It's probably a server with an internal 20GB drive connected to the 1TB raid. If you're suggesting the 20GB is a partition off the raid, well then you have no clue how these things work.
Wow, that's a neat technique. He said nothing even remotely like your first sentence, but you claimed that's what he said so you could easily "destroy" his argument. Let me try:
If you're saying that Queen Elizabeth and her band of merry men is responsible for the block size on his RAID array then you have no clue how these things work.
Why don't we hear IBM, SuSE, Red Hat et all. Screaming at SCO or at least putting out their own press releases.
IBM, SuSE and RedHat have already put out press releases. IBM's ended with "allegations not facts". RedHat said "SCO never approached us". SuSE said "there's no infringing code in Linux".
The only reason that OpenOffice and Mozilla exist as open source is that big companies bought the source, and released it but continued to pay developers to make it better in an effort to kill Microsoft's power bases. I don't think those sorts of efforts could be duplicated by a team of coders who never get paid.
Konqueror. In many ways, as good as Mozilla, and open source from the start.
Microsoft is "evil" because they abused their power as a monopoly to hinder competition. To be specific, they threatened OEMs with a revocation of Windows licensing unless those OEMs licensed Internet Explorer instead of Netscape Navigator.
You can argue that Navigator was going to go blammo anyway (and I wouldn't disagree) but that doesn't excuse Microsoft from what they did. They hastened the death of Netscape by abusing their monopoly power. That's illegal. It's also immoral. I probably wouldn't go as far as "evil" but that is your word.
Think of it this way. Being big and strong is not wrong, in itself. Being big and strong and bashing small weak people whenever you feel like it, that is very wrong.
Which seems to me, that you are saying that you can't create new frequencies without modulation. Wait a second...that is what you said.:)
Correct, that is what I said.
In RF, a mixer is a nonlinear device that will mix two signals together, creating the sum and difference of the signals. This is what you are calling modulation
That is nothing like what I said. That's you attempting to attribute me with an incorrect definition of your own creation.
I never said that the sound would be comming out of a CD player...or any other thing...only that it does, in fact, make a tone that you could hear.
So the 30kHz tone doesn't come out of the CD player, but you can hear it... riiight. Can you also see things that aren't there?
And, nothing I said contained even a scrap of psuedoscience.
How about...
You are getting a new wave with a different frequency by mixing the two waves together at the surface. This wave would then radiate off the surface, becomming a seperate entity.
Lots of words. No actual meaning. You might as well have said the Internet needs more MHz, for all the sense it made.
And, I know I need a dictionary for spelling...but maybe you should invest one to learn defenitions. (ohh...low blow..sorry).
Definitions. Also a "low blow" would require you to land a punch. You are still swinging at air.
If you look at the rest of that sentence, "at the surfaces that they reflect off of", this would be where the modulation and interference is *physically* happening
Interference does not physically occur at the "surfaces that they reflect off of". The rest of your post is similarly confused and equally not worth a response; not because you aren't worth a response (you are) but because there is nothing substantial to which I can respond.
As I've said before, you're hopelessly confused by this topic. You keep using the wrong terms. You are spouting nonsense laced with technical words; the very definition of pseudo-scientific babble. I am also disgusted by statements like this:
In RF, a mixer is a nonlinear device that will mix two signals together, creating the sum and difference of the signals. This is what you are calling modulation
I said nothing of the sort. I don't appreciate your attempts to insert your pseudo-scientific babble into my mouth.
This article makes me realise all those crazy guys with their crazy 30KHz tweaters might be right...they do make a difference even though you can't hear the original tones.
As I've already said, there are no 30kHz signals out of your CD player, so it hardly matters if your tweeters can reproduce 30kHz tones or not.
They obviously believe that they can defeat the GPL in court.
It's looking very much like this was SCO's plan from the beginning. SCO wants the GPL declared an invalid license by a court judge. For what purpose? Who can tell.
