Yes, but it took awhile before they got ports, and with Windows 2000 (where things are better that ever! More innnovative! easier! more internet capable! kerberos open!) they have dropped the porting. AFAIK, Win2k only runs on the x86, and will NEVER run on the Alpha.
Microsoft apparently got upset with Compaq's efforts with 64-bit Linux and Tru64 Unix, and killed the port.
Also, they do not give anywhere near the support, patch-wise, support-wise, driver and application wise, to the ports of NT as they do the X86.
It really depends on what you are doing. Obviously if you are not hitting swap a lot, you will not see a decrease in performance. If your disk is slow, the proc being locked up doing encryption calculations is less noticable.
This is why it is better to use an OS for what it's intended. OpenBSD is not for playing games. It is not for using applications, generally, though it will apparently run linux apps with binary compatability and most others with a recompile. I can't speak for that personally, and to be honest I don't see the point. Adding applications adds instability and decreases security.
Basically, give NT to the Pointy-Haired Boss (though they will never admit they really need a Mac), Macintosh to the graphic designers (who *want* a Mac), use Linux for workstations and possibly web servers, and OpenBSD for firewalls and secure web servers.
Using BSD as your box to play Quake on is like driving a tank to work.
It could be his machine. True, the package selection system is easier than Win98 or NT in many respects, and if he is confused, well... maybe he would be happier with this manufacturer, as they make excellent machines with a very spiffy, powerful, and easy-to-use OS.
Nevertheless, I am usually not one to blame problems with a user interface on the user. That is a developer's trap. What we need to do is keep trying to make the interfaces as intuitive as possible. It is true there will always be some that will not want to think for themselves at all, but that is what defaults are for.. let the developer and the computer think for them and they should be happy... IF the defaults are sane!
Yes I agree. The "Paranoid" option, with crypto installed is fairly locked down IMHO. It also illustrates the point that restricting access and functionality to what is required fr basic operation is the first step to securing a system.
The problem with RAMBUS, is that there are problems in the technology that will prevent it from being truly viable. For one thing, there is a limit of two parts per channel. If you want more channels, you have to have more memory controllers, but I have not seen an implimentation work with even two channels. It might be possible for a dual processer system to use two channels, but then you are in the realm of low end servers and high end workstations, and they need more RAM that RAMBUS can provide currently.
SDRAM immediately started with more RAM per part than SIMMS, and a dramatic increase in performance. RAMBUS offers similar performance to PC133 based systems, at a much higher price, with less expandability and smaller memory sizes. Where there have been improvements in performance, they have been marginal at best. In fact there are PC133 implementations the beat a similarly configured RAMBUS based system, IIRC.
Intel was offered a chance at pre-IPO stake in a company that had a "cool new memory technology," which they knew was sure to make some cash before it died. Intel is not a compnay known for being stupid. Of course they took the bait, and then forced the technology down the pipe so it would succeed. They announced that new chipsets would be RAMBUS chipsets. It is not working though, and people are moving to AMD. That is why Intel is backing off. (Or they'd better if they are smart.)
So maybe it is business as usual, and in that sense not as horrific to those who are now used to taking it in the rear from technocrats, but in reality it is pretty bad, because computers are going to get more expensive again, and more out of reach of the common man. Remember that that was the idea originally, with Apple, and to a lesser extent IBM. Definitely in the case of Microsoft. The personal computer is meant to be in every household in America, and eventually, the world.
Right now only a priviliged few have access. A few more than before, yes, but still not so many as should be included in this "revolution."
Kingston, a company who builds memory boards (not the IC's, they buy them from Toshiba, Hyundai, Micron, etc.), and has never had need of a legal department, is in a lawsuit with Sun Microsystems. The disagreement there is that Sun claims to have some patents regarding PC SDRAM technologies.
So basically what it is looking like, is that producers of notoriously overpriced and underperforming memory technologies (Sun and Rambus) are tired of getting kicked in the rear by cheap SDRAM and are trying to claim that since some of the patents they filed when developing these technologies involve techniques used in regular SDRAM, they deserve royalties.
They know this is going to drive up prices, and that is the real point. They are not trying to protect real IP. As for prior art, unfortunately very few people know enough about memory to understand what is truly being claimed, and even fewer have been around long enough to know the real history.
The problem with memory is that none of the circuitry is overly complicated, despite the innovations we have seen. Most of the innovation up till now, IMHO, has been on the memory controller, not the SDRAM board.
