Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slashback: Hardware, Lexis, Free

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hello-ft-worth dept.

Slashback tonight has followups and clarifications on glitch-delayed Pentium IV shipments, Free software for chainware operating systems, the real distinction between 3G and 2.5G phone systems and more -- read on below for the details.

More RAM than I can afford. RyanT5000 writes "The article referenced in "Getting Rid of the Disks" incorrectly states that the maximum RAM for a 32-bit Intel compatible system is 4 GB. This was true up to and including the original Pentium processor, and it makes a lot of sense (after all, 2^32 = 4 294 967 296). However, with the Pentium Pro, Intel added 4 pins to the address bus, expanding the maximum physical address space to 64 GB (using paging, since it still uses 32 bit addressing). I would assume AMD has a similar feature. If you're on Windows, you'll need a server version to get above 4 GB, but most major Linux/BSD/etc. OSes support it. This would probably be cheaper (and definitely faster) than SCSI SSDs. If you need more than 64 GB of solid state storage, you probably shouldn't be running on an Intel."

"Free" always makes people suspicious. imevil writes "A while ago slashdotters asked some questions to the GNUWin II team. Well, here are the answers. In the meantime, more people joined the team, and more languages were added (this one looks pretty cool)." There's also a short article about GNUWin running at NewsForge.

On a related note, cos(0) writes "According to this(1), this(2), and other stories, many people are interested in running open source, high-quality software on MS Windows. The author of this site provides an up-to-date CD image of the latest versions of numerous high-quality OSS applications (complete list on the site), updated monthly, downloadable via BitTorrent. (The same site also offers a web-based Code Beautifier.)"

Cool distribution method! (And if you're on dialup, $5 seems like a great bargain -- Are you listening, Cheapbytes?)

Toys are so tempting to the wallet ... OrenWolf writes "Ars Technica Has a review up of BroadQ's QCast Tuner software. Unlike the earlier /. review, this article goes into great detail about the technical capabilities of the software. A must read for PS2 owners looking for a PC-PVR-esque solution."

Yeah, but does this review include any original software? ;) And david_adams writes "Slashdot linked to an article I wrote last month about my experience with a CDMA2000 1x wireless network from SprintPCS. It sparked quite a bit of controversy, but not for the reasons I expected. Because I called Sprint's service 3G in the title, but admitted it was 2.5G in the first paragraph, I heard from people on both sides, chiding me on the one hand for calling it 3G, and on the other for calling it 2.5G. I decided to research and write a new article to get to the bottom of it. What is truly 3G? Where is the line between 2.5G and 3G?"

The time to wait is now! ThunderDawg writes "Intel resumed Canterwood Pentium 4 3 GHz 800FSB shipments yesterday. TAFKAEFKAF (The Anomaly Formerly Known as Errata Formerly Known as Flaw) was corrected with a software patch.

Intel is again shipping its new 3GHz Pentium 4 processor, a week after it halted shipments due to the discovery of an "anomaly," an Intel spokesman said Monday. PC makers that use the chip in their systems have been supplied with a software update to fix the issue, George Alfs, an Intel spokesman said. Vendors including Hewlett-Packard, Dell Computer, and Gateway introduced desktop systems based on the chip when it was released on Monday last week. The issue with the 3GHz Pentium 4 with support for an 800MHz system bus occurs only in rare circumstances and users are unlikely to be affected, according to Alfs."

I'd take google and a strong AI any day. hondo77 writes "A bit of a followup to this article from back in February, LexisNexis has been named the publisher of official reports by the California Supreme Court, according to this press release. "The public will have free access to the official text of the opinions at a Web site hosted by LexisNexis linked to the court's Web site." IANAL but it doesn't sound ominous to me."

130 comments

  1. All the uses for all that space by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1
    64 gigs of solid state storage? I would be happy with four, on my P133...

    Go calculate something

  2. more like 16 gigabytes by jrstewart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While theoretically you can put up to 64 gigs into a recent IA32 machine, my understanding is that in Linux at least the practical limit is 16 gigabytes. After that the page tables won't fit in kernel space.

    I'd expect that most other OSes have limits like that due to architectures designed when nobody was close to using a full 4 gigs.

    1. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by coupland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well historically maximum memory sizes have always been limited by implementations (how long after OS/2 2.0 before you could buy a server with 4.0 GB RAM?). However demand usually pushes supply. When 32GB of RAM becomes needed by the IA32 architecture it's a sure bet that Linux and eventually Windows will catch up to meet the need. The fact that it isn't realistically possible today is immaterial. There is no demand. (Please spare me the examples of theoretical clients...)

    2. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I understand that the way around that one is to use large pages, to decrease the overhead for each page. Pages can be of variable sizes. I'm not a kernel expert, but there was a talk on this topic at the last Ottawa Linux Symposium.

    3. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ummm, large X86 systems from Dell, HP, Unisys and others already support the full 64GB of ram that the architecture allows. Sure not everyone (or even many) who uses Linux needs large PAE support but it would be nice for those who do. Of course most of the people I know who wanted to use large amounts of ram on x86 are waiting for Opteron because generally if you need that much ram you need it all for one or two processes and that doesn't work with PAE. btw if you think no one wants access to large chunks of ram on x86 then you haven't dealt with people with large databases or who route large ASIC's/cpus. It costs shedloads to buy Sun's with lots of ram, an Opteron or Xeon with the same amount of ram will probably cost about 1/3rd as much, which when you are talking about dozens of systems adds up to a lot of money. (My back of the envelope calculation was that for our ASIC group it would save somewhere in the neighborhood of about a quarter million a year =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by jrstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's been a while since I've needed to know this for anything, but...

      There are two page sizes on IA32, 4k and 4m. Actually I think there's a mode with 2m pages as well, but we can lump it in with the 4m case for our purposes.

      Windows uses 4m pages for at least some always-resident kernel pages. Linux I believe always uses 4k pages but I'm not certain. There are issues with 4m pages, like they're annoying for copy-on-write or swapping out. Also less convenient for page-on-demand for executables. In fact, I would venture to say that they're only useful in rather specialized situations. It's not that often that you have 4m of pinned non-CoW memory (maybe video memory would be the only case in most systems).

      As another poster rightly pointed out we should worry too much about a practical limit of 16 gigs, since there's not really a market demand for this in IA32. When it gets to be an issue somebody will find a way around it.

      Of the people who might want >16 gigs of RAM right now I expect almost all of them are working with large databases of one form or another and could work around the hassles of 4m pages, thus scaling
      all the way to 64 gig.

    5. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Untrue. Linux can do 32 GB; at work I test and benchmark this stuff (for example see here and here). Linux can also probably do 64 GB, though we haven't tested this because we don't have enough memory slots on our development platforms.

    6. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Serious question... what systems can you even get that you can put 16GB in? Probably server stuff from Dell/Compaq, but any "normal" (I dunno) motherboards? Forget support from Linux/Windows/whatever, what's even available?

      Most I've ever seen in an IA32 was 4GB in an IBM Workstation, and you had to do it all with RDRAM. $$$$$$$

    7. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2, Informative
      64gb ram is actually more than the arch allows. The arch allows 4gb.

      The IA-32 architecture (32-bit x86) allows 4gb of linear virtual address space. (It allows a larger segmented address space, but those segmented addresses get mapped into the 4gb linear space.)

      Versions of the x86 architecture implemented by the Pentium Pro and beyond allow more than 4gb of physical address space, and thus allow (with the appropriate chipset and OS support) machines with more than 4gb of RAM; you just can't have more than 4gb of that memory mapped into the virtual address space at any given time (those presumably being the "paging tricks" to which you refer; mmap() and other memory-mapping APIs, and multi-tasking, are your friends here).

