Running Linux on Sparc hardware makes sense, UltraSparc hardware, less so. As I understand it, Linux runs faster then Solaris, although it lacks the robustness and scalability to multiple processors. As a result, older Sun machines that would be decommissioned can find a little more life left with Linux.
My question is this, would anyone buy Sun Hardware to run Linux? Sun machines are generally more reliable and robust, better tested, and better supported. However, what would be the point of running Linux on one.
With Solaris, you have many Enterprise level tools that just aren't available for Linux. Additionally, any software with source can be compiled on either system, most Solaris admins that I know start by downloading and installing the GNU tools. With Linux, you have that same software.
Shrink wrapped software for Linux is all i386 only, so Sun users won't benefit from these improvements. Overall, I'm wondering what the point is of UltraSparc/Linux.
If the purpose is merely: because we can, that makes sense, it is neat. If it has a real purpose in a real computing environment, I'm curious as to what it is.
It seems to be, that as of now, corporations that are using Linux are mostly using them in low end servers because it is cheap. They put it on several hundred dollar vanilla servers. Sun Hardware is found in corporations that spend the IT dollars on quality. While I'm not suggesting the Linux is rubish, what makes Linux a better selection than Solaris other than it being free? While freedom is very important for people, for a company, it seems less so.
I'm curious, what is the business case for using Sun/Linux as opposed to Intel/Linux, AMD/Linux, or Sun/Solaris, all of which seem more logical choices to myself.
The trick to caching is that it speeds up repeated access to the same data or accessing data in nearby segments of memory.
When you are optimizing memory locations in your code (the OS or the applications), you optimize for vitual memory page sizes for memory usage, and for cache sizes to make sure that your application gets the most use of the cache as it can.
In a world where we get precompiled binaries (ideally you could teach the compiler to optimize for the different levels and compile it for different amounts, additionally programmers could put flags in their code for the different optimizations), how to we optimize our applications?
If the Celeron2 becomes really popular, then we optimize for 128K and 256K machines or 512K machines get little to know benefit from their larger caches. If we optimize on 256K or 512K, our smaller caches may get unacceptable cache miss rates and suffer poor performance.
The idea behind this is that 128K is aleady ~95% cache hit rate, and doubling the cache only gives small improvements. However, when Pentium Classic machines used to ship with 512K on the good boards and K6s and K6-2s were shipping on mobo with 1MB cache, why are we now switching down the amount for higher speed? I understand why it is faster (90% of L1 no slow down, 95% of L2 1 missed cycle; faster than 90% of L1 no slow down, 98% or 99% L2 of 3 or 4 missed cycles and memory access is 6-8 missed cycles)? Are our programs out there optimized for the older "larger" caches or the newer, "smaller" caches. It seems like we are going to see less and less advantage to the expensive systems with lots of cache when we are optimizing for the workstations with much less cache.
Not really. I think that "JonKatz" contributes a lot to Slashdot with his commentary. I just wish when he wrote his opinion pieces that need you to have a background on the subject, he would give the background first, then give his take on the matter. Alternatively, he could link to a news story on the situation so that we could read the facts and then he gets the ball rolling with his opinion piece.
Instead, we get the facts and opinion jumbled with no citation or clear distinction. We have VERY little information on the actual program being run, just on his "fears" of geek persecution, which I question if it is real or he is catering to his audience. While I have no doubt that he considers this a real threat, I find it disappointing that he is ignoring the greater issues and just tailoring it to the slashdot audience. I think that the/. readers are more diverse and intelligent than he thinks, and we are capable of discussing a social situation that may affect people like us AND other types of people without it being tailored to only discuss the video game members.
No where in the article is there a discussion about the methods of therapy being used and wht they are trying to accomplish. I truly doubt that N.C. is trying to root out video game playing, they no doubt have real goals, and that side of the story is hidden in this piece.
This is a little disturbing, but as usual our favorite author is inserting his personal bias where he claims to be reporting fact. It is clearly an opinion piece, but his interpretations and the facts of the situation should be a little more clear.
Okay, yes the hyseria regarding school violence is misplaced. Innercity schools with REAL problems are not being targetted, it is suburbanites who avoid the "evil cities" that are scared that violence can hit there area.
I went to a private school for three years at the end of high school after many years in the public school system. We dealt with this nonsense all the time. The school had a dress code that enforced conformity, the school held talks for parents (and made them go or the kids couldn't participate in extra curricular activities) on alcohol use and encouraged parents to report on other children, etc.
This database is unlikely to be maintained indefinitely. If for no other reason, than you need parental consent for recording information on minors. Parents will obviously not consent for their children being labeled insane. This is most likely going to result in people wearing black trenchcoats in school being annoyed by guidance councilors and not wearing black trenchcoats in schools.
While enforcing conformity is a bad thing, it isn't Nazish or Stalinistic, it is obnoxious. This program appears to be well intended: if you think someone is a threat to himself or others, you call a number and they have someone speak to him. Overall, not a terrible state of affairs. If the situation isn't a problem, they go about their business. If they are depressed, maybe they find a good shrink and lead happier lives.
The fact that it is a profitable company doesn't make it wrong. It means that they are going to try to make a profit instead of syphoning off as much money as possible in grants to spend frivolously because they have them. Libertarians champion everything being privatized, this seems like an example of that.
While I think that there MAY be a real concerning story here, our author has failed to separate facts from his fears, so it is hard to tell what, if any, injustice is real and what is yellow journalism by rambling fool.
I really hope that video isn't in the kernel. Microsoft did so in NT 4.0 (differing from NT 3.51) which was a complete nightmare. I was at Citrix (in Tech Support, not development) when they were testing WinFrame 2.0 (now sorta Microsoft NT 4.0 Terminal Server Addition). Apparently, the addition of the video into the kernel was a nightmare.
I've also worked at a site which had an old Diamond card as the video card, given that it is a server, that should be fine. However, the video decided to crap out when we were installing a NIC and the whole system destabalized. Given that no new drivers were written, the entire server destabalized because of the video card.
NT Workstation/W2K Pro should have video in the Kernel, it improves speed. NT Server/W2K Server SHOULD not. Microsoft needs to really optimize their system, because they are destabalizing servers for no reason.
A decision to do the same in Linux/BSD would be a disaster. The improvement in video from this is marginal, and the problems from a buggy video system are disasterous. If this is done, it is time to fork the kernel into Linux-Workstation and Linux-Server... or perhaps HURD will replace Linux in the server and Linux will move into the workstation market. Either way, servers don't need extra stuff in the kernel, it just is remove for errors.
Although Solaris x86 is evolving as a product and actually is seen in some servers, it was for a very different reasons.
Partially, it was to snub Microsoft by going into their markets... there is a long running fued between their leaders...
