Slashdot Mirror

Uhhh... yeah. So I submitted this exact same story a few days ago when the original article appeared on IDG.net . It was rejected.

Guess I should go for CNN as the authoritative recycler of science content next time instead of getting it from the source. After all, we all know how CNN is always right. :/

Arbitrary decisions aside, at least this is some encouragement that the irresistable force of Moore's Law won't meet the immovable object of the physical limits of silicon, etc and our universe will continue to exist!

Any day now you can expect Steve Mills from IBM to just come out and say that AIX5L is the end of the road and that after that they'll bolt their kernel (largely MACH) onto Linux

Funny you should mention that because earlier this week, IBM said it would "happily" ditch AIX for Linux once Linux "matures". Of course, this is also a dig on Linux's stability. Source: "When Linux grows up, IBM glad to boot AIX"

IDG has a good writeup including info from the Boston protests here.

http://www.idg.net/ic_660027_1794_9-10000.html for the link paranoid.

No silly reg required, so I won't bother to quote the whole article here.

Boston write-up and pictures, Wired article on the protests, On-line petition, IDG story, CNN copy of the original Reuters story (better late than never!), ironic page on the AAP website (the AAP issued a press release defending Adobe and the DMCA).

All the news as of late, all the apparant holes popping up in the product activation, and the latest - a Senator challenging Microsoft's media player.

Not only that, but with respected tech sites churning out articles like this, a lot of people are bound to be turned off.

In my opinion, (yea, I know - dangerous) Microsoft tried too many tricks too soon. In the next year or so is when linux is really going to have a chance to break out and rain down upon the masses. I'm not a linux zealot, but I just see this as a real oppurtunity for the OS to really get out there and make itself known to even the most casual computer user. Especially with backing from IBM...I would IBM probably has a pretty good hate on for Bill and m$ for the whole OS/2 deal years back.

Hey, that's just my .03, flame away!

Caino

Don't touch my .sig there!

Microsoft's investment in Rogers was almost two years ago so I really don't see what part if any that plays in the fact that Rogers just came out with a Linux box. Just a point of clarification because the implication seems to be that Microsoft just bought in to thwart this Linux initiative, when in reality that is old news.

This does look fascinating, although really it was inevitable. Right now I have a @Home feed and a digital feed to my settop box (not WebTV but rather just digital TV) so making a more intelligent box makes sense. However I think there's a huge overemphasis on the Linux aspect of this: It's a tool that facilitates a means, and many different tools could achieve the same thing.

MSNBC

More MSNBC

ZDnet

Cancerpage.com

More recent idg.net story supposedly proving the link

One relating to cell towers which mentions the phones

Ok, there's LOT's of studies going on, and most of them are highly political in my opinion.

Most of them also seem to ignore the fact that RF is RF. Changing what "mode" it's in isn't going to change the physical nature of the signal. All digital cell phones do is use a a/d convertor to convert your voice to a digital form, then it's serialized into a form that can be transmitted on a antenna. This usually means somewhere it get's translated to audio that sounds a little like a modem.

Also, RF has been around since BEFORE we were. Sure, humans have only been pumping out RF for about 80 years, but the earth, the planets and the sun ALL produced some form of RF or EM radiation. We are exposed to it everyday.

One last link describes brain cancer and the fact that noone knows WHAT causes it yet. My point is, scientists too often will point to new technology as the cause of something that just might be a cyclical thing in nature that can not be explained. Why do some people get cancer when they follow the American Cancer Society diet and exercise regimen and have no risk factors (family history of, working in a risky environment..etc.)? Noone knows. Noone will ever know the entire story on this one. All I do know is noone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt either way. I will assume, for my use, that it doesn't cause it for now mainly because there are more studies refuting the link then studies with HARD evidence proving the link. I also fully believe once this has been studied more, that more people will come to believe as I have. I and many others await those studies. Also, this givesme one less thing to worry about, which helps my stress level! :)

The new format also includes a copyright control system to prevent illegal copying of data on the discs.

And as we all know, systems billed as "preventing illegal copying" prevent legal copying along with it.

The Industry Standard has an actual suggestion for content sites trying to attain profits: Band together to reduce costs and build traffic.

