Xgrid Agent for Unix

mac-diddy writes "Someone on Apple's mailing list for Xgrid, Apple's clustering software, just announced an 'Xgrid agent for Linux and other Unix platforms' available for download. There are still some issues being worked on like large file support, but it does allow you to simply add a Unix node to your existing Xgrid cluster. Just goes to show that when companies embrace open standards and code, the world doesn't fall apart."

Comments

My Experience

[artlu]

My company has had experience using XGRID on our G4 notebooks. We always leave XGRID running and when we are at the office it is like having 20-30CPUs available at any given time. Now with Linux, we can have about 300 CPUs available, I just wonder how efficient it really is in the non-osx atmosphere.
Time to find the download.

GroupShares Inc. - A Free Online Investment Community

Re:My Experience

[MicroBerto]

I pride myself on being a "jack of all trades, master of none" kinda guy. Unfortunately, I know very little about clustering. I often wonder why corporations with tons of workstations in one building don't do something like this to help out their intensive programs. Can I install clustering software on a workstation and give it the lowest priority so that it doesn't interfere with a user's work at all?

Re:My Experience

[JamieF]

Here are three gotchas that can make this sort of thing less appealing than it may seem at first:

Problem type: The problem may not be well suited to running on a bunch of PCs (especially when the agent app isn't allowed to take 100% of the machine's resources to accimplish the task) over typical office networks. Basically if the app needs to communicate frequently with other nodes, or if a huge data set is involved (or both), latency or bandwidth issues might outweigh the possible advantage of putting more CPUs to work.

Security: The data may be highly sensitive, in which case you might not want to put it on ordinary desktop PCs that might have untrustworthy users, spyware, etc.

Configuration: The configuration of your office's PCs may vary enough to make the cost of getting a companywide desktop cluster working unacceptably high. You'd have to pick a few target configurations and settle for that. Hopefully drivers and such wouldn't matter as much as CPU, RAM, disk, and OS version, but there are still companies that are just now getting their desktops updated to Win2K. There's also the headache of installing yet another required application on a large number of heterogeneous machines, which is virtually guaranteed to result in confusing installation problems. Oops, our app crashes if the user has this or that service pack installed. Oops, our app requires strong encryption. You could build your app on top of some sort of moderately portable framework or VM or whatever but that will have system requirements too, and probably will have some surprising gotchas when deployed in a real-world environment.

Re:My Experience

[drinkypoo]

Before this whole clustering thing blew up I used to work for a company called Silicon Engineering which did IC design work. They (we) used a clustered batch processing package called DQS to handle distributing verilog (and similar) jobs out to all the assorted systems. The company had almost nothing but SunOS on SPARC at the time so this was a highly successful concept. We used the berkeley automount daemon, nfs, and nis to make sure that users and their rights and all their files existed in the same places and using the same paths. Even better was the fact that the automount daemon can mount different things on the same mountpoint based on configuration so when we got SunOS5 systems we were able to integrate them into the environment too.

These days, you could use OpenMOSIX on your Linux systems, provided you were happy with a 2.4 kernel. It provides a distributed filesystem and transparent process relocation throughout the cluster. However, it deals with relocating processes, so unless you're running lots of isolated processes, it won't help you.

AFAIK there is no transparent clustering system for Windows, although some people have been known to speculate that Microsoft is working on it. They'd be idiots not to be thinking heavily about it...

How many clusters

[Anonymous Coward]

actually have hetergenous hardware platforms? It would be interesting to see a G5/Xeon/Athlon cluster make the top 10 in speed.

Re:How many clusters

[aixou]

That would bring a tear to my eye. "I have a dream that one day, all different architectures can work together in a single cluster, and processors will be judged not by the flavor of their bits, but by the speed of their results."

Re:How many clusters

[foidulus]

I have a dream that one day, all different architectures can work together in a single cluster, and processors will be judged not by the flavor of their bits, but by the speed of their results.
You forgot, "as long as they don't run Windows!"

Re:How many clusters

[0racle]

I think you'll find thats to a large extent implied when you say 'different architectures.'

Re:How many clusters

[foidulus]

Well, windows runs on Athlons and Xeons....and technically it runs on a G5(the XBox 2 dev kit that MS distributed is a modded NT kernel is run on a dual G5), so it's possible to do it on Windows, but why would you want to?

Re:How many clusters

[0racle]

Well firstly, since Windows is more then just a kernel, just because the Dev kit has it does not mean Windows as a whole does. Secondly, Athalons, P4, Celerons and Xeons are all the same architecture, ia32. If you had used the P4 and say, Itanium or Opteron/A64 you would have a point, which is why I qualified the statement in the beginning with 'to a large extent.'

Re:How many clusters

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, the kernel would probably be the worst to port without source code, you could probably port the rest over (well, not drivers) with comparative ease (and a very complete knowledge of x86 and ppc machine code). . .I wonder how long it will be before some frustrated mac user gives it a try?

Re:How many clusters

[foidulus]

Heh, well, this whole argument ignores the fact that Virtual PC will run XP totally on a G4, and, *someday* will run it on a G5, though I'm not really sure you would want virtual pc running on a cluster, kind of defeats the purpose...

Re:How many clusters

[0racle]

You could have a whole cluster on one machine, think of the performance and all the space you'd save.

Re:How many clusters

[Xpilot]

Actually Windows is reported to have builds even for UltraSPARC. Microsoft never releases any of that though.

Re:How many clusters

[Anonymous Coward]

NT was originally designed to run on the Intel i860 processor, and had an Alpha version for a while iirc. And right now there's probably versions running on x86, x86-64, and ia64 at least.

And Windows CE runs on even more hardware. Why is beyond me, but there you are.

Re:How many clusters

[Bri3D]

Windows NT 4.0 still runs on PowerPC. You didn't even need to buy a special version. It also runs on SPARC and Alpha, making it the best multi-platform windows version.

Re:How many clusters

[hicksw]

VMS - runs mixed clusters of VAX, Alpha, and now that 64 bit HP/Intel thingy.

imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine a beo...oh...

Re:imagine

[wpmegee]

Imagine a beowulf cluster of /. trolls!

Re:imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have to.

Re:imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't know what it is...but using the term beowolf cluster just rocks.

the only thing better is saying it aloud.

go ahead. you know you want to.

say it.

beowolf cluster

ahhhhhhhh. wonderful...just rolls off the tongue.

Re:imagine

[bursch-X]

It would roll off your tongue even better, if you'd spell it right.

The guy's name is Beowulf.

Re:imagine

[gwalla]

Yeah, it'd be almost as powerful as a Commodore PET!

Re:imagine

[hunterx11]

You mean a Grendel cluster? Wait no--a troll-wife cluster!

Re:imagine

[quecojones]

Or... a beowulf cluster-fuck... or something.

I think maybe I should stop DrunkPosting (TM)...

Mixed Company

[jasno]

Somewhat silly, but wouldn't you incur a bit of overhead mixing machines of different endian-ness? I suppose for non-communication intense algorithms this wouldn't be a big deal.

Re:Mixed Company

[Carnildo]

Somewhat silly, but wouldn't you incur a bit of overhead mixing machines of different endian-ness? I suppose for non-communication intense algorithms this wouldn't be a big deal.

Not really. Everyone uses network byte order for communication, so you won't have more overhead in a mixed system than you would in a homogenous system.

Re:Mixed Company

[kma]

Not quite. "Network byte order" is big endian. So on big endian ppc's, which macs are, all those "ntos" macros, etc., expand to NOPs. Once you introduce little endian machines into the mix, they start doing real work to transform internal representations for the wire.

The real tragedy is when you have homogenously little endian machines; e.g., a network that only has PCs on it. An integer gets byteswapped twice to end up in exactly the same byte order it was all along.

Re:Mixed Company

[DonGar]

What's worse.... that often ends up happening for loopback connections.

Re:Mixed Company

[joe_bruin]

So on big endian ppc's, which macs are, all those "ntos" macros, etc., expand to NOPs. Once you introduce little endian machines into the mix, they start doing real work to transform internal representations for the wire.

not quite.
first, i think you mean "ntohs" (and ntohl and friends).
second, they are not macros. they are, in fact, real functions (in glibc, bsd libc, and windows' winsock library). i'd imagine it's the same on macs.
third, a macro that does nothing is not expanded to a NOP, it is simply removed by the preprocessor.

so, assuming the macs are conforming to bsd networking standards, ntohs is required to be a function, so there is still a function call per conversion (which is much more costly than doing the actual byteswap).

The real tragedy is when you have homogenously little endian machines; e.g., a network that only has PCs on it. An integer gets byteswapped twice to end up in exactly the same byte order it was all along.

a real high performance implementation (ie, the kernel) would not use ntohl, it would implement a similar byteswap macro. a byteswap can be done on x86 in one instruction, so it is fairly trivial to do.

Re:Mixed Company

[Tjp($)pjT]

Unless ntohs is an inline function. Most compilers will optimize out inlines that return their calling argument unchanged. Of course reality differs and they are actually null macros on OS/X.

These routines convert 16 and 32 bit quantities between network byte order and host byte order. On machines which have a byte order which is the same as the network order, routines are defined as null macros.

The above quote brought to you by HMUG.

Re:Mixed Company

[pchan-]

Unless ntohs is an inline function. Most compilers will optimize out inlines that return their calling argument unchanged.

unless you're linking your libc statically, it can't be inline. it similarly can't be inline if you use a function pointer to it in some fashion.

Of course reality differs and they are actually null macros on OS/X

then osx has a broken bsd socket implementation. ntohs should be a function. that is, you should be able able to take a function pointer to it and all the others (something you cannot do with a macro), and any code that relies on this will break on osx.

Re:Mixed Company

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing to say that the ntoh/hton family of "functions" can't be invoked via a macro. In fact, on my OS X machine in /usr/include/ppc/Endian.h you will find:

#if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN && !defined(lint)
#define ntohl(x) (x)
#define ntohs(x) (x)
#define htonl(x) (x)
#define htons(x) (x)
#else

So for big endian builds, only the expression (x) will undergo compilation. No function call necessary.

Re:Mixed Company

[lmfr]

they are, in fact, real functions (in glibc, bsd libc, and windows' winsock library)

Yes, but nothing forbids to use macros that expand to nothing or optimized versions of those functions when a pointer isn't needed.

On my glibc:

#ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
# if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
# define ntohl(x) (x)
...
# else
# if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
# define ntohl(x) __bswap_32 (x)
...

Re:Mixed Company

[Anonymous Coward]

third, a macro that does nothing is not expanded to a NOP, it is simply removed by the preprocessor.

That is most likely what the original author meant by "NOP". Such casual usage of NOP does not neccessarily mean a literal NOP instruction. It is simply more convenient to say than "the null macro call will be removed, thus producing a null statement (";") that will be ignored by the compiler." C programmers who actually care about this distinction surely already know this. For everyone else it is just trivia. Thanks for pointing this out though.

Re:Mixed Company

[boots@work]

unless you're linking your libc statically, it can't be inline. it similarly can't be inline if you use a function pointer to it in some fashion.

Don't be silly. (Do the moderators actually think before scoring +1?) gcc is perfectly capable of inlining functions even when glibc is dynamically linked. It can also inline functions whose address is taken, just by generating a separate copy. Any other compiler clever enough to have inlines is very likely to do the same.

Re:Mixed Company

[liteyear]

then osx has a broken bsd socket implementation. ntohs should be a function.

Better let the BSD team know that then, because they'll surely want to make sure their code complies with the "bsd socket implementation" spec you mention. Or... and here's a crazy idea, you could realise you're wrong and that Apple didn't decide to deliberately break the BSD code they used and actually have a very similar implementation to the BSD code.

/* $NetBSD: endian.h,v 1.7 2003/08/07 16:34:03 agc Exp $ */

/*
* Copyright (c) 1987, 1991, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
* may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
* ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
* OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
* OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
*
* @(#)endian.h 8.1 (Berkeley) 6/11/93
*/
--SNIP--
#if BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN && !defined(lint)
#define ntohl(x) (x)
#define ntohs(x) (x)
#define htonl(x) (x)
#define htons(x) (x)
--SNIP--

Source: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/sys/en dian.h

Re:Mixed Company

[pchan-]

gcc is perfectly capable of inlining functions even when glibc is dynamically linked. It can also inline functions whose address is taken, just by generating a separate copy.

let's say the internals of a function in a dynamically linked library are changed in the next revision of the library (say, a bugfix). your application sometimes calls that function directly, and sometimes uses a function pointer to it. according to you, that function may be inlined for the direct calls. if so, your binary (compiled against an older lib) can actually be using 2 different versions of the same function, with potentially disasterous results. i certainly hope my compiler is not doing this.

Re:Mixed Company

[boots@work]

Let's look at the situation you describe. The inline function must be declared in the public header file for the application to see it. This header defines the API for the library.

Now you say that the library changed the API in an incompatible way. Is that going to break any apps built against the old version when they try to run against the new one? Yes, of course it is. The same thing would happen if you changed a type declaration or a function prototype or basically any other compatability point in the header. So, don't do that: if you have an interface that is meant to be binary-compatible, don't change it.

On the other hand, suppose you didn't actually make it incompatible, but just fixed a bug in the inlined function. Now you need to rebuild any applications that touch it. Yep, no getting around it, that is a cost of being inlined. If you don't want that, don't inline them. If you change an interface, you generally need to update or rebuild everyone who calls through it.

So the lesson is? The compiler cannot prevent you making mistakes. Don'dynamict assume this is a compiler bug, or you look even dumber. (Anyhow, how on earth do you expect the compiler was going to know whether an inline was also defined in a shared library? The question is meaningless at the level of a single source file.)

Rather than whining about the compiler, just stick to the simple rules: don't inline functions unless there is a good reason, and keep stable APIs stable.

Re:Mixed Company

[boots@work]

Uh,

Sorry if that was a bit flamey. I've just had a few too many cases recently of people saying "it's a compiler bug!" when they just don't understand.

Re:Mixed Company

[boots@work]

And in fact, the really cool bit is that gcc/glibc will detect when the argument is a constant and do it at compile time. So any protocol headers which have htonl(0xdeadbeef) will compile down to a constant 0xefbeadde on i386. Neat!