To me, that seems contradictory...maybe it's just me.
Yes, it's just you.
I don't think your comment about schooling was called for...beings that you could have just as easily *explained*
I did explain. You didn't understand. He said:
waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components)
Construction and deconstruction is called interference. It changes the intensity of a wave. Intensity is related to volume. Interference cannot create new frequency components. I said:
Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.
This is where your confusion lies. Let's say I take two frequency components; 500Hz and 450Hz. I mix the two. How many frequencies do I have? I have two. I have 450Hz and 500Hz. You apparently think we have a new frequency 950Hz. That's incorrect.
To me, it also seems that you say you *can* create a new wave,
Correct, a new wave consisting of two frequency components, 450Hz and 500Hz.
with a different and new (didn't exist alone before) frequency component, that is the sum of the existing frequency components.
That's the incorrect part. Sums don't make intuitive sense with signals. When you sum two frequencies you have a new wave, but no new frequencies.
And, looking at your other sentence, "A resonating surface can modulate a wave to create new frequency components.", you seem to support this...along with the "second interprotation".
And that's more confusion on your part. He said mixing, interfere, construct, and destruct. Those terms all have precise meanings that have nothing to do with modulation.
To create a new frequency, you need modulation. For example, amplitude modulation of Fc with Fm will create Fc-Fm, Fc and Fc+Fm frequency components. The two new frequencies are called sidebands, if you're interested.
Somebody else raised the interesting (though completely irelevant to this thread) concept of beat frequencies. Basically any two waves will interfere (constructive and deconstructive interference) to produce a changing level of intensity. His mistake, like yours, was in thinking that's a new frequency that you'd see with a spectrum analyzer. You won't. It's not there.
instead of just accusing that people are wrong, which, to me, is fine...as long as you give some reason.
I did give reasons. I've written more words on this thread than on the 5-6 other/. threads I've contributed to. I've given background info up the wazoo, referred people to books, explained the correct terminology, pointed out the mistakes in the techno-babble, and I'm rewarded with insults and accusations of error. That's why I love/. so much:-)
Any two waves [audio, RF, allasame] produce a resultant equal to the differance in frequencys. A HETERODYNE or 'beat note'. Many times those generated by music are 'subsonic' but anyone who has ever felt a pipe-organ with the stops out knows that they are real.
And you should know that a beat note is *NOT* a new frequency component. It is an interference which means a change in intensity. The change in intensity has a frequency equal to the difference between the two interfering frequency components.
There are a number of exotic tweeters that are quite capable of producing flat response well beyond 50,000 hz. Who the hell buys them I won't speculate, but they are available.
And what this has to do with *home* hi-fi is anybody's guess. I suppose you could explain that for us? Sheesh.
Looking at the first sentence...your saying you can't create a new wave with a different frequency. Looking at the second sentence, you are saying that you can create a new wave with a different frequency. Get it?
I don't think you get it. I didn't say anything even remotely like your second interpretation. I think you're simply confused by the terminology. I recommend reading Elements of Computer Music by F. Richard Moore for a solid introduction to the material. Or you could just study signal theory at university, like I did.
Not only are they paying for the general conversion, but they're also paying up to $300/ea for VMWare, PLUS whatever they had to pay Microsoft in the first place, because they still need to have their Windows and MS Apps' licenses in a row.
It's very likely that they already have their Windows licensing "in a row". Remember, they're currently running a mixed environment of Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000. I don't think Microsoft is allowed to dictate which computer (or VMware session) the license is for. At least, not in Germany:-)
Also it's likely that they got VMware a bit cheaper than $300/copy. Buying in bulk you can often halve the sticker price (or better). If they paid more than $150/copy for VMware I'd be very surprised.
Finally, the Windows licenses are one thing, but the Office licenses are another, and the client-access licenses are another. Windows is pretty cheap compared to Office and CALs. By switching to OpenOffice and no CALs they'll be saving millions.
