Re:Games: XFree86 with DRI, or Linux FBDev?
on
XFree 4.1.0 Out
·
· Score: 2
Why bother with the framebuffer? Do what I do - run two X servers. I have a 1600x1200x24bit server for my desktop, and an 800x600x16bit server for games. And you can flip between them with Ctrl-Alt-F7/F8, so you don't lose that functionality either.
Sometimes they'd have another CPU in the window which was running "Dancing Demon," a stick figure that would jerk around in rhythm with some beeps and bops. (At least, I think it had sound, can't remember, the old brain is getting rusty.)
Yes, it did have sound, although I remember it being the Dancing Robot, not the Dancing Demon.
The article mentions Kondara MNU/Linux, but contains two errors:
1) It says that is a GNU project. Kondara has never been, and never will be, a GNU project. It is created by a group of volunteers and packaged by a commercial enterprise, Digital Factory. (Some people consider DF to be a bunch of VC losers, but that depends on who you ask.)
2) It says that Kondara appears dead. A new version is currently at beta2, scheduled for release in the next month or two.
With errors like these, one has to wonder just how well the writer did his research.
Re:AOL is totally cool (some corrections)
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
No shit, Sherlock. What I'm saying is, where has anybody said in this whole affair that AOL is paying Transmeta to allow people to download the source? NOWHERE!!
Sheesh.
Re:AOL is totally cool (some corrections)
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
What part of that do you not understand? It does not say "you may leave it to somebody else who may or may not decide to let people have the source"; it says, "If you distribute binaries, you must guarantee that you will supply such people with source if they request it". What is so hard about this?!
Shit, people, just READ the friggin' license, OK? To summarize: "If you distribute binaries, you must make available the source to those binaries to the people to which you gave the binaries."
So, since AOL has included binaries of GPL'd software, they have to give the buyer either a CD or whatever containing the source, or somewhere to download the software (which CANNOT just be a pointer to "someone else's web site"; they have an obligation to guarantee access for three years, which they can't do for a site run by anyone but themselves).
It has NOTHING to do with whether they modified the source or not, OK???
Re:AOL is totally cool (some corrections)
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
And exactly where does it say that? "Transmeta has all AOL's fixes in its CVS tree" != "AOL has a contract with Transmeta to distribute source".
Re:AOL is totally cool (some corrections)
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Not trying to be pedantic or anything, but under the terms of the GPL, the binary distributor is responsible for providing access to the source code; a link to another company's web site where the code can be obtained is not sufficient. I believe this opinion has been expressed several times by RMS, so it's not just my interpretation.
While I realize you're trying to avoid trouble for AOL, since they do seem to have been cooperating with Transmeta, it still doesn't mean that they can ignore their obligations under the GPL.
I've seen the Fujitsu models (called LooX here in Japan), but the keyboard feels *really* cheap on both of them. In the end, I went with a Thinkpad (with a great keyboard).
No, the copyright of the original author has been violated. That is not, and has never been, "stealing". Stealing is not the same as depriving someone of potential income.
Disclaimer: IANAL. I have also never used Napster, so don't accuse me of being a thieving college student.
Not necessarily. Look at it this way - if companies weren't able to abuse the patent system, I think they'd put even more money into R&D, because they would have no artificial means of suppressing competitors.
For example, there's a brand of vacuum cleaner available in the UK that has a TV commercial trumpeting the fact that their latest model has 136 patents on various parts of it, so "If you want a Dyson, it's going to have to be a Dyson." This is unbelievable - they're actually proud of the fact that consumers can't obtain a similar cleaner from any other source, because they've got it locked up so tight with patents that no other company could reasonably produce a similar model.
Once upon a time, patents were given on entire devices, not little bits of such devices. If Dyson had only one patent, their IP would be protected, while other companies could make improvements on that design. But no, Dyson have 136 patents, so any improvement is likely to be obstructed by at least one of them. And then they have the gall to say that you can't get one from anywhere else, because they've got it stitched up tight.
Now, consider the case of software patents - in many cases, the patent is on an algorithm that can't be implemented any other way, because it's based on fundamental mathematical calculations that can't be done any other way (such as multiplication and division). What does that do for R&D at other companies? Kills it dead, that's what.
