Slashdot Mirror

calx sent us a link to this image (mirrors please!) which appears to be Microsoft's first-ever ad directly against Linux. Not bad for an operating system that Microsoft claims is nothing to worry about. The ad essentially says not to trust Linux 'cuz it could mutate (it's actually pretty cool). Here's more information at LinuxToday. [Updated 19:51 GMT by timothy:] dicast threw this mirror onto the sacrificial fire, too.

resistant writes: "This article at Network World Fusion (seen at Linux Today) says, "In addition to DNSSEC, BIND 9 features support for IPv6, the ability to run on multiprocessor systems and improved scalability for handling large domain name zones." The urgent need (by Nike anyway, heh-heh) to forestall easy domain hijacking could be the sleeper issue that finally ushers in universal implementation of IPv6."

Justin Goldberg writes: "I saw this article over on Linuxtoday about Internet C++, a new language that will bring standard languages and APIs, as well as current applications, to the Internet. Doom has already been ported to Internet C++, as well as X Galaga and Tetris. IDoom (the name of the Doom port) runs pretty jumpy on my machine running X on FreeBSD, but the release is in alpha stage." The reader forums on the site are pretty interesting, too, in discussing whether this is a truly (Free / Open Source) language, and about the extant alternatives.

Justin Goldberg writes: "I saw this article over on Linuxtoday about Internet C++, a new language that will bring standard languages and APIs, as well as current applications, to the Internet. Doom has already been ported to Internet C++, as well as X Galaga and Tetris. IDoom (the name of the Doom port) runs pretty jumpy on my machine running X on FreeBSD, but the release is in alpha stage." The reader forums on the site are pretty interesting, too, in discussing whether this is a truly (Free / Open Source) language, and about the extant alternatives.

theridersofrohirrim writes "Linuxtoday has a very interesting summary and some interviews with redhat staff, regarding redhat 7, gcc 2.96, and more. It also includes some embarassing (but justified in my opinion) comments for Slashdot's redhat 7 bug story. Linuxtoday's article can be found their site."

theridersofrohirrim writes "Linuxtoday has a very interesting summary and some interviews with redhat staff, regarding redhat 7, gcc 2.96, and more. It also includes some embarassing (but justified in my opinion) comments for Slashdot's redhat 7 bug story. Linuxtoday's article can be found their site."

KlausBreuer writes "According to the German news report Heise MSNBC has produced a poll for the most popular operating system. This time, the poll was rigged rather blatantly: Friday morning, Linux hat 28% (18.500) of the vote, but miraculously dropped to 3% by sunday evening (European time). It appears that 126.500 votes came in on Sunday - all of them for Windows." Now, not knowing people at MSNBC or anything like that, I would offer the possibly that someone ran a script against it. These things have been known to happen before. Thanks to Donald van de Weyer who pointed out that this originally appeared on LinuxToday.

Tony Stanco writes: "The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee's "Recommendations of the Panel on Open Source Software For High End Computing" has issued its report and recommendations concerning OSS/Free Software. " Very postive -- says that the government should help develop more free software/open source software.

Here it is again. Back atcha with stuff on ... the actual sex of Tjisana M. Lewis and other foul-ups; Richard Stallman's back-in-proportion response to the out-of-same brouhaha over licensing of KDE; and a reaction to the announcment last week of a fully-preemptive kernel. Not to mention a few followups to the piece Rob posted last week about Amazon's interesting pricing policies.

Shouldn't this be one of those fields marked "required" on e-mail? Tjisana M. Lewis wrote: "Just one minor issue though in case we meet again - I (Product Manager with titles ad nauseaum) am male." (I had written -- with the famous line about 'what happens when you assume' nowhere in mind -- that "she sent the following response ..." regarding the new HP printserver which as of now does not support printing from Linux clients.) With apologies and thanks for the correction, I await the beating with wet noodles. declan points out another goof for which I must shoulder the blame: the judge in question in the DeCSS case is Lewis Kaplan, not Chaplain, as rendered in this story of last week.

Calling Tim Theisen, calling Tim Theisen to the white courtesy telephone ... Richard M. Stallman can't win. At least, that's the impression one gets sometimes from hearing the reactions he draws for saying nearly anything. Critical or glowing, the man says what's on his mind, and there's plenty on it. Including, of late, plenty about GNOME and KDE. As usual, the whole story is both more complex and more satisfying when you know more about it. Several readers pointed at Stallman's response at LinuxToday to the criticism he recieved (both official and unofficial) after he said "Making Qt available under the GPL makes it legal to take an existing GPL-covered program and adapt it to work with Qt." As a happy user of both KDE and GNOME, I must say RMS sounds pretty reasonable to me.

And a special deal for our guests from AOL -- Two bridges! Amazon says: don't worry! It's just an accident! jeko writes "Amazon.com just sent me an email claiming that their different prices for different customers are merely a mistake."

He cites email from a customer rep at Amazon:

"Finally, at any given time, despite our best efforts, a small number of the more than 4.7 million items on our site may be mispriced.

Kristine Jorgensen, Amazon.com"

"So, there you go. This latest PR row is all just a 'mispricing.' I wish my customers would let me get away with that."

Meanwhile, Amazon is apparently not the only company to play cookie-based pricing games ... An unnamed correspondent writes: "[...] Similar to your story on Amazon.com regarding price differences, I think I've found a similar ploy on flyfrontier.com. I've been checking flights from Washington, DC to Denver, CO. When I first checked prices, the flight came back at $400. Several minutes later, the same flight was priced at over $500. When I switched computers, the same thing happened again: The price on the same flight was $400 in the first instance, and over $500 on the second. Then, I switched browsers ... it happened again. When I cleared my history and disabled cookies, I was able to recreate the price difference again. Try it and see for yourself. So, what's up with this? What is the advantage of switching prices around? Has this practice become widespread on the web?"

You have exactly 15ms to complete your response ... Go. Rick Lehrbaum writes "Victor Yodaiken, creator of RTLinux, has provided a brief statement about MontaVista Software's recent announcement of a hard real-time Linux (MontaVista, it should be noted, supports both RTLinux and the new kernel preemption technology.) In his response, Yodaiken draws significant distinctions between the architectural approaches taken by each (RTLinux; kernel preemptability), provides a technical perspective on the usefulness of each, and mentions some issues that need to be considered in proceeding along a kernel preemption path (which he does *not* summarily dismiss). Yodaiken claims that under RTLinux, "real-time software can communicate with Linux through fifos, shared memory, or signals but still gets hardware speed interrupt latencies, RTLinux worst case interrupt latencies are 15 microseconds on a generic x86 and better on PowerPC and Alphas." Additional detailed background on RTLinux appears in this interesting interview with Yodaiken (including info about "the infamous RTLinux patent")."

