It must be me, but I am just reading SuperCluster will be based on Alpha/Linux. Nothing about Beowulf. Beowulf isn't even mentioned in the brochure.
Yes, I do believe the system will be capable of running Beowulf, but the article and the borchure are only talking about hardware and some possibilities of the software. Nothing Beowulf specific; the hardware may even be running a Linux kernel with numa patch for what we know.
Beowulf isn't the only cluster technology out there...
Where exactly do you read Cray will build Beowulf clusters?
For what I'm understanding of the article, Cray will be selling a platform capable of running Beowulf. Quote: (Don Becker) ``Scyld believes the SuperCluster is a pioneering initiative that will produce a strong, differentiated platform capable of fully exploiting the best available commercial technologies, such as Scyld's Beowulf operating system. [...]" In other words: SuperCluster sounds like hardware to me.
The article is very sparse on details, though.
However, I am very exited about the fact another Big Name [tm] joins the Linux revolution;-)
Essentially, the writer of the story is saying "I'm not understanding Open Source, because I haven't learnt about it in business school".
The truth is: as soon as Linus would try to kill of Linux, he will be put aside and someone else would take the lead in Linux development. While offcourse that would be a shocking event in Linux-land, it would still ensure the continuing excistence of Linux in the future.
Of course, I'll just get modded down for saying this, but operating systems are just not a viable product, especially open-source operating systems with no killer app. One of the reasons I think the DOJ's arguments about Microsoft are stupid is that if you split MS into two companies (OS and applications), the OS company will die.
Offcourse there's money in selling Operating Systems. Everyone needs an OS. Maybe Microsoft/OS will die, but that will happen because they're not used to compete with other companies. They've forgotten how to create quality software because they don't need to.
Yeah, but the original release should have been a year ago. Since then, every few months, the release has been delayed.
Having said that, I'm currently running test9 and it's stable to me, including the VM. This is the first time in the development process I actually believe the date mentioned by Linus.
Usually, I only post in the Dutch nl.* Usenet hierarchy. nl.* is binary-free and spam is actively canceled. I won't EVER post anything in alt.*, since I simply KNOW I'll be bombed with spam. Both by email and directly from usenet.
In nl.*, I don't notice any decline in the number of users. Newbies pop up all the time, and some of them will stick around.
So, Usenet's not dead, the focus is just changing from the traditional hierarchies to local hierarchies with more control and active spam cancellation.
Still funny though that most newbies think everybody uses MS Outlook Excess to read their news, they won't even tell you they're using it when they're asking something about their software:-(
No, it's not. The 'light'speed in copper for example is about 200.000 KM/s. Which is darn slow when you're trying to maximise cable length on a 100 Mbps network...
This law would mean that everything that would normally require you to send a paper copy with a signature to someone, can now be done by sending an email.
This includes subscriptions to magazines, filling out insurance forms, etc. So, effectively, you won't have to use the postoffice all that much anymore.
This isn't likely to change e-commerce anytime soon, since this law is an American one. So, any e-commerce business that wants to sell anything outside the USA would have to use the 'old' system, eg. giving the credit card number and expiration date is sufficient.
Being Dutch, I hope our governement passes a law on this soon. However, our prime minister doesn't even know how to handle a mouse, so I won't hold my breath;-)
anyone else think this gartner group report was a bit light? ie, it seemed more like a summary than a report.
I felt the same. None of their facts are backed by any proof (we know it's true, but somebody else may want some proof). They just present them "as is".
There is nothing special to the private ranges, except they're not on the internet.
Your PC just looks in its routing table to figure out where it should send packets to 192.168.*, and is sees it should send them to the default route, eg. the internet.
Your ISP's router is likely to be configured to drop packets to private ranges, so the trace will stop there.
One way or another, your packets aren't going to make it to any machine on the net, they are going to be dropped somewhere.
If you want to drop them locally on your machine, you should configure a firewall. In Linux 2.2, it should become something like:
ipchains -A input -S 192.168.0.0/24 -J drop
And similar lines for the other private ranges. When you're running a private net, you ofcourse shouldn't block the addresses when originating from your own net;-)
ipchains -A input -I ! eth0 -S 192.168.0.0/24 -J drop
IMHO, we should first have a permanent base on the moon, before we can even start thinking of going to Mars. The moon is relatively close, so if anything goes wrong, the astronauts are back in a few days.
We could also use the experience gained on the moon for creating a 'better' base on Mars.
The moon can also be used as an inexpensive launch base for missions to Mars, due to its lower gravity.
And, last but not least: imagine what would happen when a super-hubble is placed on the moon!
Why would they want to hack the kernel? Even if they're using a proprietary interface board, they could simply use a closed source module. Linus allows it. I don't see any other reason why they would want to use some kernel hacking, a lot of telephony devices just run stock Solaris or SCO. It isn't that special, you know.
So, basically, when I submit a patch to a dual-licenced application, and I don't want my patch incorporated in the closed-source fork, I should claim copyright on my patch, and release it under the GPL?