That actually happened at the place where I used to work. A Netware box had been running continuously for about three years, but the power supply died one day, and when we tried starting it up again the data drive refused to spin up. The recommendation we got from tech support was to drop the drive from about a foot up and then try and get the data off. Didn't work, of course. I'm sure that support people just make up that sort of thing on the spot...
What in God's name were you doing with your Linux boxes? I ran a machine at my last employer that got an uptime of ~350 days every year for four years. (The reason that it's always 350 days is because they cut the power over the New Year period.) Its job was acting as an internal telnet server providing ssh connectivity to the external network, and serving files to Macintosh/Windows clients. It never crashed, even though it was an SMP box running a 2.0.3x kernel. Admittedly, the NetWare servers were also very stable, but they had the slight problem of being 250-license versions (unlimited license is $$$), meaning that not everyone in the company could actually log in at the same time. Not a problem with free software...
Re:We should port this to it: CVoiceControl ...
on
Agenda VR3 Review
·
· Score: 1
Just wait until some joker yells "rm -rf/" when you've got your PDA open...
Sorry, but this looks like nothing more than a bit of self-promotion by the so-called "security" firm Sanctum. C'mon, if forty percent of all Internet retailers were vulnerable to this, wouldn't someone have noticed it before? Interesting how the article also includes a description of Sanctum's products that - surprise, surprise! - can apparently prevent this sort of abuse. I know how to prevent it - block PUT method access in your httpd.conf file. BIG DEAL.
(And I'm not going to even start on the way the Sanctum guy basically calls the people who got the cheap fares from United thieves.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother with the framebuffer? Do what I do - run two X servers. I have a 1600x1200x24bit server for my desktop, and an 800x600x16bit server for games. And you can flip between them with Ctrl-Alt-F7/F8, so you don't lose that functionality either.
Sometimes they'd have another CPU in the window which was running "Dancing Demon," a stick figure that would jerk around in rhythm with some beeps and bops. (At least, I think it had sound, can't remember, the old brain is getting rusty.)
Yes, it did have sound, although I remember it being the Dancing Robot, not the Dancing Demon.
Sun no longer sells 2.6 (at least here in Japan). We tried to order two new servers, and they told us we could have 7 or 8, and that's it.
Hey, PD. Sure looks like a case of plagiarism to me...
Jeez, give him a break, it's only a single point, f'God's sake. I believe the phrase "Get a life" applies...
The article mentions Kondara MNU/Linux, but contains two errors:
1) It says that is a GNU project.
Kondara has never been, and never will be, a GNU project. It is created by a group of volunteers and packaged by a commercial enterprise, Digital Factory. (Some people consider DF to be a bunch of VC losers, but that depends on who you ask.)
2) It says that Kondara appears dead.
A new version is currently at beta2, scheduled for release in the next month or two.
With errors like these, one has to wonder just how well the writer did his research.
No shit, Sherlock. What I'm saying is, where has anybody said in this whole affair that AOL is paying Transmeta to allow people to download the source? NOWHERE!!
Sheesh.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
What part of that do you not understand? It does not say "you may leave it to somebody else who may or may not decide to let people have the source"; it says, "If you distribute binaries, you must guarantee that you will supply such people with source if they request it". What is so hard about this?!
Shit, people, just READ the friggin' license, OK? To summarize: "If you distribute binaries, you must make available the source to those binaries to the people to which you gave the binaries."
So, since AOL has included binaries of GPL'd software, they have to give the buyer either a CD or whatever containing the source, or somewhere to download the software (which CANNOT just be a pointer to "someone else's web site"; they have an obligation to guarantee access for three years, which they can't do for a site run by anyone but themselves).
It has NOTHING to do with whether they modified the source or not, OK???
And exactly where does it say that? "Transmeta has all AOL's fixes in its CVS tree" != "AOL has a contract with Transmeta to distribute source".