Re:Mixed Company

[pchan-]

no problem.

i'm not claiming there's a compiler bug. i'm claiming that the compiler will not inline a dynamically linked function, you are stating otherwise. mind you, i never said anything about an api/abi change.

let me provide you with an example, using our friend ftell(). let's say in your libc, version 1.0, the FILE struct looks like this:

struct FILE
{
long position;
long flags;
/* other data here */
} FILE;

now in libc version 1.1, FILE changes for no reason at all to be:

struct FILE
{
long flags;
long position;
/* other data here */so, while it is possible, as you pointed out, to inline some functions of a dynamic library, it is not a particularly good idea.
} FILE;

of course, you, as the coder, know nothing about what FILE looks like, because it is an opaque interface. now, the function ftell is a pretty simple one, ripe for inlining.

long ftell(FILE *stream)
{
return stream->position;
}

however, in the app that you've built with v1.0 of the library (now running on a 1.1 system), all inlined ftells are going to return to you the value of the flags, while non-inlined ftells are going to return to you the real position. note: NOTHING has changed from the programmer's perspective, ftell is still ftell, FILE is still opaque. you don't know that they changed it in libc 1.1, nor should you. ftell should still work correctly, but it doesn't, sometimes, because your compiler included a copy of the old library's ftell into your binary (when it really should have included either the entire relevent part of the library [static], or none at all [dynamic]).

so, while it is possible, as you pointed out, to inline some functions of a dynamic library, it is not a particularly good idea.

Re:Mixed Company

[boots@work]

That's an example of a change that the libc maintainers should not make if they want to keep binary compatibility. If FILE is defined in the header, applications might use it an then they'll break when it changes. And in fact glibc seems to have FILE only as an opaque data type.

So it's a good idea to not publish data types that you expect will change, and to not publish for inlining any functions whose definitions might change. If you do need to change them, then you'll need a new library version. If you look in /usr/include you'll see they've pretty much stuck to those rules.

Anyhow, regardless of all this: when the compiler reads a header file it has no idea whether external functions declared there will eventually be resolved from a dynamic library, a shared library, or whatever. Even if the compiler authors wanted to do what you say, there would be no way to do it other than to disable inlines altogether.

If a header say a function should be considered for inlining, that's what the compiler is going to do. The onus is on the library author to write an interface that will be sufficiently stable in the future. It is not the compilers job to prevent you shooting yourself in this particular toe.

Re:Mixed Company

[pchan-]

That's an example of a change that the libc maintainers should not make if they want to keep binary compatibility. If FILE is defined in the header, applications might use it an then they'll break when it changes. And in fact glibc seems to have FILE only as an opaque data type.

ah, this is just not true. a dynamic library should be free to change the internal representation of anything it feels like, as long it does not impact the api. in my example, the api was not impacted at all. note that FILE is not available in a header, and any code outside the library that depends on the internal structure of FILE is broken. this includes your inlined function.

So it's a good idea to not publish data types that you expect will change, and to not publish for inlining any functions whose definitions might change.

nothing published has changed, neither has the function definition.

If you do need to change them, then you'll need a new library version. If you look in /usr/include you'll see they've pretty much stuck to those rules.

in my example, /usr/include would not be affected in any way.

Anyhow, regardless of all this: when the compiler reads a header file it has no idea whether external functions declared there will eventually be resolved from a dynamic library, a shared library, or whatever. Even if the compiler authors wanted to do what you say, there would be no way to do it other than to disable inlines altogether.

you're right, the compiler doesn't know, the linker does. how could it possibly inline a function whos definition is unknown? think about the case of compiling a binary against a library who's code/object form is not available (you only have a header file). or compiling against a stub library, that does not have fully implemented internals yet. your dynamically linking code does not (in the general case) need to change if the library api has not changed. inlining a library function breaks all of these rules.

If a header say a function should be considered for inlining, that's what the compiler is going to do. The onus is on the library author to write an interface that will be sufficiently stable in the future. It is not the compilers job to prevent you shooting yourself in this particular toe.

no, the compiler's job is to produce a predictable behaviour for properly written code. if i expect that my code depends on code dynamically linked from a library, it cannot, under any circumstances, include a dependency on the internals of that dynamically linked library.

Re:Mixed Company

[boots@work]

Sheesh. You seem to be enormously confused about how inlining works. It is done by the compiler, not by the linker. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself:

static inline int a(void) {
return 0xdeadbeef;
}

int main(void) {
return a();
}

Build this with "gcc -c -finline tryinline.c" and disassemble the object file. You will see the function has been inlined, although the linker was not run.

10: movl $0xdeadbeef,0xfffffffc(%ebp)

note that FILE is not available in a header, and any code outside the library that depends on the internal structure of FILE is broken. this includes your inlined function.

This is impossible. Try it yourself, and you'll see it doesn't work.

If ftell() is to be inlined, it must be defined in the public header, and the data type must be previously defined in the public header as well. Both of them are part of the public API. There is no way to have inline functions that depend on the internals of opaque data types. (Well, you can kind of fake hiding by using data types like FILE__impl_dont_touch, but it's still in the public header.)

(Some advanced compilers can do inter-file optimization and a kind of link-time inlining, but they don't do it for shared libraries, and it still doesn't behave the way you think it does.)

Plenty of power to be had....

[Grant29]

This is really great news as it's becoming more popular to add CPU clusters to improve performance. Google is probably not the originator of this type of computing, but they have definately pushed it into the mainstream. Anyone living in NC might want to check out this new cluster going into RTP NC. I wonder if this will be the biggest cluser ever

http://www.rtp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=in_the_new s_item&id=159

--
9 Gmail invitations availiable

Re:Plenty of power to be had....

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you figure Google pushed it into mainstream? Perhaps they shed some light on it, but they didn't do anything to help foster the development of gridding platforms.

Re:Plenty of power to be had....

[Grant29]

Everyone in an IT department has probably heard of how efficient the Google platform is. They have the ability to add and remove nodes easy and fast. Pick up an IT trade mag and they usually have information about the Google cluster. A lot of it is proprietary and secret, but some details are availiable. Such as the fact they have written thier cluster software from the ground up. They added more capability than just web searches. I'm sure they are putting it to use in the Gmail, Froogle, and News sections of their site now.

--
9 Gmail invitations availiable

Re:Plenty of power to be had....

[BlowChunx]

I understand that Google has the ability to add nodes quickly, but my understanding is that the never remove nodes. They are left dead on the floor (or wherever...).

Re:Plenty of power to be had....

[DAldredge]

No, google removes nodes on a free time basis. IOW, when they have time.

Kinda Cool

[hypermike]

Imagine waking up one day to find your Mac has solved a vexing scientific problem. While the cure to cancer, super-efficient solar power and ending world hunger are a ways off, you can combine your computing resources using Xgrid -- and help usher in a new era of biological breakthroughs, rocket science and advanced models of scientific phenomena.

Everything is better clustered...

Re:Kinda Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really a shame, then, that Mac users don't give a shit about getting work done but obsess over the colour of their widgets.

Re:Kinda Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

What's REALLY a shame is that you don't care about getting work done either, because you're too busy obsessing over perceived obsessions of Mac users.

I've been dying to know....

[numbski]

I have my G4 powerbook, 866 and my 800mHz iMac on my LAN at home.

If I use XGrid on the two, what kind of performace could I use it for day to day?

Faster compiles of applications would be the first thought. Any usefulness, say running photoshop? How about Quake? MAME?

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Colol]

Of the applications you've mentioned, only compiling things in Xcode would have any benefit. To utilize Xgrid, the application has to be written for it, which most apps simply aren't (and given turnaround issues, it would be suck for things like Quake and MAME).

Xgrid's main benefit is in "grunt work" calculations that aren't necessarily needed immediately. Things like SETI@Home or Folding@Home would be the sort of thing Xgrid excels at: throw some data out, have it processed, get it back when it's done.

While Apple has made clustering drop-dead easy, it's really not targeted at the home or small-business user, and the potential uses are pretty limited in that field.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[guile*fr]

basically, for your kind of applications: nothing.

I doubt you compile applications that big
photoshop: get an smp instead and plugins that support it
quake,mame: u kidding get a faster gpu instead

Re:I've been dying to know....

[mrchaotica]

You don't need XGrid for faster compilation - Developer Tools already includes distcc

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Twirlip of the Mists]

To utilize Xgrid, the application has to be written for it

Not so, not so.

If your problem is embarrassingly parallel, chances are you can use Xgrid to run it right now.

For example, let's say you're rendering a 3D animation. (I haven't done real 3D work since the PowerAnimator days, so pardon me of some of my jargon is antiquated.) You've got a scene file on which you can run a render command. A command-line argument tells the renderer which frame to render.

No problem. Just use use Xgrid's Xfeed plugin. Xfeed lets you set up a job that runs a single command with a variety of command-line arguments. You tell Xfeed that you want to run the "render" command with "-f" and the numbers 1 through 720.

Xgrid goes to the first available machine on the grid and says, "Run render -f 1." Then it goes to the second machine and says, "Run render -f 2." And so on, until there are no available machines. Then it waits until a machine becomes available and says, "Run render -f n."

As each output file (a frame, in this case) becomes available, Xgrid (the client application itself, I mean) collects them in whatever directory you specified when you submitted the job.

The cool part comes when you realize that this isn't a cluster. It's a grid. That means machines can come and go as they please. If this job is running overnight, when I come in the next morning and sit down at my workstation, the agent on my computer stops the job and de-registers itself. The job goes back in the controller's queue for processing on whatever the next available machine is.

And you don't have to have any special software for this. It can be done right now with the tools that already exist in Preview 2.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[WoodChuckNorris]

Aye, you don't need to be running an XCode application. My friend and I were running XGrid on our PowerBooks (867 MHz Ti and 1.5 GHz Al), and he was able to write something that would allow us to use our combined power for Blender rendering. It was rather awesome, breaking 2.something GHz on G4 processors.

Mind you, I don't know how he did it, as I am still a code monkey-in-training.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Anonymous Coward]

distcc sacks the network as source files are transmitted to each computer. That's fine for small jobs, but on a network shared with many users-- it's a real pain for them. Many would rather have you wait longer for your compilation than slow down the entire network.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[genericpenguin]

Pardon the expression, but "Not so, not so".

While the Xgrid application does indeed allow you to create custom interfaces for command line programs, there is still the issue of data. Xgrid will start processes on remote machines but as to how data is read and distributed is another matter.

i.e. If you have an application that simply generates data(eg. a calendar) then that would work well with the custom plug-in feature. However, if your program needs to be fed data(eg. sort a list read from stdin), your program would have to have a way of splitting the data and giving it to the appropriate process. To achieve this, you would really have to use the Xgrid API to write your own plug-in.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Graymalkin]

Feeding a remote process data is not as difficult as you're describing. If the program you're using doesn't support ranges in arguments it isn't too difficult to wrap a script around it that does understand input ranges. The Xgrid client makes it pretty simple to use ranges as arguments for programs. It's possible to use the likes of Blender and Xgrid to do distributed rendering. Ergo input control doesn't seem to be a terribly difficult hurdle to overcome with Xgrid.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[mrchaotica]

What, and you think Xgrid would use less bandwidth?

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Paulrothrock]

So does that mean I can run SETI@Home on a bunch of computers without alteration? Cause that would rock.

I think the next step would be a freeware internet grid computing platform, a la SETI, but where people can lease time from Apple. Now that would be sweet.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Twirlip of the Mists]

However, if your program needs to be fed data(eg. sort a list read from stdin), your program would have to have a way of splitting the data and giving it to the appropriate process.

No, the bundled Xgrid plug-ins already handle stdin and stdout.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Distcc in XCode is cool. Until you realize that if you have a .ym it may compile the generated file too soon, and it takes hours to understand that your binary is not up to date with your source code...

Yep. It happened to me. Several times.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Curious__George]

He probably did it kinda like this:
http://www.atpm.com/10.06/blender.shtml

Re:I've been dying to know....

[genericpenguin]

Quite correct, but the -data- will have to be split(e.g. if it reside in a single file). While this is not particularly difficult for some applications, it is still not as straightforward as typing in a command in the Xgrid plug-in.

For example, I have a short script which cleans up fax numbers( a few thousand) and then sorts them and removes duplicates. It also removes numbers that are listed in a blacklist. If I split up the file, how would duplicates be found if they reside in different data segments that are being processed by on a remote machine? Since my script is not made to communicate with a remote process, it has no way of knowing about remote data. Also, sorting requires that all the data to be visible to the sorting process. Yes, this can be distributed, but only through communicating with the remote processes or better yet, by using the Xgrid API. That is why certain types of programs do NOT tend themselves to distribution without rewriting the application. Mind you, I have only covered some very basic concepts. It gets much complicated when you have multiple simultaneous processes that require interprocess communication via UNIX sockets or shared memory.

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Twirlip of the Mists]

For example, I have a short script which cleans up fax numbers( a few thousand) and then sorts them and removes duplicates.

Bloody hell. Unless your working set is the list of all fax numbers in the world, why are we even talking about this?

Re:I've been dying to know....

[Graymalkin]

You're trying to shoehorn the wrong sort of application into Xgrid and for some reason expecting it to work. Problems that can't be solved in a loosely coupled parallel environment are not well suited to be run on something like Xgrid. In the case of your fax numbers a custom Xgrid plug-in would probably be the least efficient way of doing the work. It would likely take longer to distribute the list and binaries to agents than it would for one fast system to run through the program.

Xgrid isn't meant to solve all computational problems. It is designed to solve the ones involving long independent or at worst loosely coupled problems.

How would that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

[iMac] GOOD MORNING

[Me] Good morning, computer. How are you?

[iMac] PRETTY GOOD. I SOLVED A VEXING SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM LAST NIGHT.

[Me] Oh is that so.

[iMac] YEAH. I FOUND A SOLUTION TO THE HEISENBERG-BERTELLSMAN PROTEIN FOLDING DELIMMA.

[Me] Huh.

[iMac] THE ANSWER TURNED OUT TO BE 42.

[Me] .. That's... nice. So how about some Doom 3 then?

[iMac] OK

Re:How would that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

[iMac] ALSO, MY SPELL CHECKER NEEDS AN UPGRADE.

[Me] Ok. Also, could you not use so many caps? It's like YELLING.

Re:How would that work?

[Ffakr]

Oh, come on.. that snippy reply is way funnier than the original post. ;-) How the hell to I mod it up?

Re:How would that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

[iMac] THE ANSWER TURNED OUT TO BE 42.

[Me] .. That's... nice. So how about some Doom 3 then?

[iMac] I'm sorry, Dave, but this mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Re:How would that work?

[Skibbering]

[Me] .. That's... nice. So how about some Doom 3 then?

[iMac] OK

[Me] iMac? .. Helloooo? ... iMac??

[iMac] PROCESSING FIRST FRAME...
.
.
[iMac] PROCESSING...PROCESSING...