Additionally, it was to get Solaris more of the server market. Although originally a workstation maker, Sun is largely in the business of servers. Their engineering workstations are still important because it increases the market for their UltraSparc chips and Solaris OS, which means that they can amortize the R&D costs across more machines, but they money makers are the high margin servers.
Now, if you are a corporation with a big investment in Sun hardware, you need machines for your developers. You could buy some big iron and have them all connect into it, but that is a silly approach to development given that server capacity on big Sparc's is MUCH more expensive than simple x86 boxes. Hence, Solaris x86. You can buy your developers run of the mill machines, but copies of Solaris x86, and you can develop your Solaris applications in Solaris, and they guarantee cross-compiling. Sun still gets it's profit (I expect that the profit on Solaris x86 is similar to the profit on a Sparc workstation/Solaris), and they can push the server sales.
Solaris x86 was never intended to be used as production servers, and more than IBM's OS/370 (I don't know if they made a OS/390) S/390 environment for OS/2 was intended to use x86s instead of Mainframes, it just lets you develop in the intended environment.
Actually, NT is more related to VMS than OS/2. If memory serves, OS/2 had a more UNIX like underlying system, which makes sense given that IBM had expertise with UNIX.
NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 (and I'm assuming Windows 2000) have support for text-mode OS/2 1.x applications. The HPFS file system support was removed in NT 4.0, but if you upgraded a system with HPFS support, it would include the drivers (NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 are VERY similar kernels). Additionally, you re correct, there was a Presentation Manager subsystem, and it is even (was even?) mentioned in the Resource Kits for 4.0.
The reason it was included was that Microsoft was working on both the NT and OS/2 projects, and wrote the OS/2 subsystem for NT. It was relatively small, as the text-mode API for OS/2 was really straightfoward, and they included it in subsequent versions because it already existed and there was no reson to remove it.
NT did not come from OS/2, it was developed at the same time to replace Windows 3.1, and they later pushed it instead of OS/2 after a BIG fight with IBM.
When Slashdot has a public forum which they make clear that they do not prohibit or censor anything, there is protection. In Yahoo!'s case, they appear to be involved in the transaction if they take a cut, like E-bay does. If memory serves, Yahoo!'s auction site is a free service, in which case, it may have common carrier status.
However, if they are notified of illegal activity, they may have an obligation to take it down. I think that the DMCA may include such provisions, but I am not certain. Much like an ISP has to take down a web site if they are notified of criminal activity, Yahoo! no doubt has to take down an auction when notified of criminal activity.
My question is, are they demanding that Yahoo! proactively intercept illegal commerce, or only that Yahoo! remove it when notified. Additionally, how to they know that it is illegal? I mean, "this is a cdr copy" implies that it is illegal, but "this is a legitamet copy" could be a lie and it could be an illegal copy. I wonder if this will include fraudulent sales masquerading as legal ones or merely the advertised illegal sales?
I would suggest that the home users control the work environment, not the other way around.
Times have changed since the 80s. Now, everybody knows how to use a Windows 95 computer, and they have one at home.
If a company uses Linux, they must: A. Train users B. Provide tools for them to work at home C. Convince users that it is a good change
Why C? Because with unemployment at record lows and the ease of getting a job, management doesn't want to alienate users. Also, the training costs might compesenate for the TCO savings. Also, with Windows, employees can work at home on home computers on their own time. That's free labor. what company wants to give that up?
NO my friends, moving to Linux would risk a palace revolt, the users like getting joke e-mails with virus-ridden attachments from friends elsewhere... and getting away from that would be devastating.
Between this and the LophtCrack article, it is getting rediculous. Everytime there is a mention of something that could be connected to something the "hacker community" doesn't like, we get a yellow journalistic story.
Beaver College is considering changing it's name because alumni are being discredited and recruiting is hurt because of it. That is a SERIOUS problem for a institution of higher learning. The web filtering stuff was kinda a flippant icing on the cake, yet the story here would appear that it is a major part of the story.
The Lopht crack story involved someone charged with using it for committing computer crimes, and one of the minor charges was possession of burglary equipment. That is kinda like charging a double homicide defendent with 2 charges of murder, 2 charges of assault with a deadly weapon, and one charge of illegal possession. Clearly the murder and assault w/ a deadly weapon are the REAL charges, but the minor one is throw in.
Can the "editors" please READ the articles? If it is real, consider it, if it is yellow press by someone more concerned with getting a story line on slashdot than reporting really news, kill the story. This discredits slashdot, and is kinda silly, because a lot of the posts are people like me complaining.
The First Amendment does NOT establish a country based upon religious freedoms. Although Jefferson and others advocated it, it was clearly not intended in the original founding.
I, a Jew, am often criticized when I laugh at those who insist that the first Amendment means anything other than the right to practice whatever Protestant religion that you choose.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. That was clearly referring to a state religion. Given the mess in England over the centuries as different monarchs had different views, it makes sense that our founders were concerned with a Congress voting a state religion in.
Note: this does NOT in anyway prohibit moral standards based on Christian principles from governing society.
It does, however, prohibit Congress from adopted a Church of America with the President as the head of the Church. While a religious view CAN be used in legislation (notice Blue Laws still in effect, you can't buy liquor in Mass. on Sundays, and most places on Sunday before some time, like 1 PM), you cannot establish a state religion.
What constitutes a state religion?
1. All citizens must be members of and tithe appropriately 2. Fines for failling to attend specific Church services 3. Prohibition of other religious practices 4. Church say in governmental decisions (directly, as in the head of the Church gets a veto over legislation, etc).
There IS a separation of Church and State. It was established by the Supreme Court through Judicial review stemming from the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does NOT create such a system.
To suggest that America, with the motto "In God We Trust," is founded on religious freedoms is a little silly.
More importantly, I doubt that the founders would support that freedom minority relgions like Catholicism (they despised The Church), Judaism, and Islam. The First Amendment was predominantly to prevent a particular Protestant faith from pushing others out.
From article, Conversion Each share of Series C Stock is convertible, at the option of the holder, after the satisfaction of a two year holding period or upon liquidation of the Company, into fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock based upon a fixed conversion ratio. The conversion ratio is subject to certain adjustments, stock splits or other capital reorganizations.
Non-assessable, I believe, means that it is held in trust and not votable. I could be wrong here, but I am VERY vertain thait this is not they case. My estimates of the value of the the Microsoft "investment" is 12%. Given that the investment was ONLY $25m, it seams unlikely that Inprise would give out such large chunks of the company for SO little money. I don't think that the deal gives Microsoft everything. Additionally, reserving that many shares for convertion doesn't mean that that is the conversion ratio. It could be 10:1 even with 10,000:1 reserved... reserved != issued
Like every other deal that involves a lawsuit, a "fair value" amount is assigned to the IP, and what should be punitive damages becomes an "investment" in non-voting preferred stock.