So I believe Munich is using these VMware installs to allow their workers to be able to go back to a familiar enviroment while they learn the new one and how it functions
I think it's more likely they're using VMware to provide access to legacy apps that can't be easily replaced or ported. The desktop will most certainly be KDE/GNOME with OpenOffice. It's unlikely that VMware will launch into fullscreen mode and hog the desktop immediately after logging in.
Furthermore, maybe only 50% of their users will need to run Windows/VMWare at any one time, so they may only need to buy half as many Windows licences as they have machines.
I daresay they won't need to buy any Windows licenses. Their existing Windows 98 licenses will work just fine. The usual reasons for buying new versions of Windows is for new hardware, support, patches, or integration with Active Directory. As Munich will be using Linux as the host operating system they can run older versions of Windows (in VM sessions) forever.
The GPL isn't an EULA. An End-User License Agreement only affects the End-User. You can use GPL software as an End-User without ever agreeing to the GPL. The GPL only affects somebody who copies the software or distributes modified versions of the software. Even then, the license is optional, you can always revert to standard copyright law.
While it's true that linux depends on GNU, it's also true that GNU depends on Linux.
No, that is completely false. The GNU userspace has also been ported to the NetBSD kernel and the HURD kernel. Both boot. Both are useable. The HURD perhaps the least useful of the three, but it's a mistake to say that GNU depends on Linux.
Nor does Linux depend on GNU. There are a few (niche) distributions based around the Linux kernel that don't use GNU userspace. You'll have to look at embedded systems to find them, but they exist.
It also has to be frustrating when your baby, TURD (oops, HURD), is a wallflower to the darling Linux.
Well I think that single sentence summarises your intelligent understanding of this issue.
Because subversion wasn't anywhere near ready, CVS is broken by design, and the email/patch system that Linus previously used was wasting his time and harming the rapid development of Linux. A commercial SCM would have done the job but who can afford the exorbitant license fees of something like Clearcase? Larry offered a free license to use BK so Linus gratefully accepted it. It really was a no-brainer.
No matter what anybody says, Larry isn't the bad guy. His software isn't cheap yet he offered the gift of a free multi-user license to Linux developers. That's a pretty generous donation in itself, but Larry also wrote extensions that Linus requested, built a CVS gateway, and has been very responsive to the needs of Linux developers. Ok, so Larry has all the tact of an axe murderer but that's part of his charm. His blunt and abrasive nature doesn't detract from the quality of BK.
Just keep in mind that nobody is wrong here. There are no bad guys. There are just people who have different priorities. For Linus, Linux is #1 priority. For RMS, free software is #1 priority. For Larry, BK is #1 priority. Cue the thunder and lightning.
McVoy has really shot himself in the foot this time. Does he really think he's going to get much sympathy from people when he writes things like:
He actually got a lot of sympathy on the LKML. One of the problems is that people hate RMS so much that they will rally around whomever RMS is debating, no matter the merits of the argument.
I find it funny that RMS often predicts doom and gloom, people call him an idiot, and a few years later something happens (like this) and he's proven right. RMS said BK was a Faustian bargain. Bingo. Right again, RMS.
Yeah, great, you might live in the USA where the roads are paved with gold and dollar bills rain from the sky, but the rest of the world can't afford to spend $1000s of dollars per week on a hobby.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's a neat technique. He said nothing even remotely like your first sentence, but you claimed that's what he said so you could easily "destroy" his argument. Let me try:
If you're saying that Queen Elizabeth and her band of merry men is responsible for the block size on his RAID array then you have no clue how these things work.
How's that? Please teach me, O Master.
5% crash twice per day? No way! Windows fanboys have been telling me for years that Windows is rock solid and never crashes. Bill Gates must be lying.
IBM, SuSE and RedHat have already put out press releases. IBM's ended with "allegations not facts". RedHat said "SCO never approached us". SuSE said "there's no infringing code in Linux".