Here it is again. Back atcha with stuff on ... the actual sex of Tjisana M. Lewis and other foul-ups; Richard Stallman's back-in-proportion response to the out-of-same brouhaha over licensing of KDE; and a reaction to the announcment last week of a fully-preemptive kernel. Not to mention a few followups to the piece Rob posted last week about Amazon's interesting pricing policies.

Shouldn't this be one of those fields marked "required" on e-mail? Tjisana M. Lewis wrote: "Just one minor issue though in case we meet again - I (Product Manager with titles ad nauseaum) am male." (I had written -- with the famous line about 'what happens when you assume' nowhere in mind -- that "she sent the following response ..." regarding the new HP printserver which as of now does not support printing from Linux clients.) With apologies and thanks for the correction, I await the beating with wet noodles. declan points out another goof for which I must shoulder the blame: the judge in question in the DeCSS case is Lewis Kaplan, not Chaplain, as rendered in this story of last week.

Calling Tim Theisen, calling Tim Theisen to the white courtesy telephone ... Richard M. Stallman can't win. At least, that's the impression one gets sometimes from hearing the reactions he draws for saying nearly anything. Critical or glowing, the man says what's on his mind, and there's plenty on it. Including, of late, plenty about GNOME and KDE. As usual, the whole story is both more complex and more satisfying when you know more about it. Several readers pointed at Stallman's response at LinuxToday to the criticism he recieved (both official and unofficial) after he said "Making Qt available under the GPL makes it legal to take an existing GPL-covered program and adapt it to work with Qt." As a happy user of both KDE and GNOME, I must say RMS sounds pretty reasonable to me.

And a special deal for our guests from AOL -- Two bridges! Amazon says: don't worry! It's just an accident! jeko writes "Amazon.com just sent me an email claiming that their different prices for different customers are merely a mistake."

He cites email from a customer rep at Amazon:

"Finally, at any given time, despite our best efforts, a small number of the more than 4.7 million items on our site may be mispriced.

Kristine Jorgensen, Amazon.com"

"So, there you go. This latest PR row is all just a 'mispricing.' I wish my customers would let me get away with that."

Meanwhile, Amazon is apparently not the only company to play cookie-based pricing games ... An unnamed correspondent writes: "[...] Similar to your story on Amazon.com regarding price differences, I think I've found a similar ploy on flyfrontier.com. I've been checking flights from Washington, DC to Denver, CO. When I first checked prices, the flight came back at $400. Several minutes later, the same flight was priced at over $500. When I switched computers, the same thing happened again: The price on the same flight was $400 in the first instance, and over $500 on the second. Then, I switched browsers ... it happened again. When I cleared my history and disabled cookies, I was able to recreate the price difference again. Try it and see for yourself. So, what's up with this? What is the advantage of switching prices around? Has this practice become widespread on the web?"

You have exactly 15ms to complete your response ... Go. Rick Lehrbaum writes "Victor Yodaiken, creator of RTLinux, has provided a brief statement about MontaVista Software's recent announcement of a hard real-time Linux (MontaVista, it should be noted, supports both RTLinux and the new kernel preemption technology.) In his response, Yodaiken draws significant distinctions between the architectural approaches taken by each (RTLinux; kernel preemptability), provides a technical perspective on the usefulness of each, and mentions some issues that need to be considered in proceeding along a kernel preemption path (which he does *not* summarily dismiss). Yodaiken claims that under RTLinux, "real-time software can communicate with Linux through fifos, shared memory, or signals but still gets hardware speed interrupt latencies, RTLinux worst case interrupt latencies are 15 microseconds on a generic x86 and better on PowerPC and Alphas." Additional detailed background on RTLinux appears in this interesting interview with Yodaiken (including info about "the infamous RTLinux patent")."

Here it is again. Back atcha with stuff on ... the actual sex of Tjisana M. Lewis and other foul-ups; Richard Stallman's back-in-proportion response to the out-of-same brouhaha over licensing of KDE; and a reaction to the announcment last week of a fully-preemptive kernel. Not to mention a few followups to the piece Rob posted last week about Amazon's interesting pricing policies.

Shouldn't this be one of those fields marked "required" on e-mail? Tjisana M. Lewis wrote: "Just one minor issue though in case we meet again - I (Product Manager with titles ad nauseaum) am male." (I had written -- with the famous line about 'what happens when you assume' nowhere in mind -- that "she sent the following response ..." regarding the new HP printserver which as of now does not support printing from Linux clients.) With apologies and thanks for the correction, I await the beating with wet noodles. declan points out another goof for which I must shoulder the blame: the judge in question in the DeCSS case is Lewis Kaplan, not Chaplain, as rendered in this story of last week.

Calling Tim Theisen, calling Tim Theisen to the white courtesy telephone ... Richard M. Stallman can't win. At least, that's the impression one gets sometimes from hearing the reactions he draws for saying nearly anything. Critical or glowing, the man says what's on his mind, and there's plenty on it. Including, of late, plenty about GNOME and KDE. As usual, the whole story is both more complex and more satisfying when you know more about it. Several readers pointed at Stallman's response at LinuxToday to the criticism he recieved (both official and unofficial) after he said "Making Qt available under the GPL makes it legal to take an existing GPL-covered program and adapt it to work with Qt." As a happy user of both KDE and GNOME, I must say RMS sounds pretty reasonable to me.

And a special deal for our guests from AOL -- Two bridges! Amazon says: don't worry! It's just an accident! jeko writes "Amazon.com just sent me an email claiming that their different prices for different customers are merely a mistake."

He cites email from a customer rep at Amazon:

"Finally, at any given time, despite our best efforts, a small number of the more than 4.7 million items on our site may be mispriced.

Kristine Jorgensen, Amazon.com"

"So, there you go. This latest PR row is all just a 'mispricing.' I wish my customers would let me get away with that."

Meanwhile, Amazon is apparently not the only company to play cookie-based pricing games ... An unnamed correspondent writes: "[...] Similar to your story on Amazon.com regarding price differences, I think I've found a similar ploy on flyfrontier.com. I've been checking flights from Washington, DC to Denver, CO. When I first checked prices, the flight came back at $400. Several minutes later, the same flight was priced at over $500. When I switched computers, the same thing happened again: The price on the same flight was $400 in the first instance, and over $500 on the second. Then, I switched browsers ... it happened again. When I cleared my history and disabled cookies, I was able to recreate the price difference again. Try it and see for yourself. So, what's up with this? What is the advantage of switching prices around? Has this practice become widespread on the web?"

You have exactly 15ms to complete your response ... Go. Rick Lehrbaum writes "Victor Yodaiken, creator of RTLinux, has provided a brief statement about MontaVista Software's recent announcement of a hard real-time Linux (MontaVista, it should be noted, supports both RTLinux and the new kernel preemption technology.) In his response, Yodaiken draws significant distinctions between the architectural approaches taken by each (RTLinux; kernel preemptability), provides a technical perspective on the usefulness of each, and mentions some issues that need to be considered in proceeding along a kernel preemption path (which he does *not* summarily dismiss). Yodaiken claims that under RTLinux, "real-time software can communicate with Linux through fifos, shared memory, or signals but still gets hardware speed interrupt latencies, RTLinux worst case interrupt latencies are 15 microseconds on a generic x86 and better on PowerPC and Alphas." Additional detailed background on RTLinux appears in this interesting interview with Yodaiken (including info about "the infamous RTLinux patent")."