[Me] Hmmm, how about a game of chess?

[iMac] COOL! (WHEW!)

it's about time...

[sovtekmidget]

apple opened up and decides to let the rest of us non-mac-ites share in the fun

Re:it's about time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only part of the fun, though. You haven't tripped 'till you've been in the RDF.

So could someone please inform me

[Anonymous Coward]

How the developers actually benefit from OSS. The way I see it is that these people put the time and effort in to make a great product - which they give away for free.

Large corporations then download and use these products to increase productivity, get better results without paying a cent, but possibly making themselves even richer in the process. This isn't a troll, i'm just after an answer. I'm not saying OSS is bad, but i'm curious as to what motivates developers.

Re:So could someone please inform me

[Anonymous Coward]

How the developers actually benefit from OSS. The way I see it is that these people put the time and effort in to make a great product - which they give away for free.

In this case, Apple, the developer of XGrid, is benefiting because in order to use XGrid you have to buy hardware. Apple sells hardware.

Re:So could someone please inform me

[kfg]

So could someone please inform me How the developers actually benefit from OSS.

Where did the developers get their development tools?

AHA!

KFG

Re:So could someone please inform me

[tupps]

Stop thinking of developers as individuals who are trying to sell a product and think of developers as people who work/contract for organisations.

Instead of buying a product that is 95% of what I want I can take a OSS package that is 90% of the way there and pay a developer to customise it to exactly my needs. Now I have a solution that is perfect for my business, maybe given something back to the OSS community. While if I had bought the product I would probably have to change my business to use the product. The company now is also free of licensing and upgrade issues. Also they do not have to worry about the vendor going out of business or introducing a new version with no support for the old version.

If you think of software as tools for business rather than something that a developer trys to sell OSS makes a lot more sense.

Re:So could someone please inform me

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's not the right way to look at it. The way I see it is that these people put the time and effort into making great tools, not end product. Now they, and everyone else, are free to use those tools to create great products, which they don't give away for free.

The mistake I see in every Microsoft attack on OSS and the great fallacy behind every purchased white-paper that predicts that OSS will destroy the economy is that writing and selling software is only a very small part of the economy! Most of the economy is involved in creating real, tangible things like cars and planes and food, etc, etc. Most of the economy is not involved in endlessly copying and selling the same pattern of bits.

OSS creates tools that promise to improve the creation of many, many things on this planet and improve the prosperity of all. The only ones threatened by this are those that have made a business of monoplizing ideas. Ideas that are so easy to duplicate or recreate that they are deliberately trying to setup and use the force of law to keep people from producing ideas on their own.

OSS is really a "paradigm shift". This phrase has been used so emptily so many times by senseless marketing droids that it has lost impact over the years. But it is here, it is now, and it is unstoppable. How can they stop it? We have the source!

Re:So could someone please inform me

[eamacnaghten]

I am involved in both proprietary and open software.

In the proprietary model the software is becoming worth less and less. 5 years ago run time licenses accounted for over 80% of the income of commercial software provider companies, now you will be lucky to see it account for 40% and it is going down rapidly. The rest being made up of support, training and other services.

However, the cost of producing software is the same, and what is more, it is an upfront cost. You cannot get money for it until after you have paid a programmer to write it.

Open source takes the above to a logical conclusion. As software is becoming relatively worthless (as far as run-time licenses go) you do not lose by giving the software away for free, and if you Open Source it you have available a 90% solution from free software out there before you begin thus cutting down on the production costs.

It is not about "giving stuff away" or people "not paying a cent" to use your software, it is about facilitating an extremely cost effective way for which software companies can provide services to the customer by using open source predecessors, and passing the benefit on to successors.

Re:So could someone please inform me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when I develop a piece of software (or hire someone to do it for me), I solve one of my problems. That's the benefit. End of story, really.

For instance, I need a special library for an app. And none of the off-the shelf ones exactly match it. So I write it.

Now, I find out that other people have a similar problem. So I think to myself "well, I already got my ROI, so to speak. I solved my problem. So now I'll put this software out as open source and see what happens".

And people use the software in ways I didn't think of. They give suggestions on how it might be better. A few send in patches. Suddenly my solution is an even better solution, at no cost to me.

On the flip side: I download an open source library. It works okay, but there are some bugs and it needs a little refactoring. It will cost $1000 in labor to fix this library, vs. $5000 to write it from scratch. So I do it and send the patch to the author. The author is happy (free patch), I'm happy ($4000 worth of code for free), and I don't have to re-do my fixes in the next version! I sure wish commercial software worked that way.

A lot of folks make it seem that OSS is a bunch of people working for others, for free, like communists or something. Not true .. I write software *to benefit myself only*. I am a capitalist. I fully believe in free markets. I believe people should make as much as they can and get to keep it all. I also believe there's no justification for charging for something that costs nothing to copy, so I don't. It goes against my thinking: the only way something that costs nothing can be charged for is if you have authoritarian government enforcing it (which we do). Charge for service, sure. Charge for installation, sure. Charge for consulting, yup. Charge for the box, the CD, whatever. All of that takes time or materials and I can't "copy" it for the next guy.

Of course, you don't have to explain *how* OSS works. Just look and see that it exists and is self-sustaining, that's enough to prove that *something* about it works!

Re:So could someone please inform me

[Maserati]

Possibly the most insightful and most informative comment ever posted on this board.

And yes, I have said that before. That's why it's qualified :-)

Re:So could someone please inform me

[Midnight Thunder]

One thing worth noting is that a few companies I have worked for would rather spend an extra month reinventing something that already exists, than paying up any license fees. This usually means we are late because something as simple as a list manager and string handlers are being redone. At least, that is the way it is in C/C++. For the company I work for, who develops in Java, we are willing to pay for the big solutions, such as Weblogic (as long as they don't get too greedy), but for the smaller components, such as XML parsers, we use open source. If we were forced to pay for it, I think we would probably find ourselves writing a solution that did the job.

There is so much that makes up a company solution and the ability to avoid doing the foundation work provides them with the ability to concentrate on improving elsewhere.

Also, from my experience, small companies are more likely to use an open source DB, but when the data becomes important to the client too and liability becomes a factor, then they are more likely to want to go for the commercial solution, such as Oracle, DB2 or SQLServer.

It Doesn't Show That At All!

[Alphanos]

Just goes to show that when companies embrace open standards and code, the world doesn't fall apart.

Don't get me wrong, I support open standards/code, but it doesn't show any such thing if this linux client has only just been released. I bet Apple, and others for that matter, will be watching sales of Mac machines for use in clusters. If they drop because everyone starts using linux PCs, then Apple will probably not try this again.

Re:It Doesn't Show That At All!

[xchino]

If everyone was going ot be using Linux PC's in their cluster, they would just use one of the existing clustering applications. The only reason anyone would use Xgrid is because they plan on using SOME mac nodes, which is better than none. This could increase sales by opening up Macintosh hardware to projects that couldn't use it before. Due to the cost of a Mac hardware, it is often not feasible to build an all Mac cluster, but if I can throw some G5's in here and there Apple gets some of my money as opposed to none.

Re:It Doesn't Show That At All!

[aristotle-dude]

Actually, no it is quite feasible if you do it on a large scale and depending on what you use the cluster for. Big Mac and the Army cluster are two examples of where a mac cluster can be cheaper.

Re:It Doesn't Show That At All!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Big Mac has as of yet to run any actual code, just test applications. There are linux clusters that have happily done real work over the past year. I'm not saying Mac clusters aren't a good idea, but the rapant fanboy attitude toward them is getting old.

Home cluster

[vaguelyamused]

I wonder how effective this really is for home use? Will the performance improvement on my Powerbook be worth running XGrid on it and firing up a couple older computers (600Mhz IMac, Pentium III 1.0 Ghz) on Linux/OS X and adding them to the cluster. Would 100Mbs Ethernet cut it, what about WLAN?

Re:Home cluster

[Anonymous Coward]

zero for home use. grid stuff is currently only good for science apps, although openmosix on linux is pretty cool for a linux network (not sure if works on macs). 10/100 cuts it alright, wireless is even better, just add openswan to protect your data

Re:Home cluster

[Computerguy5]

Did you really just say that wireless, a home network option of *at best* half the throughput of 100 base-T, is a better option than 100base for transferring data across a cluster?

but....

[jwcorder]

"Just goes to show that when companies embrace open standards and code, the world doesn't fall apart."

But the world hasn't fallen apart using Microsoft either...oops, I said that outloud....

Re:but....

[javaxman]

what world are *you* living in that hasn't fallen apart over the past few years??

I might like to move there, but I suspect, like some other folks, you've simply stopped following the news...

So, you're saying your PCs are completely problem-free? You don't get tons of spam and haven't heard of major web hosting services DDoSed by zombified Windows users? Huh.

Re:but....

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem I have with my 4 Windows machines is that I spend too much time on them. As for spam, the only accounts that get spam are the webmaster@*** accounts that I have and my hotmail account. My personal email, the one at my work, and the one I use for the company I run on the side may get 1 to 2 pieces of spam a week. Of course, I don't post them everywhere I go either.

So my world is ok. Automatic updates are on, and my virus scanner updates everyday. Firewall protecting the network traffic. (I guess I do live in my own little world after all...thank you 6th grade English teacher.)

Re:but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. I don't get tons of spam. Never been infected by a worm or virus, either, and I've been using Windows non-stop since 3.11 (At least on one or more computers, not nessicarily all).

All you need is:

1: Firewall.
2: Common Sense.
3: Anti-virus (In case you don't have access to #2).

Re:but....

[callipygian-showsyst]

"Just goes to show that when companies embrace open standards and code, the world doesn't fall apart."

Well put! That's why I use a standard language like C# over Java. (Can't link to the Java standard because there isn't one!)

Re:but....

[Tjp($)pjT]

It is OK. You didn't utter the name three times.

Re:but....

[Binary Judas]

Well congratulations, you're safe.
But you sir, are not the world.
85% of spam still comes from Windows zombies, no matter how good your firewall is.

Why do people always say this kind of crap?
I don't care how great your computer works, there are still millions that don't.
"Hey I borrowed this guys heroin shot, and I didn't get HIV, so you should all try it, it's safe!"

Re:but....

[freerangegeek]

Oh, so the 3 days downtime my entire corporation spent on Slammer. And the day and a half we went without email because of another virus and it's interaction with the Exchange server were just bad luck then. This despite virus checkers which autoupdate, patches installed automatically, and additional levels of virus checking on and before the Exchange server?

Yeah, that wasn't the world falling apart due to Microsoft being used. Have we forgotten code red.

Re:but....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you got hit by slammer, that's your IT department's fault. The patch was available for a month before the virus.

In general it makes life easy

[SuperKendall]

In the past, as I have moved between jobs, I've written a number of Object->relational mapping tools.

After a while they cease to become fun to write, and you'd rather just get on with writing code that does something instead of infrastructure. By using and contributing to OSS projects, you can use the same code no matter what company you end up at. Because the code is portable it can become part of the package you can offer to a potential employer - they not only get an employee but potentially one that can producive almost right away because they are familiar with the tools they'll be using, with no cost to the company for said tools.

So it makes life easier for you, less re-work. And it makes life easier for employers, as they get richer products sooner. And if the employee becomes really proficient at a widely used OSS project they can write their own way through consulting or training.

Re:In general it makes life easy

[leandrod]

> I've written a number of Object->relational mapping tools

You mean object-SQL mapping. SQL ain't relational.

This specific problem simply wouldn't exist with in a relational system.

So while I see your point and agree, your example was a technological, not licensing, one.

GridEngine

[Anonymous Coward]

I find Sun Grid Engine better than other similar grid tools...

http://gridengine.sunsource.net

Re:GridEngine

[Anonymous Coward]

that's because the other tools are PBS, Condor and LoadLever, all complete crap. Grid Engine is also crap, but at least doesn't have the 80s baggage.

Re:GridEngine

[mw5299]

Doesnt it only work on suns though? ----- http://xwebnet.com

Re:GridEngine

[dsouth]

that's because the other tools are PBS, Condor and LoadLever, all complete crap. Grid Engine is also crap, but at least doesn't have the 80s baggage.

What's funny about this is that the actual lineage of GridEngine is DQS-->Codine-->Codine/GRD-->GRD-->GridEngine . So grid engine is indeed carrying that "80's baggage". And for that matter, LoadLeveler is actually a decendant of Condor (though it branched off so long ago I doubt there is much of the orignal left). You also left out the half-dozen or so decendents of NQS that all carry the same baggage. Actually, if I had to choose, I'd say Condor has the least baggage, mainly because it's been targeted for something rather different than what most batch schedulers do (in particular, the classad stuff is an interesting direction).

Personally, I found PBS to be the best open source solution last time I had to choose, but that was just prior to the Sun buyout of GRD, so things may have changed. [My current employer rolls their own batch scheduler, so I haven't had a need to survey the field for a few years.] There are also some things Condor rocks at (cycle scavanging, userspace checkpoint/restart/migration) which none of the others even attempt, so it's definitely worth a look for some sites.

If your paying $$ for your batch scheduler, LSF pretty much trumps all of them, but the price is too steep for me.

Why another technology

[Skaunch]

Why does mac have to go out and roll-their-own clustering software when it would be a lot more helpful to embrase something like Globus which is being adopted for grid computing world wide.

It would fit right in as it can run on top of JBoss and prefers a *nix environment.

Either that or OpenMosix... but not another new one.

Re:Why another technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "mac" some guy who works for Apple? Or do you normally refer to companies by their product names?

When will Windows write similar grid tools?
Why does Unix keep suing people?
When will Mac make a Windows box?

Re:Why another technology

[wahsapa]

When will Windows write similar grid tools? - never Why does Unix keep suing people? - because lawyers suck When will Mac make a Windows box? - its the other way around, M$ has an NT kernal on PowerPC(nt on g5's anybody?)

Re:Why another technology

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it wrong. It is spelled MAC, as in "In know a guy who has a MAC".

Re:Why another technology

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mac" "embrased" open standards, and produced an easy-to-use solution with a reasonable GUI that actually has a chance of being adopted by end users. Have you actually tried setting up Globus yourself? It ain't easy, and it doesn't really do the same thing as Xgrid. As for OpenMosix -- on OS X???

Re:Why another technology

[kryptKnight]

"Either that or OpenMosix"
Xgrid treats the cluster as one proccessor, while OpenMosix assigns each to thread to a cpu thats not doing muck work.

