Slashdot Mirror

It does. It's called TECO.

Indeed. Boeing actually tested the waters by announcing a supersonic jetliner that would have a reduced sonic boom. The problem was that there was almost no interest in the project.

Can you find prior art? A published description of using a single DNS wildcard for user's subdomains prior to 8/99?

So the technology was patented or just the method? The technology is described here: RFC1034 or RFC1035

So then we need an implementation that can take advantage of multiple subdomains using a wildcard, prior to 1999. This will show it's possible to do what the patent describes without inventing new technololgy /writing new software:

Apache mod_rewrite
So in 1997 it was definitely possible.

So we need someone actually doing it, so the method wasn't invented by them either (I've only done a quick search on google here)
These two links: Google Group, and http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/417/1998/2/50 /2275350/. So there you go, prior art, or at least close enough to prior art. The can't patent this technology or idea. The best they could do would be to perhaps claim copyright on a particular implementation, but I doubt that would hold up either.

link 1

link 2

Unless somebody else used the same name of course, but this does lend some credibility to his claims

FreeBSD Security Advisory

FreeBSD Advisory

Another FreeBSD Advisory (note comments)

OpenBSD Advisory

Yes, the server at shop.sco.com is poor, tortured and somewhat out of date. SCO doesn't seem like a technically apt software company. I really wish people gnu the truth of this matter.

No kidding. And out of those 20, 19 will be to Geocrawler in all its cruddy non-threaded, un-intuitive glory, meaning that I usually revert to searching groups.google.com for the same post so that I can read it in context.

of course i meant
this
and this

of course dont forget this:

Click here
compared to this: click here

There's nothing either inaccurate or misleading about it. RedHat's entire business model is built on repacking other peoples work. If they want to be taken as a serious software company they'll have to do more than make small (relatively speaking) contributions.

Why bother? People went to distributions so that they didn't have to build a system on their own.

Why not make the binary packages available? It's not as if it requires additional work. They're already doing it for themselves. Why not distribute those binaries to mirror sites? Simple: RedHat is now a corporation and the need to generate profits goes against the OpenSource ideal.

"Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information as to whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code in question or otherwise made it available to the public, SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution."

Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.

SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?

Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:

"Here is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit: 'I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it.'

"And here he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:

"'I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved :)

"'First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team.'

"He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.

"Here is the press release when SCO in 2002 released 'SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family' and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page lists JFS as one of its features. . . .

"They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed as making five contributions to the kernel."

And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h

"Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information as to whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code in question or otherwise made it available to the public, SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution."

Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.

SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?

Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:

"Here is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit: 'I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it.'

"And here he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:

"'I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved :)

"'First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team.'

"He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.

"Here is the press release when SCO in 2002 released 'SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family' and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page lists JFS as one of its features. . . .

"They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed as making five contributions to the kernel."

And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h

Here, with google you can find these... (keyword: Dion L. Johnson II)

here,
there,
and some more.

I wonder what Mr. Johnson's opinion is about SCO case.

Don't get your hopes up too much. I'd imagine their first implementation will suck. That's partially based on my distrust of the MySQL developers' abilities and partially based on a few comments I saw in the documentation you linked to:

Starting with version 4.1, MySQL supports all subquery forms and operations which the SQL standard requires, as well as a few features which are MySQL-specific (from here)

I'm suspicious of their MySQL-specific features. In the past, many MySQL-specific features have been dumb. I couldn't find specific mention of these ones, but I bet they're more of the same.

MySQL's unofficial recommendation is: avoid correlation because it makes your queries look more complex, and run more slowly. ( from this page)

Ugh! I use correlated subqueries all the time on Oracle and PostgreSQL with no performance problems. I'd guess from their comment that they're firing the subquery on every row of the outer query (which would run very slowly indeed). I think real databases replace these with equivalent but dramatically more efficient forms. (Like an "exists" subquery becoming another join condition and a distinct. Or a "not exists" subquery becoming a left join checking for nulls. Or however they implement it - it doesn't really matter; I type in something that is easy for me to understand/verify is correct, and they worry about making it perform well.

The PostgreSQL people were thinking about this sort of thing in 1997. And hell, they just now got IN/NOT IN to have good performance.[*] And they're good at this sort of thing. I don't have a lot of faith in the MySQL people.