Here it is again. Back atcha with stuff on ... the actual sex of Tjisana M. Lewis and other foul-ups; Richard Stallman's back-in-proportion response to the out-of-same brouhaha over licensing of KDE; and a reaction to the announcment last week of a fully-preemptive kernel. Not to mention a few followups to the piece Rob posted last week about Amazon's interesting pricing policies.

Shouldn't this be one of those fields marked "required" on e-mail? Tjisana M. Lewis wrote: "Just one minor issue though in case we meet again - I (Product Manager with titles ad nauseaum) am male." (I had written -- with the famous line about 'what happens when you assume' nowhere in mind -- that "she sent the following response ..." regarding the new HP printserver which as of now does not support printing from Linux clients.) With apologies and thanks for the correction, I await the beating with wet noodles. declan points out another goof for which I must shoulder the blame: the judge in question in the DeCSS case is Lewis Kaplan, not Chaplain, as rendered in this story of last week.

Calling Tim Theisen, calling Tim Theisen to the white courtesy telephone ... Richard M. Stallman can't win. At least, that's the impression one gets sometimes from hearing the reactions he draws for saying nearly anything. Critical or glowing, the man says what's on his mind, and there's plenty on it. Including, of late, plenty about GNOME and KDE. As usual, the whole story is both more complex and more satisfying when you know more about it. Several readers pointed at Stallman's response at LinuxToday to the criticism he recieved (both official and unofficial) after he said "Making Qt available under the GPL makes it legal to take an existing GPL-covered program and adapt it to work with Qt." As a happy user of both KDE and GNOME, I must say RMS sounds pretty reasonable to me.

And a special deal for our guests from AOL -- Two bridges! Amazon says: don't worry! It's just an accident! jeko writes "Amazon.com just sent me an email claiming that their different prices for different customers are merely a mistake."

He cites email from a customer rep at Amazon:

"Finally, at any given time, despite our best efforts, a small number of the more than 4.7 million items on our site may be mispriced.

Kristine Jorgensen, Amazon.com"

"So, there you go. This latest PR row is all just a 'mispricing.' I wish my customers would let me get away with that."

Meanwhile, Amazon is apparently not the only company to play cookie-based pricing games ... An unnamed correspondent writes: "[...] Similar to your story on Amazon.com regarding price differences, I think I've found a similar ploy on flyfrontier.com. I've been checking flights from Washington, DC to Denver, CO. When I first checked prices, the flight came back at $400. Several minutes later, the same flight was priced at over $500. When I switched computers, the same thing happened again: The price on the same flight was $400 in the first instance, and over $500 on the second. Then, I switched browsers ... it happened again. When I cleared my history and disabled cookies, I was able to recreate the price difference again. Try it and see for yourself. So, what's up with this? What is the advantage of switching prices around? Has this practice become widespread on the web?"

You have exactly 15ms to complete your response ... Go. Rick Lehrbaum writes "Victor Yodaiken, creator of RTLinux, has provided a brief statement about MontaVista Software's recent announcement of a hard real-time Linux (MontaVista, it should be noted, supports both RTLinux and the new kernel preemption technology.) In his response, Yodaiken draws significant distinctions between the architectural approaches taken by each (RTLinux; kernel preemptability), provides a technical perspective on the usefulness of each, and mentions some issues that need to be considered in proceeding along a kernel preemption path (which he does *not* summarily dismiss). Yodaiken claims that under RTLinux, "real-time software can communicate with Linux through fifos, shared memory, or signals but still gets hardware speed interrupt latencies, RTLinux worst case interrupt latencies are 15 microseconds on a generic x86 and better on PowerPC and Alphas." Additional detailed background on RTLinux appears in this interesting interview with Yodaiken (including info about "the infamous RTLinux patent")."

This time, an astute reader points us to the place where Guido Van Rossum speaks out on the Python license issues recently posted about here on Slashdot, and an Everquest enthusiast points to the Official Word (well, chatroom response) to Everquest server emulators. Oh, and remember that CueCat scanner you picked up last week (and quickly wrote a Linux kernel driver for) -- did anyone at Radio Shack mention something about an embedded serial number? Hmmmm. I thought not. Good thing reverse engineering isn't yet a capital offense ...

That's one long and winding snake of an issue ... Kevin Reichard writes: "Since you covered the original issues surrounding Python licensing, you may also want to note that Guido van Rossum of PythonLabs has officially responded in a Linux Today interview. He has many interesting things to say."

Which things notably include: "The sad thing is that all of this is based on technicalities: Stallman agrees that Python is free software, but a technicality in the licenses prevents compatibility. The choice of law clause in the CNRI license, which is causing the incompatibility, is very common is software licenses, and CNRI doesn't want to drop it because the validity of the general disclaimers in the license may depend on it. At the same time, Stallman doesn't want to allow any choice of law clauses, because one could stipulate the law of "Unfreedonia" which might reverse the meaning of the GPL."

Abort, retry, fail, bend, fold, spindle, mutilate? L Fitzgerald Sjoberg writes: " A recent posting on the official EverQuest boards by a spokesperson for Verant states that even RUNNING an EverQuest emulator violates the EverQuest license agreement.

If the emulator is legal, and emulators seem to be making a lot of legal headway these days, doesn't this essentially amount to Verant forbidding you to use a competitor's product? Not a good sign, if you ask me."

"Sir! Sir! There's something wrong -- this knob goes up to eleven!" Signal 11 writes: "I took apart a cuecat and did a rundown of the circuit tracings on the board. What follows is a short summary of what I found. I'm working on putting together a schematic for it and hope to have it together within a couple weeks.

The cuecat is fairly simple. It uses a pair of infrared LEDs to direct light onto the sheet of paper with the barcode on it. It is then picked up by an IR detector, whose output is tuned by a single potentiometer (adjusted at time of manufacture, I would guess) and then fed into the analog input of a microprocessor. The detector is the same type one can pickup at radioshack. All you do is enclose it in a box and then make a pinhole at one end. Cheap, but it works well enough.

The microprocessor I haven't had time to put together a circuit from the specs provided by texas instruments to download the microcode out of it. It is also a matter of me not wanting to learn about microprocessors although I understand it is common in the industry.. I'm an analog guy. :) I suspect it is nothing more than running the output through a ACD (analog->digital) inside the microprocessor and then referencing the binary input with a list of values to produce the barcode string. After that, as has been previously noted, it is passed to an XOR algorithm, and then modulated to be fed out onto the PS/2 interface. There are a pair of transistors on the board near the outputs of the microprocessor - I suspect these are used to either boost the signal to run over the PS/2 interface (the microprocessor may not have enough power), or as part of an oscillator to get a clock for the processor. Until I finish tracing out the board paths, I can't say for sure.