Re:Why another technology

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

I'm not it is another technology... i think you will find the way apple can offer linux and *BSD clients into their system is that apple has taken one of the standards cleaned it up and put a pretty interface on it. By pretty i don't just mean aqua, and gunmetal, but the logic that takes these standards and brings them to mass practical use.

Re:Why another technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a quick general ( Mac ) knowlege test for Skaunch and anyone else who seems confused the products of 1 Infinite Loop.

Question 1. - Win is to Microsoft as Mac is to...
A. Windows
B. Macintosh
C. Apple
D. MACH
E. Steve Jobs

Question 2. - Mac is...
A. A fruit
B. An operating system
C. An acronym
D. A computer
E. An abbreviation

Question 3. - "RDF" as made famous by Steve Jobs is...
A. An interconnect protocol (RAM Double Frequency)
B. Relational Database Function
C. A QuickTime codec
D. Reality Distotion Field
E. Real Dumb F*cker

Question 4. - During the 1990's Apple was described in the press as...
A. The beleagered computer maker
B. The beleaguered computer maker
C. The beleguered computer maker
D. The biggest computer maker
E. The best computer maker

Question 5. - The official name of the Virginia Tech G5 cluster was...
A. System X
B. Mac
C. Big Mac
D. X
E. Virginia

Question 6. - The X in Mac OS X is...
A. A letter of the alphabet symbolizing the unknown
B. Refering to the uniX core of the OS
C. Used because they couldn't think of a name after Rhapsody
D. Implies the seXy "lickable" Aqua interface
E. A Roman numeral following 9

Question 7. - Which is true?
A. Gates runs Microsoft which makes Windows computers
B. Gates runs Windows which makes Microsoft
C. Jobs runs Mac which makes Apple Computers
D. Gates runs Apple which makes Macintosh computers
E. Jobs runs Apple which makes Macs
F. A and E
G. Gates doesn't make computers

ANSWERS:
1.C 2.B,D & E 3.D 4.B 5.A 6.E 7.E & G
SCORE:
7 = Mac "Zealot"
6 = Mac "Fanboy"
5 = Mac "Enthusiast"
4 = Mac "Weenie"
3 = PC "Weenie"
2 = Windows user
1 = "Luser"
0 = Why are you here on /. ?

Re:Why another technology

[Yarn]

Because Globus is a designed by committee PoS. Most big grid projects in the UK are rolling out Condor and/or Sun Grid Engine/N1.

Unless Xgrid gets cross platform execution agents and submission agents it's unlikely to get much uptake in the academic world. SGE, Condor et al all support Mac OS X, as well as windows, linux, other unices etc. They also have useful abilities such as checkpointing.

Re:Why another technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth be told, it is not new. XGrid is simply the latest incarnation of NeXT's Zilla, which has been around for well over 10 years.

Re:Why another technology

[gamgee5273]

No, it isn't the other way around. It's an open secret that there is an x86 version of OS X, developed in parallel with the PPC one, in Cupertino. Jobs, being Jobs, has learned to keep his options open.

The NT kernel you mention is for Xenon (Xbox 2) dev kits. It's just the kernel. No one has ever suggested that there is a full-blown version of Windows on those kits, nor does there need to be.

Zounds!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just goes to show that when companies embrace open standards and code, the world doesn't fall apart."
Damn that Sun Microsystems! (You know they don't have real standards you know, Java has never been submitted to ECMA or whoever)

great job

[rainman1976]

Good job with the clustering ... as for the pro-Mac users that believe that this should not be, keep in mind that the computer is just a tool to simplify a job. Using a pipe on the base of the wrench to solve a problem easier doesn't mean that Sears Craftsman is now going to start making longer wrenches, it just shows that people will use whatever they have to solve/simplify problems, and if it means clustering in non-Mac computers, then so be it. Job done, cheaper, simplier, and quicker. -Rainman

Re:great job

[Anonymous Coward]

"as for the pro-Mac users that believe that this should not be"

Huh?

Probably a silly question but...

[Thaidog]

Can anybody confirm if the linux and unix ports are smp aware?

Re:Probably a silly question but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Xgrid has anything to do with how the program runs locally. Xgrid is just a communication protocol for partitioning data to clients and organizing that data once it returns. It would be up to the program that Xgrid is sending data to to be smp aware.

Re:Probably a silly question but...

[Novajo]

Can anybody confirm if the linux and unix ports are smp aware?

(I wrote the xgridagent).

As the other poster said, XGrid does not care what the binary does (so it can be smp aware, multi-threaded, whatever). However, the xgridagent itself is not explicitly smp aware, but it is multi-threaded. Each task is started in its own thread and depending on the OS(?) I guess they could spread to other CPUs. The other aspect of the question is "Does the Unix XGrid agent support MPI like Apple's GridAgent for OS X?". It does not and I can't say for sure how difficult it would be to support it. However, since all communication is done via the XGrid protocol, I don't see what would prevent it from being implemented. BUt other things need to be done first.

The most pressing issue is to fix the annoying "large message" issue which makes the agent hang (while it waits forever for the controller to accept more frames). I am convinced it is trivial, I just don't know enough about BEEP to fix it. I am hoping somebody who knows BEEP will take a look at xgridagent-profile.c and fix the xgridagent_SengMSG() function and send me the patch.

Daniel Côté

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's shitty Java crap, that's why.

Time to break out that old NT 4.0 CD

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a subdirectory PowerPC...
Hmm, will that install on a Powerbook ??

Re:Time to break out that old NT 4.0 CD

[O]

Hmm, will that install on a Powerbook ??

Nope. But, it probably would on a ThinkPad 850.

Re:Apple embraces opensource?

[Anonymous Coward]

This troll is getting old. MS does not and never did own 40% of Apple. They bought a large chunk of non voting shares in exchange for making IE Apple's default browser. As soon as the 3 year contractual agreement was up, MS sold the shares, and for a decent profit.

No they dont (nt)

[eldalonde]

No they don't.

Why bother?

[jweage]

There are many other open source cluster/queuing systems available.

The one I prefer is OpenPBS. It works very well for engineering compute clusters, and there are many different resource schedulers available which use the PBS job and node management system.

Re:Why bother?

[oudzeeman]

OpenPBS is shit. It needs about 25 3rd party patches(many of which have to be applied in order) to be halfway decent, (Altair Engineering doesn't actively develop it anymore so these patches won't be integrated into OpenPBS). Also it often falls flat on its face. I wouldn't want to use OpenPBS unless I had a trivially small cluster.

If you want something free, TORQUE is OK. It is a OpenPBS derivative (they started with the last OpenPBS version and added all the popular scalability and fault tolerance patches). TORQUE is actively developed under some DOE contracts, and even the company that has the DOE contracts to develop and support TORQUE will give other people some free support (I've had them on the phone helping to debug some of the code). You can get TORQUE from Supercluster.org.

PBS Pro is very good, but costs a lot unless you are a degree granting department (then it is free).

Re:Why bother?

[jweage]

I'm in the automotive industry.

I personally know of several large companies who are running stock OpenPBS, mine included, and it works fine. The largest OpenPBS cluster I am aware of is several hundred nodes. I'm running three small clusters (up to 44 cpus). We are currently up to several thousand jobs on two of them with OpenPBS only hanging once or twice in about a year.

However, TORQUE is new to me, I'll have to check it out.

Re:Why bother?

[oudzeeman]

without patching OpenPBS does NOT scale well. Altair Engineering says it doesn't scale well over 32 nodes. They short-sell it a little there to try to sell PBS Pro, but I know from experience it is VERY flakey with no patches.

Re:Apple embraces opensource?

[The Ancients]

The only funny thing about this comment is that MS actually owns 40% of apple.

I wouldn't say that - I find it pretty amusing you've been registered at ./ for so long and are still so wrong.

p.s. I know I should reference - how about 'MS owns fuck all anymore' - will this do?

Re:Apple embraces opensource?

[Anonymous Coward]

How you figure? See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=aapl

Pretty Interfaces....

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is good at writing pretty, easy to use interfaces over complex to configure things. Many of these complex things are written by people who ASSUME the end user has the same skill set as they do. But as we all know... The average computer users is an IDIOT. The average system administrator is usually no better.

Let's face it, some slash-dotters who don't even work as system administrators know more them.

Good for home use too.

[Gordon Bennett]

Some households have a mix of computers and one can begin to see the benefits - for example, to halve the video compression time of iMovie when making a DVD.
Considering Apple's ease-of-use for heavyweight *NIX apps this would empower more people to have more computing resources available rather than the big fish out there - schools with low budgets would be able to stretch their capabilities that bit further. And so on.

Re:Good for home use too.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

for example, to halve the video compression time of iMovie when making a DVD.

Video compression is a difficult task to parallelize. If each frame were compressed individually it'd be easy: just and an uncompressed frame to a node and get the compressed frame back. But that's not how it works.

Now, for something like Pixlet, which is frame-based, there's the possibility of distributing the task. But you will never use Pixlet. It was designed to compress 2K or 1080 material losslessly at a ratio of about 2:1. Very specific tool for a very specific purpose.

So using Xgrid for video compression isn't going to be the wonder that you might wish it could be.

Re:Good for home use too.

[zalas]

Might video compression work if the first scanning pass is done on one computer and the keyframe locations are extracted and then each computer in the grid/cluster would render the chunks between keyframes in parallel?

Re:Good for home use too.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Maybe. I don't know enough about the internals of how compression works, but that sounds plausible enough to fool me.

Re:Good for home use too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait- you got modded "Informative" for saying that you don't know? The karma Gods are smiling on you today...

Re:Good for home use too.

[JamieF]

It might work well for a different usage scenario: ripping a DVD.

The first step would be getting the data off of the DVD. Clearly that wouldn't be parallelizable unless you had multiple copies of the DVD (or some sort of hideous DVD multicast SAN).

The second step (decryption) would probably be parallelizable. I don't know much about how CSS works but I imagine that it would be a fairly easy task to split the ciphertext into blocks for distribution and decryption.

The third step (recompression) could be split up for parallelization by scene.

The fourth step would be serial - reassembling the compressed movie into a single file, or maybe a few files if a maximum size (say, 700MB) for each single file were desired.

Ideally, the second and third steps could be combined. Empirically it's clear that it's possible to jump to a scene without decrypting the entire title up to that point, so it should be possible to split the encrypted scene data out, pass it to a node, and get back that same scene in recompressed form.

Splitting things up this way would probably also overcome the problem the parent post describes (that of not wanting every frame to be a key frame). Starting each scene as a key frame would add trivial overhead at worst; at best this is what a serial encoding process would do anyway since the frame content probably changes drastically with each scene change anyway.

Re:Good for home use too.

[TheRaven64]

Compressing video is very easy to do in a parallel manner. The first step is to perform a DCT (or DWT or similar) on each frame. This is embarrassingly parallel, especially for DCT where each macro block (usually an 8x8 pixel square) can be done in parallel. Next some form of quantisation is applied to the result. This, again, can be done in parallel on a per-frame basis. Finally, delta frames are computed for inter-frame compression on codecs that support it (MPEG and friends). Since key frames are usually a fixed number of frames apart you can simply have a number of nodes running these in parallel for each key frame block. If they are not, then the problem is a little more tricky but basically doable (I'd imagine that you'd start at fixed points, and insert key frames as required on fixed size blocks, possibly requiring some backtracking).

Re:Good for home use too.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That's all well and good... but in discussing potential uses for Xgrid, can we please make a concerted effort to stay away from stuff that illegal?

Re:Good for home use too.

[MechaStreisand]

It would work that way - but then there would be no point in running it on a grid at all, as it would be almost completely limited by the speed of the first pass.

Re:Good for home use too.

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Since key frames are usually a fixed number of frames apart

Not quite. The key frame interval tends to be a maximum. E.g. you tell the codec "insert a key frame at least every 50th frame". The codec however is free to insert more key frames if it feels like it. Of course, it doesn't do this just for fun, but because the delta frame compresses too badly, so it could just as well (or better) compress the entire frame. This is typically the case between different shots, so the first frame of each shot will be a key frame.

On the one hand, this means that your keyframe locations will - at first - be unpredictable. On the other, you can perform a quick check for suitable keyframe positions before handing the subtasks out to different machines, plus, you can also split the work up into blocks of x frames and render each block seperately, and then append them. This works fine since that way, each block will start with a key frame. The only disadvantage is that key frame placement may be suboptimal, causing a slight increase in movie size. The most extreme case would be single-frame blocks, which would mean that every frame is a key frame, and thus your compression is no better than MJPEG. ;)

embracing?

[dekeji]

Xgrid is proprietary, closed-source software. I think that hardly counts as "embracing" open-source software. Many other parts of the Macintosh platform are proprietary and closed source as well.

I'm not disputing that Apple released Darwin source code. But before you start cheering, keep in mind that Darwin started out as open source: the CMU Mach kernel and bits and pieces of BSD. And it's not like Apple made a big sacrifice in releasing a kernel that looks and feels like half a dozen other open source kernels.

Re:embracing?

[DeifieD]

Well... At least they are releasing software for Linux... I don't think Photoshop would be OpenSource either. But Adobe releasing it for Linux would be considered embracing.

Re:embracing?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS released "software" for linux, big deal. If you want to see how a company embraces FOSS see IBM or Sun - They release the whole project, not just the client, ie: so you have to use their server...

It's very arguable that MS's "open source" licence is functionally equivalent to the apple one...

If apple were trying to embrace FOSS then they would have released something harmless like the source to Safarri. (all the hard work is done by khtml so what the prob?)

Re:embracing?

[babbage]

Xgrid is proprietary, closed-source software

Actually, that is completely false:

Xcode uses distcc to manage distributed builds. The distcc client manages the setup and distribution of build tasks. The server process (distccd) manages communication with the remote computers hosting the build tasks. The server process runs on both the local, or client, computer and on the remote computer.

As 30 seconds of Googling will tell you, distcc [is] a fast, free distributed C/C++ compiler.

As they have done with KDE's KHTML engine in Safari, so is Samba's distcc engine being used in XCode.

Care to try again ?

:-)

Re:embracing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with the question.

Xgrid is *NOT* currently being used in any shipping product from apple. Xcode does not use it for distributed builds, XCode actually uses a modified version of distcc.

Re:embracing?

[CableModemSniper]

And as 30 seconds of thinking will tell you, Xgrid is not Xcode.

Care to try again?

Re:embracing?

[Anonymous Coward]

But before you start cheering, keep in mind that Darwin started out as open source: the CMU Mach kernel and bits and pieces of BSD.

That's a pretty standard response, and it makes me wonder if you've ever actually looked at Darwin. While it is derived from existing open source technology, Apple's additions (for example, IOKit) are far from trivial.