ERROR 1235 (ER_NOT_SUPPORTED_YET)
SQLSTATE = 42000
Message = "This version of MySQL doesn't yet support 'LIMIT & IN/ALL/ANY/SOME subquery'"
(from here)

So it's obviously not a complete implementation.

[*] - They probably could have gotten it to work a while ago but didn't because there was a workaround. (IN/NOT IN doesn't do anything EXISTS/NOT EXISTS can't, although IN/NOT IN is more terse.) Still, it shows you that there are likely to be a lot of gotchas in a new implementation.

Absolutely not! That would be totally unprecedented!

Quite right.

Try this then.

Why you don't want to run daemontools, I don't know. I'm trying to move my stuff over to it. It's an absolutely great way to start up daemons, and I wish it were included by default in slackware.

The poster states the 'theft' is in the 2.0.36 kernel. Should be easy to check
for you.

As for the Virgin incedent I found no info on that

Here. let me help you, as you seem to need handholding.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U
TF-8&oe=U TF-8&q=virgin+webplayer+linux+gpl+violati on&btnG=Google+Search
And the result:
http://ww
w.geocrawler.com/archives/3/35/2000/8/1 900/4147292 /

I don't know why this troll was modded
Perhaps because its not a troll, but a simple pointing out of a fact or 2? Loo
ks like other slashdot readers a brigher bulbs in the string than you.

Um, no, you're either clueless or astro-turfing. IE skips part of the TCP/IP handshaking when connecting to any web server on the off-chance it's a IIS server which is also contains this "feature". So, it wastes time when the other server isn't running IIS because it has to wait for the connection to time out (if the OS on the other end doesn't send a RST back).

Linkage: here .

Looking at various comparisons over the last few months it looks as though Java runs faster under linux, even using linux emulation under FreeBSD is quicker than the native JVM.

I hope this brings FreeBSD up to speed.

Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO's code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions (in German).
http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774& t=1716
Thanks to Robert Taylor this English translation of the posting

... The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments...

This raises more interesting questions. Since the SMP scheduler in question was specifically written directly for Linux kernel, and both Caldera/SCO employees only added patches, does it not seem more likely that if there is common source and comment then it is likely that the source in question was copied from GPL'ed Linux source to The SCO Groups own Unix?

The stuff about the $400 card is just an example for X. The actual card I have is a matrox g450 that doesn't have 3d acceleration support when xinerama is enabled. Funny. I don't have any problem running dual heads and then firing up Unreal, so 3d acceleration in this mode is supported in hardware. Also when I got the card, I had to use Matrox's drivers because the Free drivers didn't support xinerama AT ALL. Eventually they did, but it was buggy as hell. I don't think TV out is supported by the Free drivers at all.

The rant I posted on my website was in response to the fact that I had to PATCH THE KERNEL in order to get my Sony DSC-F707 camera to be supported as a usb storage device. (You change an hex number in 'unusual_devs.h'.) That is the power of linux. Oops. Free Software and GNU/Linux.

Fuck downloading windows drivers. I'm scouring google and PATCHING MY KERNEL! Oooo boy!

Not so!

The FSF got its start by selling tapes of the Emacs source code and precompiled binaries! You could also get GCC+binutils+stuff tapes and X11R4 stuff.

They were $150+ a pop for a while.

JavaScript nee ECMAScript became standard-ish around the 3rd generation browsers.

Well, download: IE3+, Netscape3+, Opera3+, Konkeror1+. They all have JavaScript.

Uh huh. Remember that if I tell you something, you don't need to tell me back. Download IE2 and Netscape2; you can still get Shockwave.

Natively. It is not an option of the installer, you just can't have one of these browsers without JavaScript.

Flash is in all of the installers too. And javascript can be turned off. This is a nonissue.

Since Flash doesn't even run on all of them,

Flash on Opera, Flash on Konqueror. So, what again? Or do you think it fails to run in IE or Netscape?

I don't know how you can find that Flash has a better deployment than JavaScript.

As I already told you, because Shockwave and Flash are circa 2nd generation browsers and Moreover, in legacy browsers, Javascript has notorious implementation problems . Moreover, any browser which can pick up netscape plugins - of which there are quite a few - can pick up flash; none of them can pick up exetrnal JS/ECMAS implementations. And if a browser doesn't have one, it doesn't have both, in general (lately, 6th gen browsers have begun to strip the machine down, so this is becoming less true. Still.)