Such as:
/* foo.c - (c) 2000 Original Author released under the GPL Changes (c) 2000 Joe Patcher Changes released under the GPL */
I actually did read the article. It says W2K is banned from the governement. Neither my comment nor the article mention the Chinese people (but lots of other comments do).
Anyway, it doesn't matter, it's still a bad thing. Everybody (including Chinese governement IT managers) should have freedom of choice. And if a manager comes to the conclusion W2K is the right choice for him, he must be able to buy it.
In the Open Source community, we always talk about freedom of choice, but it seems we drop all our principles when Linux is forced upon somebody.
Guys, this is bad. IMHO, we should make a statement to the public, saying we simply want W2K to enter this Chinese market - freedom of choice is simply the cornerstone of the Open Source community. We cannot take pride on an act of cencorship. period.
These trees only work if you know all nodes. Usually, you just don't know them all, either because the process is too complex, or because new nodes can emerge in the future (for instance, if the PGP example were made before we knew about BO, it would have been different, even though PGP wasn't more or less secure). And that's the problem. Someone else may know a path you don't know, because he knows about a node you don't know.
So, this model can only be used as a indication of the security of your system. Your system is likely to be less secure than the model says, eg. the "unknown" node is likely to be cheap.
Having said that, it's IMHO still a very good way to look at your security.
Difficult to say. You can download an ISO of the distribution. Is this ISO a derivative work of the applications contained in the ISO?
I think section 0 of the GPL applies:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications [....]
An ISO contains programs. Those programs include the GPL. An ISO is a work. Therefore, the ISO is a work containing the GPL. Therefore, the ISO has to comply to the GPL.
2: Abandon projects that are loosing money. In this case Cray, and Visual Workstation.
And what about Irix? See this quote:
SGI, while planning eventually to move to Intel chips and the Linux operating system, is keeping its MIPS chip line and Irix version of Unix around through at least 2006.
They seem to transform into a totally different company - selling Linux systems running on Intel hardware.
It's about time AM left the air. This problem is with ADSL, not with AM. If the article stated: "most drunk drivers get killed when hitting a tree", you'd say "okay, let's axe down all trees".
Slashdot Mirror
It must be me, but I am just reading SuperCluster will be based on Alpha/Linux. Nothing about Beowulf. Beowulf isn't even mentioned in the brochure.
Yes, I do believe the system will be capable of running Beowulf, but the article and the borchure are only talking about hardware and some possibilities of the software. Nothing Beowulf specific; the hardware may even be running a Linux kernel with numa patch for what we know.
Beowulf isn't the only cluster technology out there...
Where exactly do you read Cray will build Beowulf clusters?
For what I'm understanding of the article, Cray will be selling a platform capable of running Beowulf. Quote: (Don Becker) ``Scyld believes the SuperCluster is a pioneering initiative that will produce a strong, differentiated platform capable of fully exploiting the best available commercial technologies, such as Scyld's Beowulf operating system. [...]" In other words: SuperCluster sounds like hardware to me.
The article is very sparse on details, though.
However, I am very exited about the fact another Big Name [tm] joins the Linux revolution ;-)
Essentially, the writer of the story is saying "I'm not understanding Open Source, because I haven't learnt about it in business school".
The truth is: as soon as Linus would try to kill of Linux, he will be put aside and someone else would take the lead in Linux development. While offcourse that would be a shocking event in Linux-land, it would still ensure the continuing excistence of Linux in the future.
And did I mention 'fork' yet?
When I read the page, aparently the /. effect kicked in and the site displayed some nice pictures of fast cars ;-)
No, it wasn't a hack, since reloading the page gave me back the IA64 review.
Yes, but you can't copy their workers for free ;-)
Of course, I'll just get modded down for saying this, but operating systems are just not a viable product, especially open-source operating systems with no killer app. One of the reasons I think the DOJ's arguments about Microsoft are stupid is that if you split MS into two companies (OS and applications), the OS company will die.
Offcourse there's money in selling Operating Systems. Everyone needs an OS. Maybe Microsoft/OS will die, but that will happen because they're not used to compete with other companies. They've forgotten how to create quality software because they don't need to.
My god! Go to google and search! It really isn't that hard...
I bet she can hack kernels before she can walk!
Congrats, Linus!
Yeah, but the original release should have been a year ago. Since then, every few months, the release has been delayed.
Having said that, I'm currently running test9 and it's stable to me, including the VM. This is the first time in the development process I actually believe the date mentioned by Linus.
Usually, I only post in the Dutch nl.* Usenet hierarchy. nl.* is binary-free and spam is actively canceled.
:-(
I won't EVER post anything in alt.*, since I simply KNOW I'll be bombed with spam. Both by email and directly from usenet.
In nl.*, I don't notice any decline in the number of users. Newbies pop up all the time, and some of them will stick around.
So, Usenet's not dead, the focus is just changing from the traditional hierarchies to local hierarchies with more control and active spam cancellation.