Re:embracing?

[jurv!s]

But Xgrid uses the BEEP protocol for all communication, which is open, and allowed this project to interoperate easily. The closed source part of Xgrid is just a Cocoa GUI that was thrown together with Interface Builder. This made it a lot easier to interoperate than say, the nasty Exchange/Outlook communication combo.

If Apple breaks this intentionally (meaning not for adding significant, enhanced functionality) in their next release, I will stand with you as an anti-Apple nay-saying zealot and deride them all up and down /.

-Potentially recovering Mac zealot (it's so hard with WWDC right around the corner :-( )

Re:embracing?

[babbage]

True, but I can't think of any reason why Apple would based the Xcode engine on distcc and use something else for Xgrid. I can picture them using a heavily hacked up version of distcc, but if they really thought they had a better piece of software that had been developed in-house, I don't see why it wouldn't be used for both applications.

You're right in that I'm not able to find any documentation for my assertion that distcc is the foundation for all of the Apple distributed compilation software, but it's clearly & widely documented that they're using it already in Xcode, so I don't think it's any staggering leap of the imagination to assume that Xgrid would be based on it as well.

If someone can offer a URL that says Xgrid is using something else, I'd be happy to read it, but I haven't been able to find anything definitive either way. I suggest starting with Apple's Xgrid intro site, from which several other pages about the technology are linked. Maybe there's something under there saying they're using something else, but I can't find it.

Re:embracing?

[dekeji]

True, but I can't think of any reason why Apple would based the Xcode engine on distcc and use something else for Xgrid. I can picture them using a heavily hacked up version of distcc, but if they really thought they had a better piece of software that had been developed in-house, I don't see why it wouldn't be used for both applications.

Because grid computing isn't the same as distributed computation. And if you look around the web (as I did before posting), you'll find that Xgrid apparently really is not open, let alone open source.

Re:embracing?

[dekeji]

But Xgrid uses the BEEP protocol for all communication, which is open, and allowed this project to interoperate easily. The closed source part of Xgrid is just a Cocoa GUI that was thrown together with Interface Builder.

I think that remains to be seen. I doubt that knowledge of BEEP is sufficient to write Xgrid-compatible clients and servers.

And regardless whether the protocols can be reversed engineered, Xgrid itself remains proprietary for now.

Re:embracing?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Adobe releasing it for Linux would be considered embracing.

It might be considered "embracing Linux", but it would not be considered (as the article said) "embracing open standards and code".

Of course, there are many people one just doesn't want to be embraced by at all.

Re:embracing?

[Anonymous Coward]

and it makes me wonder if you've ever actually looked at Darwin.

How does your response contradict anything that I said? Of course, Apple hacked on Mach a lot. (And whether what Apple did to Mach is an improvement is debatable.)

That doesn't change what I said. In particular, it doesn't change the fact that Darwin is of no strategic value to Apple and they know it. Apple released Darwin because it was a rational business decision even for a vendor of proprietary software, not because their business model has shifted at all from proprietary to open source.

hrmmm...

[interactive_civilian]

Clueless n00b question:

Would it be possible to get this to work over Xgrid?

At the high school I am teaching at, we have a lot of hardly used G4 eMacs and iMacs, and I would like to use them for something and perhaps even earn a little newsblurb about the school. I have been thinking about working with they SysAdmin to cluster the things and put them to good use. Xgrid seems like a good way to get them all working together, but I am very inexperienced in these sorts of things...

Any suggestions?

On a side note, it amazes me how many schools seem to have "jumped on the technology bandwagon" but after getting the equipment, really seem to have no idea what to do with it...

Re:hrmmm...

[Maserati]

Publicity ? Set up a cluster and benchmark it. It's numbers won't be all that much, but you'll get a good press release at it. The politicians will eat that sh*t right up. You might even be able to leverage it into some grant money.

Your side note is a sad but true sign of the times.

Re:hrmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Publicity? set up a cluster and crack the lameass NTLM auth on some e-commerce site's exposed SMB shares.

If you get caught you can just say that you are a white hat.

If you don't get caught you will be the envy of the 'leet scene when you dump 10K cards onto a torrent.

Whether you serve jail time or not you'll end up with a schweet gig "re"writing Longhorn's security layer.

Re:Firstes Postes!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to put double spaces between end punctuation -- just like you did in your masterful treatise on p2p, lamer!

Furthermore, you fail it!

It's for ad hoc cluster creation...

[csoto]

The other packages require a bit of planning, whereas Xgrid excels at locating nearby resources for pawning off processing tasks. Rendezvous (ZeroConf) is exactly about the need for ad hoc networking. Xgrid extends that to the cluster...

Actually

[wirefarm]

Setting up an Xgrid cluster is braindead easy for someone familiar with installing standard Mac software. You don't have to commit much time or energy to the task to get it drawing Mandelbrot fractals using all of the computer power you have at hand. Even over wifi.

Once you get it running and figure out something useful to do with it, you could add a stack of linux boxes for a lot less than a stack of Macs. How much is a used 1Ghz PC? $50? I would consider adding 10 of those to my 3 Mac Xgrid, just for the coolness factor. If it would render frames for a video editor, all the better.

Apple is great at making complex technologies easy for anyone to use. Xgrid even has a big analog Tachometer widget that shows the available Ghz being consumed. It would be cheesy if it weren't so freaking cool.

wake up!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

So, this is an example of those open standards, and the world not falling apart over it?

shall I quote from the download page? yes, yes I shall ...

Quote:

Several notes on compilation:

1. If you use this for anything other than testing, you are insane.
2. The configure script isn't great: it does not check for all compatibility issues and might even fail to run properly without telling you. /Quote

I'll assume that Pudge is just another Michael in disguise, endlessly posting over hyped BS articles that are easily refuted.

Very simple in this case:

[spitzak]

If you already have a setup of hundreds of non-Mac machines running some clustering that doesn't work on Mac, you might be tempted to try replacing it with this code. It might work better, it might be nicer designed, it might be cheaper, or you might like it because it works on Macs or because the source is available. In any case there is a chance that you will like it and switch to it.

If you switch, you are suddenly in the position of being able to add Macintosh products to your cluster, and you may go out and buy some of those really fast Xserve boxes. And Apple makes money.

If Apple did not release this, or tried to sell it, you would most likely ignore it, be unable to add Macs to your cluster no matter how good they are, and Apple does not make money.

Car Thief

[Doc Ruby]

How about when you play the next Beastie Boys record into your optical drive, it secretly installs an Xgrid client, and *whoosh* you're borged into its Internet cluster?

Re:Apple embraces opensource?

[Udo Schmitz]

[Microsoft]bought a large chunk of non voting shares in exchange for making IE Apple's default browser.

In fact this was part of an out-of-court settlement between Apple and MS about patent and copyright issues.

"Preferred Stock - In August 1997, the Company and Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) entered into a patent cross license and technology agreements. In addition, Microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of Apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by Microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock." source (PDF-File - 10-K/Part II/Item 8 - page 75)

Even then this wasn't a "large chunk"

It would mean MS has 18 million shares in Apple, of what? 400 million shares? How many shares of AAPL are on the market?

MS sold the shares, and for a decent profit.

If you have a source that Microsoft ever sold those shares please provide a link to it.

GarageBand

[vonFinkelstien]

Maybe now people can use GarageBand without seeing the little position/CPU indicator turning red.

Running with that theme....

[superdan2k]

"I have a dream that one day the state of Redmond, whose CEO's lips are presently dripping with the words of FUD and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little Linux boys and Linux girls will be able to join hands with little Microsoft boys and Microsoft girls and compute together as peers-to-peers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every bad GUI shall be exalted, every pricetag and TCO shall be made low, the open ports will be made closed, and the closed source will be made open, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all hardware shall see it together."

Mod Parent Up

[Paulrothrock]

This man has created a new word: Borged. He should get the Nobel prize or something.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Doc Ruby]

Thank you, thank you. And I'd like to thank all the little people who made this fabulous night possible.

Re:Apple

[tbone1]

Yeah, everyone on /. says Apple is so great. But they just rip stuff off from the open source community. When is Apple going to give something back?

Well, there's Darwin, their (improved, IMnsHO) version of BSD.

Rendezvous is their (improved) version of ZeroConf.

Safari runs on the KHTML engine. Apple made some improvements and gave them back to the KHTML people, who thanked and praised Apple.

They've worked to improve gcc on PPC-based compilers.

They also provide the standard tools like apache, perl, python, etc etc etc, with OS X. I don't know if they have worked on these specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Re:Who pays you to post on /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't give a shit about getting work done"

Says the village idiot posting on Slashdot. When you sober up go to dictionary.com and look up the word hypocrite. Dumbass.

It was licencing

[SuperKendall]

While you are right about the SQL mapping (which of course it what's really happening), the issue is one of license. The fact is, libraries I wrote at previous companies were owned by then and could not move with me. By using more external libraries, I can use them whever I go - and by using OSS projects I can customize them far easier.

Re:It was licencing

[leandrod]

> While you are right about the SQL mapping (which of course it what's really happening), the issue is one of license

Obviously. My point is that you shouldn't even need that code, it should be all in the RDBMS already. SQL robs us of that.

Receiver swaps.

[tlambert]

Receiver swaps.

In DCE RPC, the receiver does the byte swapping, if necessary. One of the main reasons Windows network services are built on DCE RPC is that between homogenous systems, there's no swapping taking place: all that data goes out in host byte order, and there's no such thing as network bte order.

One of the big arguments about this had to do with Windows machines on Intel not "playing fair" with systems that natively implement network byte order as their host byte order. When talking to Intel boxes, these machine have to gain additional overhead.

This also gives a big disadvantage to servers whose byte order doesn't match that of their predominant clients.

Actually, from a computational overhead point of view, a more correct approach would have been to have "client swaps to seerver byte order", to put the computational overhead on the most efficient side of the link for it (by offloading the most computationally loaded component, the server).

As far as I recollect, this lost out in committee to people who were arguing against it in order to have leverage to enforce vendor lock-in for both clients and servers. 8-(.

-- Terry

illegal?

[bodrell]

Potentially, sure it's illegal. But so is the law that makes it illegal (violation of fair-use). Why should we "make a concerted effort to stay away from stuff that illegal"? There are plenty of legitimate, yet illegal, purposes for computing in general. Most of which pertain to circumventing encryption.

The parent poster did mention decryption, but what about self-authored DVDs made with iMovie? The ripping and recompression would still be required if, say, I wanted to convert a DVD to VCD format for a friend living in India (or anywhere else VCD is popular).

Or what about public-domain works that are still distributed as encrypted DVDs? Legally, I can copy "It's a Wonderful Life" and sell copies, if anyone wanted to buy them. Or public-domain, ROT-13 encrypted Adobe ebooks.

And finally, what about slashdot readers in China, where intellectual property is nonexistent? Or in other countries that DON'T have a DMCA?

Re:illegal?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But so is the law that makes it illegal (violation of fair-use).

Sorry, I must have an out-of-date copy of the United States Code here. Because mine doesn't say anything about the doctrine of fair use guaranteeing anybody the right to make perfect digital copies of copyrighted works.

There are plenty of legitimate, yet illegal, purposes for computing in general.

Nope. By definition, if it's illegal, then it's not legitimate.

The parent poster did mention decryption, but what about self-authored DVDs made with iMovie?

Rationalize all you want. The point is that the poster was talking about piracy. You might try to throw up a "but what about this? or this? or this?" smokescreen but that isn't going to fool anybody.

There's absolutely no just cause to take a potentially powerful new technology like Xgrid and sully it with implications that it's a handy-dandy tool for piracy. Doing so is incredibly short-sighted, and just plain dumb to boot.

(Incidentally, the China thing was just stupid. "What about using Xgrid to violate copyrights in countries where copyright law isn't enforced?" Dumbass.)

Re:illegal?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Sorry, I must have an out-of-date copy of the United States Code here. Because mine doesn't say anything about the doctrine of fair use guaranteeing anybody the right to make perfect digital copies of copyrighted works.

US law 101: That which isn't explicitely forbidden, is allowed. But US (and European) copyright law even explicitely allows making full copies of music recordings for private use, including giving them to friends and family. There's no exemption for digital copies. The DMCA changed that by disallowing circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, allowing rights holders to make perfectly ok fair use illegal simply by adding even the most ridiculous technical protection.

Nope. By definition, if it's illegal, then it's not legitimate.

I challenge you to quote one relevant philosopher who can back this funny statement up. Btw this defense didn't work too well at the Nuremberg trials.

Rationalize all you want. The point is that the poster was talking about piracy. You might try to throw up a "but what about this? or this? or this?" smokescreen but that isn't going to fool anybody.

For one, you're probably right. Duplicating play-, err, copy-protected DVDs (may I remind the f*@!#/ing MPAA that thanks to the new laws they bought, it is now a crime to watch DVDs under Linux?) using a grid is unlikely to be done for personal use (e.g. geting a backup copy, or a copy without the CSS, Macrovision and region code bullshit). But then, why should I care after all the crap that RIAA and MPAA spew out? What about the corruption, the oligopolist practices and the lies? Why am I to believe them anything any more? Sorry, dude, no pity from me, they can fsck themselves and go to hell.

Actually, I stopped using P2P altogether and don't copy music/films otherwise, and I also quit buying/renting/viewing(in the cinema) anything remotely associated with the Music And Film Industry Association (MAFIA). They are - legally - not going to see a single cent of mine in the next few years, and I wish them a quick and painful death. (ok, that may be an oxymoron)

Re:illegal?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

US law 101: That which isn't explicitely forbidden, is allowed.

Yeah. Try applying that universally and without exception and see how far it gets you.

But US (and European) copyright law even explicitely allows making full copies of music recordings for private use, including giving them to friends and family. There's no exemption for digital copies.

You're missing the point. Title 17 says that you're not in violation of copyright if you make a copy for fair use purposes. Since the other stipulations of Title 17 do not prohibit you from making copies period, but rather merely from making perfect digital copies by circumventing access controls, the other parts of Title 17 (the stuff you guys insist on referring to by its legislative name, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, even though the act became law years ago) are not in conflict with section 107.

The DMCA changed that by disallowing circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, allowing rights holders to make perfectly ok fair use illegal simply by adding even the most ridiculous technical protection.

That's just silly and you know it. You're making it sound like the only POSSIBLE way to exercise your fair-use rights is by mass-producing bushels and bushels of perfect digital reproductions of copyrighted works. You're not fooling anybody with that kind of talk.