For the sake of the example, let's focus on 99.5% of the browsers which are: Netscape4+, Opera5+, IE4+ and Konqueror

I can't understand this. They're not 99.5% of the user base, they're not 99.5% of the broswer list by a longshot.

Flash can run on any browser, if you choose to install it, while JavaScript runs natively on every one of them.

That said, Flash is enabled in essentially every deployment, whereas as any web master has learned the hard way, JavaScript is oftentimes turned off. Moreover, there are many legacy browsers which support shockwave, flash, or futuresplash which don't support JavaScript.

Ah, but here's the killer, which I also already told you: Gen 3 browsers won't help. Their JS/ECMAS implementations don't touch the DOM, so you can't use them to write VML or SVG.

Moreover, VML has no chance of making it into other browsers. If you're going to use a standard, use a W3C standard like SVG.

You just can't disable it or 50% of the websites out there doesn't work anymore,

Nonetheless, many people do indeed have it disabled, just like cookies. You strike me as the sort of person that used the marquee tag and got angry when some of the web didn't use IE.

so you re-enable it very quickly.

You'll find that most people which go to the effort of turning off parts of their browser aren't clueless and are aware of the ramifications of their actions. That is to say, "nuh-uh."

So I hope the JavaScript question is settled. And please, even with the bugs that are out there, the common denominator of all the JavaScript engine deployed is still a good enough language to animate a bar/pie chart.

When you're writing browser select clauses for your DOM touching, just remember, someone warned you.

Now for VML, the computation is simple:
Netscape4+: 2%
Opera5+: 1.5%
Konqueror: ??% (most likely below 1)
IE4: 0.5%
Leaves the winner: IE5+: 94%

Something tells me you made these numbers up. For example, this shows netscape holding about 11% of the market (IE holds 84; other parties, 5.)

Even so, there's something mildly infuriating about people which rebuke perfectly good cross platform standards just because 5% of the market can't see them. What's wrong with using the standards that get to everyone? Why do you feed Microsloth's market dom

Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor

Christoph Hellwig has been, according to this web page, "in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree". The page also mentions another fascinating piece of news, that he worked for Caldera for at least part of the time he was making those kernel contributions:

"After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution."

In 2002, he offered a paper on "Linux-ABI: Support for Non-native Applications" which is described like this:

"The Linux-ABI project is a modification to the Linux 2.4 kernel that allows Linux to support binaries compiled for non-Linux operating systems such as SCO OpenServer or Sun Solaris."

Back in 2002, he was described, in connection with his appearance at the Ottawa 2002 Linux Symposium, like this:

"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."

So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:

"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH".

He used the email address hch at bsdonline.org sometimes too, and here you can see some of his Linux-abi contributions. Here are some of his contributions to JFS, Journaled File System. Yes, that JFS. Here he is credited as sysvfs maintainer, and he confirms it in this email, writing, "I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it."

Here is a list of the operating systems that use or can handle the file system sysvfs:

"sysvfs: UNIX System V; SCO, Xenix, Coherent e21
"operating systems that can handle sysvfs: FreeBSD (rw), LINUX (R), SCO (NRWF)"

Here's a page listing by author (alphabetically by first name), with his emails to linux-kernel in June 2003, so he is still contributing.

Here he is listed on the Change log for patch v2.4.17. Here he tells Andrew Morton in 2002 that he will

The reason given there for not including it is lack of time to integrate with the installer. BS or the truth? You decide

The actual reason is that, as mentioned before, ReiserFS is not supported by Red Hat. Not that they can't integrate it with the installer - after all, the XFS team has been shipping their modified installer with XFS support for ages; adding a filesystem to the installer can't be that hard.

Read about it here: matlab for linux and freebsd

That being said, Matlab is very overpriced when stuff like Octave is available. $5K is a lot to pay for a pretty font or two and GUI to support greenhorns.

Nosrc RPMS are those SRPMS of which not all sources are present in the SRPM, some are to be downloaded from a ``well-known'' website. For more info., see this page

Well if you look at the code submitter for the Read-Copy Update infrastructure on the Kernel mailout it can be seen that the code was submitted by Dipankar Sarma. Doing a quick google search at can be seen that Sarma knows his stuff about RCU's and has worked with them before. I can not seem to find if he works at IBM or not but that is just somethign I noticed.

