Server clouds. When you access the web with your computer, you're accessing these sorts of servers already. Specifically, applications run in parallel in dozens of locations, potentially across the globe. Toss in anycasting, and the guy in Boston ends up connecting to a server in boston, and a guy in San Fransisco connects to one in LA, but they're both connecting to the same server as far as their concerned.
Google AppEngine has data reporting to a ridiculous level. This article doesn't even publish any REAL data.
I really HATE commercicles, small articles which make a claim, and then say, 'stay tuned!'.
Someone fire the author. The last paragraph reads:
"Liu will present the findings and offer developers advice on how to build robust applications to withstand the cloud's limitations at the Australian Architecture Forum in Sydney on Monday, August 24."
Wow, I at least they admit that this article has no REAL data in it, and THAT data will be released on Monday.
Again, you don't have to inform any and all downstream 3rd party individuals of their rights. However, if one of the said third party individuals contacts you, as the original poster has done (admittedly, this article is all based on third person as far as we're concerned), they are a third party at THAT point.
It's sidestepping the point to say you cannot inform all third party individuals of their rights. You obviously can't. However, they do indeed still HAVE this right, even though you have not contacted them directly.
You don't have to contact them to make them aware of their rights. However, they are a third party, and the sources should be available to them, legally.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Could you point out exactly where you're providing notification, per the GPL? Additionally, could you provide a URL or something which provides the sources which you directly compiled?
Otherwise, all you've done is confirm that you saved a hundred grand or more running Linux, without giving back a penny.
Well, it would make sense.. "We're going to give incentive for new net access, go ahead and screw any web site shmoe who doesn't have enough to pay for premium access"...
I mean, what do you think this is, the banking or finance industry?
We have a 9/80 work week, and it's *GREAT* 3 day weekends every other week make up for any sort of inconvenience of getting there a half an hour earlier, and leaving half an hour later.
Another side benifit is, when extra work DOES need to be done, it's very easy to simply work the extra friday.
That's what I get for not going back and rereading, and instead relying on what I thought it said a day or two later.:-D
You're totally right now that I've actually reread the original story. And after thinking about it, I'm going to assume that even soft real time wouldn't be a requirement for him based on the fact that the Atom doesn't have peripheral support that would infer you'd need it, such as SPI, Analog/Digital In/Out, etc.. (GPIO pins don't count!).
I'm thinking your right, he may not need it. That's why I was saying he may not need to really change much at all.
Personally, I'd use whatever kernel the board support kit suggests. If there is no BSP, then whatever the version that the patches for the given ARM core is supporting. Aka, I wouldn't personally use anything not in the mainline kernel. However, this may not be possible, depending on the processor. Not all ARM processors are created equal, as each vendor can ad many things to the processor besides the ARM core itself.
The -rt patches do NOT a hard real time kernel make. Here's the difference. One says, 'I SHALL be called at EXACTLY this time', the other one says, 'make sure I'm called BY this time'.
The largest benny for an embedded system with 2.6 is timing, really. The kernel is now, for the most part, 'almost' totally preemptable, bring sort real time to the kernel. Additionally, using RTAI Fusion, you can get hard real time. RTAI extensions have phased out support for the 2.4 kernel.
But one would have to ask, I suppose. If your just replacing a legacy component with the same thing, why change the code?
Pretty much all of which are in similar boats. Even the ones who offer to sell it to you don't if you read the fine print. They are REALLY still leasing for a one time lifetime payment.
The guy who put the report in Exhibit A, along with his email address, it could be added, really, REALLY underestimated the issue I think. Did he really think the public court records wouldn't get out?
Exhibit A will, I suspect, lead to many, MANY more compromises now then would have happened had they given their presentation.
What HE released had the specific vulnerabilities they found. He didn't want that data out, and then published it himself!
I have to disagree that the value of something approaches nothing the more available it is. You, right now, are posting on a site that is built on these open source technologies. And everything it uses is freely available, under several licenses.
