Slashdot Mirror

My philosophy is that if I need to remotely administer anything on my home network (including my LinkSys gateway), I'll do so over eSVNC or Radmin from the inside...

I agree. I have put up a formatted version of the log here.

VNC is already split into the original distribution from ORL (now RealVNC, TightVNC from Constantin & friends, eSVNC, which added security and file transfers (though win only) and a bunch of Pocket PC, Palm, MacOS, OS X etc. forks.

VNC is such a wonderful und useful program and I sometimes dream of how much better, securer and faster it could be.

Plaese combine your efforts. The world will thank you.

bye egghat.

> It would be cool to see the evolution of the kernel.

Check this.

" Duesberg's theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS has been disproved to the satisfaction of every scientist but him."

Oh, you mean like Dr. Gordon Stewart (the former WHO advisor on AIDS),
or Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein (who made a thorough study of the AIDS and could not find any evidence to back up the claim that HIV is the cause of AIDS, that AIDS is a new disease, or that it is contagious)
or how about the Perth Group (a group of medical researchers from Perth Australia) who has an excellent set of links on their home page.

Many many more... just don't have time to post them.

Screw the asteroids - it's the dang swoopers, dramites and killer satellites that I'm worried about!

This has been posted before, but here's a nifty history-of-unix timeline

Also the book 'a quarter century of unix' is a great read, if a bit dated.

--sean

Of course, I don't think it would decompress MP3's on the fly.

Oooh, how wrong you are on this one :)

There's a good CLI-based MP3 player for the Amiga called MPEGA. I think I had to combine to MONO to play back at 44/48Khz, but there is even a neat little "hack" for the Amiga called 14-bit dynamic sound. There are a couple of methods, but it gives the Amiga essentially 16-bit quality stereo sound by combining the 4 stereo channels into 2 :) This happened a while after the death of C=, so it's certainly an excusable offence :)

more things should be on the motherboard these days

Agreed, but none of them should be "stealing" memory or clock cycles from the system :)

Wondering about that? Me too. Apparently it stands for "gigaoctet". I guess "byte" is a non-native word so it had to be replaced with a certifiably French equivalent.

1st a little background. When LM 1st decided to tender for the JSF they put forward plans for a smaller cunard foreplane aircraft (a la the Israeli Lavi, the Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale etc). They even developed a Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) to demonstrate their JAST concept. A number of Small Scale Powered Models (SSPMs) were also tested to develop a basic understanding of the hover and transition regions. But pretty quicky they realised they could not get the design sorted out within the timeframe, so they went & knocked on the door of the Yakovlev OKB in Russia. In 1992, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau & Pratt & Whitney signed one with the Soyuz Aero Engine Company for information on the supersonic Yak-141 STOVL fighter and its three bearing swivel duct nozzle, etc. Yakovlev was paid 'several dozen million dollars', P&W also spent some small change on a license from the Soyuz Aero Engine Company . Its no big secret outside of the US.

Now lets see what AeroWorld Net has to say:

..In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.

Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.

After a careful study of those materials, Lockheed - without much noise - changed its initial JSF proposal, including a design of the engine nozzles that is now very similar to those of the Yak-141...

H'mm I wonder what the Russian Aerospace guide has to say, more specifically the archived July/August 95 issue of Cosmonautics

...Lockheed Martin is also cooperating with the Yakovlev Design Bureau to build an advanced fighter/attack jet for Air Force and Navy use. The deal is still pending Russian government approval, but plans call for a prototype to be ready by 2000 and operational plane by 2010. The plane could end up replacing the F-14, 15E, 16, 111, 117, and AV-8B. Yakovlev's contribution will be based on its
recent experience with the Yak-141 VTOL fighter.
...

Now that website may have a Russian slant so lets see what Jane's has to say:

... Lockheed Martin also turned to Russia for technical expertise, purchasing design data from Yakovlev...

I wonder what is says in Aviation Week & Space Technology 1995, v142n25, Jun 19, p. 74-77

Lockheed Martin is turning to Russia's Yakovlev Design Bureau for help in designing short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) competition.

Maybe even The Hindu , 'India's National Newspaper' has something to say on the subject.