Somewhere in the chip they probably set the serial number into the nvram, which is prepended to the output. The software does the rest. As has been demonstrated, there isn't much to do on the software side either - one could just create an indexed array containing scancodes. One might even be able to write a new key definition file under linux.. no programming required.

This is a really simple device. This is also probably why they were so concerned about competitors.. it wouldn't take them more than one afternoon with an EE and a microcode programmer to reverse-engineer it and produce their own. Then again, the device was probably designed in the same amount of time, likely by a random contractor. The reason it took me so long? I've been messing around with electronics for all of three months, so yes, I'm not a professional - I also haven't gotten into DSP technology yet, which is all the cuecat is. As always, if someone could provide me with a basic circuit for reading the contents of the processor's memory out, I'd appreciate it!

Anyway, DigitalConvergence - I'm waiting for my cease and desist now."

WillSmith sent in a bit running over at LinuxToday addressing the fact that RMS thinks that Python 1.6 is incompatible w/ the GPL. The article is basically how to resolve this within Debian.

A retierd War Corespondant writes "KDE has issued a formal response to RMS' latest editorial on KDE and GPLed QT. Favorite Quote: "This entire thing is just too absurd and we refuse to play this game." They also point to the listing of licenses and Authors within KDE." Update: 09/06 11:38 AM by H :Some of the authors have written as well.

infodragon sent us a Linux Today story by RMS ^[?] where he weighs in on the recent news about the GPLing of Qt. I'm sure that there will be a lot more about this over the week.

Ingo Molnar is the guy behind the TUX Web server, which produced those astounding SpecWeb results reported here last week. He's agreed to a Slashdot community interview. So ask away at the man who created what appears by some measures to be the world's most powerful Web server at present. Please make Ingo's job easier by first reading the LinuxToday articles (here's the first LW story, and here's the second LW story) commenting on the SpecWeb numbers and the background of how they were achieved, as well as Ingo's informative post in the initial Slashdot story, and the SpecWeb results themselves. The moderators may have no mercy otherwise.

Ingo Molnar is the guy behind the TUX Web server, which produced those astounding SpecWeb results reported here last week. He's agreed to a Slashdot community interview. So ask away at the man who created what appears by some measures to be the world's most powerful Web server at present. Please make Ingo's job easier by first reading the LinuxToday articles (here's the first LW story, and here's the second LW story) commenting on the SpecWeb numbers and the background of how they were achieved, as well as Ingo's informative post in the initial Slashdot story, and the SpecWeb results themselves. The moderators may have no mercy otherwise.

PraveenS writes: "While not conclusive, the SPEC group released benchmarks for a variety of systems submitted by various manufacturers (i.e. Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...) and tested their Web-serving capability. Two very similar machines from Dell, one loaded with Linux and the other with Win2000 had very different results; Linux beat Win2000 by a factor of almost 3 . Here's a synopsis of the results from LinuxToday. The actual spec benchmarks are available here for Win2000 and here for Linux."

As Marty of LinuxToday puts it, though, "What does this mean? In the real world, probably not as much as it would seem. Benchmarks in general are typically set up in an ideal environment. Real world environments tend to be quite different. However, this does indicate that Linux is moving in the right direction."

Zoran points out that "[o]ther current SPECweb99 results can be found here." They make an interesting comparison.

PraveenS writes: "While not conclusive, the SPEC group released benchmarks for a variety of systems submitted by various manufacturers (i.e. Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...) and tested their Web-serving capability. Two very similar machines from Dell, one loaded with Linux and the other with Win2000 had very different results; Linux beat Win2000 by a factor of almost 3 . Here's a synopsis of the results from LinuxToday. The actual spec benchmarks are available here for Win2000 and here for Linux."

As Marty of LinuxToday puts it, though, "What does this mean? In the real world, probably not as much as it would seem. Benchmarks in general are typically set up in an ideal environment. Real world environments tend to be quite different. However, this does indicate that Linux is moving in the right direction."

Zoran points out that "[o]ther current SPECweb99 results can be found here." They make an interesting comparison.

PraveenS writes: "While not conclusive, the SPEC group released benchmarks for a variety of systems submitted by various manufacturers (i.e. Dell, Compaq, HP, etc...) and tested their Web-serving capability. Two very similar machines from Dell, one loaded with Linux and the other with Win2000 had very different results; Linux beat Win2000 by a factor of almost 3 . Here's a synopsis of the results from LinuxToday. The actual spec benchmarks are available here for Win2000 and here for Linux."

As Marty of LinuxToday puts it, though, "What does this mean? In the real world, probably not as much as it would seem. Benchmarks in general are typically set up in an ideal environment. Real world environments tend to be quite different. However, this does indicate that Linux is moving in the right direction."

Zoran points out that "[o]ther current SPECweb99 results can be found here." They make an interesting comparison.

Paul Emms asks "I run LinuxLinks.com - a Linux portal and recently we added a personalised calendar service to our Web site. We submitted an article to LinuxToday (owned by internet.com) and it was published only to be pulled almost immediately. The reason given was that Web site enhancements are no longer news. But wait a minute, this sort of thing has made the news before. LinuxStart announced a similar calendar service, and who owns LinuxStart? Why internet.com of course." You have to admit, that's a pretty good reason to start asking questions...

"This opens up a number of questions about how we judge the news we read. Linux is becoming big business and there are vested interests. Web sites are merging and being taken over by large conglomerates. Who determines the impartiality of the news we read ? Who determines what is news and what is advertising ?

LinuxToday is one of the major daily Linux newsites and they determine that enhancements to major Linux Web sites like LinuxLinks is not important. But LinuxLinks is independent - it isn't owned by internet.com and it isn't owned by VA Linux. Is it, and sites like it, being penalised because they don't have a monopoly in the Linux media ? And is this really in the spirit of the Linux movement ?

Paul Emms
pwe@firstlinux.com"

You may be wondering if you should purchase the WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux, since there isn't a downloadable version. Here are some reviews, which could assist you in making a decision. This is Canux review, and here you can find a review done by the people at Linux Weekly News. Also, you might want to take a look here -- you'll find comments from people who tried it (thanks to Linux Today). I hope someone from Corel is reading those articles and comments ...

EngrBohn writes "Joe Pranevich has posted the latest & greatest Wonderful World of Linux 2.4 at LinuxToday. 'In the beginning, there was Linus and his 386 ... Several years and many thousands of lines of code later, Linux 2.2 was released ... Linus (and company) continued to hack away at the Linux OS and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel is nearing completion. Submitted for your approval, this document describes some of the new features in Linux 2.4.'" Helps sort out rumors, half-truths and innuendo. I hope Joe's estimate is conservative on getting CDs shipping with point-four; usually it seems like the distro houses are pretty swift to incorporate.