Love's point of view on GPL isn't surprising. In fact. He has expressed his viewpoint on Linux community as a whole, that "proprietary software isn't all bad", in an slashdot article.

Which is very consistant with his speech last year:

"Will we give everything back to the GPL? No, not everything we do," Love said. "There will be times when we hold on, we may take ownership of some products, but we will always provide open access to the source code."

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/04/25/ 010425hntreaty.xml?p=br&s=7

http://www.idg.net/ic_521511_1794_9-10000.html

Just yesterday I read a simialr article on IDG.net - it's about how most our spam is actually from our cow-orkers and friends. Aparently they have no idea of what's important or not ;)
At least I get fewer emails with 2mb powerpoint presentations than I did last year :)
Give it a read!

Just yesterday I read a simialr article on IDG.net - it's about how most our spam is actually from our cow-orkers and friends. Aparently they have no idea of what's important or not ;)
At least I get fewer emails with 2mb powerpoint presentations than I did last year :)
Give it a read!

It looks like MS Marketting had you fooled.

.NET doesn`t exist yet. Looking at all the hype that`s going on, I cant` understand why people want to believe it`s really there, because it ain`t. It`s success is heavily tied to webservices. Services that don`t exist yet, on bandwith and connectivity that are simply too limited to distribute contents and software through cable, and support millions of homes in a clever, honest, totally transparent, and fair way, without any locking/dependability/security problems.. If you really think about it the beautifull idea turns into a horribl nightmare, and that`s not even considerring who`s doing the job behind the wheel..

VisualStudio.NET (7) is buggy like hell.. languages aren`t even backward compatible any more. Sure, you can do all sorts of nice thigns with it, but you can also throw away every bit of old and perfectly healthy code..


Here`s what a .NET (p)review panel talked about, ofcourse nothing but good on the subject here, because you can`t possible take a critical view on .NET, apport from the intended strategy it embodies, because it doesn`t exist.
Here is the list of milestones but if you read the list, you realise that we have to wait for a veeEEry long time to really enjoy .NET properly, if at all.
A .NET faq can be found here.

I was actually looking for the backward compatibility issues page for VisualBasic.Net, which explains that there are a LOT of broken compatibilities with previous code. Maybe anybody else ahs seen it ?

"Hitachi preps first DVD-RAM camcorder" on ZDNet
"Hitachi to hit market with first DVD-RAM camcorder" on ZDNet
"Hitachi shows DVD-RAM camcorder" on IDG
The Google search I used to find all this stuff
I can't find a hitachi mirror on their global or japanese sites.

--------

The page linked to here on slashdot is actually just an IDG frame with an ad on it and another frame that goes through ad.doubleclick.net at this address:
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;1511675;4485524;j?ht tp://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/01/12/01 0112hnwriting.xml?p=br&s=5 .

To go there without viewing the IDG banner and without generating clickthrough $$$ for IDG, go HERE.

This article is actually an infoworld.com article.

--------

This doesn't really have to be a hoax.
When PS2 was first released in Japan it couldn't be exported out of Japan because of some regulations that were in place exactly to prevent too powerful computers to get in hand of rogue states. There were a lot of news stories on this topic at the time, here is one for example.
So I imagine someone in the Iraqi military must have read one of those news stories and decided it must be worth a try :)

Join the Fuck You BT Link Campagin!

>>Isn't BT in danger of losing it's patent? I mean if enough substantial information can be shown that "hyperlinks" existed before BT pateted them, then can't BT lose the patent? Not being familliar with English law, can Prodigy sue BT for bringing a "frivilous" lawsuit?<<

Still doesn't really answer the question about whether they might lose their patent, but it seemed fair to clarify.

Common sense would seem to suggest that their getting the patent in the first place was inappropriate, though. Hopefully this case will be thrown out and/or BT sufficiently humiliated as to cut it out with this sort of thing.

In case no one's mentioned it, the Ars Technica run down on how SDMI is cracked:

...the Princeton results? This bit on IDG.net clears things up quite a bit. Check it:

"Our focus has always been on the scientific question of whether the SDMI's technologies, if deployed, could be defeated by pirates," the statement read. "We demonstrated that they could be defeated, by making small modifications to the music files so that the watermarks were no longer detectable but the sound quality was still acceptable. "Instead of the scientific question, the SDMI has chosen to focus on who is eligible for the cash prize that they have offered. Since we chose to forgo the cash prize in order to retain our right to publish our results, we understand that the SDMI no longer considers us to be entrants in their contest. Their announcement regarding their contest does not invalidate our scientific results."