Non voting stock in this case is nearly worthless. If the company goes bankrupt, preferred stock members receive claims to the liquidation before common stock holders, for tech companies, BFD. Additionally, most preferred stock (traditionally) included guaranteed dividends and they were to be paid before any common stock paid dividends. Now, with low capital gains tax rates, dividends rarely exist. Additionally, this "investment" probably didn't include any dividend rights. It may not even involve liquidation claims.
Microsoft does NOT really own any of Corel/Inprise, nor does it REALLY own any of Apple. This is a way of settling law suits off the books.
The reason for this has to do with accounting practices. IANAA (I am not an accountant), but as I understand corporate finance, everything has to go on the books somewhere. The settlement for IP can go on the books as an asset, the technology rights. However, if it were overpriced, it would be fraudulent accounting. The rest can go in as an asset now, because it represents ownership of sorts. This allows companies to settle court cases without screwing up their books. On paper, Microsoft didn't "lose" $25 million, they spent $25m to get $25m in assets. I don't know how companies handle punitive damages from lawsuits. My guess is that it shows up as a loss, which isn't good.
This way, Inprise and Microsoft's balance sheets are unchanged (cash assets -> other assets) which is good for Microsoft an encourages them to settle. It is good for Inprise because as an investment, it isn't subject to taxes (to my knowledge). Microsoft's cash flow drops, Inprise's rises. For a real business, cash flow is MUCH more important than the balance sheet. The balance sheet affects taxes and corporate reports, cash flow affects the ability to conduct business.
Okay, the details question was obnoxious. Nobody connected to a campaign will agree with an attack on the American people.
However, when the issue of details was brought up, he COMPLETELY ignored it. I agree, the Internet provides LOTS of room for details, things Stump speaches can't include.
However, as the Clinton's learned in 93, slogans get votes, details earn defeat. A blue print lets people pick on what they dislike (more common that screaming for what you like), so no candidates will give details until they have to.
However, his decision to NOT answer that was inexcusable. I was disappointed with the interview.
I'm sorry, but for questioning a political site, "we run Linux and PHP" doesn't cut it. I don't care if you run Linux on a 386 or a proprietary system on an Iranian company's proprietary hardware (no slams on people from Iran, just picking them as a random "rogue" state), I care about the content. This guy didn't get it.
Hell, we're all voting for Algore because he runs Linux, right?
Screw that, McCain's still my man. Give em hell, John!
Instead of taking an opportunity to discuss the actual implications of the AOL-Time Warner merger (which bears satire and attack, as AOL wants to apply shody journalistic standards to their online properties), this piece focuses on satiring stock based mergers.
While stock mergers are neat because they trade paper money for new paper money, they seem reasonable for a merger.
Instead of tackling the REAL problems (although alluded to by discussing ways to drop NYTs costs 80% by creating sources), it focuses on the uninteresting side of the merger.
This was a silly piece, not worthy of a post.
However, the old story of a Catholic Church-Microsoft Merger with other church based mergers was entertaining... I could go for running that again.
There was no mention of this for personal computers, just for computers. Given the fiasco over readable numbers in the P3, this would be a fiasco for Intel. For personal uses, this is rather silly.
Now, a previous poster mentioned military uses. Military installations and overseas embassies, spy rings, etc., might have a need for this.
IIRC, you can read an image off a CRT from up to 2 miles away, right? I don't think that this applies for Digital systems like HDTVs and flat screens, right?
While home users aren't interested in security, our government might be. I don't know, is it possible to read the signal off a monitor cable? I would think so. From a distance, I don't know. However, for overseas operations, it is possible to tap the cable (in an embassy with a well placed spy).
Additionally, for classified documents, there might be a desire to prevent them from being copied. Imagine a locked system (no external network connection, no floppy, no modem, etc) with VERY classified stuff. If someone wants to copy these documents, say, and fly to another country with them, they currently could plug a recording device in and view them. This would prevent that.
While conceivably they could take photos, this would be easier to prevent and catch. Additionally, it probably isn't too difficult to develop a screen that really can't be caught on film. I'm sure there is a way to play with the signal to screw with that chemical process.
My guess is that this is NOT a was to make existing video cards and flat screens obsolete, my guess is that this is a system to win a juicy government contract. Even if the increased security is insignificant, it may win a government contract.
Are people here actually interested in this idea? I'll look into Massachusetts law on starting a non-profit (I'm an MIT student, so I'm Boston based) and the investment club work. Obviously we'd need a web site with online discussions to handle it.
My Linux box (I'm bringing it back up next week) could host it... it doesn't use 90% of it's resources... I use it for play...
I think that I can use the MIT network for non-profits, just not for-profit businesses, but I'll check.
If you are interested, e-mail me at scorpion@mit.edu, and tell me, roughly, how much you would contribute. If it looks substantial, I'll look into the paperwork. I just made a donation to the McCain election fund, so my cash for "causes" is low, but I'd put the time in (and maybe $100 or so of my own money) to get this up and running.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to the name for this endeavor?
Note: most of these companies have multi-billion dollar capitalizations. Even if only 30% of stock holders (including big money) vote their proxies, a $1b companies has $300m dollars worth of voting stock. That means that we'd need $150m to get a majority. OTOH, the ability to buy 1 share in each of these companies would be minimal, and would give the rights to attend the meetings.
So I guess the goal would be either:
A) raise enough money to buy 1 share in each company plus cover travel costs to speak at meetings
B) raise enough money to get awareness, then raise enough money to actually buy real chunks of the companies... you'd only need to buy one at a time...
However, I think that the potential for launching a hostile take-over of these companies is nil, and most companies elect the Board as a slate so you can't even push all your votes for one person on the board... however, it would be a neat experiment.
Come on, let's use the UN International court. It is hysterical. US charged with violating Cuba's soveirgnty (Bay of Pigs), convicted, US ignores.
I think we were convicted for one or two other covert deals in the 80s.
It rocks when the US is convicted and ignores the trial.
Note: this is sarcasm, not a troll
There is no body that can convict the US Gov't, save the US Court system (to give financial awards out) and France can hardly sue the US for International espionage.
This is silly. Come on France, play the cloak and dagger game. When you catch them, make a big stink of it, announce a boycott, trade sanctions, and pull your ambassador.
Oh wait, if they try for trade sanctions, the WTO can overturn them. If they violate that, then everyone gets to counter embargo within the WTO, kick France out, our whatever they want.
Let's see an International incident over this stupid project.
