Sure, you can MAKE them STOP sending you email.. That's all they did.. They did NOT sue for damages here, just to make him stop.. E-Restraining order..
True, but the right to inform them at WORK using Intel resources isn't covered. It would be the same as forcing Intel to have a mass meeting of employees that anyone can call at any time.. It's NOT free speech.. He can hold banners on the sidewalk, but he can't stepone foot on company property.. This was their e-walkway that he was treading on..
As these where unsolicited emails, does this mean I can pound 200,000 in YOUR mailbox? And yes, you can issue a restraining order that will prevent someone from sending you physical mail legally.. They basically just got the electronic form..
Ahh, but see, there still could be problems with this IN COURT.
Here is an example..
Let's say that a company modifies a part of a Linux driver to work with their propriatary hardware. What takes has ahigher legal standing, their rights via IP, or the GPL. No one as of yet tested this in court..
Just becouse something says one thing, doesn't mean it's able to be held up in court..
Take the shrink wrap licence idea. Sure the agreement says if you open it, you agree. But it has never been able to be enforced. The GPL COULD be the same thing.. It's never been enforced in a court of law. One loss by a judge saying he doesn't buy it sets a precedent..
EXACTLY what I've been trying to tell people.. Eventually, something snaps. And everyone suprised when it happens.. People snap every day, after being pushed beyond their limits.
Suddenly, one of them thought of a way to get back, and be remembered for a long time to come..
For a mind that's been pushed one to many times, this would probrably sound great..
I PARTIALLY agree.. I feel for what happened to them, but something went wrong in their heads. Don't tell me you never just felt like beating someone to a pulp becouse of how you where treated. But something in their heads just went, and they did the unthinkable for many of us. I feel for them in what led to this, but I also feel that they could just as well been jocks or cheerleaders. People are targeting the wrong things here.. How many stressed over achivers kill themselves? I'm betting more then go out and blow acouple people away, but you never hear about them. They also had 'something wrong' happen in their heads..
That's wonderful and all, but where is the expandible core we where all waiting for? V3 had the promise to expand distributed computing to nearly any problem one could think of, not hard coded rules in clients to help compute a few things here and there. How about an autoupdate capability for the clients to upgrade their own cores online? It's just, well, getting very boring, really..
The project itself is slowly dying.. Are they going to continue cracking RC5 with nothing new for ANOTHER 5 years? I joined with the promise that the project would take on more problems, to be expandable with the arrival of the V3 clients.. What are they intending on doing in the future?
Tell me about it.. I'd like to see some technical information as was published when they used Linux on Alpha's to do the Special Effects for Titanic.. The guy in charge must have been a BSD lover to start with..
I'd like to see a comparison of NetBSD, Linux and even Solaris x86, amongst others, for use in rendering farms.. I'm not sure how much the OS actually MATTERS in these cases, and it would more depend on the software running on the OS then the OS itself.. Most OS's could connect to a network and do something over and over without much of a problem..
I've never seen any PVM code to do this sort of thing. I guess it COULD be done, but I'm not sure how real time you could look at the data. I guess if your recording it, and it doesn't all need to come back time critical, this could be done.. Granted, I haven't done much myself, so I could be wrong..
I can't really see this working all that much better then 512 machines due to comminications bottlenecks. The machines need to be able to talk to the host as they finish things, and 2000 machines going into one 'master' computer would be much 2 much bandwidth for the master to handle I would think..
Heck, you'd at most want them 2-3 hops away, and I can't see how this would be possible. That'd be like 20 100 port hubs for cryin out loud..
Err, you've never looked at a cluster before, have you.. A 9 node cluster usually uses 27 network cards, 3 for each machine.. 2 to other machines, one to a gigabit router.. It's not all that simple.. In order to utilize this systems, you need to be able to communicate with them in less then one or two hops..
See my last reply.. I'm trying to say maybe they where just ignorant as hell.. Check out their reviews of the *nix based systems comparing to NT.. They always do this..
I know that, you know that, but I don't think THEY did.. I'm playing devils advocate and saying that maybee they where just ignorant as hell..
If you look at the way they've tested other OS's vs NT, you'd see that they always do stupid things like this.. I truely don't think they have anyone that is versed in the *nix way of doing things..
I can't answer the kernel one, I have no idea why they chose what they did..
nfsd I can only guess it becouse they didn't know what they where doing.. The same reason why nfsd, mountd, and several other d's are running on 85% of the servers out there..
That really didn't hobble it all that much.. One of the best exampes of how they hobbled it was that they made it so only ONE httpd was running at a time. Even the default has 10 ready and waiting. They also turned on some options in Samba that specifically state that they will bring performance down dramatically. On top of these, they then tuned the NT server as best they could. It'd be like taking a Porche, souping it up, and then pitting it against another Porche that had a throttle limiter on it, only 2 gears, and half flat tires..
Not really.. They did what they THOUGHT was to attempt to make it secure. They simply didn't know what they where doing, period.. It could be looked at as having gone out of their way, but I think it was more ignorance then anything else..
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, you can MAKE them STOP sending you email.. That's all they did.. They did NOT sue for damages here, just to make him stop.. E-Restraining order..
True, but the right to inform them at WORK using Intel resources isn't covered. It would be the same as forcing Intel to have a mass meeting of employees that anyone can call at any time.. It's NOT free speech.. He can hold banners on the sidewalk, but he can't stepone foot on company property.. This was their e-walkway that he was treading on..
As these where unsolicited emails, does this mean I can pound 200,000 in YOUR mailbox? And yes, you can issue a restraining order that will prevent someone from sending you physical mail legally.. They basically just got the electronic form..