    8. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by nbvb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/inde x.xml

      Sometimes, you just need the memory.

      I have a pair of E10k's at work that each have 64gb of RAM in them, and could probably stand to use some more ...

      When we replace them with SF 15k's, we'll probably go with 256GB of memory each ...

      Yeah, so really, there are OS's that can not only address, but use (and efficiently too!) that much memory ...

      You don't know the meaning of Super Duper Ultra F'n Cool until you dynamically reconfigure a 10k/15k... It's just awe-inspiring. :) Rip boards out, take CPU's, memory & I/O offline and keep the OS running .... nice! And even better, add 'em back in...

      --DM

    9. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by amorsen · · Score: 1
      Yeah, so really, there are OS's that can not only address, but use (and efficiently too!) that much memory ...

      You are comparing Solaris on a 64-bit CPU to Linux on a 32-bit CPU. Handling large memory on 32-bit is difficult. Linus Torvalds once stated that Linux would never support more than 4GB on x86 - I believe he said something to the effect of "Buy an Alpha". 64-bit architectures have been slow in becoming mainstream, so concessions had to be made.

      If you want 64GB in Linux, just run it on a 64-bit architecture. Get an IA64-box, or use that old E10k...

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:more like 16 gigabytes by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      People who need more than 4Gb on one machine usually want to be able to address it all in one process (in my field, electronic design automation, this is becoming increasingly common for laying out or analyzing a big chip), so they'll want 64 bits. I think Opteron's going to be the winner here if AMD can reliably deliver.

  3. Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I was suspicious about their P1 floating point bug, but what really got me to avoid them forever was their PIII.

    And now P4 is buggy, just like P1....

    Does that mean a horrendous sucking privacy violation is to come on the P6?

    1. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting that the fix is a software fix. While this sounds like some sort of BIOS patch or the like, apparently the P4 has downloadable microcode so perhaps it's actually reprogramming the chips themselves. Dvorak, of PC Magazine fame, had a conspiratorial article once about the threat that this presents in that information on how to reset the microcode in the hands of a virus writer could be devastating (and achieve the holy pinnacle of computer vandals of actually damaging hardware, and least perceptably).

      On a whole other topic, isn't it about time that Intel dumped the "Pentium" name? Pentium of course was named to be a variation of pent*, meaning 5, which was natural given that it followed the 486. Here we are how many years later still using the term "Pentium" despite a processor core that shares virtually nothing with its predecessors. Will we have a "Pential Pentium"? Should the HT P4 be a Pentium Pentium? And of course naming the newly designed mobile chip "Pentium M" was an absolutely moronic branding maneuver. Maybe they should call their consumer 64-bit processor the "Triber SX"?

      I digress but just wanted to complain about Intel naming conventions as of late.

    2. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Funny
      I kinda liked III. Not only did you have Lloyd's Klingon chewing the scenery, but you have the stirring scene when Kirk destroys the Enterprise, watching it tear up in the atmosphere, and he says "My god, Bones... what have I done?"

      I agree with you about I, though. The f00fing V'Ger was decidedly a floating point error.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    3. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, afaik there's not too much hidden about how to write to the microcode. In fact I can even put a device to it in my /dev in linux. Not sure what I'd do with it, but it's there.

      Think of BIOS's. Anyone can flash those. Some viruses did. It's not too big of a deal. And Dvorak's an idiot.

    4. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Galvatron · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know, but there's a reason that the Pentium was called "Pentium" instead of "586." A court case found that they could not trademark a 3 digit number, so other companies were free to call their chips 486, or 486-compatible. Pentium is a trademarked term.

      As for why they don't come up with a new trademarkable name, I'm really not sure. I suppose they figure that "Sexium" would just get too many giggles and not be taken seriously, so any new name would have to be just pulled out of their ass. After all the time spent getting people who know nothing about computers to learn the term "Pentium," I don't think they want to have to start all over again. For the most part, they'd rather keep the marketing advantage of numbers (so that people know "4 is better than 3") while prefixing it with a trademarked term, so that other people can't copy their naming scheme.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    5. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Rain · · Score: 3, Informative
      apparently the P4 has downloadable microcode so perhaps it's actually reprogramming the chips themselves

      FWIW, every Intel chip since the Pentium Pro has had downloadable microcode. AFAIK, the instructions that are handled by the microcode are notably slower, so not all of them are handled there. I don't have much information about that, though...

      The microcode (at least with the p3 and before, probably still so with the p4) isn't stored on the CPU permanently--it needs to be uploaded on every system boot. For this reason, at least some motherboard manufacturers store the microcode in the BIOS and upload it on boot. I also believe that Win2k and above automatically upload the microcode as well, but I'm not sure on that.

      I don't know whether AMD's processors support upgradable microcode (and, quite honestly, am too lazy to look right now), but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

    6. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Technician · · Score: 1

      Even though the bug in the P1 only affected programs using some instruction of the floating point processer, Intel was responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do.

      If you buy a product with a bug, do you want a free repacement, or be accused of operator/programmer error. (Windows crash/reboot cycle). I'd love MS to recall my WIN 98 CD's and provide a non-crash replacements for free. I know which company I have less bugs with.

      I'm sticking with the reliable one. When I get a P4 with the 800 Mhz FSB, I know it's going to be reliable just like my 200 Mhz Pentium, 1 Ghz PIII & 2.4Ghz P4. I've had more bugs with the motherboard (1 replaced) and hard drives (2 replaced) than I have ever had with a processor (none replaced). If only everything else were as reliable I'd be very happy.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    7. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by smertens · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that the uploadable microcode mainly consisted of switches to activate/deactivate various parts of the chip. Some advanced optimization feature turns out to be buggy? Just turn it off...

    8. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Specialist2k · · Score: 2, Informative
      Dvorak, of PC Magazine fame, had a conspiratorial article once about the threat that this presents in that information on how to reset the microcode in the hands of a virus writer could be devastating

      AFAIK microcode updates are signed or at least protected by a MAC, so it isn't that trivial to update...

      Additionally, the CPU might only allow one update (remember, the update is volatile) after the CPU is reset which is always done by the BIOS in current systems. So, a malicious program would have to inject the (correctly signed) new microcode before the BIOS performs its upload.

      But this opens interesting possibilities like running some time-intensive OPS until the CPU core shuts down due to overheating *eg*

    9. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Celandine · · Score: 1

      A pedant writes: pent- is from the Greek, not the Latin, so it would be Hexium, not Sexium. Doesn't sound a whole lot better, I admit...

    10. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1

      Actually, what's even funnier is that when the Pentium first came out, the first couple generations of it were commonly called the P5 and P6, respectively. And now here we are, years later... with the P4.

    11. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know, but there's a reason that the Pentium was called "Pentium" instead of "586." A court case found that they could not trademark a 3 digit number, so other companies were free to call their chips 486, or 486-compatible. Pentium is a trademarked term.

      Exactly

      As for why they don't come up with a new trademarkable name, I'm really not sure.

      Intel spent millions promoting "Pentium" as a brand. Renaming the ship Sexium/Hexium/SomethingElsium means abandoning that brand.

      Most likely the folks who came up with the Pentium name weren't marketing guru's but techs, or else weren't clued into the fact that a P6, P7, etc. were sure to follow the P5/586. Also, if they created a Hexium and a Septium processor, they would be open to competitors creating a Sexium, or an Octium, I'm sure a judge wouldn't allow them exclusive access to names ending in -ium.

      Brands are powerful things, Coke, Kleenex, Xerox, Viagra... And now Pentium.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    12. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      Intel was responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do.