...The rise and rise of western dominance since the end of the cold war has given many in countries like India the impression that the former ``eastern bloc'', and particularly Russia, has nothing left of any scientific or technological value. It will therefore surprise many that Lockheed Martin went ahead with development of its successful JSF bid only after getting the design cleared by Russia's Yakovlev aeronautical bureau because they were so impressed by the latter's short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) prototype, the Yak 41. This naval fighter was flying a dozen years ago (!) and only an explosion on board the aircraft carrier `Sergei Gorshkov' (which the Indian Navy is in the process of purchasing) and the economic travails of the disintegrating Soviet Union stopped further development.

Now I wonder what the Google cached pages of the Airforce Magazine have on the subject

...In a postCold War irony, Lockheed Martin consulted with the Yakovlev design bureau of Russia early in the JSF design process because the Yak-141 used a similar approach, though that airplane never made it to series production...

...The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which triedit out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter...

I wonder what they say on the actual JSF page:

...The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show....

I'd suggest you also check out the French Prototypes.com website . In partuclar their (Googlised into English) pages that explain the whole process on & the evolution from the Yak-36 to the Yak-38 to the Yak-141 & finally the Yak-41 & the stillborn Yak-43, which so heavily influenced the winning JSF design that LM terminated their double diamond canard foreplane CALF/JAST program to & started all over again using the Yak-43 design they got in their technolgy tranfer agreement with Yakovlev as their new starting point.

& Too finish off, whats say we look at some profile pics

The Yak-141

The stillborn Yak-43 circa 1993

The LM X-35

It seems the LM X-35 looks a lot more like the Yak-43 than the LM's canard foreplane CALF/JAST prototype. Basically the differances are a more stealthy body, uncanted wings & a lift fan rather than a lift jet. Funny thing is back then in the early 90's the Soyuz Engine Company was right in the process of designing a shafted lift fan to replace the old Rybinsk lift jet setup. I won't even start on the vectored rear nozzle setup on the P$W 135 engine which appears to be an exact copy of the Soyuz R79 (ie I'll save the nozzle pics for another day).

Okay, I'm looking around the Open Group's site... do they even make OSF/1 available anymore (as if it was really necessary)? /Brian

• http://forwardslashunix.com/history.jpg
• http://www.ic.ucsb.edu/~lopaka/images/unixhistory. gif
• http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~rcr/cs71011/Unix-hist ory.JPG
• And the BEST one: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.html

According to this diagram of Unix history, the first version of OSF/1 (later True64) was based on a mix of SVR4, 4.2BSD en Mach 2.6. (isn't this true of just about any Unix?)

N'ayez pas une vache, homme!

"Pirates seek to profit off the enormous popularity of DVDs by using the latest in technology to illegally manufacture DVD copies of Hollywood films, and again dupe consumers into purchasing a wholly inferior product,"

Indeed.
People, don't be duped by inferior hollywood products! Buy Japanime! Buy Hong Kong action flicks! Buy the original french movies instead of their inferior US remakes!

(and yes, I know about my .sig ;-)

The way UNIX was originally spelled. The name is actually a bit of a joke. I leave it up to you to figure it out, assuming your pathetic grasp of history and weak brain can actually comprehend it.

Anyway you're just another silly little slashdork with no fucking clue so why don't you just keep your fool mouth shut next time, ok dork.

If you don't have Java installed, but you do have Xscreensaver installed, you can just run the `ccurve' hack. It looks quite similar to these Kock curves.

Many people complain that the GPL is not truly free.

That is mainly because of a misconception about what 'free' is. Modern theories of democracy are based on the concept of inalienable rights (see Locke or US Declaration of Independence). Inalienable rights are inherent rights that cannot be abandoned or taken away. For men to be free, they must ensure that these rights exist and are protected (hence, the need for government).

The GPL essentially defines the inalienable rights of software. As men have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or in their possesions if you are more Lockean), software has the right to be modified, redistributed, and derived from.

To simply grant these rights with no mechanism to preserve them would go against the fundamental principles of democracy. The GPL protects software not only from giving up it's fundamental rights.