Not trying to be pedantic or anything, but under the terms of the GPL, the binary distributor is responsible for providing access to the source code; a link to another company's web site where the code can be obtained is not sufficient. I believe this opinion has been expressed several times by RMS, so it's not just my interpretation.
While I realize you're trying to avoid trouble for AOL, since they do seem to have been cooperating with Transmeta, it still doesn't mean that they can ignore their obligations under the GPL.
Linux on the desktop may be dead, but you couldn't get its corpse away from me with a crowbar.
Unfortunately, this Casio (as well as many recent laptops) uses ACPI, for which the support is still a bit lacking.
I've seen the Fujitsu models (called LooX here in Japan), but the keyboard feels *really* cheap on both of them. In the end, I went with a Thinkpad (with a great keyboard).
From the Casio page:
"SOFTWARE SWITCH
A; Windows Millennium, B; Tool"
...which would seem to indicate that Linux is called "Tool" now.
Pity they don't actually acknowledge the people who developed it... and do they provide source code, I wonder?
No, the copyright of the original author has been violated. That is not, and has never been, "stealing". Stealing is not the same as depriving someone of potential income.
Disclaimer: IANAL. I have also never used Napster, so don't accuse me of being a thieving college student.
Not necessarily. Look at it this way - if companies weren't able to abuse the patent system, I think they'd put even more money into R&D, because they would have no artificial means of suppressing competitors.
For example, there's a brand of vacuum cleaner available in the UK that has a TV commercial trumpeting the fact that their latest model has 136 patents on various parts of it, so "If you want a Dyson, it's going to have to be a Dyson." This is unbelievable - they're actually proud of the fact that consumers can't obtain a similar cleaner from any other source, because they've got it locked up so tight with patents that no other company could reasonably produce a similar model.
Once upon a time, patents were given on entire devices, not little bits of such devices. If Dyson had only one patent, their IP would be protected, while other companies could make improvements on that design. But no, Dyson have 136 patents, so any improvement is likely to be obstructed by at least one of them. And then they have the gall to say that you can't get one from anywhere else, because they've got it stitched up tight.
Now, consider the case of software patents - in many cases, the patent is on an algorithm that can't be implemented any other way, because it's based on fundamental mathematical calculations that can't be done any other way (such as multiplication and division). What does that do for R&D at other companies? Kills it dead, that's what.
Packet size isn't that limited - just make sure to use microfilm.
MS dropped support for Alpha in Win2K. There will be no more official releases for the platform.
Did you notice that Soldier of Fortune is in the "Home Office" category? One has to wonder what sort of people they're employing...
That actually happened at the place where I used to work. A Netware box had been running continuously for about three years, but the power supply died one day, and when we tried starting it up again the data drive refused to spin up. The recommendation we got from tech support was to drop the drive from about a foot up and then try and get the data off. Didn't work, of course. I'm sure that support people just make up that sort of thing on the spot...
What in God's name were you doing with your Linux boxes? I ran a machine at my last employer that got an uptime of ~350 days every year for four years. (The reason that it's always 350 days is because they cut the power over the New Year period.) Its job was acting as an internal telnet server providing ssh connectivity to the external network, and serving files to Macintosh/Windows clients. It never crashed, even though it was an SMP box running a 2.0.3x kernel. Admittedly, the NetWare servers were also very stable, but they had the slight problem of being 250-license versions (unlimited license is $$$), meaning that not everyone in the company could actually log in at the same time. Not a problem with free software...
Just wait until some joker yells "rm -rf /" when you've got your PDA open...
Oh, bullshit. If you're going to make comments regarding legal points, at least try and get your facts straight.
Copyrights and patents do not need to be defended. What you're talking about are trademarks, which have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Sorry, but this looks like nothing more than a bit of self-promotion by the so-called "security" firm Sanctum. C'mon, if forty percent of all Internet retailers were vulnerable to this, wouldn't someone have noticed it before? Interesting how the article also includes a description of Sanctum's products that - surprise, surprise! - can apparently prevent this sort of abuse. I know how to prevent it - block PUT method access in your httpd.conf file. BIG DEAL.
(And I'm not going to even start on the way the Sanctum guy basically calls the people who got the cheap fares from United thieves.)