asystlab |
|
2: |
- students doing an OS U/G thesis should be forced to do this course prior :) |
|
3: |
Huge workload....
Some people already have L4 experience from their thesis etc. This doesn't seem fair! |
|
4: |
My
partner was too smart for me :) So, I couldn't contribute as much as I
wanted on the project, since he often had done a lot of the work very
quick. |
|
5: |
Not much |
|
6: |
Some of the documentation for the provided code could be improved
there seemed to be a memory leak/bug in lwip
Massive workload |
|
7: |
The exam (I mean the experience, not the appropriateness) |
|
8: |
dodgy mips boxes. whats wrong with my code!!! (much time later) damn... its the box! |
|
9: |
the
project especially realising that it would be good to have nfs work as
a diferent thread. some direction in this area would have been good. |
|
10: |
too much work too little time |
|
11: |
you miss days of sleep >.<... the course ruins your social life. |
|
| 10.
|
What
background knowledge do you think you were missing that would have
helped you in this course? Is credit in COMP3231/9201 and a
co-requisite of Computer Architecture a suitable preparation? |
|
1: |
CR in COMP3231 probably not enough (at least DN?); Comp. Arch not neccessary IMHO; some concurrency background would help |
|
2: |
Comp 3231 is a good prerequisite, comp arch is not needed |
|
3: |
Comp Arch did not cover or did in fact cover incorrectly stuff useful to this course |
|
4: |
Comp.arch would be helpful (Guess I spoil my anonymity if I answer this question with more details :-)) |
|
5: |
I don\ |
|
6: |
I survived without the co-req of Comp Arch (although probably aware of many of its implications already) |
|
7: |
It would be better doing Computer Architecture first |
|
8: |
Okay |
|
9: |
Yep |
|
10: |
You don\ |
|
11: |
comp arch was not really necessary |
|
12: |
feed back for start doing each milestone |
|
13: |
the coreq wasn\ |
|
| 14.
|
Which material do you think will be most useful to you in the future?
|
|
1: |
- Computer security
- User-level device driver
- L4 API
- SASOS Mungi
- SMP issues |
|
2: |
- OS design issues in general, ie those not directly related to microkernels. Eg. caching, security, recent papers |
|
3: |
A
different approach to real-time systems, other than just some
scheduling algorithms static analysis. More applied information about
embedded systems |
|
4: |
Caching
& TLBs Computer Security Microkernels in general [Real-time
systems]
SMP issues Recent papers 2: threads, intrustions, TinyOS I couldn't
attend the RT lecture, so I've only read the slides from it. But a lot
of it was covered in a course I attended earlier. That's why I wrote it
in [] and put Sergio as 'satisfactory' above, because there wasn't any
choice of "don't know"... |
|
5: |
Caching, Microkernel, Drivers |
|
6: |
Experience with building systems upon L4. |
|
7: |
I don\'t think you would sign up for this course if you weren\'t at least a little interested in research. |
|
8: |
I
suspect that the material on current research will prove most useful,
mainly because it gives an idea of how research in this area is
presented/conducted. |
|
9: |
I
think everything is relevant. But I'm not sure if the general tutorial
on the L4 API was really necessary (an explanation on why a particular
API was designed that way, though, would still relevant of course) |
|
10: |
Just having some detailed knowledge about operating systems in general, in particular Mirokernels... |
|
11: |
L4 API |
|
12: |
Microkernels
Caching and TLB |
|
13: |
Project work and overview of research |
|
14: |
Systems programming and C experience. I know every gcc error message now! Data structure design. |
|
15: |
The project. 98 days, 2352 hours, 141120 minutes, 8467200 seconds of non-stop C-coding definitely helps. The L4-kernel as well. |
|
16: |
i think in the future real time systems would be the most valuable to me |
|
17: |
the L4 kernel implementaion |
|
18: |
working with l4, a thorough overall knowledge through lectures. |
|
| 15.
|
Which material, not currently in this course, would you liked to have seen covered?
|
|
1: |
- issues in embedded OS design
- (brief) introduction of institutes that has top OS research
- recent OS research direction (worldwide) |
|
2: |
Fault-tolerance, -prevention and -detection. |
|
3: |
Maybe some Linux internals |
|
4: |
Monolithic OS design, sans IPC. There is a class of embedded applications for which an L4-based system is too large. |
|
5: |
More on real hardware.