Well, I think the problem is that since it is code, it is prone to bugs. One thing I have foudn in my cursury examination of standards in general, is that there are often grey areas, and in those grey areas differences. Often this turns out to be harmless, but sometimes it does not.
In particular there was a problem with MSNT DHCP at one point, in that it did not work properly with Macs. Both were technically following the standard, but there were enough differences in the messages Macs were sending at particular times, and the MSNT DHCP server's interpretation of those messages, that the end result was no IP for the Mac. Apple ended up changing their behaviour just so that this would not happen anymore.
HTML is a great standard, as is TCP/IP, but with different browsers/oses/etc YMMV. Ethernet can be subverted with the "wrong" frame types, etc.As for Java, I would imagine that basically you would find that your program works in one JVM but not in others, variously because of differences, grey areas, or bugs in the implementation you are using.
It does not matter what my agreements with Microsoft are. They agreed to supply code, they are not supplying it. I do not want their code, but I also do not want Microsoft to get away with breaking the GPL. If we keep allowing that, the GPL will become null through non-enforcement.
It does not matter whether they modify the code either. They must supply the code from their site or on their CD's with their money, not try and get something for nothing, which is ironically what people often try to accuse open-source advocates of doing.
Not only that, I would think MacNN has a responsibility as journalists to report such things. You don't see Microsoft suing ZD because they published stories about leaked whistler code.
Although Apple and co. act like they are hot and bothered about rumour sites, or at least their lawyers do, the sites actually do a lot for these companies. They are leaking proprietary info, but they also are generating entusiasm about a new product. It's free advertising, and they should be glad to get it since they need every bit they can get.
Also whenever feature lists and screenshots are posted, and people give feedback, well that is free market testing, and who wouldn't buy that for a dollar?
Adobe crying about lost trade secrets is just hogwash. What competition do they have? JASC doesn't make Mac software, and of course there is The Gimp, but really, what serious advertising company or print shop does not make sure to have at least several G3/G4's with the latest version of Photoshop running on them around? Give me a break.
Sorry, GPL specifically states that use is beyond its scope. The only way you can violate GPL is by redistributing without source, or creating closed-source derivations of GPL work.
Actually, the Abit KA7 (which has KX133) will work with a Thunderbird Slot A, if you make certain mods in the BIOS. I am not sure what you would want to put a T-Bird in the Irongate boards for, as the KX133 boards offer a lot more features (PC-133 and VCM, 4x AGP, ATA-100, 1.5-2GB memory, etc..)
The Slot A T-bird is supposed only to be released to OEM's, whereas regular buyers are stuck with Socket A availability only, and therefore must get KT-133 mobos. There has been implication that "Only to OEM's" means only the big guys like Compaq and Gateway (Dell? they still have not sold a non-intel box, unfortunately.) as opposed to your corner parts and slapped together units computer store, or your favorite web protal for computing goodness. If that happens, slot-A tbirds will be harder to come by, and more expensive.
Personally I am hoping that the Slot A T-bird is more available since I have a board that will use it.
Campfire singalongs do not violate copyright, neither does playing another person's song (as many bands will attest, most do play "covers" which are songs they did not write).
The reason it does not violate copyright is that the song you sing is your rendering of the song. It is not an exact copy. If you were to play a tape of Metallica and lip synch at a concert, that would be copyright infringement. Playing "Kumbaya" or even "Enter Sandman" yourself and singing with others, all singing themselves, is not infringement because that is your work.
IANAL, but IIRC, corporations are considered "persons" under the law. That is what allows them to be held liable for actions, sued, etc. IT is also why usually when corporations act maliciously, the corporation is sued, and the people who were involved in making the decision cannot be punished except by the corporation (which in some particularly nasty cases, like the Dalkon Shield debacle, has given them a raise or at worst forced them into early retirement with a large golden parachute.)
Not only that, but IP addresses from regular ISP's are reused on a regular basis. I know of a couple of instances where a company implementing similar policies ended up turning away customers because they could not reach the site, simply because an "attacker" with the same isp had portscanned them.
Of course what he has on the 'net is not something he wants everyone accessing... In that case it is a good policy though perhaps paranoid, still better safe than sorry.
The agreement says you cannot use the trademarks in a disparaging contex. What was being pointed out was that you could then not publish a review that said the game was substandard in any way.
There was something in the agreement that specifically targetted reviews and benchmarks. Also I thought the whole reason this got brought to light was that Apogee was suing some websites for publishing bad reviews.