But, the original author also has the choice under which license to distribute the work. He may choice to abandon certain rights. The important thing though, is that it is his choice and his choice alone.

I'm sorry, one simply cannot make the argument that the GPL is philosophically less 'free' than the BSD license. It's just not true.

BTW: If you consult the Unix History Tree, you will see that BSD is arguably older than Linux (the NetBSD base surely is).

BSD is not growing exponentially and Linux is surely not fragmenting. BSD's growth is also probably more related to the high quality of their operating system and less because of their license.

The BSD license is scary. If I had any intention of releasing my code so that it could be reused commerically without my permission, I would simply put in under the public domain. Of course, I'm not a communist, so there is little chance that I would ever release code in such a way.

This may be a good time to post this Unix history timeline. Linux was inspired by Minix and written from scratch using no original AT&T Unix or BSD source code. Just about every "Unix" out there has something left in the source code from AT&T or BSD (sometimes with copyright notices too). Also, Unix is a trademark of The Open Group who acquired it from AT&T. You have to pay them to call your OS "Unix". Notice how the BSDs don't formally call themselves Unix?

then it is quite possible that most people are above average

It is possible, however it isn't true.

IQ in a large population is normally distributed (follows a bell curve) therefore the mean, median and mode are the same (IQ=100 (by definition)) and there is an equal number of people that are above average as below.

e.g.

It's well known that EXT2FS async strategy is a trade off (of safety) to get performance. Just to illustrate that point, this is from http://perso.wanadoo.fr/matthieu.willm/ext2-os2/us age.html,
which was easily found after typing in some keywords in Google. Note that FreeBSD has speed AND safety by using soft-updates. Furthermore, Windows NT started out with a journaling file system, so this is nothing new in Linux (rather something old).

Lazy writes considerations
This file system driver makes heavy use of lazy writes : it means that data are not committed to the disk immediately for performance purposes. This means that YOU *MUST ALWAYS* SHUTDOWN YOUR SYSTEM PROPERLY so that data can be written to disk. IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THIS RULE, YOUR EXT2FS PARTITION WILL BE PROBABLY DAMAGED, AND YOUR DATA LOST.

If you need to commit data to disk without shutting down the system, you can use the sync.exe utility. This utility behaves exactly like its UNIX equivalent (but only on Linux ext2fs file systems).

There is an automatic flush during system shutdown., so running sync.exe prior system shutdown is not necessary.

Note : You will notice that the shutdown process is slightly longer, especially if you used a huge cache size : this is a normal behaviour.

Finally there was something that really delivered on the promise of freedom. Unix gave you a platitude about freedom embossed on a license plate; Linux gave you the actual freedom.

So people who are comparing OS X and Linux nearly a decade later simply don't get the point. Taking BSD code and making a proprietary layer on top of that is old hat. What do you think SunOS was?

Take a look at some family trees:

here
here

OS X is another SunOS, another Ultrix, another NeXTStep. From the point of view of someone who values freedom, not only technical excellence, it is just as irrelevant as these predecessors.

That's a very good question. On the one hand, they were quite far apart on the Unix family tree. On the other hand, I don't recall anybody abandoning their V7 ports and starting over with System III, when AT&T decided that the latter was the official commercial Unix. Probably everybody just folded in System III features. I'm guessing that V7 backward compatibility was never an issue, though I'm hardly the expert.

Here's the early history of the HP3000.

According to the FAQ, it rather ran iX, you're right, I may have been confused between my HP3000 and the HP9000 that came soon after.

BTW, HP-UX appeared in 1986

Go back a directory and you can get the timeline in PDF, PS, and EPS format - the postscript file is ~130K in size.

Go back a directory and you can get the timeline in PDF, PS, and EPS format - the postscript file is ~130K in size.

That is completely wrong!!

First of all, Mac OS X uses the BSD Mach Microkernel (developed by Rick Rashid.. now VP of research for MS) instead of the a traditional monolithic UNIX kernel! It has a lot of the GNU and BSD tools included with it, but after all, GNU's not UNIX!

As to your various other claims there is no "BSD Mach Microkernel" though MacOS X is based on a derivative of the Mach microkernel originally developed at CMU (I know - those three letter school acronyms all sound alike..)