No charge, been available since AT LEAST NT 3.51 (I've never used NT 3.1 or NT 3.51). My Linux box is currently offline (idiot friends wantign to rebuild it then forgetting it) so my NT 4.0 Workstation is answering it's IP address and picking up my e-mail.
No charge. No difficulty.
It is available under advanced for TCP/IP properties (have to find the little button).
IIS lets you graphically assign different IP addresses to different links.
Not saying that Linux numbers aren't Deflated (they are), but IP Aliasing isn't a separate machine. Also, this is a report on SALES, not uses. They're figuring out where the money is going.
Linux numbers are deflated. However, that doesn't justify confusing ignorance with NT as flaws in NT... NT has enough flaws without your adding some...
What do you mean I need to reboot to setup my printer?
I like AMD, Intel annoys me, but I'm not ready to dismiss them. The article is right, Intel is hurting, but while a drop in margins will hurt their valuation, they aren't near bankruptcy.
They can throw HUGE amounts of resources into fixing their woes, which is a nice reserve. They have to accept a LARGE decrease in margins, especially as the Intel name means less and ceases to give them a premium.
Intel has massive manufacturing might and can crank up production on lower cost chips. Corporations aren't ready to adopt Athlon for mission critical systems, although that may change. Microsoft's decisions will also make a key difference. Will Microsoft realize an AMD optimized compiler? Will Microsoft release software (including NT/Win2K) optimized for the AMD system? Will third parties release drivers that don't suck it up under AMD chipsets (see the GeForce fiasco, mentions on Tom's site)?
Realize that for servers, a few hundred dollars in savings is trivial for the Intel guarantee. AMD will have trouble stealing the NT market from Xeon. The Linux market, however, could be theirs for the asking if they contributed optimizations for GCC to make it optimized for their processor. If Red Hat made an Athlon Linux (all the software recompiled to scream on an Athlon), it would hand them that market.
AMD has a HUGE opportunity hear, but the rest of the industry has to play along. A strong AMD and Intel duking it out for the x86 server market is GOOD for the industry, but we'll see what happens.
As an NT 4.0 Workstation user, I got to use Win2K Beta 3 RC1 this past summer. I liked it.
It had some fishy features, my laptop crashed twice during the three months, but overhaul, it was pretty solid. The game support was better than NT4, the interface cleaner (once you got used to it and disabled most of the "new features") and seemed a little more stable than NT4. Overall, good job Microsoft.
I can't comment on the server end, but what I've read doesn't interest me as a user (as a consultant yes, as a user, no). Active Directory: from what I've seen, it is more complicated than the traditional domains. When I learn how they work, I'll probably consider them about the same, but for now, it is more annoying. While the old model broke for large sites, I personally wouldn't user NT in large sites.
As I've said for years to my Linux/Unix friends. NT does what it does really well: administering logons for Windows (and NT) workstations. The roaming profiles work most of the time (and the errors aren't too bad), logon scripts work, and the file and print serving works.
I wouldn't dream of running a real website off of it, but for a small office without a full-time sysadmin... it works.
The Unix people talk about all the features that Win2K (and NT4) has that are new and mention how they have had them for years. True, NT/Win2K is playing catchup in server space. This makes sense, NT is new. *nix has been around forever as a server and should have more features. Linux, grabbing for the desktop, is copying ideas left and right from Windows. It balances out, and that is how competition works.
Win2K is a pretty solid product. I wish Microsoft well with it. I'm not a huge Microsoft fan, and I'm also chearing for their enemies. But if I can get DirectX support with the stability of NT, I'll probably stop considering Linux on my desktop all together.
Sorry, NT is STABLE ENOUGH for me. I reboot every few weeks, and in return I have better application support than Linux. Would I consider running Windows 9x/ME? Hell no, they are a joke of an OS. Linux needs to stop patting itself on the pat for being more stable than Win9x. In the stability race, NT is the competition. If NT is "good enough," then Linux needs another killer app for the desktop.
And no, $200/station or enough $500/station to people that pay consultants $150/hr to do network stuff doesn't make a different.
Given the animosity towards software patents here (I don't share it, many are bogus, some are real), this is something useful. If someone wanted to actually do something about specific patents, not the process, this is a good place to start.
By creating a system to list SOFTWARE patents (isntead of all patents) it puts us in a better position to see if 1) we are infringing upon them 2) if there are BS patents that we want to fight
Also, does this include the full text (seems that way)? IIRC, the other patent databases list abstracts and where you can pay for the full paperwork. This is a step in the right direction.
The MIT network (Project Athena), is a Unix network. It evolved from Decs -> Suns/SGIs, to now mainly Suns (the SGIs are still around, but I don't think that they are getting new ones).
IS has supported Solaris on Sparc/UltraSparc and Irix on SGI. These platforms were supported with the Athena software, which included the OS and a lot of software.
SIPB (the Student Information Processing Board), the nerds of nerds, made a Linux distribution called Redhat-Athena, which was Redhat 4.2 (later 5.2, I remember it coming out of beta my freshman year, two years ago) with the Athena packages and AFS.
Because of the popularity of Linux (and it's growing support for the Athena applications), IS now has a version based upon 6.1.
This makes the supported MITnet systems: Athena/Sun, Athena/SGI, Athena/Linux(x86), MacOS, and Windows NT.
Windows 95/98 is quasi supported.
However, I hear rumors that MIT is working to make an Athena/Windows 2000 system that will become supported for home users AND clusters.
All in all, we're working for a very heterogenous network with support for AFS, Zephyr, etc., on all major platforms.
IIRC, the Athena stuff, like Zephyr, is available for others to get, so it's port to Win2000 and Linux are good things for all universities (or corps that want to run them).
Not surprising. At MIT, the intro Computer Science course is in Scheme. While an Intro course, this isn't your typical intro course, we do cool things like write relational database engines and primitive (non-optimizing) compilers in it (a fake assembly language, but close enough).
One of the weeks is spent on the "Meta-circular evaluator." The meta-circular evaluator is a Scheme program that interprets Scheme code and executes it. We also discussed (and worked with a sample of part of) a C interpretter.
The power of scheme/LISP is that it handles all objects the same. Whether it is a program (lambda function), list, or atom. This is EXTREMELY powerful. We were able to flesh out the shell of an Object oriented version in a weekly problem set (I did it in one night in like 8 hours).
If you base you systems in Scheme/LISP, you have TREMENDOUS functionality. I'm flashing back to the paper in my architecture course on how the inferior C won out against LISP. It actually made some compelling arguements, but I don't know how much I agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Running Linux on Sparc hardware makes sense, UltraSparc hardware, less so. As I understand it, Linux runs faster then Solaris, although it lacks the robustness and scalability to multiple processors. As a result, older Sun machines that would be decommissioned can find a little more life left with Linux.