Well, that one's easy. Most Americans don't read anything except the TV guide.
Konqueror. In many ways, as good as Mozilla, and open source from the start.
Monopolies aren't evil.
Microsoft is "evil" because they abused their power as a monopoly to hinder competition. To be specific, they threatened OEMs with a revocation of Windows licensing unless those OEMs licensed Internet Explorer instead of Netscape Navigator.
You can argue that Navigator was going to go blammo anyway (and I wouldn't disagree) but that doesn't excuse Microsoft from what they did. They hastened the death of Netscape by abusing their monopoly power. That's illegal. It's also immoral. I probably wouldn't go as far as "evil" but that is your word.
Think of it this way. Being big and strong is not wrong, in itself. Being big and strong and bashing small weak people whenever you feel like it, that is very wrong.
Nah, in Soviet Russia there's even Mo' Sco than on Slashdot.
Correct, that is what I said.
That is nothing like what I said. That's you attempting to attribute me with an incorrect definition of your own creation.
So the 30kHz tone doesn't come out of the CD player, but you can hear it... riiight. Can you also see things that aren't there?
How about...
Lots of words. No actual meaning. You might as well have said the Internet needs more MHz, for all the sense it made.
Definitions. Also a "low blow" would require you to land a punch. You are still swinging at air.
Interference does not physically occur at the "surfaces that they reflect off of". The rest of your post is similarly confused and equally not worth a response; not because you aren't worth a response (you are) but because there is nothing substantial to which I can respond.
As I've said before, you're hopelessly confused by this topic. You keep using the wrong terms. You are spouting nonsense laced with technical words; the very definition of pseudo-scientific babble. I am also disgusted by statements like this:
I said nothing of the sort. I don't appreciate your attempts to insert your pseudo-scientific babble into my mouth.
As I've already said, there are no 30kHz signals out of your CD player, so it hardly matters if your tweeters can reproduce 30kHz tones or not.
I also advise you invest in a dictionary.
It's looking very much like this was SCO's plan from the beginning. SCO wants the GPL declared an invalid license by a court judge. For what purpose? Who can tell.
Yes, it's just you.
I did explain. You didn't understand. He said:
Construction and deconstruction is called interference. It changes the intensity of a wave. Intensity is related to volume. Interference cannot create new frequency components. I said:
This is where your confusion lies. Let's say I take two frequency components; 500Hz and 450Hz. I mix the two. How many frequencies do I have? I have two. I have 450Hz and 500Hz. You apparently think we have a new frequency 950Hz. That's incorrect.
Correct, a new wave consisting of two frequency components, 450Hz and 500Hz.
That's the incorrect part. Sums don't make intuitive sense with signals. When you sum two frequencies you have a new wave, but no new frequencies.
And that's more confusion on your part. He said mixing, interfere, construct, and destruct. Those terms all have precise meanings that have nothing to do with modulation.
To create a new frequency, you need modulation. For example, amplitude modulation of Fc with Fm will create Fc-Fm, Fc and Fc+Fm frequency components. The two new frequencies are called sidebands, if you're interested.
Somebody else raised the interesting (though completely irelevant to this thread) concept of beat frequencies. Basically any two waves will interfere (constructive and deconstructive interference) to produce a changing level of intensity. His mistake, like yours, was in thinking that's a new frequency that you'd see with a spectrum analyzer. You won't. It's not there.
I did give reasons. I've written more words on this thread than on the 5-6 other /. threads I've contributed to. I've given background info up the wazoo, referred people to books, explained the correct terminology, pointed out the mistakes in the techno-babble, and I'm rewarded with insults and accusations of error. That's why I love /. so much :-)
Damn, you're geeky.
You speak tough, but...
And you should know that a beat note is *NOT* a new frequency component. It is an interference which means a change in intensity. The change in intensity has a frequency equal to the difference between the two interfering frequency components.
