The trick is, they would still be part of the 'network'. And if AIM at least provided for a way for other messaging systems to 'interface' with their's, the network size triples, becouse the 'network' now includes SEVERAL IM technologies, and not just one..
I think this is an issue of two companies arguin over who 'owns' their users. what they don't relize is, no one owns the users.
This is one of the things that started development of the Jabber project. We're designing a non centralized system, where users belong to themselves. Servers are not set in stone, but instead behave simularly to email servers. Anyone can bring their IM to any server. Any ISP can setup their own IM server, and provide their users with what they want, without 'ownership' of the user. The user can just as easily setup his/her account on a different server.
But we've taken it a step further. Any of these servers can then talk to AIM, MSIM, etc on the server level. We let you choose.
No one owns us, and we shouldn't tolerate NOT having a choice of what we want to do with IM'ing, no more so then we are limited to what we do with email.
The corperate 'wars' over user ownsership are silly, and bad buisness for them. Hopefully, for their sake, they'll wake up and smell the coffee before IM is a commodity, and their users flood to other providers.
That's what Jabber is doing. They've designed a system that uses it's own protocol for clients, but the servers can contain transports to AIM, ICQ, MSIM, IRC, etc..etc.. They're providing a means to a new protocol, with support for older protocols on the server end for users to continue to talk to other systems..
Feel free to jump on at Jabber.org. We're not only developing a new, OSS, IM system, but one that INCLUDES the capability for anyone to run a server, and talk to anyone else running them, AND the ability for these servers to talk to AIM, MSIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc.. for you..
This is exactly what the jabber project is attempting to do. It's building an extendable protocol, with the ability to 'gateway' between other networks, so as to not only bring about a new way of cumminicating between users, but provide a singular interface to all of the systems at the same time.
IRC has many benifits, but unfortionalty, doesn't scale well at all. It is more built directly for group chatting, and not quick instant messages between individual users..
This is *EXACTLY* how Jabber work. ISP's run indendent servers, and namespaces are server based, not 'global' based. Aka, my userID would be tcharron@jabber.org. It also has the ability to allow transports to deal with any sort of data, so while jabber.org is a native jabber server, icq.jabber.org can serve as a gateway for ICQ usernames to map to jabber users names.
Actually, it's shaping up very fast. It's extremely close to our 0.7 rewrite, which modulerizes the system and make it much more scalable.
It's also the only system currently that will be able to support the IETF standard for an open namespace 'out of the box', simply becouse of it's design..
Becouse block size isn't known about before hand. It's not a fixed width field that's being encrypted. The packet may only BE a byte. It may be 200. You don't know..
Running 'other apps' on an NT Web server means your a pretty darned small company, or it's a department level server that doesn't do much web serving at all..
A Quad Xeon is a Mac truck, vs a Corvette. In a transaction based environment, which web serving is, the Xeon will kick your Dual celeron out of the stratusphere..
That's BS. Fortune 500 companies buy many, MANY of these systems for this very purpose. That's why Dell continues to make them. Do you think they'd SELL a product that didn't make them money?
And yes in many situations, the CIO does say the exact above, primarily becouse Dell would have given him a sales pitch. Not only that, but he'd say 'We're ordering 1,000 of these server for use in ever region'.
Fortune 500 companies buy by name. Show me a fortune 500 company who buys eMachines to save money.
The numbers where MARGINALLY different. Heck, if they made the lines just a LITTLE thicker, they'd overlap.
And 4 100MBit ethernet cards instead of one Gigbit ethernet card is CHEAPER, which Linux is supposed to be.
And the machine that the tests where run on where certified by RedHat themselves.
Nt won, hands down. Now, I do most of my development under Linux, and have Linux on all 5 of my home computers. I love Linux. But in high end situations such as file servering, a higher end NT box will always kick it's ass, plain and simple.
Hell, untill recently, Linux didn't even SUPPORT nfs v3, speaking of file serving.
And I dare you to show me a legitimate test where NT was properly setup where it lost like a dog.
They looked valid to me before phase three. I love Linux, but it has it's limitations. These need to be worked on. It's funny, becouse when users are actually put under the gun, this is how they react:
Linux User - Linux is MUCH better then NT in terms of performance, uptime, and general reliability. Random NT Statments - Have you ever tried a test of the two? Linux - "Sure, I do it all the time" NT - "Ok, let's try, here we go *beatbeatbeat*. Oh look, your conclusions are wrong. Linux - "The tests where rigged! They cheated!! MOMMY!!" NT - Ok, let's try it again. You come watch, and tune the Linux box to your hearts content. Linux - Ok, we'll whip yer but in a fair fight, no problem. NT - Ok, here we go. *BEATBEATBEAT*. Oh look, the number look exactly the same Linux - Well, we've fixed many of the problems since the tests. We'd whip you but in a rematch sometime. NT - Ok, how's about right now? Let's go. Linux - Err, no thanks. But next time we run the tests on 386/25s!! NT - That's stupid.