EngrBohn writes "Joe Pranevich has posted the latest & greatest Wonderful World of Linux 2.4 at LinuxToday. 'In the beginning, there was Linus and his 386 ... Several years and many thousands of lines of code later, Linux 2.2 was released ... Linus (and company) continued to hack away at the Linux OS and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel is nearing completion. Submitted for your approval, this document describes some of the new features in Linux 2.4.'" Helps sort out rumors, half-truths and innuendo. I hope Joe's estimate is conservative on getting CDs shipping with point-four; usually it seems like the distro houses are pretty swift to incorporate.

A number of folks have written to us regarding the purchase of Chilli!soft by Colbalt Networks. It seems that Cobalt is interested in Chilli's implementation of ASP for Linux for their own server appliances.

Fred Palmer writes: "Linsider was launched recently. We're featuring lots of business-related news, profiles for every major Linux company, stock information, content licensed under the OpenContent license, and much more. You can read our press release, or skip straight to the home page. " We don't usually post new sites, but there's been a lot of word going around about Linsider/Linsight and what its aim is. Post-LinuxToday, Dave Whitinger ^[?] was rumoured to be spending a lot of time working on Linsight and this -- and it looks like it was worth the effort.

Zortoaster wrote a review of a book that might be of interest to folks around here:" In lieu of the Norwegian police's crackdown on 16-year-old hacker Jon Johansen, who broke the DVD copying protection, Paul A. Taylor's book Hackers raises a series of interesting questions about crackers and cracking. The book scores high on content but lacks somewhat in presentation. He manages to spell out issues that are often only implicit in the computer security debate, and is able to paint a multi-faceted picture of the hacker, represented by the cracker, community setting it apart from the very black and white, good or bad, presentation of hackers in the mass media." Hackers author Paul A. Taylor pages 224 publisher Routledge, London: 09/1999 rating 7/10 reviewer Zortoaster ISBN 0415180724 summary In lieu of the Norwegian police's crackdown on 16 -year-old hacker Jon Johansen who broke the DVD copying protection, Paul A. Taylor's book Hackers raises a series of interesting questions about crackers and cracking. The book scores high on content but lacks somewhat in presentation. Hackers and hacking

Hackers starts out with a discussion on the hacker, what he (as is pointed out in the book, the hacker is almost always a 'he') does, and why he does what he does. Somewhat sadly, although fairly well-founded, is Taylor's choice of terminology. He chooses to consistently address the cracker as hacker. A hacker is not a cracker, but a cracker is always a hacker (put in more technical terms: the cracker is a subset of the hacker class -- think object orientation here), which is a point Taylor seems to willfully ignore. That he chooses to use the terminology in this manner is rather sad because it puts an ugly stain on the respectability of the hackers -- those of us who not meddling in computer break-ins or other dubious activities, but merely hack code to produce cool software. Throughout the rest of this review I will be using the term cracker to refer to Taylor's hackers, and hacker when referring to real hackers

However, since crackers are a subset of hackers, much of Taylor's discussion on the hack and hacking is applicable to the hacker community at large. This is one of the things that makes Hackers an interesting read. For a newcomer to the hacker community Taylor's discussion on the 'hack' is quite enlightening. Even for oldtimers his discussion may shed some new light on the hack. Contrary to existing material on the matter, like the Jargon File, Taylor is the first to spell out the criteria implicit in earlier treatises on the hack: 1) simplicity, 2) mastery, and 3) illicitness [as in 'against the rules', reviewers comment] (p.15). This latter criteria is in its use of the 'illicitness' term only applicable to the cracking activity. In a sense it is applicable to hacking as well. Then in the shape of 'against the rules'. We are not neccessarily talking against the rules of justice, but against what the system's rules say is possible. In that sense, calling the third criteria illicitness hints at somewhat dubious activities, but is in fact not. It is an important element in the regular hack (if such thing as a regular hack does exist), too.

Taylor manages to view the hacker community from a fresh angle. Being a sociology researcher his angle is quite different from that represented by for instance Eric S. Raymond or Gisle Hannemyr. One drawback is that Taylor draws on Steven Levy's overly romanticized hacker ethics as presented in Levy's book of 1984: Hackers. It is time someone tried looking somewhat deeper into the hacker psychology to realize that while Levy's five tenets may to a certain degree represent attitudes within the hacker community, it is not, contrary to what Levy proposes, an ethos by which hackers live and die (apart from this, though, Levy's book is highly enjoyable and recommended reading). I'm also having some problems accepting the psychosexual theories on hacking that Taylor proposes. They seem a bit far fetched to me. It's been a while since everybody agreed that Freud's psycho-therapy was kind of overly sex-fixated.

Taylor addresses a largely ignored issue in hacker literature, that of the gender question. Why are there next to no female hackers? He addresses the point through looking at societal factors, by explaining how the community is a masculine environemnt -- the new wild west, so to say -- and the fact that electronic communication creates misogynity through its anonymity. At the end of the chapter it is a bit hard to grasp what Taylor's point is, though (see Presentation for more).

Another issue thoroughly treated is the question of hacker motivation. What drives the hacker to hack? Taylor's background within sociology is again helpful, as he regards the issue from a fresh perspective. Hacker motivation has previously been treated by Eric Raymond in his essay Homesteading the Noosphere . Taylor's angle is to compare academic theories on hacker motivation with the the reasons the hackers' themselves give. From the discrepancy between these two angles he lists four reasons for hacking: obsession, curiosity, boredom, and the feeling of power. If not directly contradicting Raymond's view -- that hackers hack simply to gain peer esteem and status within the community -- Taylor gives Raymond's view a more multi-faceted hue. He goes beneath the drive for esteem, trying to address the reasons why anyone would need to gain esteem from their peers. As such, Taylor manages to add something new to a discussion that has been on the brink of going stale.

Issues on computer security and cracking

Taylor's main focus on crackers is how society at large is to deal with them. Are crackers to be treated as criminal masterminds plotting to bring the world to its knees, or simply misguided kids trying to do something exciting with their computer knowledge? Several views are drawn up, with Taylor quoting representatives of each view without really making any kind of judgment himself as to the better way of handling crackers. It is an exercise in how difficult the question truly is.

A number of other quite intriguing cracker/computer security issues are spelled out by Taylor, as well. Issues include who is to blame when a computer system has been cracked? The system administrator for not maintaining sufficient security or the cracker for breaking into a system to which he doesn't have legal access? Should anti-cracking laws be targeted at stopping all kinds of illegal computer use, or are there degrees to the crime being committed? Is printing your personal CV on the company's printers even though it is explicitly forbidden to use company equipment for personal use to be treated as a computer crime equal to that of breaking into a banking system and tampering with the data?