My question is this, would anyone buy Sun Hardware to run Linux? Sun machines are generally more reliable and robust, better tested, and better supported. However, what would be the point of running Linux on one.
With Solaris, you have many Enterprise level tools that just aren't available for Linux. Additionally, any software with source can be compiled on either system, most Solaris admins that I know start by downloading and installing the GNU tools. With Linux, you have that same software.
Shrink wrapped software for Linux is all i386 only, so Sun users won't benefit from these improvements. Overall, I'm wondering what the point is of UltraSparc/Linux.
If the purpose is merely: because we can, that makes sense, it is neat. If it has a real purpose in a real computing environment, I'm curious as to what it is.
It seems to be, that as of now, corporations that are using Linux are mostly using them in low end servers because it is cheap. They put it on several hundred dollar vanilla servers. Sun Hardware is found in corporations that spend the IT dollars on quality. While I'm not suggesting the Linux is rubish, what makes Linux a better selection than Solaris other than it being free? While freedom is very important for people, for a company, it seems less so.
I'm curious, what is the business case for using Sun/Linux as opposed to Intel/Linux, AMD/Linux, or Sun/Solaris, all of which seem more logical choices to myself.
Alex
The trick to caching is that it speeds up repeated access to the same data or accessing data in nearby segments of memory.
When you are optimizing memory locations in your code (the OS or the applications), you optimize for vitual memory page sizes for memory usage, and for cache sizes to make sure that your application gets the most use of the cache as it can.
In a world where we get precompiled binaries (ideally you could teach the compiler to optimize for the different levels and compile it for different amounts, additionally programmers could put flags in their code for the different optimizations), how to we optimize our applications?
If the Celeron2 becomes really popular, then we optimize for 128K and 256K machines or 512K machines get little to know benefit from their larger caches. If we optimize on 256K or 512K, our smaller caches may get unacceptable cache miss rates and suffer poor performance.
The idea behind this is that 128K is aleady ~95% cache hit rate, and doubling the cache only gives small improvements. However, when Pentium Classic machines used to ship with 512K on the good boards and K6s and K6-2s were shipping on mobo with 1MB cache, why are we now switching down the amount for higher speed? I understand why it is faster (90% of L1 no slow down, 95% of L2 1 missed cycle; faster than 90% of L1 no slow down, 98% or 99% L2 of 3 or 4 missed cycles and memory access is 6-8 missed cycles)? Are our programs out there optimized for the older "larger" caches or the newer, "smaller" caches. It seems like we are going to see less and less advantage to the expensive systems with lots of cache when we are optimizing for the workstations with much less cache.
Alex
Not really. I think that "JonKatz" contributes a lot to Slashdot with his commentary. I just wish when he wrote his opinion pieces that need you to have a background on the subject, he would give the background first, then give his take on the matter. Alternatively, he could link to a news story on the situation so that we could read the facts and then he gets the ball rolling with his opinion piece.
/. readers are more diverse and intelligent than he thinks, and we are capable of discussing a social situation that may affect people like us AND other types of people without it being tailored to only discuss the video game members.
Instead, we get the facts and opinion jumbled with no citation or clear distinction. We have VERY little information on the actual program being run, just on his "fears" of geek persecution, which I question if it is real or he is catering to his audience. While I have no doubt that he considers this a real threat, I find it disappointing that he is ignoring the greater issues and just tailoring it to the slashdot audience. I think that the
No where in the article is there a discussion about the methods of therapy being used and wht they are trying to accomplish. I truly doubt that N.C. is trying to root out video game playing, they no doubt have real goals, and that side of the story is hidden in this piece.
Alex
This is a little disturbing, but as usual our favorite author is inserting his personal bias where he claims to be reporting fact. It is clearly an opinion piece, but his interpretations and the facts of the situation should be a little more clear.
Okay, yes the hyseria regarding school violence is misplaced. Innercity schools with REAL problems are not being targetted, it is suburbanites who avoid the "evil cities" that are scared that violence can hit there area.
I went to a private school for three years at the end of high school after many years in the public school system. We dealt with this nonsense all the time. The school had a dress code that enforced conformity, the school held talks for parents (and made them go or the kids couldn't participate in extra curricular activities) on alcohol use and encouraged parents to report on other children, etc.
This database is unlikely to be maintained indefinitely. If for no other reason, than you need parental consent for recording information on minors. Parents will obviously not consent for their children being labeled insane. This is most likely going to result in people wearing black trenchcoats in school being annoyed by guidance councilors and not wearing black trenchcoats in schools.
While enforcing conformity is a bad thing, it isn't Nazish or Stalinistic, it is obnoxious. This program appears to be well intended: if you think someone is a threat to himself or others, you call a number and they have someone speak to him. Overall, not a terrible state of affairs. If the situation isn't a problem, they go about their business. If they are depressed, maybe they find a good shrink and lead happier lives.
The fact that it is a profitable company doesn't make it wrong. It means that they are going to try to make a profit instead of syphoning off as much money as possible in grants to spend frivolously because they have them. Libertarians champion everything being privatized, this seems like an example of that.
While I think that there MAY be a real concerning story here, our author has failed to separate facts from his fears, so it is hard to tell what, if any, injustice is real and what is yellow journalism by rambling fool.
Alex
I really hope that video isn't in the kernel. Microsoft did so in NT 4.0 (differing from NT 3.51) which was a complete nightmare. I was at Citrix (in Tech Support, not development) when they were testing WinFrame 2.0 (now sorta Microsoft NT 4.0 Terminal Server Addition). Apparently, the addition of the video into the kernel was a nightmare.
I've also worked at a site which had an old Diamond card as the video card, given that it is a server, that should be fine. However, the video decided to crap out when we were installing a NIC and the whole system destabalized. Given that no new drivers were written, the entire server destabalized because of the video card.
NT Workstation/W2K Pro should have video in the Kernel, it improves speed. NT Server/W2K Server SHOULD not. Microsoft needs to really optimize their system, because they are destabalizing servers for no reason.
A decision to do the same in Linux/BSD would be a disaster. The improvement in video from this is marginal, and the problems from a buggy video system are disasterous. If this is done, it is time to fork the kernel into Linux-Workstation and Linux-Server... or perhaps HURD will replace Linux in the server and Linux will move into the workstation market. Either way, servers don't need extra stuff in the kernel, it just is remove for errors.
Although Solaris x86 is evolving as a product and actually is seen in some servers, it was for a very different reasons.
Partially, it was to snub Microsoft by going into their markets... there is a long running fued between their leaders...
Additionally, it was to get Solaris more of the server market. Although originally a workstation maker, Sun is largely in the business of servers. Their engineering workstations are still important because it increases the market for their UltraSparc chips and Solaris OS, which means that they can amortize the R&D costs across more machines, but they money makers are the high margin servers.