"The month of June is show-and-tell time," McBride said. "Everybody's been clamoring for the code...and we're going to show hundreds of lines of code."

Ok so we've got our hypothetical 5000 lines of offending code. Now lets count the number of lines in every .c file in linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 ...

TMPFILE=`mktemp /tmp/$0.XXXXXXX` for i in $(for i in $(for i in $(find ./|grep "\.c"|grep -v Documentation);do cat $i|wc -l;done);do echo $i;done);do echo -n $i+>>${TMPFILE};done;echo "0">>${TMPFILE};echo quit>>${TMPFILE};bc -q ${TMPFILE};rm ${TMPFILE}

Which gives us 3332935 (including comments but hey we're lazy).

And this seems reasonable give that according to this link which shows ~1.8 million for a 2.2 kernel so yeah hey what's another 1.5 million between friends? (think of all the new hardware support)

Ok so we've got our probably bogus number of ~3.3 million lines of code. Remember N? Come on you can do the next step its fun!

5000 / 3332935 == 0.0015% and lets be super generous and assume comments make up 40% of our line count...

5000 / 1999761 == 0.0025%

I wonder what the statistical liklihood of having similiar blocks of code of some signifigant size that happen to be the same (excluding format and variable differences). I mean there's only so many ways one can _intelligently_ code a given function

Given those kind of percentages I doubt a judge or jury could be convinced of any copyright infringement of any signifigance. It'd be kind like trying to sue a competing encyclopedia company for swiping that one entry in the "P" volume on "Petards" ("hoisting", "petard", look it up) from you and demanding millions of dollars in compensation for this plagerism (ok so this analogy sucks but I had petards on my mind so...)

Snort can be run in a chroot jail, with some caveats.

Things linked to from the article are the use of SCO shared libraries and IBCS2 to:

Run Progress 8 under Linux
and Run versions of WordPerfect under Linux

Never mind that you might have been converting your machine from SCO Unixware to Linux and had a bona fide copy and wanted to run certain software, these articles are clear signs of "theft" dontchaknow...

Pray tell me, what pit have you been hiding in since 2001?
DECSS ring a bell? how about this article? or this censorware article? or even just a simple ping? the DMCA, Section 1201 (a)(1) prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work.

If you copyrite a image and place it on your website, and offer to sell this image, then state that anyone who pays for the image can go to the IP address of the website instead of it's URL and be able to download the image, and then someone runs a tracert or DNS query against your URL to discover the IP, that person is in violation of the DMCA.

It's truly pathetic, Only Freenet can save us at this point. or a revolution, I suppose.

VST instruments I'm not sure about, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could do the same trick as for VST plugins.

Too bad there are no specs for the CreamWare cards, but I guess binary only drivers are better than none. Open hardware is clearly going to be another days battle.

I'm not sure if this has been addressed in 2.5 yet, so apologies if it has.

Many thanks to Andrew for all his work, especially with ext2/ext3 (but much more I know). I'd like him to consider making sure that direct IO is properly working in 2.5 (and 2.4 for that matter). In particular ;

a) Support in ext3.

He posted a patch to the kernel list that added this, which I tested and it seems to work. It would be good if this is in the 2.4 and 2.6 kernel.

http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=932 9947&list=7493

b) Correct functionality for non-4K multiple reads in ext2/ext3

i.e. less than 4K read as a remainder at the end of file. Again, Andrew posted a patch for this on the kernel list, and it seems to work. This is relevant for a) as well it seems.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104 515769523283&w=2

Apart from that, all the stuff we need to make sure we can read and write as fast as possible to disk or RAID would be great. I need at least 300 MB/sec (PCI-X, U320 SCSI bus x2) but the more the better :-)

Keep up the great work!

The cheapo VPN solution that springs to mind in this case is something like running PPPoE on the ssh connection like this.

I haven't done this, so I don't know whether this is easy or hard to setup. Someone here must know.

There's a workaround for bypassing the 'eprom' password on Sparcs (actually it's NVRAM with a battery built into the module). You remove the NVRAM chip from it's socket, boot up the system to the OK prompt, then plug the chip in live, with the system running, and make your security changes. I have successfully done this on SparcStations that I bought on eBay that had a password. It's slightly risky, but on older Sparc boxes (all those nice classic SparcStations) it would be NUTS to have to buy new NVRAMs.