And what this has to do with *home* hi-fi is anybody's guess. I suppose you could explain that for us? Sheesh.
I don't think you get it. I didn't say anything even remotely like your second interpretation. I think you're simply confused by the terminology. I recommend reading Elements of Computer Music by F. Richard Moore for a solid introduction to the material. Or you could just study signal theory at university, like I did.
It's very likely that they already have their Windows licensing "in a row". Remember, they're currently running a mixed environment of Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000. I don't think Microsoft is allowed to dictate which computer (or VMware session) the license is for. At least, not in Germany :-)
Also it's likely that they got VMware a bit cheaper than $300/copy. Buying in bulk you can often halve the sticker price (or better). If they paid more than $150/copy for VMware I'd be very surprised.
Finally, the Windows licenses are one thing, but the Office licenses are another, and the client-access licenses are another. Windows is pretty cheap compared to Office and CALs. By switching to OpenOffice and no CALs they'll be saving millions.
I think it's more likely they're using VMware to provide access to legacy apps that can't be easily replaced or ported. The desktop will most certainly be KDE/GNOME with OpenOffice. It's unlikely that VMware will launch into fullscreen mode and hog the desktop immediately after logging in.
I daresay they won't need to buy any Windows licenses. Their existing Windows 98 licenses will work just fine. The usual reasons for buying new versions of Windows is for new hardware, support, patches, or integration with Active Directory. As Munich will be using Linux as the host operating system they can run older versions of Windows (in VM sessions) forever.
You'd have to ask Linus.
Hey, that's neat! I didn't know about that one.
Free software is very incestuous, isn't it :-)
The GPL isn't an EULA. An End-User License Agreement only affects the End-User. You can use GPL software as an End-User without ever agreeing to the GPL. The GPL only affects somebody who copies the software or distributes modified versions of the software. Even then, the license is optional, you can always revert to standard copyright law.
No, that is completely false. The GNU userspace has also been ported to the NetBSD kernel and the HURD kernel. Both boot. Both are useable. The HURD perhaps the least useful of the three, but it's a mistake to say that GNU depends on Linux.
Nor does Linux depend on GNU. There are a few (niche) distributions based around the Linux kernel that don't use GNU userspace. You'll have to look at embedded systems to find them, but they exist.
Well I think that single sentence summarises your intelligent understanding of this issue.
Because subversion wasn't anywhere near ready, CVS is broken by design, and the email/patch system that Linus previously used was wasting his time and harming the rapid development of Linux. A commercial SCM would have done the job but who can afford the exorbitant license fees of something like Clearcase? Larry offered a free license to use BK so Linus gratefully accepted it. It really was a no-brainer.
No matter what anybody says, Larry isn't the bad guy. His software isn't cheap yet he offered the gift of a free multi-user license to Linux developers. That's a pretty generous donation in itself, but Larry also wrote extensions that Linus requested, built a CVS gateway, and has been very responsive to the needs of Linux developers. Ok, so Larry has all the tact of an axe murderer but that's part of his charm. His blunt and abrasive nature doesn't detract from the quality of BK.
Just keep in mind that nobody is wrong here. There are no bad guys. There are just people who have different priorities. For Linus, Linux is #1 priority. For RMS, free software is #1 priority. For Larry, BK is #1 priority. Cue the thunder and lightning.
He actually got a lot of sympathy on the LKML. One of the problems is that people hate RMS so much that they will rally around whomever RMS is debating, no matter the merits of the argument.
I find it funny that RMS often predicts doom and gloom, people call him an idiot, and a few years later something happens (like this) and he's proven right. RMS said BK was a Faustian bargain. Bingo. Right again, RMS.
Yeah, great, you might live in the USA where the roads are paved with gold and dollar bills rain from the sky, but the rest of the world can't afford to spend $1000s of dollars per week on a hobby.
I can't afford to drive my real car around a race track at 200kph.