      Nice history re-write!

      What actually happened was much less forthright and upstanding - you had to prove to Intel that the problem DID - not would or could - affect you before they would replace the defective CPU.

      Intel Corp.'s response to the flap over its Pentium processor bug is turning into a textbook example of how not to handle a delicate situation. Angry customers have posted hundreds of complaints on CompuServe and the Usenet. These users, who paid top dollar for the most expensive microprocessor in its class, have learned that the chip doesn't handle floating-point division consistently. When the users request help, the Intel "sysbot" repeats, "If you have questions about the subtle floating-point unit flaw of the Intel Pentium processor, cal l 1-800-628-8686." (from an article in InformationWeek appearing 12-19-1994, my emphasis)

      And:

      While Intel president Andy Grove now says he's "truly sorry," the company pooh-poohed user concerns at first, claiming its chip problem would affect "users of the Pentium processor who are engaged in heavy-duty scientific/floating-point calculations," as Grove's Internet posting put it. Users, upon reaching Intel's 800 number, apparently go through a lengthy interview process to see if Intel deems them worthy of receiving a corrected chip. If you can't convince Intel that you may encounter the bug in daily life, you just don't make the cut. ( Intel To Users: 'Humbug! )

      Threats of class action lawsuits probably had something to do with Intel being "responsible enough to disclose the problem and do a recall instead of hiding the problem and quietly repacing "defective" processers on a case by case basis as many companies do."

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
    13. Re:Exactly why I don't use intel.... by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Brands are powerful things, Coke, Kleenex, Xerox, Viagra... And now Pentium.

      Agree, but technological items don't carry brand association power than other goods and services do: A long-lasting brand in technology can often be an anchor more than it's a float. When I hear "Pentium" my natural association is with a very old processor line, not something cutting edge. When I hear "USB 2.0" I naturally think "obsolete" simply because I assocate it with USB 1.1, whereas Firewire is free from those brand associations so it sounds "fast".

      Personally I think sticking with the Pentium name has been a massive disaster for Intel: There's a marketing push to move from the "obsolete" Pentium to the "new, faster" "OmniproTM" processor (man, you still have a "Pentium" in yours?), but when it's "Pentium III 1.2Ghz -> Pentium IV 2Ghz -> Pentium IV 2Ghz HT .13" It just sounds more like moving laterally than vertically.

  4. no slashback on the spam survey? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Funny

    What if we missed it the first 3 times?!

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  5. Also by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Informative
    CD image of the latest versions of numerous high-quality OSS applications

    There's also Cygwin, which is a sort of mini-distro for Windows complete with XFree and a few basic window managers (fwm and OpenBox among them). Great package manager, lots of mirrors and great quality overall. It sometimes beats booting into Debian =)

    Note that you'll want to run it in NT4 or better (IMO), but it's a very nice introduction to UNIX-like environments, especially the X server support (since bash is not very flashy). It's actually quite neat to have a full screen X session running on top of the Windows desktop.

    It also ships with the GNU toolchain so you can even write your own little aps (console, GTK or plain X).

    1. Re:Also by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's actually quite neat to have a full screen X session running on top of the Windows desktop.

      It's useful for cross-platform development...ssh with X tunnelling into a Linux server lets you run emacs, DDD, etc. across the network with reasonable speed for debugging Linux apps from a Win32 desktop. It saves the hassle of rebooting to switch between them when both of your desktop machines are Win32 boxen.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    2. Re:Also by Zarquon · · Score: 1

      There's also some experimental builds of XFree for cygwin that put X applications in Windows' windows (note caps). See "-multiwindow" switch on the server test series. It's not ready for release yet, but worked fairly well the few times I've used it.

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    3. Re:Also by zwoelfk · · Score: 1

      It's actually quite neat to have a full screen X session running on top of the Windows desktop.

      Now that CygWin supports a "rootless" mode for X (no fullscreen root window), my daily desktop usage has changed dramatically. Now I have migrated back to Windows for my main desktop at home and at work (easier for multimedia editing and games) and just run all of my Linux/FreeBSD apps through ssh directly onto my windows desktop. Works flawlessly!

      [...]complete with XFree and a few basic window managers (fwm and OpenBox among them).

      KDE also works pretty well under CygWin. But it takes quite a bit of memory.

      The only real difficulty I have with Cygwin is handling filenames on my Japanese machines.

    4. Re:Also by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      KDE also works pretty well under CygWin. But it takes quite a bit of memory.

      How do ya do that? =) A link would be much appreciated.

    5. Re:Also by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      start XWin -rootless -screen 0 1024 768

      Rootless mode is indeed sweet.

      Also, if you want to entirely replace your windows desktop, just minimize your taskbar and run KDE, you won't even know you are on a windows box (or for that matter, replace your GUI shell with the Cygwin X server in your system.ini!)

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    6. Re:Also by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      So all I need to do is download KDE, untar it and that's it? It works with Cygwin?

    7. Re:Also by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      Well, of course =)

  6. Sounds eerily familiar... by Zarquon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..."The issue with the 3GHz Pentium 4 with support for an 800MHz system bus occurs only in rare circumstances and users are unlikely to be affected, according to Alfs."

    Wasn't that what they said about the floating point bug, too? Well, both of them? :)

    Sounds like they are fixing it with a microcode patch, much as they fixed the PII FIST/FISTP bug, but the article was rather short on details.

    --
    "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    1. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by uchi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A quick thought popped into my head when you said microcode patch: If infact it is patchable with an executable which fixes the microcode, isn't it likewise "patchable" by a virus or something of some sort, rendering the processor completely useless? I would assume that the microcode controlled non-trivial things, since they went all the way of releasing a patch for it. Just a thought - please tell me if its true? Thanks. -Uchi

    2. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 2, Informative

      The BIOS controls the writable state of the microcode and it is always off as shipped to the consumer.

      The manufacturers can burn the update on machines where it is enabled then turn the option off or move the chip to a machine where it is disabled.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    3. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by Zarquon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, last time I looked at it, it worked like this: There is a default version, probably rom-masked, on chip. Then, at _each_ boot, the bios uploads an updated microcode to volatile memory on chip. And finally, the OS or anything else running at ring-0 can upload a new version.

      Typically, this is fairly black-box (undocumented) binary code you get from your vendor (intel/amd/whatever).

      Basically, if software is already running at Ring 0, you are in trouble anyway. It can wipe the HD, flash the bios, whatever.

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    4. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by Zarquon · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, some more info on intel microcode:

      1) There is a linux utility to update the microcode.

      2) The microcode is not only undocumented (along with the internal structure it works with) but is encrypted and checked by the processor before it is loaded, but I have no idea how effective the authentication method is.

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    5. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by morcheeba · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a good (but dated) article explaining this feature. The short answer: they used encryption plus security-through-obscurity (no internal documentation!). This would be cool to hack for good, too -- imagine if you ran one major application that could be sped up with one additional specialized instruction!

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
    6. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      Quick, let's start a distributed cracking effort so we can install Linux microcode inside the processor instead of the proprietary Intel code!

      Seriously, though, there might be some small benefit to adding microcode that's tailored to the OS. Long ago, many IBM processors used to load OS-specific (or even site-specific) microcode to add instructions and thus optimise the size or speed of certain operations.

    7. Re:Sounds eerily familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Anonymous because I'm too lazy to log in.. if you read this, fine.

      1. Microcode patches get flushed every RESET. The virus could do far worse to the system.

      2. You won't get any speed improvements -- microcode patches are __slow__ since a. microcode in general is slow, and b. the patch space is slower than the ROM in general

      3. microcode patches are very _stepping_ dependent -- you'd have to rewrite the patch (prior to encrypting it) for each stepping of each processor.