I challenge you to quote one relevant philosopher who can back this funny statement up.

I have absolutely no intention of digging through the writings of Locke, Bentham, Rousseau, and countless other great minds who expressed learned opinions on the rule of law and its primacy in civilized society just to convince you of something that is self-evident! If you don't accept it as an axiom, that's your problem. When and if you catch up to the rest of the modern world, come on back for another go-round. Until then, nuts to you.

may I remind the f*@!#/ing MPAA that thanks to the new laws they bought, it is now a crime to watch DVDs under Linux?

No, it of course is not. All you have to do is get your hands on a licensed DVD player. Can't find one you like? Then write your own. The DVD-CCA is happy to provide you with a license for their encoding system for an entirely reasonable fee. All you have to do is come up with a sound business case and I'm sure you'll have no trouble securing the funding you need.

What's that? You can't build a business case because Linux users, rather than simply buying the products they want, prefer instead to do things illegally for no other reason than simply to be perverse? Well, that says a hell of a lot more about Linux users than it does about the law, doesn't it?

May I remind you that it would be just as illegal to watch a DVD on a PC or a Mac were it not for the fact that helpful vendors have produced licensed software products for just that very purpose? If you want to rail against something, rail against your fellow morons--er, I mean Linux users. Pardon the slip of the tongue. Purely unintentional, I assure you.

But then, why should I care after all the crap that RIAA and MPAA spew out? What about the corruption, the oligopolist practices and the lies? Why am I to believe them anything any more?

Your tin-foil hat is in the mail. Please remit $8.95 upon receipt.

Sorry, dude, no pity from me, they can fsck themselves and go to hell.

I don't believe they're asking for your pity. Quite the contrary: while you sit here and whine about the fact that somebody else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with their property, they're raking in dough hand over fist.

They are - legally - not going to see a single cent of mine in the next few years, and I wish them a quick and painful death.

Yes, I'm sure the fact that a guy who didn't buy any of their products in the first place has since stopped buying their products (what?) has got them shaking in their boots.

Well done. Fight the power.

Re:illegal?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Yeah. Try applying that universally and without exception and see how far it gets you.

Oh, well. Just like I thought - you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Or maybe you're confused about the word "explicitely" (no, no need to mention butcher knifes explicitely in the law which prohibits murder). I could use an ACL analogy, but that would be wasted on you.

You're missing the point. Title 17 says that you're not in violation of copyright if you make a copy for fair use purposes.

Yes, and the anti-circumvention provisions restrict that right, don't they?

Since the other stipulations of Title 17 do not prohibit you from making copies period, but rather merely from making perfect digital copies by circumventing access controls, the other parts of Title 17 (the stuff you guys insist on referring to by its legislative name, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, even though the act became law years ago) are not in conflict with section 107.

It's below my dignity to point out to such an obstinate person that Section 1201 nowhere mentions such a thing as "perfect digital copies", which means that the anti-circumvention provisions are universal.

I have absolutely no intention of digging through the writings of Locke, Bentham, Rousseau, and countless other great minds who expressed learned opinions on the rule of law and its primacy in civilized society just to convince you of something that is self-evident! If you don't accept it as an axiom, that's your problem. When and if you catch up to the rest of the modern world, come on back for another go-round. Until then, nuts to you.

You would've made for a good East German "Mauerschütze" - the soldiers who shot their compatriots in the back for trying to flee to West Germany. It was the law that any fugitive be shot, thus it was illegitimate not to shoot, right? In defense of the philosophers you mention above, none of these would back up your ridiculous equation of the legitimate with the legal, they would only say that it's a moral obligation to follow the law. The difference is subtle, and you're too dim, so I won't take the pains of explaining it to you.

No, it of course is not. All you have to do is get your hands on a licensed DVD player. Can't find one you like? Then write your own.

There are fine DVD players for Linux, Mr. Clueless.

The DVD-CCA is happy to provide you with a license for their encoding system for an entirely reasonable fee. All you have to do is come up with a sound business case and I'm sure you'll have no trouble securing the funding you need.

No one gives a shit about the fee (which is actually $15000/yr), it's the licensing conditions. The DVD-CCA is in a monopoly position and can impose whatever licensing restrictions it wants, and their current ones are harsh to say the least. Most importantly, they are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FOSS. That is the problem.

Another interesting aspect is how, in a purported democracy, a section of copyright law manages to introduce a whole new category of "intellectual property" without any public debate.

What's that? You can't build a business case because Linux users, rather than simply buying the products they want, prefer instead to do things illegally for no other reason than simply to be perverse?

Exactly, kid. Let's tell it like it is: Freedom is perverse. Plus, ignorance is strength and war is peace. There you go.

Well, that says a hell of a lot more about Linux users than it does about the law, doesn't it?

Actually, I noticed that the "PowerDVD" player for Linux is approved by the DVD-CCA. And of course, it's closed source to boot. If they force me to install CSS where OSS would be just fine just to view a DVD, then my choice is simple: I won't buy anyt

Re:illegal?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Just like I thought - you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Right. I'm the clueless one.

Or maybe you're confused about the word "explicitely"

That was unintentionally hilarious.

Yes, and the anti-circumvention provisions restrict that right, don't they?

Yes. But they do not obliterate it. You can still exercise your "fair use rights" (ugh) without circumventing digital access controls to make perfect copies.

It's below my dignity to point out to such an obstinate person that Section 1201 nowhere mentions such a thing as "perfect digital copies", which means that the anti-circumvention provisions are universal.

Is it also below your dignity to understand what you read? There is no analog process or system yet known that can effectively control access to a work. That entire portion of the statute refers only to circumventing access control measures, which can only apply in a digital context.

You would've made for a good East German "Mauerschütze" - the soldiers who shot their compatriots in the back for trying to flee to West Germany.

Ah, yes. I knew something was out of place. The fucking idiot hadn't accused me of being a fascist Nazi yet. Now I feel much better.

The difference is subtle, and you're too dim, so I won't take the pains of explaining it to you.

You know what's subtle? You know what's really, really subtle? Equating casual piracy of DVD's with murder. That's subtle.

Of course there are circumstances where it's necessary to oppose an unjust law. This isn't anywhere near one of them. This is nothing more or less than a case where you want to do something that you have ABSOLUTELY NO right to do, and it's pissing you off.

There are fine DVD players for Linux, Mr. Clueless.

Then what are you complaining about? How can it be illegal if fine licensed products exist to do it?

The DVD-CCA is in a monopoly position and can impose whatever licensing restrictions it wants, and their current ones are harsh to say the least. Most importantly, they are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FOSS. That is the problem.

That's your problem. It's not a legal problem. If you're unwilling to accept the terms that DVD-CCA offers, then you cannot use their technology. Period.

But of course it's not a problem, because "there are fine DVD players for Linux." So off you go, then. Nothing to see here.

Another interesting aspect is how, in a purported democracy, a section of copyright law manages to introduce a whole new category of "intellectual property" without any public debate.

"Without any public debate?" We have a Senate and a House of Representatives, you know. They're on TV and everything. Everything they do is a part of the public record. Go read the debate for yourself, or watch it live on C-SPAN. New laws don't just happen. I mean, I can understand how you might have slept through class the day they taught you how a bill becomes a law, but didn't you ever even watch Schoolhouse Rock?

(The United States of America, incidentally, is not a democracy. Never was. It's a republic. Do you know the difference? And do you know why the distinction is important?)

Actually, I noticed that the "PowerDVD" player for Linux is approved by the DVD-CCA.

Hooray! Everybody's happy.

If they force me to install CSS where OSS would be just fine just to view a DVD, then my choice is simple: I won't buy anything from the people who lobby for these obscene laws.

Fantastic. Glad to hear it. Now... what can we do to get you to shut up about it? Your whining is an embarrassment to all.

Their lies are documented

Yes, all lies, all stinking filthy lies, dirty dirty liars, dirty filthy liars.

Let me pose this puzzler:

If they're all just dirty sti

TROLL!

[bodrell]

I've already responded to this article, and have no mod points today. Somebody mod this guy down. If you want to complain about Apple, make a valid point. Plenty of developers were unhappy about Rhapsody (OS X precursor), and plenty of people are unhappy about paying for annual OS upgrades. Or the one-button mouse on laptops. Or the inability to run some Windows software outside of Virtual PC. Regardless of whether their complaints should be addressed, the complaints aren't TOTALLY INVENTED like yours.

Someone else already mentioned Rendezvous etc., but another point is that Apple is letting a whole slew of people tinker with UNIX without having to reboot into a foreign, newbie-unfriendly, OS. I've written a few shell scripts myself. Using a BSD foundation in itself helps the open-source community.

Re:TROLL!

[Refrag]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I consider the unix and GNU/Linux clients for Xgrid giving back.

little US-centric, aren't you?

[bodrell]

But so is the law that makes it illegal (violation of fair-use).

Sorry, I must have an out-of-date copy of the United States Code here. Because mine doesn't say anything about the doctrine of fair use guaranteeing anybody the right to make perfect digital copies of copyrighted works.

Yeah, I guess your copy isout-of-date because last I heard, we had a court case guaranteeing the right to make copies of video for personal use.

There are plenty of legitimate, yet illegal, purposes for computing in general.

Nope. By definition, if it's illegal, then it's not legitimate.

You're using a pretty narrow definition, holmes. My dictionary says legitimate also means "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards," and fair use is a recognized principle. So any law that tries to infringe upon our recognized freedom to make copies of purchased recordings is, in fact illegitimate. Likewise, a law prohibiting women from voting would be illegal, since we have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right. Not all laws are legal, you know.

The parent poster did mention decryption, but what about self-authored DVDs made with iMovie?

Rationalize all you want. The point is that the poster was talking about piracy. You might try to throw up a "but what about this? or this? or this?" smokescreen but that isn't going to fool anybody.

There's absolutely no just cause to take a potentially powerful new technology like Xgrid and sully it with implications that it's a handy-dandy tool for piracy. Doing so is incredibly short-sighted, and just plain dumb to boot.

(Incidentally, the China thing was just stupid. "What about using Xgrid to violate copyrights in countries where copyright law isn't enforced?" Dumbass.)

Not all countries walk step-in-step with the US re. copyright. Copyright is not a universal principle. If you don't believe in copyright, and your government doesn't recognize intellectual property, how is it even possible to be guilty of piracy/copyright violation? Dumbass.

Congratulations! Because you're too narrow-minded to see outside the scope of the United States, I'm making you my first foe.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yeah, I guess your copy isout-of-date because last I heard, we had a court case guaranteeing the right to make copies of video for personal use.

Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no. The use of analogy technology to make copies is lawful whether the source material is encrypted or not. The use of digital technology to make perfect reproductions of encrypted source material is not lawful.

Why doesn't this run counter to the doctrine of fair use? Because that doctrine does not give you the right to make perfect copies. It merely gives you the right to make copies. Prohibiting the making of perfect copies while allowing the making of imperfect copies is not a problem as far as fair use is concerned.

My dictionary says legitimate also means "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards,"

And what have we learned here today? That dictionaries are not the source of all wisdom.

So any law that tries to infringe upon our recognized freedom to make copies of purchased recordings is, in fact illegitimate.

Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no.

Not all countries walk step-in-step with the US re. copyright.

That's true. Some rogue states with illegitimate, unelected governments still refuse to become party to international intellectual property conventions, or simply to ignore the conventions to which they are already a party. This does not make the violation of intellectual property rights okay. In fact, I would conclude that the fact that very bad people are doing it is a sign that maybe it's something good people should choose to stay away from.

Congratulations! Because you're too narrow-minded to see outside the scope of the United States, I'm making you my first foe.

I can't see you for tears.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Obvious typo in the above: "analog," not "analogy."

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no.

Care to back this up? (sound of crickets chirping)

The use of analogy technology to make copies is lawful whether the source material is encrypted or not.

Actually, no. Maybe my copy of the DMCA is outdated, but I see no "analog hole" in section 103. They would have you believe that there is such an exemption, but there isn't. Circumvent Macrovision and you're in violation. There goes your right to fair use.

Why doesn't this run counter to the doctrine of fair use? Because that doctrine does not give you the right to make perfect copies. It merely gives you the right to make copies. Prohibiting the making of perfect copies while allowing the making of imperfect copies is not a problem as far as fair use is concerned.

Since you didn't just pull this out of your a^Hhat, you'll have no problem coming up with references. Btw, great great great grandparent wasn't talking about perfect copies, but recompressed ones. These are lossy anyway.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Care to back this up? (sound of crickets chirping)

Uh... how about the fact that nothing even remotely like that is in the statute?

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no. So if a law prohibits you from making perfect digital copies but still protects your right to make other kinds of copies, then Title 17 107 has no beef.

They would have you believe that there is such an exemption, but there isn't.

Yes, that's right: it's a big conspiracy.

Circumvent Macrovision and you're in violation.

Nonsense. Macrovision doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of "access control mechanism" given in Title 17. The courts have so held, despite civil suits alleging differently.

Btw, great great great grandparent wasn't talking about perfect copies, but recompressed ones. These are lossy anyway.

Before you can "recompress" you must "decompress," which is the same as making a perfect digital copy of the original work.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Uh... how about the fact that nothing even remotely like that is in the statute?

You're right and I noticed after posting this. Since the german copyright explicitely contains such a provision (par. 53(1) UrhG), I assumed that Americans had the same freedom. Obviously they don't.

Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no.

Actually, the fair use clause doesn't even guarantee the right to make analog copies. Neither does it explicitely prohibit perfect reproductions so it all boils down to a matter of interpretation.

Yes, that's right: it's a big conspiracy.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. Now that digital broadcasting is gaining momentum, they want legislation to make hometaping technically impossible. The copyright flag is just one step among others. E.g., the DMCA (1201 k) already requires manufacturers of analog recording devices to obey to copy control (i.e. prevention) mechanisms. The ultimate aim is that there will be no way to record a digital TV/radio broadcast if it has the copy control bit set, apart from building your own recorder. Note that the RIAA is lying again: Digital radio is - for bandwidth reasons - far from CD quality[1]. VCRs will go extinct and be replaced with devices like DVD players which aren't capable of any recording, and can be subjected to any DRM scheme from region code over expiring keys to the right to unilaterally terminate your license upon any activity which the MPAA disapproves of (this will probably be used rarely, but not be unheard of). Just take a look at the legislation, the RIAA and MPAA have pushed through in the recent years, and are now trying to establish. Here's an incomplete list:

Succeeded:

• The underestimated NET Act
• DMCA
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (of course this name obscures the involvement of The Walt Disney Company a little)

In progress:

• PIRATE Act
• INDUCE Act

More laws are waiting where these are coming from (well, that would be Hell, I guess). The goal is to give copyright holders (which are only rarely nowadays the actual artists) enormous power even beyond that which they already wield. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that are too lazy, gullible or indifferent to defend their freedom.