Mach's " Principal Investigator " was Rick Rashid, with Avadis "Avie" Tevanian who was " principal designer and engineer of the Mach operating system. BTW Avie Tevanian left CMU to continue the development of Mach at Next and is now Sr. VP of SW Engineering at Apple.

Not to sound rude, but clueless mac evangelists should check their facts!

Yes, SCO is indeed ancient, but the version of unix that they are releasing is probably one of the truest versions of UNIX that is still being actively developed., if that can be said about any version of UNIX. If you check out Éric Lévénez' UNIX History page he has a diagram in PDF and postscript format that shows the evolution of unix over the years. You'll notice that this product is a direct descendent of UNIX System III which was a product developed within AT&T in 1981 and derived directly from Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie's work at Bell Labs.

Meccano motorcycle

Of course, I consider the meccano one to be 7 hundred times more appealing than the lego one. But, I played much more to lego than meccano, and ended-up as a computer engineering guy (the reason I didn't liked the meccano was that you often have to fold pieces, which is an undoable operation. Same reason why I like software, you recycles the same bits ad nauseum). My slightly older brother was more appealed by the meccano stuff, and, (coincidence ?) is an electrical engineer and actually able to use a hammer drill without wounding himself.

Anyway, the meccano models have a Jules Verne look that is probably outdated now. And are fascinating, but fscking expensive.

About the crux of the article, I think that child choose their games, so that demise of meccano is more like a 'don't want to have to screw things together'. If all school were making their computer science course on C, we'll end up with programmers that actually know what memory allocation is. But the java wave will make all this obsolete, and we'll have garbage collectors in the kernel. Sure, some of us will still be ramble about how everything started to slip down when C replaced assembly, but putting a C compiler in the hand of everyone won't change much.

Something I am surprised not to see pointed in the article is that a lego model take a few dozen of minutes to be done, while a meccano one take hours. Attention span seems to get shorter and shorter, which may explain why child would prefer lego...

Cheers,

--fred

First BSD version: 1BSD (march 9th 1978)

see The Unix history page for detailed information about all Unices.

You just haven't looked hard enough.... :-)

apt-get install picturebook longrun jogdiald
or download from
http://samba.org/picturebook/
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/cpu/crusoe/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.brisset/vaio/

then you'll get, among other things,
setbrightness [0-254]
vaiobat (read battery status)
longrun -f [economy|performance] (set power saving mode; you can also change specific settings)
jogdiald (which I use to get page up/page down events from the jog dial in X)

(Hopefully bits of these will make it into the kernel before much longer.)

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/

It's a *GREAT* resource for finding out what came from what and when.

Most modern desktop and server operating systems (including Windows 2000) use what is often called a "modified microkernel" architecture. Mac OS X does this as well. Instead of running as a user-level process on top of Mach, Mac OS X's BSD subsystem runs in kernel mode in the same address space as Mach itself. Most message passing between Mach and BSD is eliminated in this situation; the BSD subsystem can interact with Mach via normal function calls.

It's important to note that Mach's native kernel interfaces have not been broken by this "incorporation" of the BSD subsystem. They remain just as accessible to other subsystems as they would be in a pure microkernel implementation. This is important in Mac OS X because of the wide variety of subsystems implemented on top of Mach (and, by extension, on top of BSD): Cocoa, Carbon, the Java Virtual Machine, and even Classic.

Also, if you take a look at your own link, you 'll see that OS X is has Mach as its primary ancestor, and OS X Server had NeXTStep (and BSD by extension).
Art Ar Home

There was some dabbling with microkernels from Mach in the early BSD days (Lites 1.0), but I don't think that's continued much, or was the source branch for MacOS/X.

Have a look at Eric Levenez' Unix family tree here.