      4. future processors will probably have more robust (think PKI) infrastructure for patches. Currently, you would have to look at the mask to figure out how the encryption worked.

      About the best you could do with a patch would be to fix anti-overclocking features or enable multiple threads on a single threaded processor.

  7. Pentium IV Flaw by agrippa_cash · · Score: 1

    "The anomaly was an issue only seen in a lab environment on a small number of units undergoing stress testing" The way software evolves, in a few years daily use will create the same load as stress testing.

  8. LexisNexis by Jedi+Paramedic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's interesting that California chose Lexis, but perhaps not as ominous as it would seem. As part of their obligation to provide true public access to the law, many (or maybe most) courts have law libraries.

    Yes, it's on paper, yes, it's not searchable from the comfort of your home... but I think that's what you pay for when you get the access through Lexis or Westlaw's online service.

    Many law libraries even have searchable case law on archived CDs, or cheap/free alternatives (like Loislaw and Lexis One.

    Remember, lots of legal treatises (and perhaps some other states' "official publications") are published by LexisNexis, as are any books that used to be published under the Matthew Bender name...

    --

    That's my purse! I don't know you! -- Bobby Hill
    1. Re:LexisNexis by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      There are very few companies anywhere that have the kind of experience with archival and searching of documents (ESPECIALLY legal documents) that Lexis-Nexis does, so it seems to me that they would be the obvious choice for California to award the contract to.

      I'm curious, does anyone here think this news IS ominous, and if so why?

    2. Re:LexisNexis by QuessFan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am the county law librarian at one of the California County Law Libraries.

      Before the court unification(Joining the muni court with superior court) We do serve as court library. But with the unification, things are very different. Some county law library still function as court library. While some had became very independent of the court.

      If you live near the county seat of a larger county, then you have access to county law library that is as good as most law firm library. I had compare notes with several firm law library, and I have a bigger material budget compares to most of them. They have the advantage in that they only have to collect materials in the subject area their firm specialized in. While I have to spread my collection dollars thin on many different subjects.

      California appellate court decisions are already being posted on the Judicial Council(The state's version of Judicial Conference) web site.

      http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov

      What new about this contract is that the older case, going back to 1850s will be aviliable free. And the cost of getting new volumes will be cheaper than what west is charging now. But I suspect West will just increase the price on West's California Reporter.(The unofficial one)

    3. Re:LexisNexis by jred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A day late, but better late than never, right? :D

      From what I understand, the big difference is how the individual cases are referenced. IANAL, but my gf is a law student :) Basically, when referencing prior judgements during a case/trial, you'd use something like "volume 3, page 453, paragragh 3". There's only one "standard" reference that anyone will understand what the heck you're talking about. The actual cases are public domain, but the index/ref. #s are copywrited. So whoever wants to can publish the info, but only one source is acceptable in court. IIRC, this is LexisNexis. So if you're wanting to do anything at all practical with the info, they have a virtual monopoly.

      *note: all this is from memory, & mine's not too good. But I think that's what the big deal is.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  9. Sorry, 4GB is probably it for most folks by unfortunateson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was just looking into motherboards this afternoon, and most of the newest P4 motherboards only support 4 gig -- and the older ones only support 3 or 2 gig.

    Go check out Tom's Hardware if you don't believe me.

    So maybe the chip does support 64GB (I don't have a link for that)... the limit could be the chipset, the motherboard makers, or perhaps its just the max size of RAM available?

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:Sorry, 4GB is probably it for most folks by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get large systems fron Dell, HP, IBM, or Unisys and you get large memory support, up to 64GB for most of them on the largest x86 servers. The low end 1 and 2 way chipsets don't support large amounts of memory because PAE support takes a lot of silicon that just isn't needed by 99.9999% of the people who buy such systems. That and you'd need more slots as the largest commonly available ram modules are 1GB, though 4GB modules are seen a little more often these days.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Sorry, 4GB is probably it for most folks by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm, yes, but you're prolly looking at motherboards aimed at the individual computer users for personal uses. 4+gB amounts of memory are mianly needed in the server and clustering bit of computing, not for home/office use. (Well, with Win2k3 coming upon us, we might never know.) Although the video/photoediting branche of computing might have a use for that much memory, I doubt they are in favour of the x32 architecture anyways, considering Apple's strength and foothoold in the video/photo editing branche...

      And like it's been stated before, if you really do need that much memory on a single machine, you might be better of with a different architecture anyways, possibly a whole different solution to the problem.

      --
      Hate me!
    3. Re:Sorry, 4GB is probably it for most folks by shlong · · Score: 1

      The ServerWorks Grand Champion series and the Intel 75xx series of chipsets both support >4GB. The no-name Taiwanese brands from Fry's usually don't. Each serves a different market.

      --
      Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
  10. What? No mention of this really neat article? by Aexia · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why didn't this get a mention in Slashback as well? I haven't seen any sign of this facinating story on slashdot yet. I'm sure everyone would find it to be of interest.

  11. What's the point? by nomel · · Score: 1

    is there even software that can move everything from a disk drive to a ramdrive when it is created? Otherwise...you would install everything to the ram drive...then have the power go off...and loose everything.

    I know this would be easy to do in linux...(just mount things in variouse places)...but in windows, is this even feasible?

    1. Re:What's the point? by JJahn · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The trick is keeping the hard drive up-to-date with the memory. These are called solid-state drives, and have been around for a long time in hardware. (Why I have some 134 mb ones in a linux alphaserver right now) So I would assume the software implementation would just have to do the same thing.

      Of course if the power goes out, you could still lose things that were not yet sync'ed up. Better to have a UPS on your system in that case.

    2. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um. yeah. It's called an rc script :\

      mkreiserfs /path/to/new/ramdisk
      cp -R /path/to/hdd/ /path/to/new/ramdisk

      voila, you have a fresh ramdisk with all files saved on your hdd freshly copied over.

  12. is TeX dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    I know it sounds like a troll, but I'm afraid TeX is dying.

    The comp.sys.tex has been overrun by spam, and there hasn't been a single TeX related post in half a year. Additionally, the Boston TeX symposium has been cancelled this year, and probably won't be back next year.

    Publishers seem to be abandoning TeX as well. O'Reilly, Sams, Microsoft press, and Morgan Kaufmann, as well as most other leading publishers, either no longer accept TeX/DVI submissions, or never did. The only remaining big TeX publishers would seem to be Addison Wesley and MIT Press, and they both prefer PageMaker postscript output.

    Furthermore, it is no longer possible to buy a new printer that will print DVI output. If you want DVI, you need to scrounge ebay, or university garage sales.

    I kow there are still TeX devotees, people who still write letters (and web pages and email!) in TeX, but they seem to be a dying breed.

    1. Re:is TeX dying? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I kow there are still TeX devotees, people who still write letters (and web pages and email!) in TeX, but they seem to be a dying breed.

      What benefits, anyway, does TeX have over Postscript or XML?

    2. Re:is TeX dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      LaTeX, derived from TeX, is irreplaceable when writing scientific papers. One benefit of TeX, or specifically LaTeX, is that is makes it easy to write nice-looking letters, conference papers, articles, and so on by taking care of most of the formatting for you. Its not big on flexibility, but it is big on looks.

    3. Re:is TeX dying? by Celandine · · Score: 1
      Strange comments.

      1) dvips has been around for years. I've never seen a printer that could handle DVI directly, and basically all my output for the last decade has been in TeX format. Publishers who want PostScript don't need to know what was used to generate it.