Still funny though that most newbies think everybody uses MS Outlook Excess to read their news, they won't even tell you they're using it when they're asking something about their software
No, it's not. The 'light'speed in copper for example is about 200.000 KM/s. Which is darn slow when you're trying to maximise cable length on a 100 Mbps network...
This law would mean that everything that would normally require you to send a paper copy with a signature to someone, can now be done by sending an email.
This includes subscriptions to magazines, filling out insurance forms, etc. So, effectively, you won't have to use the postoffice all that much anymore.
This isn't likely to change e-commerce anytime soon, since this law is an American one. So, any e-commerce business that wants to sell anything outside the USA would have to use the 'old' system, eg. giving the credit card number and expiration date is sufficient.
Being Dutch, I hope our governement passes a law on this soon. However, our prime minister doesn't even know how to handle a mouse, so I won't hold my breath ;-)
anyone else think this gartner group report was a bit light? ie, it seemed more like a summary than a report.
I felt the same. None of their facts are backed by any proof (we know it's true, but somebody else may want some proof). They just present them "as is".
There is nothing special to the private ranges, except they're not on the internet.
Your PC just looks in its routing table to figure out where it should send packets to 192.168.*, and is sees it should send them to the default route, eg. the internet.
Your ISP's router is likely to be configured to drop packets to private ranges, so the trace will stop there.
One way or another, your packets aren't going to make it to any machine on the net, they are going to be dropped somewhere.
If you want to drop them locally on your machine, you should configure a firewall. In Linux 2.2, it should become something like:
ipchains -A input -S 192.168.0.0/24 -J drop
And similar lines for the other private ranges. When you're running a private net, you ofcourse shouldn't block the addresses when originating from your own net ;-)
ipchains -A input -I ! eth0 -S 192.168.0.0/24 -J drop
Or something like that. RTFM.
IMHO, we should first have a permanent base on the moon, before we can even start thinking of going to Mars. The moon is relatively close, so if anything goes wrong, the astronauts are back in a few days.
We could also use the experience gained on the moon for creating a 'better' base on Mars.
The moon can also be used as an inexpensive launch base for missions to Mars, due to its lower gravity.
And, last but not least: imagine what would happen when a super-hubble is placed on the moon!
Why would they want to hack the kernel? Even if they're using a proprietary interface board, they could simply use a closed source module. Linus allows it. I don't see any other reason why they would want to use some kernel hacking, a lot of telephony devices just run stock Solaris or SCO. It isn't that special, you know.
So, basically, when I submit a patch to a dual-licenced application, and I don't want my patch incorporated in the closed-source fork, I should claim copyright on my patch, and release it under the GPL?
Such as:
released under the GPL
Changes (c) 2000 Joe Patcher
Changes released under the GPL
*/
I actually did read the article. It says W2K is banned from the governement. Neither my comment nor the article mention the Chinese people (but lots of other comments do).
Anyway, it doesn't matter, it's still a bad thing. Everybody (including Chinese governement IT managers) should have freedom of choice. And if a manager comes to the conclusion W2K is the right choice for him, he must be able to buy it.
In the Open Source community, we always talk about freedom of choice, but it seems we drop all our principles when Linux is forced upon somebody.
Guys, this is bad. IMHO, we should make a statement to the public, saying we simply want W2K to enter this Chinese market - freedom of choice is simply the cornerstone of the Open Source community. We cannot take pride on an act of cencorship. period.
And these are only the matches for 0-9 and A-F, but still it lists 264 domains.
Using VERY simple extrapolation (27/7 * 264), 1018 linux domains should exist....
--
Erik Hensema (erik@hensema.xs4all.nl)
n-th comment! Yeah!
These trees only work if you know all nodes. Usually, you just don't know them all, either because the process is too complex, or because new nodes can emerge in the future (for instance, if the PGP example were made before we knew about BO, it would have been different, even though PGP wasn't more or less secure). And that's the problem. Someone else may know a path you don't know, because he knows about a node you don't know.
So, this model can only be used as a indication of the security of your system. Your system is likely to be less secure than the model says, eg. the "unknown" node is likely to be cheap.
Having said that, it's IMHO still a very good way to look at your security.
It somehow seems to come in fasion to claim patents on common technology everybody's using...
I think I'm going to patent going to the toilet.
Difficult to say. You can download an ISO of the distribution. Is this ISO a derivative work of the applications contained in the ISO?
I think section 0 of the GPL applies:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications [....]
An ISO contains programs.
Those programs include the GPL.
An ISO is a work.
Therefore, the ISO is a work containing the GPL.
Therefore, the ISO has to comply to the GPL.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation.
2: Abandon projects that are loosing money. In this case Cray, and Visual Workstation.
And what about Irix? See this quote:
SGI, while planning eventually to move to Intel chips and the Linux operating system, is keeping its MIPS chip line and Irix version of Unix around through at least 2006.
They seem to transform into a totally different company - selling Linux systems running on Intel hardware.
It's about time AM left the air.
This problem is with ADSL, not with AM. If the article stated: "most drunk drivers get killed when hitting a tree", you'd say "okay, let's axe down all trees".