The technique is documented here. And here. And here too.

There's also a technique to tack on a replacement external battery on those NVRAMs. There's no reason to EVER buy a new one for non-critical boxes. Most of my older Sparc boxes have had that surgery performed on their NVRAM chips (involves actual physical surgery on the module) and live happily powered by a pair of AAA cells.

...and you won't be the last.

On Linux systems, threads are essentially visible as separate processes to many user-space applications. This means that process X, using 10MB of memory with 5 threads sharing that same 10MB will appear to consume 50MB (though it is not). Only count one process, not all of them (this is called shared memory).

Here is some info about installing Debian on this machine. You need the old Mac utility "Boot Variables" to get things set up without access to OF. It's a pain but it looks like it has been done. Back in the day I had linuxppc running on a UMAX J700 but I don't think that is an APUS system so it wasn't as big a nightmare. This information will be helpful as well identifying quirks of your machine.

Of course, the software architects will say "Moving menus (or other widgets) into the X protocol violates layering. Those higher-level objects belong in toolkit libraries."

And really, "extend X" can be interpreted as either a protocol extension, or just building a feature in a library on top of it. The effect can be the same, if the toolkit is pervasive enough to be usually available (but no current toolkit is that dominant). And if an extension were made, the application programers would still have use toolkit functions to set up menus- because if the Xserver doesn't allow that extension, somebody's still got to draw a menu on top of the window.

So, the 2 possible implementations: "an X-protocol extension which might be present, but can also be emulated by the toolkit" or "a helper program which might be running, but can also be emulated by the toolkit" are fairly equivalent. Both of them could let menus be positioned in theme-specific ways, and neither would break the applications if it isn't present.

But a helper program has a big advantage over a protocol extension: You can actually install it without modifying the Xserver. That means it can work with closed-source Xservers that can't be modified, or on desktop systems whose software you don't want to alter. In fact, the toolkit could even execute the helper-program if it can't find one running. Since the toolkit can be linked right into the apps that need it, deployment concerns are even less important.

In fact, some toolkits do this, when in conjunction with their own window-manager/control panel. (I'm sure you already knew that.) I'm only aware of that being done in conjunction with helper-programs that are much more bloated than a simple menu-drawer, though.
(Good discussion of a few of the many concerns here).

The great part is that this technology is so transparent, so clean, that I imagine it should be fairly simple to re-implement as OSS. Perhaps this is what the Tapestry project is trying to do...

(The latter even appears to have been backported to OS X.)

Anyone experienced with them?

Check out this link (and the followups to it)

Another thing we should do is add the regular user created during installation to the 'audio' and 'video' groups, along with installing sudo and setting them up with it by default. Along those lines, it would be good to configure applications such as cd-recording apps to use gnome-sudo. Anyways, that's all just off the top of my head.

here's how to change it for nt/2000
windows2000faq
-advanced tab in adapter properties

linux
eepro100 list
-ifconfig eth0 hwaddr ether 00:11:22:33:44:55

this is exactly why microsoft's registration process uses a lot more than just the mac address.

erghhh... hit me if I am blatantly off, but the famed internet explorer program is named IEXPLORE.EXE. The explorer.exe you refer to is the Windows explorer, or otherwise known as the one and only thing that holds the monstrosity together (the GUI, the Windows "shell" as they called it in system.ini). And if I remember correctly, that has been there since the Windows 95 days, when they added this thing called "Explore your computer"/"Windows Explorer" to the system.

I think with W2K, it depends lots on what your computer is aimed for doing. Right now my 192Mb 600MHz ThinkPad died to Daemon, I am running W2K on a 600MHz 64Mb Dell Inspiron, and have only occasional trouble with slowness. Right now my memory usages are (in order, the top five):
phoenix.exe with 16208k
IEXPLORE.exe with 11320k
wmplayer.exe with 4892k
explorer.exe with 3744k
taskmgr.exe with 2336k
(now why would taskmgr take that much memory is beyond me)

The only time I can remember this machine being painfully slow is when I wake it up every morning from hibernation, when it tries to spin up, and load everything into memory from disk again.