      2) No sign of TeX dying out in academic publishing: and no likelihood that it will while it remains the standard for math typesetting.

    4. Re:Re:is TeX dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur. As a new user of Latex via Lyx; when I first saw the printer output of a modest report, my painfully constructed *.doc papers from college were an absolute embarrassment. And I'm not a Maths major, so I haven't even touched Latex/Lyx's real strengths.

      You .doc-esque folks out there ought to try either Lyx or Latex. It's the difference between typsetting and mere formatting.

    5. Re:is TeX dying? by Glyndwr · · Score: 1

      If you'd like to point me to something equally good for writing my PhD thesis in, I'll gladly consider it. It must be able to cope with ~250 pages of document, page numbering, cross referencing, extensive biblographies and referencing, hundreds of embedded graphs and diagrams, and be free (speech or beer, I'll be generous).

      And what is this printing DVI rubbish? You never print DVI, you print Postscript, or in my case, PDF as all my LaTeX is turned directly to PDF for better cross-platform viewability.

      --
      You win again, gravity!
    6. Re:is TeX dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote my 400 page PH.D. thesis in (gasp!) Microsoft Word 97 running on windows nt 4.0 sp 3. I split it up chapter by chapter with each chapter file clocking in well over 50 megabytes. The entire thesis fit comfortably on two 650MB CDROMs (both filled to capacity).
      Did i mention it took two days to print ? :)
      Microsoft Word -> the sane alternative to TeX.

  13. More importantly ..... by taniwha · · Score: 1

    Which version of Linux will contain the fix .... (or is it a uCode patch from the BIOS) .... inquiring minds want to know

  14. Chipsets.... by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

    It's a limit of the "consumer" level chipsets. Server chipsets can do a lot more memory than that.

  15. sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I just might be getting myself an Area51, they are quite reasonable at ~$2300 for a P43.0/800 with a GB(!) of RAM, a Radeon 9800 and all other sorts of goodness.

    Anyone have any Alienware experience to share? Good? Bad?

    1. Re:sweet by toddestan · · Score: 1

      They are about the only large company serious about making high-performance gaming computers. No one else offers such a beast (try finding any other name brand computer with anything better than a GeForce MX card, ha!) They are very nice computers, though if you don't mind building it yourself you can usually get a comperable system cheaper, though it may not look as pretty.

    2. Re:sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My alienware system (P4 2.8/533 fsb, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9700) has been running extremely well. It's reasonably quiet and runs farily cool. Performance is through the roof, jaw-dropping style. I had one lockup with UT2k3, due to a misconfiguration, but it was easily fixed. Overall an incredible system.

  16. SprintPCS 3G is kinda slow by Mundocani · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'd always thought that the boasts about 3G's speed seemed overblown. I bought a Toshiba 2032 3G cellphone/pda last December and it just never seemed to be all that fast at fetching my email or pulling up a map in Yahoo. I never knew that Sprint's (Qualcomm's?) implementation only barely meets 3G speed requirements. I feel sort of ripped off, but as the author of the article points out, $10 a month for unlimited data service is really hard to complain about, even if it is only around 128 kbps. I think I should try to stop buying into this "wonderful" cutting edge technology so early and start assuming that claims are exaggerated.

    1. Re:SprintPCS 3G is kinda slow by shylock0 · · Score: 1

      $10/month for unlimited data? Do you have a link to that?

      --
      Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
    2. Re:SprintPCS 3G is kinda slow by Mundocani · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's just the standard SprintPCS Vision price. Of course, you still have to have their cellphone service as well. Sorry if that was misleading.

    3. Re:SprintPCS 3G is kinda slow by david_adams · · Score: 1

      Remember, that some of the speed of the connection you enjoy will be based on the processor of the device, that has to process the TCP/IP information. In other words, accessing the web from my phone's browser is slow, because my phone has a very slow processor. But I plug my laptop into the phone and access the web through that, it's much, much faster. My guess is that if your Toshiba had a faster processor, your experience would be better. I mean, the StrongARM 206MHz Processor isn't bad, but it's not as fast as the processor in my laptop, or the latest xScales.

      David Adams
      http://www.newmobilecomputing.com

    4. Re:SprintPCS 3G is kinda slow by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 1

      Hey, David. Help me out here, if you could. Because I have a Sanyo SCP-5150 (SprintPCS) which I *think* is 2.5G. When I link it to my laptop, I get about a 14.4K connection and I read something that called it a 1xRTT network. Where does all that fit in with the rest of your article and research? Any ideas?

      --
      Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  17. West Publishing... by akmed · · Score: 2, Informative

    already publishes a lot of official reporters. I believe Lexis publishes some as well. It's really not a big deal. There are no copyrights in court opinions (or they can't be exploited anyway; there's some case out there saying that). They're free to the public as far as I know. Lexis-Nexis and WestLaw both make their money adding additional content to opinions (e.g. headnotes, their own pagination). But they also do business publishing reporters.

  18. Why???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this(1), this(2), and other stories, many people are interested in running open source, high-quality software on MS Windows.

    The only good things about Windows are the high-quality closed-source apps you can run on it!!

  19. Non-proprietary citation? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Lexis-Nexis and WestLaw both make their money adding additional content to opinions (e.g. headnotes, their own pagination).

    What's the proper way to cite a court opinion without referring to a copyrighted page number?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Non-proprietary citation? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      IIRC it was recently found that the page numbers aren't copyrightable.

      Hell, why should they be? They're merely sequential; the phone book is more creative than that.

      West's key numbers though, not needed for citation but damned useful, certainly might be. And headnotes likely are. Shepard's probably aren't, given that it's a fact that case 2 overruled case 1, that's not creative.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:Non-proprietary citation? by yerricde · · Score: 1

      IIRC it was recently found that the page numbers aren't copyrightable.

      Got a URL for that opinion?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    3. Re:Non-proprietary citation? by akmed · · Score: 1

      The courts have their own pagination. And those numbers are the ones you use in citing a case for a legal document anyway.

  20. Overclocking Virus.... by TibbonZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dvorak, of PC Magazine fame, had a conspiratorial article once about the threat that this presents in that information on how to reset the microcode in the hands of a virus writer could be devastating (and achieve the holy pinnacle of computer vandals of actually damaging hardware, and least perceptably).
    Perhaps I shouldn't say this.... because perhaps I am unleashing some evil from my mind on the world that should never be unleashed...

    Ah, what the hell, let's open pandora's box!!!

    What if you wrote a virus that simply overclocked some part on the computer? If the processor was software overclockable (I don't overclock much so I don't know...) you could perhaps have a virus that would simply change the clock multiplier from say... 6x to perhaps 10x. That would fry the chip? I don't know much about CPU overclocking, but I know that video overclocking is easily done.
    Alot of people use either Nvidia or ATI cards, and i know the Nvidia cards share the detonator driver set (on windows), not sure about ATI. What if you had something that just forced the card to it's Max??? And if you have a program that controls fans... turn them off? Just have the virus try for ATI cards, Nvidia cards, and susecptable CPUs, and mobo's with controlable fans- then send them through the roof. Sure your computer would run faster for a few seconds... but i remember a Tom's Hardware where they took the fan off an Athalon, and it burst into flames...

    I hope I never see this virus in my inbox...

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Overclocking Virus.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That is why components should protect themselves. Overclocking is not generally a huge problem as long as you have sufficient cooling. But then the same problem occurs whn you place a CPU running at stock speed in a hot environment. That is why major components should take steps to protect themselves. This is the only reason why I currently prefer the P4 CPU over AMD CPUs (Even though for a "platform" it is the opposite).