NeXTSTEP 0.8 Oct. 12 1988
NeXTSTEP 1.0 Sep. 18 1989
NeXTSTEP 2.0 Sep. 18 1990
NeXTSTEP 2.1 Mar. 25, 1991
NeXTSTEP 3.3 Feb. 1995
OpenStep 4 1996
Rhapsody DR1 Sep. 1997
Rhapsody DR2 May 1998
Darwin 0.1 Mar. 16, 1999
MacOS X Server 1.0 Mar. 16, 1999
MacOS X (DP1) May 10, 1999
Darwin 0.2 May 13, 1999
MacOS X Server 1.02 Jul. 22, 1999
Darwin 0.3 Aug. 16, 1999
MacOS X (DP2) Nov. 10, 1999
MacOS X Server 1.2 Jan. 14, 2000
MacOS X (DP3) Feb. 14, 2000
Darwin 1.0 Apr. 5, 2000
Darwin 1.1 May 15, 2000
MacOS X (DP4) May 15, 2000
MacOS X (beta) Sept. 13, 2000
MacOS X Server 1.2v3 Oct. 27, 2000
Darwin 1.21 Nov. 15, 2000
MacOS X 10.0 Mar. 24, 2001

I found this while looking around on the net.

Wow a full Family Tree of UNIX this thing is huge

How about a graphical history... and also include unix, linux, blah, blah, blah...

Here's some more hopelessly overbuilt TI stuff.

...Misty, water-colored memories...

Linux was first started in 1991. OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD, in 1995. NetBSD was started in 1991 I believe..There is a Unix timeline here
Nice try though.

Anyway, the map is so convoluted at that point that it is hard to tell what shares code with what.

Windows has a few mutations (see the Windows History Chart, also here), but the number is delta compared to the number of Unix variants.

Windows has a few mutations (see the Windows History Chart, also here), but the number is delta compared to the number of Unix variants.

Windows has a few mutations (see the Windows History Chart, also here), but the number is delta compared to the number of Unix variants.

If you want an example of true Bazaar development, you need look no further than Unix itself. Unix, not Linux. "Return with us now, to those fabulous days of yesteryear!" ...

The August 23rd Slashdot has a pointer to a wonderful Unix family tree in graphical form. As we all remember, Ken Thompson created Unix, and over time it leaked out from Bell Labs to assorted universities. It also flourished inside AT&T, producing quite a number of variants, each with it's own goals. Once UCBerkeley's Computer Science Research Group got going, we had the *ix equivalent of the Cambrian Explosion. Quite apart from the 2BSD vs. 4BSD vs. AT&T variants, every hardware manufacturer on the face of the planet started carving on 4.2BSD, all with the intent of "differentiating themselves from the rest of the market".

The end result? Just watch a GNU configure script run, or (shudder) install an older sendmail (circa v5). (Hey - remember when there were lots of sendmail variants running around too?) "Unix" doesn't mean a darn thing in terms of functionality, interfaces, etc.. There is, of course, a "Unix flavor", and that's why we all recognize Minix, Linux, et al. as Unix-oid systems. But it took repeated attempts like AT&T's SVID, IEEE's POSIX, and others to simply pare down the list to an almost-managable size, and even then the real factor was that the market couldn't support all those hardware variations, so their software variants vanished with them.

The Bazaar was bizzare for Unix, and it nearly killed it. The community sorted itself out after a time, and grudging annointed Scott McNealy and Solaris the winners, but still leaving a few others in play. In the mean time, a lot of effort was wasted and a lot of money was spent that could have fed the homeless or done something equally worthwhile.

Charles Connell is right, even if he does mistake the meanings of the Cathedral and Bazaar models for the shape of their org-charts. Fred Brooks was right too - if you haven't read TM3 lately, you owe it yourself and to your fellow human beings to let the Prof. lecture you once again.

There actually is a map of programming on the same website (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/). Follow the link Computer Languages History near the bottom.

BTW: I'm a bit puzzled by the Pascal history: Object Pascal branches off Pascal in ~1985, but Delphi (which basically is Object Pascal with a huge library (the VCL)) braches off the original Pascal in ~1992.

There actually is a map of programming on the same website (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/). Follow the link Computer Languages History near the bottom.

BTW: I'm a bit puzzled by the Pascal history: Object Pascal branches off Pascal in ~1985, but Delphi (which basically is Object Pascal with a huge library (the VCL)) braches off the original Pascal in ~1992.

Not if you look at the comparable view: Windows Visual History

logan

logan