So it looks like the Princeton hacks weren't counted. Furthermore, the Princeton team will be releasing their findings to the public, so if one of the "unhacked" technologies gets picked then info on how to defeat it will soon be public knowledge. I'm sure SDMI thinks they're going to sue under the DMCA to shut Princeton up, and I hope they do. It'll make for a great test case for this unconstitutional bit of legislation.

--

The above link didn't work for me... try
this one if yours doesn't work either.

Schneier's 8/15 Cryptogram newsletter touched on these issues weeks ago.

Namely, if capability like the US government's Tempest technology (reads electro magnetic pulses, CRT, keyboard radiation, etc. - spy craft stuff) is available, it's a matter of time before such tactics are _readily_ used on commonplace bluetooth devices doing private or delicate matters in public. After all, reading your OpenSSH-downloaded, and GnuPG encrypted email privately to yourself in the back booth might seem secure, but, what if a black hat type is capturing your radiating emissions quite easily? Illusory protection. Treat Bluetooth as a broadcast protocol, because that's what it is, says Schneier.

What amazes me is the dearth of information about the security of this protocol. I'm sure someone has thought about it, a team designed some security into Bluetooth, and that those designers believe it to be secure. But has anyone reputable examined the protocol? Is the implementation known to be correct? Are there any programming errors? If Bluetooth is secure, it will be the first time ever that a major protocol has been released without any security flaws. I'm not optimistic, continues Schneier.

Check out some of these articles on Bluetooth, and it's lack of discussion on it's possibly inherent security shortcomings.

Bluetooth

A list of Bluetooth articles, none of them about security

One mention of security

An essay about the Bluetooth hype

Recent article on TEMPEST

Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks

Wake up and get some current news. The article you cite is over a year old. And it's wrong. Things have changed.

As of May 1999, FireWire licensing has been $0.25 per device.
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/may/990512/newf irewirelincensing.html

FireWire is catching on now more than ever before. Want a Linux example? Check this out:

http://www.idg.net/crd_firewire_69644.html

I think you need to get laid again.

I guess IP over Firewire is already implemented and working exclusively on Linux. I *really* hope this takes off :-)

I don't think it's so much about hardware vs. software, but REVOLUTIONARY technology vs. MUNDANE technology.

You see the linux core for all intents and purposes of the cutting edge isn't really revolutionary, and it doesn't NEED to be! Now every other OS has a journaling file system, ok let's build one for linux. Firewalling, ip chains, etc etc... I'm not a hard core linux developer so I'm party speaking from ignorance, but does ANYONE know of a significant technological advance that linux has spearheaded??

So ReiserFS is pretty kewl, and xscreensaver kicks ass. Bash is a masterpiece and mozilla is on it's way in. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of extremely high quality pieces of ART that the free software community has produced. But there's nothign revolutionary about it.

Now we've got the brains behind it... and we're making steady progress... so what happens when one of us makes up something EXTAORDINARY?! Do we give it away for free and be so do we take Metcalfe's stereotype of the Open Source community and say: "for the greater good i give up all my worldly posessions so that someone can exploit me"???

No! we do what anyone convinced that they have produced a genuine invention would do: develop it in secret, patent it once it works, sell it to the highest bidder (or market it yourself), all the while integrating support for Linux and maybe even giving them a free lisence for it!

In 8 to 12 years when you've made your fortune and your utillity patent is up for renewel, you let it expire. And hey, don't forget that patents aren't incompatable with the GPL! Hey you could GPL your patented invention and have a legal double-whammy for anyone who violates your patent!!!