      Essentially parts should not be damaged by overheating, they should shutdown or work slower, but not be damaged. Current CPUs (Intel and AMD, though I'm not sure if either could be fooled into not working), and many GPU (eg: Nvidia) include this protection.

      I personally would be more worried about a nasty person maxing out the vCore voltage in modern softBIOS motherboards. I personally would prefer the option to fall back to jumpers (via a jumper) if I wish. Some settings really shouldn't be adjustable mid-flight so to speak, and I question the wisdom of making such settings easy to change. (eg: vCore, multiplier, etc)

      I would prefer an "adjust" jumper on the motherboard, which you can set to allow the settings to be changed, and then when everything is set up, set the jumper to "lock" and leave it.

    2. Re:Overclocking Virus.... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Just changing the CPU multiplier (usually) wont add to the heat kicked out of the processor. Back in the days, it use to be FSB x CPU multiplier = mhz.... To get the processor to run stable at a higher mhz, you usually had to up the voltage, which had the unfortunate effect of generating even more heat. Most of the time you ended up cranking up the FSB rather than the CPU because Intel had a habit of locking the CPU multiplier. AMD (with a steady hand and pencil) could modify the CPU multiplier as well, letting you find the optimal mix. For example, my celeron 566 had a FSB of 66mhz and a CPU multiplier of 8.5. With an extra volt and a quality heat sink, I could bump the FSB to 106, which gave me ~900mhz on the cheap.

      OK. I was going somewhere with this. Just changing the CPU multiplier would probably make the CPU unstable (but not dead), but the motherboard is responsible for sending the voltage. Possible the motherboard would recognize the 'virus modified' settings and feed the CPU more juice than it could handle, but odds are it would just be unstable - assuming the CPU even cared what the motherboard was trying to tell it what multiplier it was.

      As a side note, underclocking is usually done to find the minimum voltage you can feed the CPU. The games I played before VIA came out with their 2.8W CPU...(grin)

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
    3. Re:Overclocking Virus.... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      If the processor was software overclockable (I don't overclock much so I don't know...)

      To change the clock frequency, you have to either set jumpers inside the case, or adjust a setting in the BIOS... If a program can write to your BIOS, the CPU would only be one of your concerns.

      Just have the virus try for ATI cards, Nvidia cards, and susecptable CPUs, and mobo's with controlable fans- then send them through the roof.

      I have yet to see a system with software controllable fans... Any system with a variable fan is controlled by hardware, not software, otherwise the fan wouldn't come on until you installed the proper driver! Hope you don't want to run in DOS mode for more than about 10 minutes! And system crashes would then mean the end of your CPU if you aren't around to shut it off.

      As for overclocking videocards, that is at least a possibility, but I suspect that would, at least, be difficult to accomplish.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Overclocking Virus.... by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Setting the cpu clock higher will definitly lead to more power consumption.
      Most of the power used by a processor is generated by charging/decharching parasitic capacitors. When you double the frequency you will need to charge/decharge them (to the same voltage) twice as often leading to four times as much power consumption (the capacitors don't consume the power and generate heat themself this is done by the wires leading to them).

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    5. Re:Overclocking Virus.... by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1
      Any system with a variable fan is controlled by hardware, not software,

      I dare say you're right.

      otherwise the fan wouldn't come on until you installed the proper driver!

      No, they could switch on at full speed after a reset, but allow the speed to be reduced by software.

  21. Total RAM != addressable RAM by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem with the 4GB limit (and under more realistic assumptions, 2GB) has little to do with the maximum memory a system can use.

    The problem comes from how much memory a single user-space process can use, which on IA32, as I said above, comes out to only 2GB, reliably.

    As a simple example of why this matters, let's say you have a system that needs tons of memory, like for rendering complex scenes or serving a huge database. Each process will want as much RAM as possible, but on IA32 (well, on any architecture, but the current problem only really applies to cheap-and-popular IA32), can only use up to the addressable limit.

    So you might think that you could use a machine with 64GB for a number of slightly smaller (but still memory-hungry) tasks. The flaw with that idea? Get real. If you need that much memory for one task, you need to dedicate the machine to doing that task. If you need to do rendering on your huge DB server, you need to upgrade BADLY

    1. Re:Total RAM != addressable RAM by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but on IA32 (well, on any architecture, but the current problem only really applies to cheap-and-popular IA32),

      ...or an apple XServe (unless they go to, say, a PowerPC 970 in future models).

      can only use up to the addressable limit.

      ...at any given time. An application could use a memory-mapping API such as mmap() to map pieces of a >4GB object into the address space as needed. Yes, that's rather ugly, but people have done it before, e.g. on PDP-11s back in the old days.

      Another thing you can use lots of memory for is a disk cache; I know of one series of x86 machines that supports more than 4GB of memory, most of which is used for disk caching (given that all those machines do is file service).

    2. Re:Total RAM != addressable RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are off_t & size_t 64bit now? Without those, you'd have a hard time mmap()'ing anything larger than 4Gb, would you not?

    3. Re:Total RAM != addressable RAM by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      Are off_t & size_t 64bit now? Without those, you'd have a hard time mmap()'ing anything larger than 4Gb, would you not?

      off_t is 64 bits on all modern BSD platforms (and there's support under development in FreeBSD, at least, for memory >4GB on x86).

      It's still 32 bits, as far as I know, on Linux and Solaris x86; you'd need mmap64() to handle files >4GB, but I think recent Linux kernels and glibcs might have it, as might Solaris x86.

      You do not need a 64-bit size_t to mmap() or mmap64() part of a larger-than-4GB file. You obviously can't map all of such a file on a platform with a 32-bit virtual address space; as I believe I indicated in my original message, you would have to use mmap()/mmap64() and munmap() to move a window into that file around.

    4. Re:Total RAM != addressable RAM by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      you'd need mmap64() to handle files >4GB

      ...although you don't need files >4GB to manipulate more than 4GB of data within a given process - you could have multiple files smaller than 4GB. It's ugly, but then so is mapping pieces of a single >4GB file in and out of the address space; the latter is just less ugly....

  22. LexisNexis vs. Google by danb35 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Quoth Timothy:
    I'd take google and a strong AI any day.
    ...which just goes to show that you don't know much about LexisNexis (or you've got lots better AI than I've ever seen). Google indexes and searches a lot of information, almost certainly more than LexisNexis. However, if you're an attorney (which is one of LN's major markets), LN carries a lot of stuff that you're just not going to find on Google, or anywhere else on the web. Their search engine is also considerably more advanced--it'll allow you to search proximity (x within 5 words of y), caps/lowercase, minimum number of occurrences of a term, etc., which Google doesn't do.

    Now, in this case, LN has gotten the contract to be the official publisher of the Cal. case reports; West had previously had the contract. This isn't really a big deal for the public as such; after all, somebody has to publish them, at least as far as the dead tree version is concerned. The actual text of the opinions will remain in the public domain, of course, and lawyers (and the public) will still be able to get them from LN, Westlaw, the local law library, web sites, or any of a number of other sources.

    It's interesting to note that often, publishers lose money on the things they publish as the "official" publisher. Several states, for example, set insanely low prices for their codes, particularly when you consider that they are heavy-duty, hardbound volumes. Publishers do it, of course, because they expect to sell other things to attorneys in those states, and figure there's money to be made on those items. Whether this is the case with the Cal. reports, I don't know.

    Disclaimer: I do work for LN, but the above are entirely my own opinions.

    1. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by odin53 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google indexes and searches a lot of information, almost certainly more than LexisNexis.