The project should cover more on device driver issues. |
|
6: |
Some more SMP and superpage issues. |
|
7: |
more on drivers? |
|
8: |
no |
|
| 16.
|
Which of the current topics would you like to see scaled back or excluded?
|
|
1: |
- L4 API, because we could learn from user manual/reference guide/consults anyway |
|
2: |
A general tutorial on the L4 API was not really interesting. |
|
3: |
Computer security. |
|
4: |
It's all important. |
|
5: |
Real time is not particularly interesting |
|
6: |
The file-system lecture was too long, with too many graphs... |
|
7: |
no |
|
8: |
real time? booooring. |
|
| 19.
|
Any suggestions for improving lectures?
|
|
1: |
Don\'t
have it in that lecture theatre. It has rather poor ventilation. I
attended all the lectures that I could, I had a lot to do this session
and both AOS and computer architecture are time consuming. Overall the
lectures were quite good. |
|
2: |
Free food? |
|
3: |
Get a better room, I swear there was no oxygen in that room |
|
4: |
The lectures got too long sometimes (3hrs straight is too long). Maybe split into a 2hr and 1 hr per week would be better. |
|
5: |
The lectures were great. |
|
6: |
more on practical side. more detail explaination on how they do it |
|
7: |
nah |
|
| 23.
|
Any suggestions for improving the project?
|
|
1: |
*
Make the milestones easier to split between the partners maybe?
* The M0 was a bit confusing because we wasn't informed that the
L4_StringItem feature is not implemented in the L4 version we used. |
|
2: |
-
the arbitary NFS packet size limit is an unneccessary obstacle, could
have told us. But I guess things are like that in real life anyway,
can't expect to be told of all caveats |
|
3: |
Allow another week for code submission. Warmer lab? |
|
4: |
Colour console printing in M3? this would make it look prettier, and better to show off to people... |
|
5: |
Little
bit better documentation on the setup of the lab - I didn\'t use sulima
much as there wasn\'t many docs on what you could actually do with it
(network setup, etc). Likewise being able to sniff the packets from the
u4600 boxes, etc. |
|
6: |
Make sure more of the u4600s work properly, sometimes they didn't seem to be working properly. ie. 2nd serial consoles. |
|
7: |
Providing some clues about using an ethernet sniffer before the filesystem milestone would be very helpful. |
|
8: |
The project was great. Perhaps combining milestion 1 and 2 together and add another different milestone ? |
|
9: |
There really isn't much help provided for the project, but for me personally, that is okay. |
|
10: |
a \"real\" device driver would have been interesting. something more interesting than clock. |
|
11: |
more explanation of what is happening |
|
| 24.
|
Any other comments/suggestions that might help us to improve the course in the future?
|
|
1: |
-
turn down the air con in asyst lab
- explore the possibility of helping students bridge AOS with potential
thesis topic. Help them relate thesis topics with project/lecture
material |
|
2: |
Aos
compare to other computer course is like a quantum leap to me, i
suggest more feedback on each milestone is needed for future student,
as they need to adopted to the difficulty, the most frustrated part of
this course is the spec doesn't explain enough what u need to do |
|
3: |
Go easy on future AdvOs students... give them free coffee in the lectures... they really need it... |
|
4: |
Great course, glad to have done it |
|
5: |
I
don\'t think comp arch is really necessary, it didn\'t help me at all.
In the future, I would like to see the course scaled up from the
current 6 units, with perhaps lecture / project work scaled up too
accordingly.
The guest lectures were nice. Shap\'s talk was interesting.
Get rid of the co-requisite on comp arch. |
|
6: |
Keep up the good work! |
|
7: |
This
is a really great course - I really enjoyed it. It's the hardest course
I have ever taken, but also the most rewarding. I think it must be the
toughest course offered in CSE. |
|
8: |
Yuck.. I completed the survey once, but it got lost when I pushed the 'Submit' button :/
But thanks for an interesting course!! |
|
9: |
linux
knowledge was kinda needed for one of the exam papers. some students
may have struggled with this is they aren\'t that familar. |
|
|
|
|