Taylor also questions the computer security companies' motivations (and rightly so, one might add). Are they simply running a protection racket like that of the mafia, using cracking and virus alerts to scare their customers into investing in expensive counter-measure software? Or are they avenging angels siding with the innocent, the not particularly compu-fluent masses? Using the dichotomy of the computer security industry vs. the crackers, Taylor raises the issue of whether good computer security can only be achieved through knowing the enemy, the crackers. Can crackers and computer security consultants work together in a symbiosis, or are they eternal enemies never to be reconciliated?

Another issue dealt with is how crackers are to be handled. Should their acts be punished in the harshest way, or should they be helped into redirecting their activities into more useful terms? The question is whether the cracker is to be treated as a nuisance or as an asset. Taylor treats this issue quite thoroughly referring from the parliamentary discussion in Britain. He also discusses in what ways legislation can prevent cracking. He shows how little the law enforcement agencies know about cracking and how they employed overkill (refer to the Norwegian police's recent raid on the hacker who broke the DVD encryption).

Presentation

However intriguing the book might be it is presented in a very unorderly and weird way. The pages are filled with rather long quotations from various e-mails, books, interviews, etc. I gather the intention is to present the reader with the direct opinions of the book's "main characters," giving us in a way a first person view of the matter. The idea is nice, but the effect is that it ruins the fluidity of the text, making the book somewhat hard to follow. Also: it is at times quite difficult to grasp what message Taylor is trying to convey when he is expressing himself through the extracts of other people's opinions. Quotes are OK, but when, without exaggeration, 50% of the average page is taken up by quotations it is a little bit too much of the good stuff.

Having said that, the book is very structured, each chapter building nicely on previous chapters. The conclusion at the end of almost all chapters helps clarify Taylor's opinions a bit, which is nice. Still, it does not weigh up for the confusion created by the excessive use of quotations.

Conclusion

Taylor succeeds with explaining the relationship between crackers and the computer security industry, presenting the matter in a more multifaceted way than that of the mass media. The book is a definite must for those wanting an introduction to the social sides of computer security. However, I find it rather amazing that a book written in 1999 seems to totally ignore the writings of Eric Raymond, as these are probably the best works on how hackers view their own culture. Despite this, I believe Hackers might prove an interesting read even for the hardcore hacker, if only as an alternative look at our own culture.

Purchase this book at fatbrain.

If you're a regular Slashdot reader, you've heard about UCITA by now. You have probably also gathered that many prominent spokespeople for the open source and free software communities, most notably Richard Stallman, don't like it. UCITA already passed in Virginia, but the governor hasn't yet signed it into law. Here in Maryland, where I live, UCITA is still under consideration. I'm working hard to block it, and I'm not alone. But this story is not as much about Virginia and Maryland as it is about the way UCITA is being "sold" to state legislatures all over the U.S. and how you can work effectively in your state to keep it from becoming the Law of the Land.

Let's start with Virginia. There, UCITA has been passed by the Legislature and is awaiting signature by Governor Jim Gilmore. But all is not yet lost. Skip Lockwood of 4cite.org says, "It is very important that the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate all hear from dissatisfied consumers. Virginia has really put the 'horse before the cart' with the passage of this law. Call, e-mail and fax so that legislators know what a mistake they have made." And UCITA isn't scheduled to go into force in Virginia until next year, so there may be time to undo the damage. It's worth a try, certainly, even though UCITA is backed heavily both by Microsoft and Virginia's own "star" online business, AOL.

In Maryland, UCITA is is by no means a done deal. As House Bill #19 and Senate Bill #142, it is still being considered by legislative committees. This means UCITA could conceivably still be stopped in Maryland even before it came to a vote, although the forces working to push it through are both mighty and well-financed. One state senator told me this was the first time he'd ever seen actual lobbyists from Microsoft, in person, in Annapolis (Maryland's state capital). Many highly-paid "local" lobbyists are also cruising the legislative halls, busily telling the politicians why UCITA is a must-pass piece of legislation.

But apparently the lobbyists and their masters never told Maryland legislators exactly what UCITA was all about. I called the offices of all 13 members of the House of Delegates who are co-sponsoring Maryland UCITA, House Bill 19, and not one of them or any of their staff members to whom I spoke could tell me honestly that they had read the whole thing. All most of them seem to have read was this synopsis:

Adopting the Maryland Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act; establishing provisions of law applicable to agreements to create, modify, transfer, or distribute computer software, computer data and databases, Internet and online information, and computer information and products; establishing provisions of law applicable to licensing of computer information; etc.

But the bill goes just a little bit beyond this. If you have time (it's about 85 printed pages), here's the entire UCITA text.

Quite a difference, eh? If you actually read all the way through the document, you now know more than most of the Maryland legislators who are tasked with deciding whether or not it should be made into law.

The way things work here in Maryland - and in many other states - is that the heaviest political leaders call lesser politicians to whose campaigns they have donated or for whom they have done other favors and say, "I'm sending you a bill I want passed." If the lesser politician knows what's good for him or her, he or she salutes and follows orders, especially on somthing like UCITA, which is not an issue most ordinary citizens either understand or care about.

In my opinion, the single most politically powerful elected official in the State of Maryland is Casper R. Taylor, Jr., speaker of the House of Delegates. He consistently has one of the largest campaign fund "war chests" in the state and freely shares lucre from it with other legislators who support him. Mr. Taylor has personally assured me that the large sums of money he solicits - and gets - from assorted industry groups and other big donors do not influence his votes or buy his support. (I did not laugh out loud when he said this only because I am a professional journalist and have developed the ability to listen to almost any kind of outrageous statement without showing emotion. Please don't try this at home.)

Wherever you live in the U.S. (or almost anywhere else) there is a primary power broker like Taylor, and it is this person upon whom the Microsofts and AOLs and the Business Software Alliance and the rest of the big-money crowd will concentrate their efforts (and lavish funds). But don't think that people like Taylor are evil. They usually aren't, down deep inside, and if they get enough reasonable citizen input that opposes the lobbyists' desires, they can often be persuaded to do the right thing.

Guys like Casper Taylor actually like hearing from citizens; if they weren't basically gregarious and outgoing they wouldn't have gone into politics in the first place. If you don't believe me, give Casper a friendly call. His office phone number is 410-841-3800. If you don't live in Maryland, consider this a practice call for the UCITA fight that is likely to take place in your state sometime in the next year or two.

There are several things to bear in mind when calling a politician to express your opinion. The first is that yelling and acting nutsy gets you nowhere. Be sane and have *real reasons* handy for your opinion - and no, "because Richard Stallman doesn't like it" is not a good reason, because RMS is not widely-known in political circles. You need facts like the ones on this page. The second is to make sure you don't just say "UCITA." You need to refer to the correct bill number, in this case House Bill 19. Even if you speak to the lowest of Casper's underlings, and they only give you the chance to say, "I just want to ask Speaker Taylor to please withdraw his support for House Bill 19 because it is bad for consumers and will inhibit open source software development," you have done a good and valuable thing. A hundred brief calls can be worth more than $1000 in Microsoft lobbying money even if you feel like you haven't done much or that you were barely listened to.