However, I do use to run a 166Mhz 64Mb (later 96Mb) Desktop with Windows 2000 at home. My theory is that Microsoft is absolutely correct in the minimum requirements for running the OS. But when they say minimum, they mean OS only. Nothing else. Once you start tagging on stuff like AOL, Microsoft Office, Corel Draw, etc, and try to run them at the same time, the system likes to just hang and ignore you. Ever since I have gotten my sisters hooked on TeX for word processing, and that really improved the memory usage on the desktop system at home.

So my suggestion is simple. Since you have a close to minimum machine, you should try to only run close to minimum apps. My friend ran Mandrake 8 on his 233Mhz 192Mb ran desktop. And Mozilla slows down X considerably in the pre-1 releases. (It doesn't help with his habit of hosting a NFS search engine, listening to music, browsing the web, while compiling the kernel at the same time q= ). The important thing is choice. You can choose to run simple and memory non-extensive programs in Linux, you also can choose to do so in Windows 2000, for example, you can use Mozilla or lynx in Windows if you choose (and save 10M ram from IEXPLORE), and Microsoft Office has always been less than necessary, and I am sure you can find another Office implementation with a much smaller footprint (or just use TeX like we normal people do q= )

W
--
Werd Smiler

Here's where the thread starts (it's hard to follow, Geocrawler's threading sucks). The page where the thread starts is here. It does seem a little odd at first, but keep reading, it's all in there. The post about the WebObjects guy is here. Of course, you can make what you like of these posts, but when you read the entire discussion from beginning to end, it appears to be credible (the fact that Wagner was also around for quite some time before and after the incident, and made some contributions to the project, also lend some legitimacy to the whole affair).

But the code is also apples copyrighted code.

No proprietary code is used in GNUstep or its applications; so we're safe there.

I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.

Well, the API spec is "open" (Sun and NeXT released it on October 19, 1994). The GNUstep project clean-roomed everything from that "open" spec. Thus the conclusion that the project is on solid ground.

I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that.

Well, one way they could help is to make sure that their applications are portable. This does take a little effort, however, and people have said that they don't want to even look at the project unless porting is effortless--and yet, they aren't willing to assist in *making* it effortless. I don't know how accurate that assessment is.

PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable

Well, it's already in a fully useful state. Applications have been written with it, and they work well; for instance, GNUmail is nice, works extremely well, and runs on OS X as well as GNUstep platforms. There are quite a few other applications already (check out the GNUstep community site). We even have usable Interface Builder and Project Builder clones.

(Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)

I understand. But the problem is, it can be a difficult job to port later if you don't take some considerations early on in the project. For instance, you can't use QuickTime because of a Sorensen patent--there's not much we can do about that one. But there are some newer clsses in Mac OS X that aren't implemented yet in GNUstep. We need people interested enough to implement, test, or fix them. That means OS X developers, mostly. And they're not interested, as noted before. :-)

I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows

NeXT produced Yellow-Box, which was just that. There was a lot of hope that Apple would continue to offer it when they bought NeXT. There were a lot of disappointed OpenStep developers when the decision was made to drop it. It's pretty well established that Apple's main source of revenue is hardware. There's been speculation that they might--*might*--consider porting the OS to x86 (most of the work was done back in the NeXT days) but simply offering people the possibility of using the development environment to write Windows applications is definitely not in their best interest.

Great to hear that you're interested in GNUstep, though. We need all the help we can get, even if it's just allowing the porting of applications. The Cocoa APIs and dev tools are very nice, and would make UNIX development much more fun and productive.

Here's where the thread starts (it's hard to follow, Geocrawler's threading sucks). The page where the thread starts is here. It does seem a little odd at first, but keep reading, it's all in there. The post about the WebObjects guy is here. Of course, you can make what you like of these posts, but when you read the entire discussion from beginning to end, it appears to be credible (the fact that Wagner was also around for quite some time before and after the incident, and made some contributions to the project, also lend some legitimacy to the whole affair).

But the code is also apples copyrighted code.

No proprietary code is used in GNUstep or its applications; so we're safe there.

I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.

Well, the API spec is "open" (Sun and NeXT released it on October 19, 1994). The GNUstep project clean-roomed everything from that "open" spec. Thus the conclusion that the project is on solid ground.

I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that.