Re:Oh, they did more than that...R
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 1
They kernel doesn't have to do that. SVgaLib certainly isn't part of the kernel, yet directly access video hardware. Same thing here..
It's not so much that they are 'still programming them' as it's the fact that they keep adding more processor farms to them. The ASCII machines are actually clusters of clusters, and they can simply throw more processing power at them, really..
Re:Show us the source!
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 2
Actually, I stand corrected, NO CHANGES are required for a kernel to run binaries thru another program. The CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC entry during compile includes a module that reads a config file that can redirect binaries to applications based on their type. Entries in the configuration file then dictate where to throw them. Example beflow is for Java capabilities:
':Java:M::\xca\xfe\xba\xbe::/usr/local/java/bin/ javawrapper' support for Java Applets: ':Applet:E::html::/usr/local/java/bin/appletviewer :' or the following, if you want to be more selective: ':Applet:M::!--applet::/usr/local/java/bin/apple tviewer:'
Re:Show us the source!
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 2
That's a very simple change, as they can simply throw a given binary type at a program. See the changes made for Linux to nativly run Java classfiles. It doesn;t really, it just throws them at the JVM.
They HAVE a system that runs the Pilot binaries that is completely seperate from the OS. Most likely, this is what is happening with pilot binaries.
Also, they do not need to distribute the changes, they merely need to give you the source IF YOU REQUEST IT.;-P Most entities are NICE enough to offer them as direct downloads, but it's not a requirment.
Re:Where's the source?
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 2
You should request it. That's the only thing required by the GPL, that you can GET it if you request it. Period..
Re:Show us the source!
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 1
Next time read more carefully. If you want the kernel source, feel free to download it from www.uclinux.com. They did NOT make the kernel here, they are using the uclinux projects kernel.
This package IS built on ucLinux. It is a modified uclinux kernel, with apps. I'm not sure how modified the kernel is, etc, but it is based on uclinux itself..
Slashdot Mirror
Not depend on a persistent net connection for messaging.
;-P)
Not depend on a singular server connection between servers. (This is called 'netsplit'
Scale well.
Not require ALL SERVERS know about the exitence of ALL USERS.
There are many, MANY more..
The trick is, they would still be part of the 'network'. And if AIM at least provided for a way for other messaging systems to 'interface' with their's, the network size triples, becouse the 'network' now includes SEVERAL IM technologies, and not just one..
I think this is an issue of two companies arguin over who 'owns' their users. what they don't relize is, no one owns the users.
This is one of the things that started development of the Jabber project. We're designing a non centralized system, where users belong to themselves. Servers are not set in stone, but instead behave simularly to email servers. Anyone can bring their IM to any server. Any ISP can setup their own IM server, and provide their users with what they want, without 'ownership' of the user. The user can just as easily setup his/her account on a different server.
But we've taken it a step further. Any of these servers can then talk to AIM, MSIM, etc on the server level. We let you choose.
No one owns us, and we shouldn't tolerate NOT having a choice of what we want to do with IM'ing, no more so then we are limited to what we do with email.
The corperate 'wars' over user ownsership are silly, and bad buisness for them. Hopefully, for their sake, they'll wake up and smell the coffee before IM is a commodity, and their users flood to other providers.
That's what Jabber is doing. They've designed a system that uses it's own protocol for clients, but the servers can contain transports to AIM, ICQ, MSIM, IRC, etc..etc.. They're providing a means to a new protocol, with support for older protocols on the server end for users to continue to talk to other systems..
Feel free to jump on at Jabber.org. We're not only developing a new, OSS, IM system, but one that INCLUDES the capability for anyone to run a server, and talk to anyone else running them, AND the ability for these servers to talk to AIM, MSIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc.. for you..
This is exactly what the jabber project is attempting to do. It's building an extendable protocol, with the ability to 'gateway' between other networks, so as to not only bring about a new way of cumminicating between users, but provide a singular interface to all of the systems at the same time.
Well, they are TRYING to do it. ;-P
IRC has many benifits, but unfortionalty, doesn't scale well at all. It is more built directly for group chatting, and not quick instant messages between individual users..
This is *EXACTLY* how Jabber work. ISP's run indendent servers, and namespaces are server based, not 'global' based. Aka, my userID would be tcharron@jabber.org. It also has the ability to allow transports to deal with any sort of data, so while jabber.org is a native jabber server, icq.jabber.org can serve as a gateway for ICQ usernames to map to jabber users names.
Actually, it's shaping up very fast. It's extremely close to our 0.7 rewrite, which modulerizes the system and make it much more scalable.
It's also the only system currently that will be able to support the IETF standard for an open namespace 'out of the box', simply becouse of it's design..