Note that I mention phone calls, not e-mail. Politicians are generally more receptive to calls than to e-mails. They also like faxes (Taylor's fax number is 410-841-1138), but e-mail is still valid, as long as you only send one or two polite ones to each elected official you want to reach. (If you want to use Casper for a practice e-mail, send it to casper_taylor@house.state.md.us.)

So we've contacted the most powerful guy. Fine. But there are other leaders who should also hear from you. In Maryland, in this case, some of the most important are Governor Parris Glendening, Senate President Mike Miller (to whom you should mention Senate Bill 142, not House Bill 19), and Comptroller William Donald Schaefer. All of them have complete contact information on their Web pages, as do almost all public officials everywhere.

If you live in Maryland, besides these people, you'll want to contact the representatives from your district. Find them here. If you live in another state and want to find out if UCITA is about to become a burning issue there, check this page. And, no matter where you live in the U.S., here's a list of state and local government Web sites that can not only help you fight UCITA, but help you find out what your elected officials are up to in general, and who to contact if you have a beef or want to get something done.

Dealing with politics and politicians can often make you feel like you're pushing into a wall of warm fuzz, especially if you spend most of your time dealing with machine-style logic where each specific cause has a specific effect. And I don't know about you, but reading the lawyer jargon in which most proposed laws are written gives me a headache.

But if you and I and a bunch of other people don't take the trouble to go through this headache over UCITA and other legislative actions that directly affect our lives and livings, rest assured that Microsoft and the other companies and industry groups on "the other side" will keep slogging along, making sure their views get heard as loudly and strongly and often as possible.

And when your legislators hear from the industry groups and lobbyists over and over, and hear nothing from you, they will not only pass UCITA and other laws you don't like, but they'll be perfectly justified when they smugly say, afterwards, "Almost everyone I heard from about this matter was in favor of it!"

Linux Today is running an opinion piece which gives an alternative interpretation to the DeCSS saga: CSS is not so much about preventing piracy or enforcing region codes as it is about protecting the current content providers from any new competition (thereby also controlling what you get to know).

Linux Today is running an opinion piece which gives an alternative interpretation to the DeCSS saga: CSS is not so much about preventing piracy or enforcing region codes as it is about protecting the current content providers from any new competition (thereby also controlling what you get to know).

PraveenS writes "There's an in-depth analysis of LinuxOne and its IPO at linuxtoday.com. Paul Ferris of Linuxtoday spoke with LinuxOne CTO Dr. Peter Milford. Here's an interesting quote: "Our next version will have applications on it that no one else has." However, he said little else, making one wonder if they really do have something great. Also, it seems LinuxOne is not entirely unaware of the controversy surrounding them; they're holding a "Flame of the Week Contest." "

Andy Tai writes "In this LinuxToday article, Richard Stallman writes about why the Free Software community must resist UCITA. Worth a read." UCITA, you'll remember, is the legislation being pushed in state governments which would make "click-wrap" license agreements enforceable, allow software manufacturers to ban reverse engineering and criticism of their software, etc.

jay_rf writes "Found this by way of Linux Today: BSD vs. GPL posted at OS Opinion. " Its an ongoing debate, but what do you think about it?

Rendus writes "Just saw this over at Linux Today, a request for people to sign the Linux drivers petition. Their goal is 2 million signatures. When I signed, I was number 20." Well I've never heard of libranet, but hopefully they'll be successful in convincing a few manufacturers to either release drivers for Linux, or the specs so we can do it.

Jason Shindler writes "Looks like Yahoo! is back on the "real" bandwagon -- they will continue offering Real as an option to broadcast.com customers. Slashdot earlier reported that they were switching exclusively to Windows Media Player (yuck!)" Internetnews.com story here. Another quick followup: Fox got lambasted here on Slashdot earlier this month for denying www.fox.com access to people who don't use Windows or Mac operating systems. Later they apologized and said they'd fix the problem. They have kept their word. Thanks, Fox people!

Just recently we had a piece commenting on how many people were wondering where MassLinux had gone. Emmett Plant, at LinuxToday, has got the story. In an interview, Emmett talks with MassLinux' Todd Lauder about the whole situation and how people can expect to get their information back from MassLinux.

Alan Cox has released kernel 2.2.14pre14 (And now 15). The big news is that IBM S/390 Support is now merged into the 2.2 kernel (most of it). Currently the port features: Full SMP support, Disk, Networking & Console. More details can be found on this feature from Linux Today

Alan Cox has released kernel 2.2.14pre14 (And now 15). The big news is that IBM S/390 Support is now merged into the 2.2 kernel (most of it). Currently the port features: Full SMP support, Disk, Networking & Console. More details can be found on this feature from Linux Today

Ian Lance Taylor writes "Linux Today is reporting that Richard Stallman is calling for a boycott of Amazon because they are suing based on a software patent." RMS also says, "Amazon is not alone at fault in what is happening. The US Patent Office is to blame for having very low standards, and US courts are to blame for endorsing them."

Ian Lance Taylor writes "Linux Today is reporting that Richard Stallman is calling for a boycott of Amazon because they are suing based on a software patent." RMS also says, "Amazon is not alone at fault in what is happening. The US Patent Office is to blame for having very low standards, and US courts are to blame for endorsing them."

Anonymous Coward writes "LinuxToday is carrying this article about 4 positions for Linux staff based at Redmond. Like who would *do* that?" Good question, but someone always *does* take these jobs. For instance, this Product Manager position probably won't stay open long. Scary, isn't it?

OnlyNou writes "found this story at Linux Today." Apparently Fox did not intentionally exclude Linux users - along with users of all operating systems other than Mac and Windows - from fox.com, and is rectifying the error. Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com. (Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time.*grin*)

OnlyNou writes "found this story at Linux Today." Apparently Fox did not intentionally exclude Linux users - along with users of all operating systems other than Mac and Windows - from fox.com, and is rectifying the error. Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com. (Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time.*grin*)

An anonymous submittor droped this in the inbox: "A Linux Today story talks about how Sun repackaged Blackdown's porting of JDK 1.2.2 and called it their own. Even the script wrappers for this thing are the ones Steve Bryne wrote for the Blackdown effort and even have the name of the Blackdown developers in it. This is ridiculous! Is this what happens when corporate meets open source?" We all knew something like this was going to happen eventually. Hopefully Sun and Inprise will realize their mistake and take steps to correct it. If they do not, though...what steps can the Blackdown team take to protect their work?

mackga wrote to us about the new LinuxToday Counter-FUD site. Good site to get information and destroy detractors -maybe we should link to it The Linux Myths and see who comes out next.Update: 12/04 11:52 by H :Also, thanks to Rik van Riel who pointed the The FUD Counter site.