Microsoft still has not given anyone a refund for windows, depite the clause in their eula that clearly states they will.
Also, although sun says I can install the software on as many computers as I want, the Solaris EULA says one computer only and no copies.
GPL'd software often comes with a standard eula saying you can only run on one computer, cannot copy, reverse engineer, etc. The Maximum Linux CD set is one of these BTW, contained copies of Storm Linux and Mandrake 7, but says copyright [publisher of maximum linux] and you cannot copy, distribute, reverse engineer, install on more than one computer.
Lots of free, shareware, and otherwise ubiquitous software comes like that. Heck every time you download patches from Microsoft, or Service Packs, you must sign another EULA with similar restrictions. So I can't patch more than one computer? Of course not! And what if they throw in a clause like "You must give 10% of your income or your firstborn to Microsoft." I mean what if I don't agree to the terms? This means that even though I agreed to a eula to run the OS/software I cannot get fixes for the bugs in it?
Not only did they scan people, they banned people presumably for having Linux firewalls. They eventually had to give them lifetime free access to the game because their spokesmen had defamed the banned people in public as cheaters.
Actually only 20% clicked no on a dialog box that came up in a series of others, all of which you must click yes on or you don't get to play. That's how they got me, I did not know it was a survey, I thought it was another piece of eula.
Not only that, but almost every time you play it it changes subtly. If you only have a certain amount of time to get in and get to your spawn, you probably have no time to read the new agreement you just signed.
There was one IIRC that basically allowed Verant to hack your box to make sure you were not running any cheatware or a network sniffer...
That reminds me of the guy who said "I didn't pay $5000 to have to read a f*%#ing manual!" Believe it or not, we are going to have to eventually design idiot proof computers that fix themselves. This is the only way to cut down on support costs and truly get computers in the hands of the masses.
Once again we blame the victim. It's one reason so much crime goes unreported. I really think the ISP is on shaky ground disconnecting someone because of their religious viewpoints. In act I smell a lawsuit.
If we let this kind of behaviour continue, we are going to lose all the ground we could have gained from a truly free internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it took awhile before they got ports, and with Windows 2000 (where things are better that ever! More innnovative! easier! more internet capable! kerberos open!) they have dropped the porting. AFAIK, Win2k only runs on the x86, and will NEVER run on the Alpha.
Microsoft apparently got upset with Compaq's efforts with 64-bit Linux and Tru64 Unix, and killed the port.
Also, they do not give anywhere near the support, patch-wise, support-wise, driver and application wise, to the ports of NT as they do the X86.
It really depends on what you are doing. Obviously if you are not hitting swap a lot, you will not see a decrease in performance. If your disk is slow, the proc being locked up doing encryption calculations is less noticable.
There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.
This is why it is better to use an OS for what it's intended. OpenBSD is not for playing games. It is not for using applications, generally, though it will apparently run linux apps with binary compatability and most others with a recompile. I can't speak for that personally, and to be honest I don't see the point. Adding applications adds instability and decreases security.
Basically, give NT to the Pointy-Haired Boss (though they will never admit they really need a Mac), Macintosh to the graphic designers (who *want* a Mac), use Linux for workstations and possibly web servers, and OpenBSD for firewalls and secure web servers.
Using BSD as your box to play Quake on is like driving a tank to work.
It could be his machine. True, the package selection system is easier than Win98 or NT in many respects, and if he is confused, well... maybe he would be happier with this manufacturer, as they make excellent machines with a very spiffy, powerful, and easy-to-use OS.
Nevertheless, I am usually not one to blame problems with a user interface on the user. That is a developer's trap. What we need to do is keep trying to make the interfaces as intuitive as possible. It is true there will always be some that will not want to think for themselves at all, but that is what defaults are for.. let the developer and the computer think for them and they should be happy... IF the defaults are sane!
Yes I agree. The "Paranoid" option, with crypto installed is fairly locked down IMHO. It also illustrates the point that restricting access and functionality to what is required fr basic operation is the first step to securing a system.
The problem with RAMBUS, is that there are problems in the technology that will prevent it from being truly viable. For one thing, there is a limit of two parts per channel. If you want more channels, you have to have more memory controllers, but I have not seen an implimentation work with even two channels. It might be possible for a dual processer system to use two channels, but then you are in the realm of low end servers and high end workstations, and they need more RAM that RAMBUS can provide currently.