Now, if you are a corporation with a big investment in Sun hardware, you need machines for your developers. You could buy some big iron and have them all connect into it, but that is a silly approach to development given that server capacity on big Sparc's is MUCH more expensive than simple x86 boxes. Hence, Solaris x86. You can buy your developers run of the mill machines, but copies of Solaris x86, and you can develop your Solaris applications in Solaris, and they guarantee cross-compiling. Sun still gets it's profit (I expect that the profit on Solaris x86 is similar to the profit on a Sparc workstation/Solaris), and they can push the server sales.
Solaris x86 was never intended to be used as production servers, and more than IBM's OS/370 (I don't know if they made a OS/390) S/390 environment for OS/2 was intended to use x86s instead of Mainframes, it just lets you develop in the intended environment.
Alex
Actually, NT is more related to VMS than OS/2. If memory serves, OS/2 had a more UNIX like underlying system, which makes sense given that IBM had expertise with UNIX.
NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 (and I'm assuming Windows 2000) have support for text-mode OS/2 1.x applications. The HPFS file system support was removed in NT 4.0, but if you upgraded a system with HPFS support, it would include the drivers (NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 are VERY similar kernels). Additionally, you re correct, there was a Presentation Manager subsystem, and it is even (was even?) mentioned in the Resource Kits for 4.0.
The reason it was included was that Microsoft was working on both the NT and OS/2 projects, and wrote the OS/2 subsystem for NT. It was relatively small, as the text-mode API for OS/2 was really straightfoward, and they included it in subsequent versions because it already existed and there was no reson to remove it.
NT did not come from OS/2, it was developed at the same time to replace Windows 3.1, and they later pushed it instead of OS/2 after a BIG fight with IBM.
Alex M. Hochberger
M.C.S.E.
When Slashdot has a public forum which they make clear that they do not prohibit or censor anything, there is protection. In Yahoo!'s case, they appear to be involved in the transaction if they take a cut, like E-bay does. If memory serves, Yahoo!'s auction site is a free service, in which case, it may have common carrier status.
However, if they are notified of illegal activity, they may have an obligation to take it down. I think that the DMCA may include such provisions, but I am not certain. Much like an ISP has to take down a web site if they are notified of criminal activity, Yahoo! no doubt has to take down an auction when notified of criminal activity.
My question is, are they demanding that Yahoo! proactively intercept illegal commerce, or only that Yahoo! remove it when notified. Additionally, how to they know that it is illegal? I mean, "this is a cdr copy" implies that it is illegal, but "this is a legitamet copy" could be a lie and it could be an illegal copy. I wonder if this will include fraudulent sales masquerading as legal ones or merely the advertised illegal sales?
I would suggest that the home users control the work environment, not the other way around.
Times have changed since the 80s. Now, everybody knows how to use a Windows 95 computer, and they have one at home.
If a company uses Linux, they must:
A. Train users
B. Provide tools for them to work at home
C. Convince users that it is a good change
Why C? Because with unemployment at record lows and the ease of getting a job, management doesn't want to alienate users. Also, the training costs might compesenate for the TCO savings. Also, with Windows, employees can work at home on home computers on their own time. That's free labor. what company wants to give that up?
NO my friends, moving to Linux would risk a palace revolt, the users like getting joke e-mails with virus-ridden attachments from friends elsewhere... and getting away from that would be devastating.
Alex
Between this and the LophtCrack article, it is getting rediculous. Everytime there is a mention of something that could be connected to something the "hacker community" doesn't like, we get a yellow journalistic story.
Beaver College is considering changing it's name because alumni are being discredited and recruiting is hurt because of it. That is a SERIOUS problem for a institution of higher learning. The web filtering stuff was kinda a flippant icing on the cake, yet the story here would appear that it is a major part of the story.
The Lopht crack story involved someone charged with using it for committing computer crimes, and one of the minor charges was possession of burglary equipment. That is kinda like charging a double homicide defendent with 2 charges of murder, 2 charges of assault with a deadly weapon, and one charge of illegal possession. Clearly the murder and assault w/ a deadly weapon are the REAL charges, but the minor one is throw in.
Can the "editors" please READ the articles? If it is real, consider it, if it is yellow press by someone more concerned with getting a story line on slashdot than reporting really news, kill the story. This discredits slashdot, and is kinda silly, because a lot of the posts are people like me complaining.
The First Amendment does NOT establish a country based upon religious freedoms. Although Jefferson and others advocated it, it was clearly not intended in the original founding.
I, a Jew, am often criticized when I laugh at those who insist that the first Amendment means anything other than the right to practice whatever Protestant religion that you choose.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. That was clearly referring to a state religion. Given the mess in England over the centuries as different monarchs had different views, it makes sense that our founders were concerned with a Congress voting a state religion in.
Note: this does NOT in anyway prohibit moral standards based on Christian principles from governing society.
It does, however, prohibit Congress from adopted a Church of America with the President as the head of the Church. While a religious view CAN be used in legislation (notice Blue Laws still in effect, you can't buy liquor in Mass. on Sundays, and most places on Sunday before some time, like 1 PM), you cannot establish a state religion.
What constitutes a state religion?
1. All citizens must be members of and tithe appropriately
2. Fines for failling to attend specific Church services
3. Prohibition of other religious practices
4. Church say in governmental decisions (directly, as in the head of the Church gets a veto over legislation, etc).
There IS a separation of Church and State. It was established by the Supreme Court through Judicial review stemming from the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does NOT create such a system.
To suggest that America, with the motto "In God We Trust," is founded on religious freedoms is a little silly.
More importantly, I doubt that the founders would support that freedom minority relgions like Catholicism (they despised The Church), Judaism, and Islam. The First Amendment was predominantly to prevent a particular Protestant faith from pushing others out.
Alex
Amateur Historian
From article, Conversion
Each share of Series C Stock is convertible, at the option of the holder, after the satisfaction of a two year holding period or upon liquidation of the Company, into fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock based upon a fixed conversion ratio. The conversion ratio is subject to certain adjustments, stock splits or other capital reorganizations.
Non-assessable, I believe, means that it is held in trust and not votable. I could be wrong here, but I am VERY vertain thait this is not they case. My estimates of the value of the the Microsoft "investment" is 12%. Given that the investment was ONLY $25m, it seams unlikely that Inprise would give out such large chunks of the company for SO little money. I don't think that the deal gives Microsoft everything. Additionally, reserving that many shares for convertion doesn't mean that that is the conversion ratio. It could be 10:1 even with 10,000:1 reserved... reserved != issued
Like every other deal that involves a lawsuit, a "fair value" amount is assigned to the IP, and what should be punitive damages becomes an "investment" in non-voting preferred stock.