Andrew G. Feinberg writes "in this LinuxToday story, Richard Stallman talks about some upcoming laws that could be disasterous for British citizens." Guilty until you prove you're innocent, no right to remain silent, no right to a jury trial, produce your encryption keys or go to jail... At least in the U.S. we have some time off while Congress takes a break.

We're rolling around the middle of the week for Comdex, and thought maybe people would like to hear some of the news. Linus was awarded person of the year by PC Magazine. Here at the Andover.net booth we've been doing Install Races - 4 PM everyday. The winner for the week gets a Herman Miller Aeron Chair. Rob and I went to the Spencer Katt party on Monday night (Thanks Tim!) and had a good time - but the Post had a funny write-up about it. We had a good time there, unlike the Caldera party that we were locked out of and had to come back later after walking three miles. Grrr - we get that as well as listening to their audience scream "E-Business" to try to get t-shirts. Which is giving everyone migraines in a two hundred mile radius. Starlady has done some general Comdex write-ups, as well as Linux Biz Expo specific stuff. Apparently, Global Media won best Linux product of show for their "streaming product". One of the funniest parts of the show was the kid who mooned Bill Gates - Gates is just out of the picture. Oh, and on another note, CowboyNeal loves his Cyberlegs.

Xiong Jiang sent this to us from Beijing. We're running it exactly as he wrote it, without a single word changed: The curiosity from the world on Linux and China is so high these days. :) Yes, I am a Chinese and I am curious on other parts of the world, particularly, the Linux world, as you are never the less curious on China. :) These days the business of Graphon Corp. with some China companies makes a tremendous fuss on slashdot and LinuxToday." (More --->)

Warning from RM: be careful following the links in this story. They all seem valid (tested) but some of them are extremely slow and others are "China only." Netscape in Linux may either crash or hang on many of them.

Linux in China
-by Xiong Jiang

I just read the GraphOn press release on yahoo and found out it is still a very early step into China market. The "initial use of GraphOn Bridges is expected to begin in November 1999 at the Beijing Concord College of Sino-Canada, a 1500-student Beijing-based private school serving grades 10 through college". And "if successful, Chinese private enterprise and government sectors may be expected to follow..." So, it is obviously a PR from GraphOn, instead of a substantial explanation of fact. Not to mention that the China cooperators with GraphOn mentioned in the PR are even unheard to me. Maybe their English names are too different from their Chinese names ? :) OK, I just read the web of Sundiro, maybe it is a great start-up, but I really didn't hear any former success business case, and the counter on its web is 4690 this moment.

Leaving further investigation of this event to other more professional guys (I have some friends more deeply engaged in China IT industry but I am not), I would share my Linux experience as a Chinese graduate students with you, and hope you could have a better vision of Linux in China, and China itself. :)

My first touch of Linux dates back to April, 1996, when I was a graduate student in the EE department at University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), one of the top five universities in China. At that time, our campus network has just been built up, and the campus network center was helping every department set up Linux email servers. I had an account on our department email server, so, I began to use it. :) Soon, there was a campus BBS. From BBS, I got to know there was already Linux on our campus network, downloaded by our network center staff through the new-born CERnet (China Education and Research network) from the Internet. Just as most of you in the beginning era of the Internet, I am very curious about Linux, and Internet, and even email. I had never heard it before. We only had Windows, 3.1 mostly, and a few very old VAX, Sun3, and Sun4, in a lab not always open to all.

So I began to look at it. From BBS, I got to know the ftp site on campus where I can get it. We have 100M FDDI campus backbone and 10M LAN for each department, so I easily download the necessary files: INSTALLATION documents and image files. After sitting in front of a 486 66 (16M RAM) for nearly a half day diving into the document, I installed my first Linux system with slackware, kernel 1.2.13.

The learning process was very pleasant. I found out that I can almost find anything I want to know about Linux, from README, man pages, and BBS. As most of the programmers of you, "Undocumented DOS Interrupts" and "Undocumented Windows" had been my top-secret reference books in DOS/Windows era. But on Linux, everything is open. Terrific! I've got to use it. :)

Few months later, I set up a Linux masquerading gateway on a 486 100 (32M RAM) for our lab colleagues, so we only need one IP to connect the lab LAN to the campus network. We have tens of PCs but my advisor didn't have so much money for so many IPs, though it was very cheap, maybe $20 per year for each IP. Linux desktop was quite ugly at that time, no KDE or GNOME still, but we saw its power ! Many campus email servers are set up with Linux on PC. In our network center, even Sun Sparc is running Linux.

I should talk about more country-wide Linux activities instead of my own experiense. Addition to our USTC BBS, we have several other hot Linux BBS or forums. The most prestigious are freesoft newsgroup (if you can't access it, here is the mirror on linux.net.cn, the SMTH BBS (domestic access only) at Tsinghua University (top 1 in China), and ihep BBS, where the main developers of TurboLinux (China) took off.

There are several GNU software archive: freesoft, wormwang's new silk road, and Tucows Linuxberg mirror at Quanzhou, Fujian Province.

There are three main Chinese Linux distributions now: TurboLinux, XteamLinux (with win98-alike GUI installation), and BluePoint Linux (with console Chinese support employing framebuffer in kernel). They are all real free software programmers that respect GPL. They are making more and more efforts to merge their work into global Linux developemnt.

There are several individual projects that cooperate tightly with the global developers, such as KDE i18n by Lark Wang, Linux Virtual Server project by Wensong Zhang(English page). There are also some GNU/Linux related web forum, such as China Linux Forum, China DigiTribe, and our LinuxNet Forum. We have a fascinating report on Richard Stallman's recent visit to China (English page) with photos taken by myself. You may have read it on LinuxToday.

Inevitably, most of the above mentioned web pages are in Chinese. As more and more Chinese now can read English on web, either via some dictionary tools or they could speak English themselves, I hope in the coming 21th century, more and more Chinese web can be read by English-speaking people, via some dictionary tools (for example, KingSoft PowerWord) or not. :)

And thanks Robin "roblimo" Miller for give me this chance of writing on Slashdot. Though he told me to write on SOFTWARE, but not politics, I still want to point out only one thing: as American people don't necessarily think in the same way with their governments, Chinese people also enjoy this freedom. Please update your vision of China from the horrible "10 Red Years", on which we have also introspected with great regret and overcome it more open-minded since the reformation brought by Mr. Xiaoping Deng. (I speak for myself, not the government, though you may feel there is some similarity. :)

Isaac-Lew noticed a bit from LinuxToday about a Fisher Price Childrens Game that actually has a Linux version. Then again it also has a DOS, a Windows 3.x version, an OS/2 version, and a PDA version, so they've either really go their bases covered, or there is a mistake. Regardless, its interesting to see such a name brand releasing a Linux port of childrens software: there sure isn't much of it right now, thats for sure. Unless you count Emacs (insert rimshot here).