SDRAM immediately started with more RAM per part than SIMMS, and a dramatic increase in performance. RAMBUS offers similar performance to PC133 based systems, at a much higher price, with less expandability and smaller memory sizes. Where there have been improvements in performance, they have been marginal at best. In fact there are PC133 implementations the beat a similarly configured RAMBUS based system, IIRC.
Intel was offered a chance at pre-IPO stake in a company that had a "cool new memory technology," which they knew was sure to make some cash before it died. Intel is not a compnay known for being stupid. Of course they took the bait, and then forced the technology down the pipe so it would succeed. They announced that new chipsets would be RAMBUS chipsets. It is not working though, and people are moving to AMD. That is why Intel is backing off. (Or they'd better if they are smart.)
So maybe it is business as usual, and in that sense not as horrific to those who are now used to taking it in the rear from technocrats, but in reality it is pretty bad, because computers are going to get more expensive again, and more out of reach of the common man. Remember that that was the idea originally, with Apple, and to a lesser extent IBM. Definitely in the case of Microsoft. The personal computer is meant to be in every household in America, and eventually, the world.
Right now only a priviliged few have access. A few more than before, yes, but still not so many as should be included in this "revolution."
Kingston, a company who builds memory boards (not the IC's, they buy them from Toshiba, Hyundai, Micron, etc.), and has never had need of a legal department, is in a lawsuit with Sun Microsystems. The disagreement there is that Sun claims to have some patents regarding PC SDRAM technologies.
So basically what it is looking like, is that producers of notoriously overpriced and underperforming memory technologies (Sun and Rambus) are tired of getting kicked in the rear by cheap SDRAM and are trying to claim that since some of the patents they filed when developing these technologies involve techniques used in regular SDRAM, they deserve royalties.
They know this is going to drive up prices, and that is the real point. They are not trying to protect real IP. As for prior art, unfortunately very few people know enough about memory to understand what is truly being claimed, and even fewer have been around long enough to know the real history.
The problem with memory is that none of the circuitry is overly complicated, despite the innovations we have seen. Most of the innovation up till now, IMHO, has been on the memory controller, not the SDRAM board.
Well, I think the problem is that since it is code, it is prone to bugs. One thing I have foudn in my cursury examination of standards in general, is that there are often grey areas, and in those grey areas differences. Often this turns out to be harmless, but sometimes it does not.
In particular there was a problem with MSNT DHCP at one point, in that it did not work properly with Macs. Both were technically following the standard, but there were enough differences in the messages Macs were sending at particular times, and the MSNT DHCP server's interpretation of those messages, that the end result was no IP for the Mac. Apple ended up changing their behaviour just so that this would not happen anymore.
HTML is a great standard, as is TCP/IP, but with different browsers/oses/etc YMMV. Ethernet can be subverted with the "wrong" frame types, etc.As for Java, I would imagine that basically you would find that your program works in one JVM but not in others, variously because of differences, grey areas, or bugs in the implementation you are using.
It does not matter what my agreements with Microsoft are. They agreed to supply code, they are not supplying it. I do not want their code, but I also do not want Microsoft to get away with breaking the GPL. If we keep allowing that, the GPL will become null through non-enforcement.
It does not matter whether they modify the code either. They must supply the code from their site or on their CD's with their money, not try and get something for nothing, which is ironically what people often try to accuse open-source advocates of doing.
Not only that, I would think MacNN has a responsibility as journalists to report such things. You don't see Microsoft suing ZD because they published stories about leaked whistler code.
Although Apple and co. act like they are hot and bothered about rumour sites, or at least their lawyers do, the sites actually do a lot for these companies. They are leaking proprietary info, but they also are generating entusiasm about a new product. It's free advertising, and they should be glad to get it since they need every bit they can get.
Also whenever feature lists and screenshots are posted, and people give feedback, well that is free market testing, and who wouldn't buy that for a dollar?
Adobe crying about lost trade secrets is just hogwash. What competition do they have? JASC doesn't make Mac software, and of course there is The Gimp, but really, what serious advertising company or print shop does not make sure to have at least several G3/G4's with the latest version of Photoshop running on them around? Give me a break.
Sorry, GPL specifically states that use is beyond its scope. The only way you can violate GPL is by redistributing without source, or creating closed-source derivations of GPL work.
Actually, the Abit KA7 (which has KX133) will work with a Thunderbird Slot A, if you make certain mods in the BIOS. I am not sure what you would want to put a T-Bird in the Irongate boards for, as the KX133 boards offer a lot more features (PC-133 and VCM, 4x AGP, ATA-100, 1.5-2GB memory, etc..)