Well, one way they could help is to make sure that their applications are portable. This does take a little effort, however, and people have said that they don't want to even look at the project unless porting is effortless--and yet, they aren't willing to assist in *making* it effortless. I don't know how accurate that assessment is.

PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable

Well, it's already in a fully useful state. Applications have been written with it, and they work well; for instance, GNUmail is nice, works extremely well, and runs on OS X as well as GNUstep platforms. There are quite a few other applications already (check out the GNUstep community site). We even have usable Interface Builder and Project Builder clones.

(Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)

I understand. But the problem is, it can be a difficult job to port later if you don't take some considerations early on in the project. For instance, you can't use QuickTime because of a Sorensen patent--there's not much we can do about that one. But there are some newer clsses in Mac OS X that aren't implemented yet in GNUstep. We need people interested enough to implement, test, or fix them. That means OS X developers, mostly. And they're not interested, as noted before. :-)

I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows

NeXT produced Yellow-Box, which was just that. There was a lot of hope that Apple would continue to offer it when they bought NeXT. There were a lot of disappointed OpenStep developers when the decision was made to drop it. It's pretty well established that Apple's main source of revenue is hardware. There's been speculation that they might--*might*--consider porting the OS to x86 (most of the work was done back in the NeXT days) but simply offering people the possibility of using the development environment to write Windows applications is definitely not in their best interest.

Great to hear that you're interested in GNUstep, though. We need all the help we can get, even if it's just allowing the porting of applications. The Cocoa APIs and dev tools are very nice, and would make UNIX development much more fun and productive.

Here's where the thread starts (it's hard to follow, Geocrawler's threading sucks). The page where the thread starts is here. It does seem a little odd at first, but keep reading, it's all in there. The post about the WebObjects guy is here. Of course, you can make what you like of these posts, but when you read the entire discussion from beginning to end, it appears to be credible (the fact that Wagner was also around for quite some time before and after the incident, and made some contributions to the project, also lend some legitimacy to the whole affair).

But the code is also apples copyrighted code.

No proprietary code is used in GNUstep or its applications; so we're safe there.

I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.

Well, the API spec is "open" (Sun and NeXT released it on October 19, 1994). The GNUstep project clean-roomed everything from that "open" spec. Thus the conclusion that the project is on solid ground.

I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that.

Well, one way they could help is to make sure that their applications are portable. This does take a little effort, however, and people have said that they don't want to even look at the project unless porting is effortless--and yet, they aren't willing to assist in *making* it effortless. I don't know how accurate that assessment is.

PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable

Well, it's already in a fully useful state. Applications have been written with it, and they work well; for instance, GNUmail is nice, works extremely well, and runs on OS X as well as GNUstep platforms. There are quite a few other applications already (check out the GNUstep community site). We even have usable Interface Builder and Project Builder clones.

(Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)

I understand. But the problem is, it can be a difficult job to port later if you don't take some considerations early on in the project. For instance, you can't use QuickTime because of a Sorensen patent--there's not much we can do about that one. But there are some newer clsses in Mac OS X that aren't implemented yet in GNUstep. We need people interested enough to implement, test, or fix them. That means OS X developers, mostly. And they're not interested, as noted before. :-)

I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows

NeXT produced Yellow-Box, which was just that. There was a lot of hope that Apple would continue to offer it when they bought NeXT. There were a lot of disappointed OpenStep developers when the decision was made to drop it. It's pretty well established that Apple's main source of revenue is hardware. There's been speculation that they might--*might*--consider porting the OS to x86 (most of the work was done back in the NeXT days) but simply offering people the possibility of using the development environment to write Windows applications is definitely not in their best interest.

Great to hear that you're interested in GNUstep, though. We need all the help we can get, even if it's just allowing the porting of applications. The Cocoa APIs and dev tools are very nice, and would make UNIX development much more fun and productive.

Wrong, Journaling filesystems insure a sane metadata state, they do nothing to protect data.

Er, you're wrong too. It depends on the FS and on the options you give it. Ext3, for instance can be told to journal file data as well as meta-data (using the journal=data option), but it's a pretty big performance hit.

links: RedHat, LinuxWorld and LKML.

Here is another one

FYI, according to the OpenBSD site it's "Theo de Raadt", not "Theo DeRaadt".

Don't believe me? Check this user's posting history, Theo's personal homepage, interviews, or mailing list posts.