Hopefully, system such as Jabber>/A> and the IETF effort will assist in effort. The IETF standard should make it so that users can communicate between different services. Right now, Jabber is the closest we have to a workable system that can acknoledge systems outside of it's own.
Becouse block size isn't known about before hand. It's not a fixed width field that's being encrypted. The packet may only BE a byte. It may be 200. You don't know..
Running 'other apps' on an NT Web server means your a pretty darned small company, or it's a department level server that doesn't do much web serving at all..
A Quad Xeon is a Mac truck, vs a Corvette. In a transaction based environment, which web serving is, the Xeon will kick your Dual celeron out of the stratusphere..
That's BS. Fortune 500 companies buy many, MANY of these systems for this very purpose. That's why Dell continues to make them. Do you think they'd SELL a product that didn't make them money?
And yes in many situations, the CIO does say the exact above, primarily becouse Dell would have given him a sales pitch. Not only that, but he'd say 'We're ordering 1,000 of these server for use in ever region'.
Fortune 500 companies buy by name. Show me a fortune 500 company who buys eMachines to save money.
The numbers where MARGINALLY different. Heck, if they made the lines just a LITTLE thicker, they'd overlap.
And 4 100MBit ethernet cards instead of one Gigbit ethernet card is CHEAPER, which Linux is supposed to be.
And the machine that the tests where run on where certified by RedHat themselves.
Nt won, hands down. Now, I do most of my development under Linux, and have Linux on all 5 of my home computers. I love Linux. But in high end situations such as file servering, a higher end NT box will always kick it's ass, plain and simple.
Hell, untill recently, Linux didn't even SUPPORT nfs v3, speaking of file serving.
And I dare you to show me a legitimate test where NT was properly setup where it lost like a dog.
Go on, show me a URL..
They looked valid to me before phase three. I love Linux, but it has it's limitations. These need to be worked on. It's funny, becouse when users are actually put under the gun, this is how they react:
Linux User - Linux is MUCH better then NT in terms of performance, uptime, and general reliability.
Random NT Statments - Have you ever tried a test of the two?
Linux - "Sure, I do it all the time"
NT - "Ok, let's try, here we go *beatbeatbeat*. Oh look, your conclusions are wrong.
Linux - "The tests where rigged! They cheated!! MOMMY!!"
NT - Ok, let's try it again. You come watch, and tune the Linux box to your hearts content.
Linux - Ok, we'll whip yer but in a fair fight, no problem.
NT - Ok, here we go. *BEATBEATBEAT*. Oh look, the number look exactly the same
Linux - Well, we've fixed many of the problems since the tests. We'd whip you but in a rematch sometime.
NT - Ok, how's about right now? Let's go.
Linux - Err, no thanks. But next time we run the tests on 386/25s!!
NT - That's stupid.
They kernel doesn't have to do that. SVgaLib certainly isn't part of the kernel, yet directly access video hardware. Same thing here..
Well, it is, AND it isn't. It's using simular technologies, it's just not using the actual Beowulf 'package'. Nitpicking at that point, I suppose.
Depends on how you define a Beowulf cluster, really.
Yes, they're on there. They're called 'Self Made'. Here are a few:
#44 CPlant Cluster
#265 Avalog Cluster
#454 Parnass2 Cluster
It's not so much that they are 'still programming them' as it's the fact that they keep adding more processor farms to them. The ASCII machines are actually clusters of clusters, and they can simply throw more processing power at them, really..
Actually, I stand corrected, NO CHANGES are required for a kernel to run binaries thru another program. The CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC entry during compile includes a module that reads a config file that can redirect binaries to applications based on their type. Entries in the configuration file then dictate where to throw them. Example beflow is for Java capabilities:
/ javawrapper' r :' e tviewer:'
':Java:M::\xca\xfe\xba\xbe::/usr/local/java/bin
support for Java Applets: ':Applet:E::html::/usr/local/java/bin/appletviewe
or the following, if you want to be more selective:
':Applet:M::!--applet::/usr/local/java/bin/appl
That's a very simple change, as they can simply throw a given binary type at a program. See the changes made for Linux to nativly run Java classfiles. It doesn;t really, it just throws them at the JVM.
;-P Most entities are NICE enough to offer them as direct downloads, but it's not a requirment.
They HAVE a system that runs the Pilot binaries that is completely seperate from the OS. Most likely, this is what is happening with pilot binaries.
Also, they do not need to distribute the changes, they merely need to give you the source IF YOU REQUEST IT.
You should request it. That's the only thing required by the GPL, that you can GET it if you request it. Period..
Next time read more carefully. If you want the kernel source, feel free to download it from www.uclinux.com. They did NOT make the kernel here, they are using the uclinux projects kernel.
This package IS built on ucLinux. It is a modified uclinux kernel, with apps. I'm not sure how modified the kernel is, etc, but it is based on uclinux itself..