Nonsense. Macrovision doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of "access control mechanism" given in Title 17. The courts have so held, despite civil suits alleging differently.

You haven't got references? I have.

Before you can "recompress" you must "decompress," which is the same as making a perfect digital copy of the original work.

Yes, that's why even viewing a DVD is illegal. D'oh! Seriously though, at least German courts have ruled that making a transient copy of copyrighted material in order to exercise fair use rights is fair use itself. So of course this is a BS argument.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Actually, the fair use clause doesn't even guarantee the right to make analog copies.

Yes, it does. It says that making copies for such-n-such purposes is not infringement. Therefore copyright laws do not apply to those sorts of copies. Therefore the right to make those sorts of copies is not abridged by law.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

Your tin-foil hat is on too tight. Or possibly you're just a dumbass.

The goal is to give copyright holders (which are only rarely nowadays the actual artists) enormous power even beyond that which they already wield.

Spoken like a true guy-who-doesn't-understand-basic-property-rights.

Copyright law exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect those rights that people already have. As long as those rights aren't being sufficiently protected by law, there will be more and better laws.

The purpose of law is not to "give power." It's to protect the "power" we already have by virtue of nature.

Yes, that's why even viewing a DVD is illegal.

Already covered this one. It's not illegal. It's just illegal to do it without a license. Can't find a licensed product you like? Make your own. Can't find investors to fund your effort? Blame your fellow idiots.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Actually, the fair use clause doesn't even guarantee the right to make analog copies.

Yes, it does. It says that making copies for such-n-such purposes is not infringement. Therefore copyright laws do not apply to those sorts of copies. Therefore the right to make those sorts of copies is not abridged by law.

It's a matter of interpretation whether e.g. a full, high-quality analog copy of a music CD is covered by the fair use guidelines. The courts decide. Until now, they've decided (I assume) that it is fair use if done for personal, non-profit purposes. But the law doesn't precisely force them to come to this conclusion.

Your tin-foil hat is on too tight. Or possibly you're just a dumbass.

I hate to brag about my IQ, but 159 is definitely more than that of the average dumbass. And as for the tin-foil hat meme of yours, I'm not suggesting that they are the Illuminati or responsible for alien abductions. But they're perfectly willing and determined to drastically cut down on fair use rights, in order to strengthen their power (and thus oligopoly position) and for profit.

Spoken like a true guy-who-doesn't-understand-basic-property-rights.

Intellectual property is a lie since the analogy is terminally flawed. See the Wikipedia link I posted. If you really need a catch-it-all phrase for copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets, call them immaterial monopoly rights, or some other term that makes sense, but isn't actually as sexy for propagandist purposes.

Copyright law exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect those rights that people already have. As long as those rights aren't being sufficiently protected by law, there will be more and better laws.

US copyright is (originally) based on section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution, which reads "The Congress shall have Power (...) to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". You'll also note that the original constitution does not mention private property at all and especially not "intellectual property".

But these objections are still lightyears away from the greatest irony in your statement. The irony is that US musicians in 90%+ of cases no longer have any rights to their own works, because the record labels impose "work for hire" clauses on them. Should corporations which make profit by selling pieces of art have inborn rights over those works that the very creators do not? Why don't you:

1. Make a list of your 10 favorite artists that have released a CD lately.
2. Go to their websites and contact them via E-Mail, or a forum, or whatever.
3. Ask them whether they actually own the copyright to their songs. Or at least part of the copyright.
4. Post the results here.

It would be interesting to see how many artists actually enjoy the "protection" that you suppose they would.

The purpose of law is not to "give power."

This directly contradicts US Constitution section 8.

It's to protect the "power" we already have by virtue of nature.

And this contradicts your rejection of my "what isn't forbidden is allowed" proposal.

Re:little US-centric, aren't you?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It's a matter of interpretation whether e.g. a full, high-quality analog copy of a music CD is covered by the fair use guidelines.

Oh, I see your point. Yes, I agree. In fact, when you put it that way, I'd have to conclude that a full-length copy would probably not automatically be covered by the fair use exception. But case law says that making full-length copies for home use is not infringing (Universal v. Sony, the Betamax case), so that's a case where the statute itself doesn't tell the whole story.

I hate to brag about my IQ, but 159 is definitely more than that of the average dumbass.

Good for you. Want to talk about penis sizes next?

Intellectual property is a lie

Wow. Deja vu.

See the Wikipedia link I posted.

Not a chance. :-)

You'll also note that the original constitution does not mention private property at all

(Original Constitution? Is there a new one I need to know about?)

It's one of those standard omissions. You'll notice that the Constitution doesn't mention a right to life or a right to liberty, either. The right to property was just taken as a given. It was never suspected by the founders that it would come into question.

The closest thing you're going to find to an enshrinement of property rights in the Constitution is the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Hey, look at that. Papers. Sounds like they're talking about writings. Intellectual property. The big lie. Neat, huh?

The irony is that US musicians in 90%+ of cases no longer have any rights to their own works, because the record labels impose "work for hire" clauses on them.

Woah, there. Let's haul our little butts back in the general direction of the truth, shall we? Nobody imposes anything on anybody. If I have a guitar and I think I sing pretty well, I can call up a record label and ask for a contract. If they offer me one, I'm free to read it, thereby being informed about its contents. If I can't understand it, I can retain counsel to explain it to me. If, and only if, I accept the terms of the contract, I sign it. I wasn't forced to do anything.

Now, why do record labels insist that they have rights over the music they publish? Easy: money! It costs a fortune to record, produce, and promote a record. Hell, recording studio time alone can run up into the thousands of dollars per hour. Somebody has to put that money out there up front. Does the artist have the wherewithal? No. Who does? The label.

The label is like an investor. And like an investor, the label demands a return on their investment. And what's more, the return on a single successful record must be many, many times the cost of making that record. Why? Because most records are not successful. Let's say for every ten records, one succeeds and the others fail. That is, the others fail to generate enough profits to cover the costs involved in making them. Somebody loses money on nine records out of ten. Well, the only way to keep things going, then, is to make sure that tenth record, the successful one, generates ten times more money than what was invested into it.

When you buy a Britney Spears CD, you're not just paying for that CD. You're also contributing a tiny amount of money toward all the CD's put out by all the artists on Britney's label that will never turn a profit. You're essentially subsidizing all music any time you buy any music.

Oh, those evil, evil record labels. We hate them, don't we, Al?

This directly contradicts US Constitution section 8.

Woah. Talk about a drastic misreading of the text. Article I section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. Not of the people. The people are sovereign in the United States. The law grants them n

posting this in sev. parts because /. complains

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Yes. But they do not obliterate it. You can still exercise your "fair use rights" (ugh) without circumventing digital access controls to make perfect copies.

Not with macrovision in place, unless, let's say, you would use a camcorder. Oh wait, that's probably going to be outlawed, too.

Is it also below your dignity to understand what you read? There is no analog process or system yet known that can effectively control access to a work. That entire portion of the statute refers only to circumventing access control measures, which can only apply in a digital context.

Macrovision is now mandatory (because of the DMCA) in the US for DVD players and VCRs, and I think even PC video cards if they have a TV out. This makes it kind of hard to copy even parts of a video, so yes, these measures are effective. No less effective than CSS anyway - the law does not require them to be waterproof in any manner - if you circumvent them, you're in violation of copyright.

Ah, yes. I knew something was out of place. The fucking idiot hadn't accused me of being a fascist Nazi yet. Now I feel much better.

Oh well, if I didn't even know the historical difference between East Germany and the Third Reich, I'd be careful not to call others fucking idiots.

Of course there are circumstances where it's necessary to oppose an unjust law.

You said if it's illegal, it's always illegitimate, and I pointed out that there should be exceptions. It seems you finally got it.

This is nothing more or less than a case where you want to do something that you have ABSOLUTELY NO right to do, and it's pissing you off.

I have no right to make fair use of e.g. the music I bought? Oh well, go figure.

Then what are you complaining about? How can it be illegal if fine licensed products exist to do it?

I'll just assume that you only pretend to be obtuse, and that you actually know full well that I didn't claim these to have a DVD-CCA license. You know, I'm an incorrectible optimist.

That's your problem. It's not a legal problem. If you're unwilling to accept the terms that DVD-CCA offers, then you cannot use their technology. Period.

Right, if I'm unwilling to accept their copyright, oh, one moment. They never claimed copyright over e.g. libdvdcss. Ok, so if I'm unwilling to accept their patents, no, wait, they do not hold CSS patents. One last try: If I'm unwilling to accept their "DMCA anti-circumvention IP thingy license" (it's not my fault that noone's named the baby yet!) then it's illegal for me to use it. Ok, that makes sense, and I'll comply with that. But I think it's legitimate for me to oppose this law, and it's introduction of "DMCAACIPT licenses" even if content industry fanboys like you say that in a democracy, laws should never be criticized.

"Without any public debate?" We have a Senate and a House of Representatives, you know. They're on TV and everything.

That's a publicized debate, not a public one. A public debate, in my eyes, is one that involves the public as an active party.

The United States of America, incidentally, is not a democracy. Never was. It's a republic. Do you know the difference?

The difference between apples and the color green? Sure I do. There are green apples, but also red apples, and green things that aren't apples, and things that are neither green nor apples (ok, that was a bit exhaustive, I guess). The US is a federal republic which happens to have elements of representative democracy. Not that federal law would require states to offer democratic elections to their citizens, but de facto, all of them do.

Tthere have been and still are lots of undemocratic republics, and technically, Great Britain is still a monarchy that just smacks like a representative democracy.

Re:posting this in sev. parts because /. complains

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Not with macrovision in place

The courts have found (twice, I think, but don't quote me on that point) that Macrovision is not an effective access control mechanism, and therefore is not covered by the relevant parts of Title 17.

the law does not require them to be waterproof in any manner

That's not the case. Go read the statue. There is a clear definition in there for "access control mechanism."

You said if it's illegal, it's always illegitimate, and I pointed out that there should be exceptions.

OK, this is getting muddied, so let me be clear. I am not in the "civil disobedience" crowd. I do not like the idea of breaking a law that you think is unjust or improper. Why? Because I do not like the idea of individual citizens deciding for themselves which laws they'll obey and which they won't. When that happens, in any context, the rule of law itself is weakened, and that's a bad thing.

We have systems in place for putting the law itself on trial. These systems exist for a reason, and they should be utilized.

Inevitably, when the discussion turns this way, somebody brings up Rosa Parks. And I always point out the shocking and disappointing arrogance of a rich white kid putting himself in the same class as Rosa Parks. So just don't even bother going there.

I have no right to make fair use of e.g. the music I bought?

Yes, you have "rights" under the fair use clause. (They're not "rights," but rather exceptions to a prohibition. To call them "rights" implies that they have some basis in natural law, which you seem to believe is true but actually is not. But I'll use your term just to keep you following along.) Making perfect digital reproductions of encrypted works is not expressly allowed under fair use, and it is prohibited under other sections of the statute. And for very good reasons, reasons which you refuse to acknowledge. Because you are free to make other kinds of copies, fair use doesn't even come into it.

I'll just assume that you only pretend to be obtuse, and that you actually know full well that I didn't claim these to have a DVD-CCA license.

Well, then, they're not perfectly fine, are they? They are, in fact, illegal, aren't they? And when faced with the fact that myriad alternatives exist that are not illegal, then these non-licensed items become essentially irrelevant, don't they?

Ok, that makes sense, and I'll comply with that.

Whew. Finally. I swear, you make this like giving birth.

But I think it's legitimate for me to oppose this law, and it's introduction of "DMCAACIPT licenses" even if content industry fanboys like you say that in a democracy, laws should never be criticized.

1. It's not a democracy, I keep telling you! It's a republic!

2. Fine, oppose! Sue! Write your Congressman! But do not break the law, and do not get on an Internet message board and talk about exciting new technologies like Xgrid that have the potential to drastically reduce the cost and complexity of computational chemistry and molecular genetics--fields in which researchers routinely cure diseases and save lives--in the context of how you can most effectively use them to pirate music and movies!

A public debate, in my eyes, is one that involves the public as an active party.

You're free to attend the Congress or watch it on television and participate in the debate by writing to, calling, or visiting your elected representatives, but they're not going to come after you actively seeking your input. Doesn't work like that.

Not that federal law would require states to offer democratic elections to their citizens, but de facto, all of them do.

Ahem. Fourteenth Amendment, among other places.

Re:posting this in sev. parts because /. complains

[Alexis de Torquemada]

The courts have found (twice, I think, but don't quote me on that point) that Macrovision is not an effective access control mechanism, and therefore is not covered by the relevant parts of Title 17.

Again, no references. Learn to use Google, pal.

That's not the case. Go read the statue. There is a clear definition in there for "access control mechanism."

Yes, and it does not require the technology to be waterproof, just like I said:

a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Because I do not like the idea of individual citizens deciding for themselves which laws they'll obey and which they won't.

Granted, but I did not say that I break the law or encourage anyone else to do it. Still, I hold that it's a bad law all in all, and should be repealed.

To call them "rights" implies that they have some basis in natural law, which you seem to believe is true but actually is not.

They have - freedom of speech and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And for very good reasons, reasons which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, for completely bogus reasons since all those copy-protected songs are found to the dozen in any file sharing network of your preference and since professional plagiarists have no problem at all circumventing those measures. The only one who's really restricted in his possibilities is the law-abiding customer.

Because you are free to make other kinds of copies, fair use doesn't even come into it.

You mean there are still legal ways to do it, although they are working hard on banning those, too. Ever heard of TCPA? They hope to base unbreakable DRM schemes on it. There goes your fair use, and this does affect your freedom of speech dramatically. Just imagine that a rights holder or law enforcement agency could "undo" a song which is somehow found to be politically dangerous, simply by revoking everyone's right to make use of it (of course, people would get their money back...). Sure, they need to make all copying of copyrighted music impossible for this to be effective, but that's exactly what some of the corporations are up to. The most difficult part for now is to close the "analog hole" and particularily the transportation of audio and video signals through air in the form of visual light rsp. sound waves. They're working on watermark recognition software to prevent this form of copying, and as soon as this works reliably, the next phase of what NET Act started and DMCA continued will be to prohibit manufacture and sale of devices that do not obey this type of "access control mechanism". It's a technical problem now, not one of legal implementation, which will most definitely go almost unopposed because hardly anybody of influence in the US seems to care. Your repress^Hentatives certainly don't. And hell, it's for the artists. And even the children. Who wouldn't agree that it's worthwhile to protect the artists, and the children? Your problem is exactly that the plot is too 1984esque to acknowledge, because you still think the US was the land of the free. I'm not trying to imply that this will turn the USA into a sort of Oceania, but still, civil rights will suffer a lot just to give rights holders (i.e. not artists, but corporations) more control, more profit, and less competition. It's something worth to be fought.