The Slot A T-bird is supposed only to be released to OEM's, whereas regular buyers are stuck with Socket A availability only, and therefore must get KT-133 mobos. There has been implication that "Only to OEM's" means only the big guys like Compaq and Gateway (Dell? they still have not sold a non-intel box, unfortunately.) as opposed to your corner parts and slapped together units computer store, or your favorite web protal for computing goodness. If that happens, slot-A tbirds will be harder to come by, and more expensive.
Personally I am hoping that the Slot A T-bird is more available since I have a board that will use it.
Campfire singalongs do not violate copyright, neither does playing another person's song (as many bands will attest, most do play "covers" which are songs they did not write).
The reason it does not violate copyright is that the song you sing is your rendering of the song. It is not an exact copy. If you were to play a tape of Metallica and lip synch at a concert, that would be copyright infringement. Playing "Kumbaya" or even "Enter Sandman" yourself and singing with others, all singing themselves, is not infringement because that is your work.
IANAL, but IIRC, corporations are considered "persons" under the law. That is what allows them to be held liable for actions, sued, etc. IT is also why usually when corporations act maliciously, the corporation is sued, and the people who were involved in making the decision cannot be punished except by the corporation (which in some particularly nasty cases, like the Dalkon Shield debacle, has given them a raise or at worst forced them into early retirement with a large golden parachute.)
Not only that, but IP addresses from regular ISP's are reused on a regular basis. I know of a couple of instances where a company implementing similar policies ended up turning away customers because they could not reach the site, simply because an "attacker" with the same isp had portscanned them.
Of course what he has on the 'net is not something he wants everyone accessing... In that case it is a good policy though perhaps paranoid, still better safe than sorry.
The agreement says you cannot use the trademarks in a disparaging contex. What was being pointed out was that you could then not publish a review that said the game was substandard in any way.
There was something in the agreement that specifically targetted reviews and benchmarks. Also I thought the whole reason this got brought to light was that Apogee was suing some websites for publishing bad reviews.
If that is the case why aren't the windows refunds happening? Also why would microsoft back legislation that would weaken their case in this area.
Most US legislators are lawyers or have degrees in Law. Our current president and many former presidents did too.
Microsoft still has not given anyone a refund for windows, depite the clause in their eula that clearly states they will.
Also, although sun says I can install the software on as many computers as I want, the Solaris EULA says one computer only and no copies.
GPL'd software often comes with a standard eula saying you can only run on one computer, cannot copy, reverse engineer, etc. The Maximum Linux CD set is one of these BTW, contained copies of Storm Linux and Mandrake 7, but says copyright [publisher of maximum linux] and you cannot copy, distribute, reverse engineer, install on more than one computer.
Lots of free, shareware, and otherwise ubiquitous software comes like that. Heck every time you download patches from Microsoft, or Service Packs, you must sign another EULA with similar restrictions. So I can't patch more than one computer? Of course not! And what if they throw in a clause like "You must give 10% of your income or your firstborn to Microsoft." I mean what if I don't agree to the terms? This means that even though I agreed to a eula to run the OS/software I cannot get fixes for the bugs in it?
Sounds pretty stupid to me.
Not only did they scan people, they banned people presumably for having Linux firewalls. They eventually had to give them lifetime free access to the game because their spokesmen had defamed the banned people in public as cheaters.
Actually only 20% clicked no on a dialog box that came up in a series of others, all of which you must click yes on or you don't get to play. That's how they got me, I did not know it was a survey, I thought it was another piece of eula.
Not only that, but almost every time you play it it changes subtly. If you only have a certain amount of time to get in and get to your spawn, you probably have no time to read the new agreement you just signed.
There was one IIRC that basically allowed Verant to hack your box to make sure you were not running any cheatware or a network sniffer...
That reminds me of the guy who said "I didn't pay $5000 to have to read a f*%#ing manual!" Believe it or not, we are going to have to eventually design idiot proof computers that fix themselves. This is the only way to cut down on support costs and truly get computers in the hands of the masses.
Of course such an animal is, so far, a fantasy.
That's no solution, script kiddies will keep attacking other users. The solution is to harden their network against dos attacks.
Once again we blame the victim. It's one reason so much crime goes unreported. I really think the ISP is on shaky ground disconnecting someone because of their religious viewpoints. In act I smell a lawsuit.
If we let this kind of behaviour continue, we are going to lose all the ground we could have gained from a truly free internet.