Non voting stock in this case is nearly worthless. If the company goes bankrupt, preferred stock members receive claims to the liquidation before common stock holders, for tech companies, BFD. Additionally, most preferred stock (traditionally) included guaranteed dividends and they were to be paid before any common stock paid dividends. Now, with low capital gains tax rates, dividends rarely exist. Additionally, this "investment" probably didn't include any dividend rights. It may not even involve liquidation claims.
Microsoft does NOT really own any of Corel/Inprise, nor does it REALLY own any of Apple. This is a way of settling law suits off the books.
The reason for this has to do with accounting practices. IANAA (I am not an accountant), but as I understand corporate finance, everything has to go on the books somewhere. The settlement for IP can go on the books as an asset, the technology rights. However, if it were overpriced, it would be fraudulent accounting. The rest can go in as an asset now, because it represents ownership of sorts. This allows companies to settle court cases without screwing up their books. On paper, Microsoft didn't "lose" $25 million, they spent $25m to get $25m in assets. I don't know how companies handle punitive damages from lawsuits. My guess is that it shows up as a loss, which isn't good.
This way, Inprise and Microsoft's balance sheets are unchanged (cash assets -> other assets) which is good for Microsoft an encourages them to settle. It is good for Inprise because as an investment, it isn't subject to taxes (to my knowledge). Microsoft's cash flow drops, Inprise's rises. For a real business, cash flow is MUCH more important than the balance sheet. The balance sheet affects taxes and corporate reports, cash flow affects the ability to conduct business.
Alex
Okay, the details question was obnoxious. Nobody connected to a campaign will agree with an attack on the American people.
However, when the issue of details was brought up, he COMPLETELY ignored it. I agree, the Internet provides LOTS of room for details, things Stump speaches can't include.
However, as the Clinton's learned in 93, slogans get votes, details earn defeat. A blue print lets people pick on what they dislike (more common that screaming for what you like), so no candidates will give details until they have to.
However, his decision to NOT answer that was inexcusable. I was disappointed with the interview.
I'm sorry, but for questioning a political site, "we run Linux and PHP" doesn't cut it. I don't care if you run Linux on a 386 or a proprietary system on an Iranian company's proprietary hardware (no slams on people from Iran, just picking them as a random "rogue" state), I care about the content. This guy didn't get it.
Hell, we're all voting for Algore because he runs Linux, right?
Screw that, McCain's still my man. Give em hell, John!
Alex
Instead of taking an opportunity to discuss the actual implications of the AOL-Time Warner merger (which bears satire and attack, as AOL wants to apply shody journalistic standards to their online properties), this piece focuses on satiring stock based mergers.
While stock mergers are neat because they trade paper money for new paper money, they seem reasonable for a merger.
Instead of tackling the REAL problems (although alluded to by discussing ways to drop NYTs costs 80% by creating sources), it focuses on the uninteresting side of the merger.
This was a silly piece, not worthy of a post.
However, the old story of a Catholic Church-Microsoft Merger with other church based mergers was entertaining... I could go for running that again.
Feel free to mark down.
Alex
There was no mention of this for personal computers, just for computers. Given the fiasco over readable numbers in the P3, this would be a fiasco for Intel. For personal uses, this is rather silly.
Now, a previous poster mentioned military uses. Military installations and overseas embassies, spy rings, etc., might have a need for this.
IIRC, you can read an image off a CRT from up to 2 miles away, right? I don't think that this applies for Digital systems like HDTVs and flat screens, right?
While home users aren't interested in security, our government might be. I don't know, is it possible to read the signal off a monitor cable? I would think so. From a distance, I don't know. However, for overseas operations, it is possible to tap the cable (in an embassy with a well placed spy).
Additionally, for classified documents, there might be a desire to prevent them from being copied. Imagine a locked system (no external network connection, no floppy, no modem, etc) with VERY classified stuff. If someone wants to copy these documents, say, and fly to another country with them, they currently could plug a recording device in and view them. This would prevent that.
While conceivably they could take photos, this would be easier to prevent and catch. Additionally, it probably isn't too difficult to develop a screen that really can't be caught on film. I'm sure there is a way to play with the signal to screw with that chemical process.
My guess is that this is NOT a was to make existing video cards and flat screens obsolete, my guess is that this is a system to win a juicy government contract. Even if the increased security is insignificant, it may win a government contract.
Alex
Are people here actually interested in this idea? I'll look into Massachusetts law on starting a non-profit (I'm an MIT student, so I'm Boston based) and the investment club work. Obviously we'd need a web site with online discussions to handle it.
My Linux box (I'm bringing it back up next week) could host it... it doesn't use 90% of it's resources... I use it for play...
I think that I can use the MIT network for non-profits, just not for-profit businesses, but I'll check.
If you are interested, e-mail me at scorpion@mit.edu, and tell me, roughly, how much you would contribute. If it looks substantial, I'll look into the paperwork. I just made a donation to the McCain election fund, so my cash for "causes" is low, but I'd put the time in (and maybe $100 or so of my own money) to get this up and running.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to the name for this endeavor?
Note: most of these companies have multi-billion dollar capitalizations. Even if only 30% of stock holders (including big money) vote their proxies, a $1b companies has $300m dollars worth of voting stock. That means that we'd need $150m to get a majority. OTOH, the ability to buy 1 share in each of these companies would be minimal, and would give the rights to attend the meetings.
So I guess the goal would be either:
A) raise enough money to buy 1 share in each company plus cover travel costs to speak at meetings
B) raise enough money to get awareness, then raise enough money to actually buy real chunks of the companies... you'd only need to buy one at a time...
However, I think that the potential for launching a hostile take-over of these companies is nil, and most companies elect the Board as a slate so you can't even push all your votes for one person on the board... however, it would be a neat experiment.
If you are interested: e-mail scorpion@mit.edu
Come on, let's use the UN International court. It is hysterical. US charged with violating Cuba's soveirgnty (Bay of Pigs), convicted, US ignores.
I think we were convicted for one or two other covert deals in the 80s.
It rocks when the US is convicted and ignores the trial.
Note: this is sarcasm, not a troll
There is no body that can convict the US Gov't, save the US Court system (to give financial awards out) and France can hardly sue the US for International espionage.
This is silly. Come on France, play the cloak and dagger game. When you catch them, make a big stink of it, announce a boycott, trade sanctions, and pull your ambassador.
Oh wait, if they try for trade sanctions, the WTO can overturn them. If they violate that, then everyone gets to counter embargo within the WTO, kick France out, our whatever they want.
Let's see an International incident over this stupid project.
GO GLOBALIZATION!