They are, in fact, illegal, aren't they?

Learn to read, fool. That's exactly what I complained about.

Re:posting this in sev. parts because /. complains

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Again, no references. Learn to use Google, pal.

Good grief. Not another one. Why do all the dim bulbs seem to think that I'm their own personal news clipping service? If you're going to try to make an argument, it's your responsibility to know the facts behind it.

Yes, and it does not require the technology to be waterproof, just like I said

Keep reading, bubba. Refer in particular to the relevant case law. US v. Elcom is a good place to start. The opinion in that case should be on the required reading list for everybody who still whines about the DMCA. Read the opinion, realize that you're making a lot of noise about nothing at all, and then shut the hell up, okay?

They have - freedom of speech and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I'd love to hear how you could possibly link this argument to anything related to free speech. If the fair use exception disappeared tomorrow, free speech would not be harmed in the slightest. You're still just as free to comment on something whether you quote from it or not.

(The UDHR, incidentally, carries no legal weight. It's not enforced by any law or body, and there's no court in the land in which you can receive redress of grievances based upon it. For instance, the UDHR says, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." I have never received my check from the all-loving state, but I can't seem to find a court to hear my complaint. So if you want to be taken seriously, please don't mention the UDHR in any serious contexts. It's a joke.)

The only one who's really restricted in his possibilities is the law-abiding customer.

So you're saying that because somebody can break the law, the law itself is "bogus?"

Doesn't that strike you as kinda... well, stupid?

You mean there are still legal ways to do it, although they are working hard on banning those, too.

Are your tin-foil hats on nice and tight? Good. Because without one, THEY CAN SEE INTO YOUR MIND!

Learn to read, fool. That's exactly what I complained about.

No, you did not. You complained that it's illegal to watch a DVD on a computer that's running Linux. I told you that it most certainly is not. Now you're retroactively changing your argument: what you really meant was that it's illegal to watch a DVD on a computer running Linux if you refuse to use the widely available, licensed, legal tools and choose instead to use tools that were written by people who's express purpose was to break the law.

Well, duh.

Yes, who should care if The Coca Cola Company outlaws Pepsi?

If we ever get anywhere near something that might happen in reality, somebody wake me up, okay?

I'm just not into this for a long time, only like a couple of months, and I'm still learning.

Clearly.

(Of course, if you're a German citizen, please don't waste my legislature's valuable time with your drivel. If you're not a citizen of the United States, Congress doesn't give two shits what you have to say. So please don't clog up the system with letters that will never be read anyway.)

Let's check the posting history:

I can't believe you took the time to dig up all that stuff. That's amazing. And a little pathetic, I think.

Ok, that's not a strict requirement

The Constitution of the United States is not a strict requirement?

but my source or my memory was wrong then.

OK, no problem.

2nd part

[Alexis de Torquemada]

Here's how I see it: you really, really want the latest Britney Spears single,

Uhm, not really, I'm more into gothic and industrial rock/metal, and I don't crave for superficial and utterly uninteresting teenage bi^W girls who know how to jump when the choreographer tells them to. Instead, for example, Funker Vogt, Diva Destruction, Lacuna Coil, Nightwish are bands that I learned about using P2P or (mostly) on mp3.com, and of which I bought CDs later (one each from every band but Nightwish, of which I bought 4 or 5, would have to count 'em). Didn't hear about one of these on mainstream promotion channels (LC and NW have had guest appearances on those channels later, but that's all).

but you don't want to shell out your hard-earned milk money for it.

I heard the music and I liked it, so I bought it. Sorry to disappoint you.

So you fell in love with the idea of ubiquitous digital piracy back in the bad old days of the 1990's when it was unregulated and unopposed.

Actually, I first used P2P in like 1999, and didn't make much use of it until early last year.

When the people who sell Britney's music took a look around and realized that they were getting robbed blind,

Sure, the people that produced BS (<- nice ambivalent abbreviation, eh?) were mad about the fact that I didn't pay them to make more of this crap.

they pointed out this fact to lawmakers, and lawmakers rightly leapt into action to protect natural property rights, rights which with which we are endowed by our creator and which teenagers like yourself were stomping all over.

Funny that you talk about God-given copyright in the context of Britney Spears. Do you think she actually has any copyright over the songs she wro, oh no, wait, performed? I would like to believe you, but X-files is way more credible than that.

That's my theory.

Actually, that's called a hypothesis, and I think I proved you dead wrong.

I think there might be one or two of the standard radical leftist pseudo-intellectual insults that you haven't rolled out yet. Wouldn't want to leave any out, would you?

It's just that you seem to enjoy having your rights shorn off one by one. Baa baaaa.

Sure, whatever. You won't have any trouble finding people who think that property rights don't exist and that they're just a fiction of the bourgeoisie constructed over centuries to maintain control over the masses.

Oh, wow, now you portrait me as a communist. The main reason why I'm pro P2P is that it promotes competition in a market-place tightly controlled using pay for play on limited airwaves by an oligopoly found guilty of price fixing. Have you seen KoRn's "Fuck that" video yet? There are 5 big companies, soon to be only 4, which are abusive towards both their customers and their artists and rip both of them off, and the only reason why they get through with it is that they're in control over promotion (they are now moving to shut down internet radio by making royalties unaffordable!). Is that healthy competition, a free market-place? Doesn't look like it to me.

But back to your question: Private property is a-ok, why do you ask? But property in the traditional sense is either something material (e.g. a TV set, or a house, or a pack of razorblades), or to something immaterial that shall not be copied by anyone but a governmental agency, and the scarceness of which is benefitial (if it's not too scarce, but that's another issue). Money would be a fine example. It is often traded in material form, but in principle it's immaterial anyway - a right, if you want so.

But then, there are immaterial items that can legally be reproduced at will by the owner and the scarceness of which principally has a detrimental, not a beneficial effect on the lives o

Re:2nd part

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I ignored most of what you wrote. If I accidentally skimmed over something relevant in your sea of senseless rambling, please call my attention to it so I can reply.

The main reason why I'm pro P2P is that it promotes competition in a market-place tightly controlled using pay for play on limited airwaves by an oligopoly found guilty of price fixing.

By definition, no competition can apply in this circumstance. Copyright is a legally sanctioned monopoly. There's no way to make "P2P" legal unless you abolish copyright law entirely.

Oh, geez. I think I just stumbled upon your agenda, didn't I?

But property in the traditional sense is either something material (e.g. a TV set, or a house, or a pack of razorblades), or to something immaterial that shall not be copied by anyone but a governmental agency, and the scarceness of which is benefitial (if it's not too scarce, but that's another issue).

Yeah... see, the things is, people who lived before you already figured out what "property" means. It's not left to you to construct your own definition. Consequently, all of your reasoning, sound or unsound, is trumped by centuries of social tradition.

Property includes both tangible and intangible assets, whether you like this fact or not. Go read your Locke.

The reason why the property analogy is obviously flawed, is that, if I take your property, you don't have it anymore.

Locke specifically considered and rejected the economic theory of property. (The economic theory is based on the principle of scarcity, that is to say, the idea that when I take it you don't have it any more. Whole libraries of books have been written on economics in non-scarcity situations. I have never read any of them. Too dense for me. But suffice it to say that better minds than yours or mine have already been down that track and found it didn't lead them anywhere useful.)

CDs and DVDs don't come with a license

CD's, no. But have you ever looked at the box a DVD comes in? Or, for that matter, watched it? There's a message right there that says, in essence, that unauthorized reproduction or distribution is prohibited.

If you buy a boxed version of let's say Microsoft Office, you're acquiring a copy, not a license.

The courts disagree. You're trying to construct this theory of intangible economics entirely out of whole cloth. While that might be a diverting exercise, it's not something I want to waste my time on. I prefer to discuss the state of property rights as they exist in the real world.

Yes, but then, I don't understand why all of a sudden the law should say that fair use, though still legal in principle, should be made technically illegal by imposing anti-circumvention restrictions on me as the user.

You don't have to understand it. It's not a complicated idea, but if grasping it is beyond your faculties (or, I strongly suspect, simply beyond your stubbornness), that's your own problem.

If I never had had the right to do "it", then they could just have left the law as it was.

Property rights are better protected with the new law.

I'm not stealing it since there's no such thing as intellectual property.

"La la la la, I can't here you, there's no such thing, la la la la." You know, you could have made your position much more tenable simply by saying "There should not be" instead of "There is no." If you'd said that, you would have been making an argument instead of an ass of yourself.

Of course, all you would have heard back in response would have been, "Get back to the library and read your Locke, you dilettante," but what the hey.

I did when it was legal

It was never legal.

which you want to call stealing for some reason that I fail to comprehend.

And we're back here again. Your failure to comprehend simple facts about the world is your problem. Stop trying to foist it off ont

Re:2nd part

[Alexis de Torquemada]

By definition, no competition can apply in this circumstance. Copyright is a legally sanctioned monopoly. There's no way to make "P2P" legal unless you abolish copyright law entirely.

Since P2P was legal in Germany, this sounds rather weird.

Property includes both tangible and intangible assets, whether you like this fact or not.

Property was invented because some things are scarce. But others aren't and that's why they weren't handled in the same manner as property. Copyright is centuries old, whereas the term "intellectual property" originates from the second half of the 1900s. But then, what am I talking to you? Pearls before the swine.

Property includes both tangible and intangible assets

Yes, that's why I'm talking scare/not scarce, not tangible/intangible. By definition, all tangible things are naturally scarce, but intangible things are either:

• Not scarce. Example: basic memes, works in the public domain, open source software (not in all aspects) etc.
• Artificially scarce, e.g. money, copyrighted works, patent implementations. All of these have to be well justified. Scarceness of money is certainly well-justified (required to keep inflation under control), the same goes for copyright and patent law in general, but IMO not in all aspects. It is those insufficiently justified aspects of scarcity which I oppose.

Locke specifically considered and rejected the economic theory of property.

I'll take a look at that, thx, sounds interesting.

But have you ever looked at the box a DVD comes in? Or, for that matter, watched it? There's a message right there that says, in essence, that unauthorized reproduction or distribution is prohibited.

A message on a box doesn't make for a valid contract, and it never did. An attempt to enforce it would result in the judge laughing you out of the courtroom. The message at the beginning does not and cannot initiate a contract either and it's just a legal reminder (which is not necessarily correct, depending on what specifically it says) that certain usages are prohibited by copyright.

You know, you could have made your position much more tenable simply by saying "There should not be" instead of "There is no."

Oh my, WIPO (founded in 1974) took some pre-existing concepts (copyright, patents, trademark, trade secrets) and re-branded them "intellectual property", and now you think that the whole purpose behind them was IP. That's nonsense - they just call something different "intellectual property". It's like renaming Dolly the Sheep "Dolly the Buffalo". There was no such thing. Just because you would start calling your president "Santa Claus" doesn't mean that Santa Claus actually exists.

It was never legal.

US maybe. It was legal in Germany (German page, the author IAL as in IANAL).

I think you might have something useful to say someday.

As I said, I'm still learning, and I definitely learned something from this discussion, which is probably surprising after the insults. ;)

Re:2nd part

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Since P2P was legal in Germany, this sounds rather weird.

It most certainly was not. If Germany didn't have laws that prohibited it, Germany should have, because Germany is a signatory nation to the Berne Convention, the WIPO treaty, and other binding international conventions relating to the protection of property rights.

Property was invented because some things are scarce.

Property wasn't invented at all. It just is. I told you to go read your Locke. You evidently didn't.

(Economics, incidentally, is the thing that was "invented" because some things are scarce.)

But then, what am I talking to you? Pearls before the swine.

Oink, oink.

A message on a box doesn't make for a valid contract, and it never did.

Never said "contract." Said "license." (At least, I never meant to. If I did, I misspoke, and I apologize and retract.) The differences between a license and a contract are myriad and important. One major difference is that you don't have to make any overt act in acceptance of a license. It can be implicit in a transaction. Which is why you didn't have to sign anything.

Just because you would start calling your president "Santa Claus" doesn't mean that Santa Claus actually exists.

Is this some kind of German idiom that makes no sense whatsoever when translated into English? Or is this just one of those things that, you know, makes no sense whatsoever?

As I said, I'm still learning, and I definitely learned something from this discussion

You need to be a lot less sure of yourself. You've been wrong about just about everything here. (No offense.) Seriously: go school yourself.

A chance to nominate an app for parallelisation

[Anonymous Coward]

This was posted on the Apple SciTech and Clusters lists:

Apple and a third-party partner are looking to target a few key
applications with the hope of developing parallel versions that would
benefit from computational clusters. As many of you know,
embarrassingly parallel algorithms like BLAST are easily written to
take advantage of clusters. There is a large set of problems, however,
where this is not the case. We would like to find some of these more
difficult applications and find a way to parallelize them using some
interesting technologies developed by our partner.

I'd like to solicit feedback from the members of these mailing lists
with respect to choosing two or three "killer applications" that, if
parallelized, would present an immediate value to their respective
users. We have a few in mind, but I'd like to leave the question
open-ended. Any science is equally applicable -- bioinformatics,
molecular dynamics, physics, engineering, etc. We would prefer to work
with open source applications.

Feel free to reply to me directly, or to the entire list.

Regards,
Matt
--
Matt MacInnis
Research and HPC Manager
Higher Education
Apple Computer, Inc.
Office 408-974-6322 / Mobile 408-203-1001

sarcasm often doesn't translate well in print

[bodrell]

Well, sorry for not catching your sarcasm. It seems I'm not the only one who didn't get it, though. I guess that's why I see people using mock-html tags to indicate .

And I would taken your comment more lightly if I had known we have a common foe.

Re:sarcasm often doesn't translate well in print

[Refrag]

Yeah, I lost a big of /.karma because of it, but oh well. I thought the story I was responding to made it obvious enough for my sarcasm to carry through. Maybe my Slashdot-social comment hit the mark though, since many people didn't catch the sarcasm.

Common foe, eh? Were my last name Bush, I'd automatically make you my friend. ;)