You cannot send a C.O.D. package to someone who has not specifically requested it.. It's against the law, period..
;-P
But the problem is that there is no 'law' that states that email is different. I'm wondering why they didn't enforce it as spam and sue..
That's a damned good question.. To me this would mean that they would have to supply their current code at any request..
I don't LIKE the idea of this happening, but if someone like AMD could pull that to get the specs on IA-64 before it's released..
Ahh, but see, there still could be problems with this IN COURT.
Here is an example..
Let's say that a company modifies a part of a Linux driver to work with their propriatary hardware. What takes has ahigher legal standing, their rights via IP, or the GPL. No one as of yet tested this in court..
Just becouse something says one thing, doesn't mean it's able to be held up in court..
Take the shrink wrap licence idea. Sure the agreement says if you open it, you agree. But it has never been able to be enforced. The GPL COULD be the same thing.. It's never been enforced in a court of law. One loss by a judge saying he doesn't buy it sets a precedent..
EXACTLY what I've been trying to tell people.. Eventually, something snaps. And everyone suprised when it happens.. People snap every day, after being pushed beyond their limits.
Suddenly, one of them thought of a way to get back, and be remembered for a long time to come..
For a mind that's been pushed one to many times, this would probrably sound great..
It's sad, but it's true..
I PARTIALLY agree.. I feel for what happened to them, but something went wrong in their heads. Don't tell me you never just felt like beating someone to a pulp becouse of how you where treated. But something in their heads just went, and they did the unthinkable for many of us. I feel for them in what led to this, but I also feel that they could just as well been jocks or cheerleaders. People are targeting the wrong things here.. How many stressed over achivers kill themselves? I'm betting more then go out and blow acouple people away, but you never hear about them. They also had 'something wrong' happen in their heads..
Software used = Renderman. Software refered to with 'Thousands of freely available ports, includeing 3D software' = Povray..
That's wonderful and all, but where is the expandible core we where all waiting for? V3 had the promise to expand distributed computing to nearly any problem one could think of, not hard coded rules in clients to help compute a few things here and there. How about an autoupdate capability for the clients to upgrade their own cores online? It's just, well, getting very boring, really..
The 3d Rendering software they are refering to is PovRay, and is available on every platform imaginable, so that was a pretty dumb thing to say..
Lesse, 32 x 200$, that'd be 6,400$? Now, what was the budget for the matrix? Millions you say? ;-P
The project itself is slowly dying.. Are they going to continue cracking RC5 with nothing new for ANOTHER 5 years? I joined with the promise that the project would take on more problems, to be expandable with the arrival of the V3 clients.. What are they intending on doing in the future?
Tell me about it.. I'd like to see some technical information as was published when they used Linux on Alpha's to do the Special Effects for Titanic.. The guy in charge must have been a BSD lover to start with..
I'd like to know what basis there is for that as well.. I'm betting NT could have done it, not to mention Linux, Solaris x86, etc..etc..
I'd like to see a comparison of NetBSD, Linux and even Solaris x86, amongst others, for use in rendering farms.. I'm not sure how much the OS actually MATTERS in these cases, and it would more depend on the software running on the OS then the OS itself.. Most OS's could connect to a network and do something over and over without much of a problem..
I'd be happy if I could quite simply find a single eye thing like the ones that the MIT Media Labs guys mess around with..
I've never seen any PVM code to do this sort of thing. I guess it COULD be done, but I'm not sure how real time you could look at the data. I guess if your recording it, and it doesn't all need to come back time critical, this could be done.. Granted, I haven't done much myself, so I could be wrong..
Can PVM do this type of thing?
I can't really see this working all that much better then 512 machines due to comminications bottlenecks. The machines need to be able to talk to the host as they finish things, and 2000 machines going into one 'master' computer would be much 2 much bandwidth for the master to handle I would think..
Heck, you'd at most want them 2-3 hops away, and I can't see how this would be possible. That'd be like 20 100 port hubs for cryin out loud..
Err, you've never looked at a cluster before, have you.. A 9 node cluster usually uses 27 network cards, 3 for each machine.. 2 to other machines, one to a gigabit router.. It's not all that simple.. In order to utilize this systems, you need to be able to communicate with them in less then one or two hops..
See my last reply.. I'm trying to say maybe they where just ignorant as hell.. Check out their reviews of the *nix based systems comparing to NT.. They always do this..
I know that, you know that, but I don't think THEY did.. I'm playing devils advocate and saying that maybee they where just ignorant as hell..
If you look at the way they've tested other OS's vs NT, you'd see that they always do stupid things like this.. I truely don't think they have anyone that is versed in the *nix way of doing things..
Putting it in inetd allows the use of tcpd.
Widelinks ARE a security feature.. Look it up..
I can't answer the kernel one, I have no idea why they chose what they did..
nfsd I can only guess it becouse they didn't know what they where doing.. The same reason why nfsd, mountd, and several other d's are running on 85% of the servers out there..
That really didn't hobble it all that much.. One of the best exampes of how they hobbled it was that they made it so only ONE httpd was running at a time. Even the default has 10 ready and waiting. They also turned on some options in Samba that specifically state that they will bring performance down dramatically. On top of these, they then tuned the NT server as best they could. It'd be like taking a Porche, souping it up, and then pitting it against another Porche that had a throttle limiter on it, only 2 gears, and half flat tires..
Not really.. They did what they THOUGHT was to attempt to make it secure. They simply didn't know what they where doing, period.. It could be looked at as having gone out of their way, but I think it was more ignorance then anything else..