Hey, if RT-Linux is revolutionary, or if code morphing is really revolutionary (sounds just a bit like a beefy emulator/finer grained scheduler on a better CPU, but I can't honestly know if it was that original or not), or if some little project i'm workin on happens to light a fire under whatever market it's viable in and we patent our inventions... this does not mean that we're sellouts!

if Metcalfe posted on slashdot:

Re:Crusoe Code Morphing (Score:-1, Troll)
by Bob Metcalfe (metcalfe@idg.net) on 1:01 Friday 11 February 2000 PDT (#0)
(User Info) http://www.infoworld.com/op inions/morefromtheether.html

Nah, nah, OPEN SORES!!! Linus Torvalds Naked and Petrified eating goat cheeze and being a hyppocrite!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Where did you get this? Compaq dropped Aplha NT because Inter NT was much cheaper, and more people were buying it.

Here and there's a press release on Compaq's site, the link to which I can't for the life of me get ahold of at the moment (no surprise - navigating Compaq's site is about as easy as navigating M$'s)... ;-)

Bottom line... our main office is right now pulling our critical apps running NT on their Compaq alphas and are putting them on intel boxes due to the loss of support... You'll note that most of the big sites have avoided intel boxes (we have VAXes) and have chosen other hardware platforms. &nbsp In fact Compaq itself, based on this link (which is an interview with them) is pushing their own Unix - True64 plus others like Linux for their alphas - the point of my post. &nbsp ;-)

Yes, 56-bit encryption called not safe enough by German court. But a skeleton lock is not safe enough, but does not make lockpicking legal where it is illegal. Unfortunately, common sense is not common enough.

Etoys still comes off as a bunch of jack-booted, well, whatever.

-dB

Here's the better article.

Here is a mainstream press article on it from then - http://www.idg.net/crd_sites_9-46489.html .

At the time both NS and MS said they would fix it. I guess they didn't...

Benjamin Franz

IDG

matt

A Response

Quote the HP Spokesperson:

"Linux does not have the robustness built in it yet for mission critical applications."

Why... thank you for your comment. Now can you tell me why you are using Embedded Linux Systems in your L and X ranges of HP Entria Thin Client stations and X-Terminals.

Story is here

this link is an interview with one of Oracle's developers and what they think Linux is lacking.
They still say that raw devices have advantages...

Dell:

http://www.idg.net/crd_ibm_dell_9-126 405.html


http://www.dell.com/linux/press.htm

SGI:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/3 1/ns-9268.html

IBM:


http://www4.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,416 4,2267514,00.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/990930 -000020.html

Compaq:


http://www.digital.com/inFORM/issues/issue27/ln0 2-linux-story.htm

Intel:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/3 2/ns-9301.html


http://www.linuxia64.com/

Fujitsu:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/990929 -000017.html

Microsoft:

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departm ents/nt/bugs.shtml

http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q150/7/34.ASP

http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q194/8/34.ASP

http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/7/93.ASP

Other side: HP:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990920- 000020.html

And he had to eat his columumn in front of 1000 people Pics of this event. For some odd reason, the pics have been restricted :) I wonder why. Lets make a suggestion.. Lets get bob to eat a Linux Manual.
--

Consider the following link. It shows some historical background on antitrust issues
here.

yeah I agree, but it also shows a technological generation gap b/w the commentator and the current L-users.

He maybe one smart cookie but I cant help thinking that he's missing the point about open source software - it's free, high quality, there are fast updates, available on many platforms and being developed around the clock etc, etc.

It reminds me of the mainframers/mini computer users knocking the pc and all those eminantly qualified persons who missed the internet, when any student at college could see it's potential.

It turns out the guy who designed the iMac actually used to design toilets and sinks. The article is here.

See http://www .idg.net/idg_frames/english/content.cgi?vc=docid_9 -116665.html for a comparison.

Computerworld says "Many Linux developers would consider it a show of faith if Intel were to release the I2O specification. But what most people don't realize is that Intel doesn't actually have the right to unilaterally release the I20 spec. It's owned and managed by a consortium of companies under the I2O Special Interest Group (I20 SIG)."
So number one, its not just up to Intel whether I2O works with Linux.
Number two, I2O is being challenged [PC Week] by another industry consortium with an incompatible spec.
Fragmenting the speedy IO market would be irrational, it would work against Intel's market share in the high end server/workstation market. Why would Intel strong arm Red Hat (taking for granted that they could, since you believe in evil corporate greed) to fork Linux into a smaller market? If anything, Intel probably would have a goal to EXPAND the market for workstation class machines using Intel hardware.