      According to Google's website, Google searches over 3 billion pages. According to Lexis's website, lexis covers 3.3 billion documents. I suspect that converting web pages into documents, Google would cover somewhat less than 3 billion documents. You should know that! Tsk tsk. Tell us about the lexis network infrastructure -- I've heard it's pretty cool.

      Disclaimer: I'm an attorney that greatly prefers lexis.com over westlaw, but the above is entirely factual (at least, according to the respective services).

    2. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Their search engine is also considerably more advanced--it'll allow you to search proximity (x within 5 words of y), caps/lowercase, minimum number of occurrences of a term, etc., which Google doesn't do.

      More significant, perhaps, is that Google's approach to searching is unlikely to work nearly as well for legal documents as it does for the web. The trick to Google is that web documents are frequently updated, so that two sites can each reference each other. That doesn't work for most other kinds of documents, which are set when first written and can't refer to anything published after they were. That means that Google's whole approach of recursively defining the importance of a document's links according the importance of the links coming to it won't necessarily work.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    3. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Tell us about the lexis network infrastructure -- I've heard it's pretty cool

      More than cool. I highly doubt there are many companies in the world that build such a strong network infrastructure. I should know...I am one of the few that gets to walk the massive data center landscape on a daily basis.

    4. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The network infrastructure is very cool, in some ways. In other ways, it is really painful to do *anything* as this system has been an online and running 24x7 computer system for something like two *decades* now. Because of that, there are a lot of legacy links and layers on layers of stuff that may have made sense once, but now works *just* well enough that it is not yet cost effective to scrap it and rewrite it.

      They also have a very sophisticated OO environment, that permeates the system from top to bottom. API's layered on API's layered on API's... all OO (mostly C++, moving to Java).

      They add tremendous value and do really complicated things, and do them fast and reliably. The people doing it are REALLY smart.... for the most part this is a real advantage.... but sometimes gets annoying (picture the two smartest people from every graduating class, all thrown together, trying to impress each other... they produce some pretty amazing stuff, but sometimes it would be nice to just have something simple and straightforward, even if it is only 90% as efficient).

      Their network infrastructure is to die for. Backups on their redundancies, duplicates of their extras, connections upon connections. Complete with a REALLY cool "war room" where everything gets carefully watched. Not to mention that they have their own major air force base about 20 miles away (Wright Patt) with HEAVILY armed and highly motivated state of the art fighter aircraft... talk about your defense in depth :)

      Anybody complaining about Lexis-Nexis and what they pay for information (wah! information wants to be free) is totally clueless. Information *does* want to be free, but it also wants to be useless. You pay people to add order and utility to information, and the bang for the buck you get from both Lexis and Nexus can't be beat.

    5. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      . That means that Google's whole approach of recursively defining the importance of a document's links according the importance of the links coming to it won't necessarily work.

      Yes it would -- if later documents refer to an earlier one, it means that it is of some inportance, the more references the more important. This metric was used long ago (maybe 20 years, IIRC) to make lists of "important" scientific papers, by simply counting the number of later ones that cited them.

      There are many old, static documemts that come up on Google searches as #1 because of this effect, though they may have no external links in them at all.

    6. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by UserGoogol · · Score: 3, Informative
      it'll allow you to search proximity (x within 5 words of y)

      You can do this in Google. Its not implemented naturally, so you have to write a front end of some kind (if you include "doing it in your head" as a front end, which is stupid, really)

      "A B" OR "A * B" OR "A * * B" OR "A * * * B" OR "A * * * * B" OR "A * * * * * B"

      Because in quotation marks, you can just type * for "some word." Write a little Javascript or maybe PHP script to automate this, and you've just enhanced your googling.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    7. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there a limit on query string length at google?

    8. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by moonbender · · Score: 1
      Because in quotation marks, you can just type * for "some word."
      OMG. Thanks!
      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    9. Re:LexisNexis vs. Google by danb35 · · Score: 1

      Well, you'd also have to include "B A" or "B * A" etc., but that's a pretty neat hack. Could get unwieldy if you wanted to duplicate "cat w/50 dog" (w/50 means "within 50 words of"), but cool nonetheless.

  23. *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    Fact: *BSD is dying

  24. Text of site with CD image by Ian+Peon · · Score: 2

    Who the hell thought that a guy running a site on his ADSL modem could withstand the slashdot crowd?? Was this some cruel joke - his address is myip.org! Anyway, here's the text of the first page, couldn't get anything else (27% of the .torrent file *sigh*)

    http://pmw.myip.org/oss/
    Open Source Software CD
    Update: 2003-04-20 23:19
    Size: 523M
    1. What is it?
    It is a burnable image for a CD that contains high-quality, Free, open-source software for Microsoft Windows 95 and higher. See the contents. The latest versions of all software is included. Because there is space left over, some non-OSS but free and useful software has been placed on the CD. See section 4 for more info.

    2. Where and how can I get it?
    You have two choices.
    The first and best choice is to use BitTorrent, revolutionary P2P software that allows multiple simultaneous downloads to share bandwidth for an ultimately faster download. Download with BitTorrent.. Please be courteous afterward and leave the client running so that it would serve others. Although BitTorrent ensures download integrity, you may verify the MD5 checksum after having downloaded the image.
    The second choice is to purchase a physical CD from me, the maintainer. The cost is $5, which covers the AirShield envelope, shipping/handling, the CD blank, and the service. This is likely the only way you can get this CD if you are on a dial-up or do not have a CD burner. You may either mail a money order, having requested the street address via e-mail, or transfer funds via PayPal to pwhite at mailhaven dot com.
    A link to the real .iso image is not offered, because in light of the alternative (BT) and my weak Internet connection, that is a selfish way to download it.

    3. How often is it updated?
    The goal is to offer an updated version of the CD image once a month, if enough programs have been updated to warrant it. I could update and remaster it more often (even once a week), but then BitTorrent and other mirrors would get outdated too often and I can't afford to offer a new image solely from my ADSL connection very often -- I would much rather release more rarely but facilitate faster transfers for everyone.
    Tentatively, the next update will be April 30, to set the regular update to the last day of each month. If there haven't been enough updates to warrant an update and repopulation of mirrors, the release date will be set to a month ahead.

    4. Can I suggest another program for bundling?
    Yes, provided that it's under an OSI-approved license. Please e-mail www@pwhite.mailhaven.com to make your suggestion. New programs will replace currently-bundled non-OSS software. If your program is larger than space (700 MB) permits and there is no more non-OSS software to squeeze out, then your suggested software must be either high enough in quality or sufficiently useful to replace another piece of software. This decision will be left solely to me and my hand-picked "committee" of real-life friends, although you're welcome to include persuasive arguments in your e-mail -- they will be definitely considered.

    5. This is incredibly slow. Can I mirror your image to alleviate your bandwidth requirements?
    Definitely -- feel free to mirror it or redistribute it any way you wish. The best way to help is to leave your BitTorrent client running after you download the file. The latter does not require much on your part but contributes to the bandwdith pool and greatly helps EVERYONE else who downloads it. The absolute height of my expectations is for you to set up a script that would automatically download the .torrent on the first day of each month and begin the transfer. :)

    Last update to this webpage: 2003-04-22 21:25. Hit counter: 1512

    --
    Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
  25. Contents.txt by Ian+Peon · · Score: 2, Informative

    CONTENTS OF THIS COMPACT DISC

    Package Version(s) License(s) Web site
    Mozilla 1.0.2 / 1.3 / 1.4a MPL/LGPL/GPL http://www.mozilla.org
    A web browser suite designed for standards compliance, performance and
    portability.

    OpenOffice.org 1.0.3 LGPL/SISSL http://www.openoffice.org
    The leading international office suite that will run on all major
    platforms and provide access to all functionality and data through
    open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format.