No charge, been available since AT LEAST NT 3.51 (I've never used NT 3.1 or NT 3.51). My Linux box is currently offline (idiot friends wantign to rebuild it then forgetting it) so my NT 4.0 Workstation is answering it's IP address and picking up my e-mail.
No charge. No difficulty.
It is available under advanced for TCP/IP properties (have to find the little button).
IIS lets you graphically assign different IP addresses to different links.
Not saying that Linux numbers aren't Deflated (they are), but IP Aliasing isn't a separate machine. Also, this is a report on SALES, not uses. They're figuring out where the money is going.
Linux numbers are deflated. However, that doesn't justify confusing ignorance with NT as flaws in NT... NT has enough flaws without your adding some...
What do you mean I need to reboot to setup my printer?
Alex M. Hochberger
MCSE, CCA
I like AMD, Intel annoys me, but I'm not ready to dismiss them. The article is right, Intel is hurting, but while a drop in margins will hurt their valuation, they aren't near bankruptcy.
They can throw HUGE amounts of resources into fixing their woes, which is a nice reserve. They have to accept a LARGE decrease in margins, especially as the Intel name means less and ceases to give them a premium.
Intel has massive manufacturing might and can crank up production on lower cost chips. Corporations aren't ready to adopt Athlon for mission critical systems, although that may change. Microsoft's decisions will also make a key difference. Will Microsoft realize an AMD optimized compiler? Will Microsoft release software (including NT/Win2K) optimized for the AMD system? Will third parties release drivers that don't suck it up under AMD chipsets (see the GeForce fiasco, mentions on Tom's site)?
Realize that for servers, a few hundred dollars in savings is trivial for the Intel guarantee. AMD will have trouble stealing the NT market from Xeon. The Linux market, however, could be theirs for the asking if they contributed optimizations for GCC to make it optimized for their processor. If Red Hat made an Athlon Linux (all the software recompiled to scream on an Athlon), it would hand them that market.
AMD has a HUGE opportunity hear, but the rest of the industry has to play along. A strong AMD and Intel duking it out for the x86 server market is GOOD for the industry, but we'll see what happens.
Alex
As an NT 4.0 Workstation user, I got to use Win2K Beta 3 RC1 this past summer. I liked it.
It had some fishy features, my laptop crashed twice during the three months, but overhaul, it was pretty solid. The game support was better than NT4, the interface cleaner (once you got used to it and disabled most of the "new features") and seemed a little more stable than NT4. Overall, good job Microsoft.
I can't comment on the server end, but what I've read doesn't interest me as a user (as a consultant yes, as a user, no). Active Directory: from what I've seen, it is more complicated than the traditional domains. When I learn how they work, I'll probably consider them about the same, but for now, it is more annoying. While the old model broke for large sites, I personally wouldn't user NT in large sites.
As I've said for years to my Linux/Unix friends. NT does what it does really well: administering logons for Windows (and NT) workstations. The roaming profiles work most of the time (and the errors aren't too bad), logon scripts work, and the file and print serving works.
I wouldn't dream of running a real website off of it, but for a small office without a full-time sysadmin... it works.
The Unix people talk about all the features that Win2K (and NT4) has that are new and mention how they have had them for years. True, NT/Win2K is playing catchup in server space. This makes sense, NT is new. *nix has been around forever as a server and should have more features. Linux, grabbing for the desktop, is copying ideas left and right from Windows. It balances out, and that is how competition works.
Win2K is a pretty solid product. I wish Microsoft well with it. I'm not a huge Microsoft fan, and I'm also chearing for their enemies. But if I can get DirectX support with the stability of NT, I'll probably stop considering Linux on my desktop all together.
Sorry, NT is STABLE ENOUGH for me. I reboot every few weeks, and in return I have better application support than Linux. Would I consider running Windows 9x/ME? Hell no, they are a joke of an OS. Linux needs to stop patting itself on the pat for being more stable than Win9x. In the stability race, NT is the competition. If NT is "good enough," then Linux needs another killer app for the desktop.
And no, $200/station or enough $500/station to people that pay consultants $150/hr to do network stuff doesn't make a different.
Alex
Given the animosity towards software patents here (I don't share it, many are bogus, some are real), this is something useful. If someone wanted to actually do something about specific patents, not the process, this is a good place to start.
By creating a system to list SOFTWARE patents (isntead of all patents) it puts us in a better position to see if
1) we are infringing upon them
2) if there are BS patents that we want to fight
Also, does this include the full text (seems that way)? IIRC, the other patent databases list abstracts and where you can pay for the full paperwork. This is a step in the right direction.
The MIT network (Project Athena), is a Unix network. It evolved from Decs -> Suns/SGIs, to now mainly Suns (the SGIs are still around, but I don't think that they are getting new ones).
IS has supported Solaris on Sparc/UltraSparc and Irix on SGI. These platforms were supported with the Athena software, which included the OS and a lot of software.
SIPB (the Student Information Processing Board), the nerds of nerds, made a Linux distribution called Redhat-Athena, which was Redhat 4.2 (later 5.2, I remember it coming out of beta my freshman year, two years ago) with the Athena packages and AFS.
Because of the popularity of Linux (and it's growing support for the Athena applications), IS now has a version based upon 6.1.
This makes the supported MITnet systems: Athena/Sun, Athena/SGI, Athena/Linux(x86), MacOS, and Windows NT.
Windows 95/98 is quasi supported.
However, I hear rumors that MIT is working to make an Athena/Windows 2000 system that will become supported for home users AND clusters.
All in all, we're working for a very heterogenous network with support for AFS, Zephyr, etc., on all major platforms.
IIRC, the Athena stuff, like Zephyr, is available for others to get, so it's port to Win2000 and Linux are good things for all universities (or corps that want to run them).
Alex
Well, all home users AND small networks use a provider to get their access. Their upstream provider should be filtering their connections.
Note: Scheme is MIT's dialect of LISP
Not surprising. At MIT, the intro Computer Science course is in Scheme. While an Intro course, this isn't your typical intro course, we do cool things like write relational database engines and primitive (non-optimizing) compilers in it (a fake assembly language, but close enough).
One of the weeks is spent on the "Meta-circular evaluator." The meta-circular evaluator is a Scheme program that interprets Scheme code and executes it. We also discussed (and worked with a sample of part of) a C interpretter.
The power of scheme/LISP is that it handles all objects the same. Whether it is a program (lambda function), list, or atom. This is EXTREMELY powerful. We were able to flesh out the shell of an Object oriented version in a weekly problem set (I did it in one night in like 8 hours).
If you base you systems in Scheme/LISP, you have TREMENDOUS functionality. I'm flashing back to the paper in my architecture course on how the inferior C won out against LISP. It actually made some compelling arguements, but I don't know how much I agree.
Alex