    Phoenix 0.5 MPL/LGPL/GPL http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix
    A branch of Mozilla that aims for a small file and memory footprint
    while retaining Mozilla's functionality, standards compliance, and portability.
    Phoenix has been renamed to Firebird, but that name has not yet been used.

    Thunderbird 2003-04-16 MPL/LGPL/GPL http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/minotaur
    A cross platform stand-alone mail application.

    PuTTY & PSFTP 0.53b MIT http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty
    Telnet, secure Telnet (SSH) and secure FTP (SFTP) clients, giving you
    the ability to manage remote hosts and transfer files.

    FileZilla 2.1.6 GPL http://filezilla.sf.net
    A graphical FTP/SFTP client with multi-language support, drag & drop
    support, upload/download queues, ability to resume transfers and much more.

    7-Zip 2.30 beta 30 LGPL http://www.7-zip.com
    A file archiver with support for 10 formats, 38 languages, Windows
    Explorer integration and a powerful command-line version.

    Gaim 0.61 GPL http://gaim.sourceforge.net
    A versatile instant messaging program, capable of supporting nine
    different IM protocols.

    The GIMP 1.2.4 (prerelease) GPL http://www.gimp.org
    A very powerful image editor, comparable to Adobe Photoshop.
    (Included prerequisite: GTK+ 1.3.0)

    TightVNC 1.2.8 GPL http://www.tightvnc.org
    A great client/server software package allowing remote network access to
    graphical desktops. With VNC, you can access your machine from everywhere
    provided that your machine is connected to the Internet.
    (VNC is an abbreviation for Virtual Network Computing)

    CDex 1.50 beta 10 GPL http://cdexos.sourceforge.net
    A utility for extraction (ripping) of audio files from an audio CD.

    Psi 0.8.7 GPL http://psi.sourceforge.net
    One of the best GUI clients for the Jabber instant messaging protocol.

    Freenet webinstall GPL http://freenet.sourceforge.net
    Freenet is a large-scale peer-to-peer network, which pools the power of member
    computers around the world to create a massive virtual information store, much
    like a global hard drive. The main aim of Freenet is to help preserve freedom
    of speech on the Internet.

    Tux Racer 0.61a GPL http://tuxracer.sourceforge.net
    Tux Racer lets you take on the role of Tux the Linux Penguin as he races down
    steep, snow-covered mountains. Enter cups and compete to win the title! Tux
    Racer includes a variety of options for gameplay, including the ability to race
    courses in fog, at night, and under high winds.

    Celestia 1.3.0 GPL http://www.shatters.net/celestia
    A real-time space simulation that lets you experience our universe in three
    dimensions. Unlike most planetarium software, Celestia doesn't confine you to
    the surface of the Earth. You can travel throughout the solar system, to any
    of over 100,000 stars, or even beyond the galaxy.

    Emacs 21.2

    --
    Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
  26. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    boxen is not an english word

    1. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, it is not an english word - it is a "Term of Art" - an item of jargon that may be meaningless outside of a specific area, yet is understood by those who are experienced in that area or industry to have a specific meaning.

      As this site tends to target people who have (or claim to have) technical experience in a specific area, the use of a term of art is normal and acceptable, as it is likely that almost all of the readers have encountered it before.

      By pointing out the use of a Term of Art and claiming it to be an incorrect usage of english, you do nothing but to flag your lack of compentency in this area, and highlight your unwillingness to learn from your peers. It implies a lack of learning, and does not give a good impression of you. It is good that you cloaked yourself in the protection of anonymity, as otherwise it would have given us a name to attach our mocking laughter to.

      I hope this helps you learn to communicate more skillfully in the future.


      - {*}

    2. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The meaning of boxen as a Term of Art is of course "I am an idiot" E.g. "These boxen are broken" means "I am an idiot who uses the word boxen, and wouldn't know the front end of a computer, broken or not". See also: Viri

      Those of us who actually work with computers, rather than poncing over them with words like boxen understand that this usage is common among the lower computer using classes such as yourself. We hope that you'll all grow out of it.

    3. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid that you are slightly off - while true, the "lower classes" (to use your term) use the word "boxen", it is also infiltrating the higher levels of the computer related professions as well.

      I have heard the word used by night shift tape monkeys (I assume they fall into this "lower class" of computer users you mention), and I have heard it used (without irony or shame) by network designers, in planing multi-state networks. I have heard it used by professors, students, programmers, pundits, managers and consultants. It spreads from top and bottom, becoming part of the common jargon and folklore that unifies us all!

      Second, I have to question your reference to a lower class of computer users. Every job is important, from the designer who devises an idea that could change the world, to the programmer who builds the pieces that make it happen, to the tape loader slaving away at midnight to make sure that no vital information is lost, no matter what the disaster. If any one of them fails in their task, the whole enterprise is lost.

      Why are you so bitter, looking down on people who preform work vital to the whole? What twisted you so that you can not see the inherent dignity and power in anyone who does there job well? Look into yourself to find the answers, I fear you may not like what you find.

      -{*}

  27. I'm sitting at an x86 box that supports 8 gigs by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    The dual Xeon board of the machine I'm working on right now supports up to 8 gigs of RAM.

    Of course, we only have 2 gig in it, but its room to grow for our nice linux terminal server.

  28. EV-DO is great though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Living in South Korea, I've gotten the chance to use a friend's CDMA2000x1EV-DO phone (mine is still stuck at CDMA2000). It's pretty good here, you can get real-time streaming video even on the subway. Content is decent, and of course as it grows more popular, more content will be developed.
    One of my contacts in SK Telecom last year was mentioning the 4G research, and it looks like it will be amazing (although a long time coming).

    1. Re:EV-DO is great though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, my ISP at home won't (can't?) connect to Slashdot, so I'm forced to come out to the PC room if I want to check /.

  29. In simpler terms by Quila · · Score: 1

    Remember dealing with all that extended and expanded memory crap when you had a 286 running DOS with 1MB of RAM?

    Well, it's baaaaack.

    1. Re:In simpler terms by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      I would pay $150 in a minute for a card that had the same features as the old EMS and XMS memory cards to use as a RAM disk or paged memory. (Running i815, 512mb limit sucks when debugging. A large RAM drive with my pagefile on it would overcome the 512mb limit)

  30. fuckers by xmnemonic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's Pentium 4, not Pentium "IV". God, you guys are fucking idiots.

  31. Windows Open Source by Doppler00 · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.theopencd.org/

    It's not the same ISO, but it also seems to include a lot of good open source windows applications.

    * OpenOffice.org 1.0.1
    * DictInstall 0.9.3.2
    * AbiWord 1.0.1
    * Beonex Communicator 0.8.1
    * FileZilla 2.1.1
    * Putty 0.52
    * WinVNC 3.3.3r9
    * XChat 1.8.10a
    * Audacity 1.0
    * CDex 1.40
    * 7-Zip 2.24
    * NetTime 2.0b6
    * Win Privacy Tray 0.5.5
    * Sokoban YASC 1.53
    * Celestia 1.2.4

  32. Shirely, you are mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you using Grub to boot Windows?

    fdisk /mbr Ctrl+Alt+Del

  33. The GnuWin chick! by Pervertus · · Score: 1

    Seems that they didn't answer the mission-crytical question:
    Who's that cute GnuWin chick?

    1. Re:The GnuWin chick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea, but it's obvious that she stole slashdot's topic icon of the gimp.

  34. Look for Hyperlaw v. West Publishing by QuessFan · · Score: 1


    But last time I Shepardized it, if you are outside of 2nd Circ. it doesn't help you.