Additionally, anyone extending an open source product for commercial use is also paying nothing for something they will make a profit on. So technically, the open software is allowing them to come to market for a cheaper price then they would have to pay otherwise. Note that open source doesn't mean free source. The company needs to take that into consideration. And if they indeed don't WANT to pay the license, then by all means, write it all from scratch. Do you honestly believe that if you extend explorer in windows by use of internal APIs, that you no longer have to pay the price for windows, just because you did something more then they shipped the product with? There is a price for open source software, however, it is not monetary.
Yep. Oh, and the PS2, which STILL has decent games being released for it is also horrendously out of date, released *9* years ago. There is no way in heck one can argue that the PS3 is based on a 3 year lifecycle. 5 years. There's still a crapton of power that is underutilized in the remaining cell cores which can be tapped into in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
The challenges for Wave don't rely on nearly the same challenges. Wave involves ONLY data transfer, not processing, storage, etc.. It's a protocol.
Making the comparison you've made is the same thing as saying HTTP is flawed becouse Joes Web Shack servers are slow.
Server clouds. When you access the web with your computer, you're accessing these sorts of servers already. Specifically, applications run in parallel in dozens of locations, potentially across the globe. Toss in anycasting, and the guy in Boston ends up connecting to a server in boston, and a guy in San Fransisco connects to one in LA, but they're both connecting to the same server as far as their concerned.
Small suggest, next time, read the article before you comment. Your comment has *0*% bearing on what this is talking about.
Google AppEngine has data reporting to a ridiculous level. This article doesn't even publish any REAL data.
I really HATE commercicles, small articles which make a claim, and then say, 'stay tuned!'.
Someone fire the author. The last paragraph reads:
"Liu will present the findings and offer developers advice on how to build robust applications to withstand the cloud's limitations at the Australian Architecture Forum in Sydney on Monday, August 24."
Wow, I at least they admit that this article has no REAL data in it, and THAT data will be released on Monday.
Again, you don't have to inform any and all downstream 3rd party individuals of their rights. However, if one of the said third party individuals contacts you, as the original poster has done (admittedly, this article is all based on third person as far as we're concerned), they are a third party at THAT point.
It's sidestepping the point to say you cannot inform all third party individuals of their rights. You obviously can't. However, they do indeed still HAVE this right, even though you have not contacted them directly.
You don't have to contact them to make them aware of their rights. However, they are a third party, and the sources should be available to them, legally.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
And just one more thing to confirm the BS reply.
Could you point out exactly where you're providing notification, per the GPL? Additionally, could you provide a URL or something which provides the sources which you directly compiled?
Otherwise, all you've done is confirm that you saved a hundred grand or more running Linux, without giving back a penny.
Intel spawned them off to a seperate company, Marvell.
The toolkits are free?
When exactly WAS the last time you tried to price a copy of IAR?
This won't necessarily bypass the great firewall of china, etc..
Really depends on the proxying in place.
Well, it would make sense.. "We're going to give incentive for new net access, go ahead and screw any web site shmoe who doesn't have enough to pay for premium access"...
I mean, what do you think this is, the banking or finance industry?
We have a 9/80 work week, and it's *GREAT* 3 day weekends every other week make up for any sort of inconvenience of getting there a half an hour earlier, and leaving half an hour later.
Another side benifit is, when extra work DOES need to be done, it's very easy to simply work the extra friday.
That's what I get for not going back and rereading, and instead relying on what I thought it said a day or two later. :-D
You're totally right now that I've actually reread the original story. And after thinking about it, I'm going to assume that even soft real time wouldn't be a requirement for him based on the fact that the Atom doesn't have peripheral support that would infer you'd need it, such as SPI, Analog/Digital In/Out, etc.. (GPIO pins don't count!).
From the original post, the device he's communicating WITH is an Atom. The target processor to collect the data is an ARM.
I'm thinking your right, he may not need it. That's why I was saying he may not need to really change much at all.
Personally, I'd use whatever kernel the board support kit suggests. If there is no BSP, then whatever the version that the patches for the given ARM core is supporting. Aka, I wouldn't personally use anything not in the mainline kernel. However, this may not be possible, depending on the processor. Not all ARM processors are created equal, as each vendor can ad many things to the processor besides the ARM core itself.
The -rt patches do NOT a hard real time kernel make. Here's the difference. One says, 'I SHALL be called at EXACTLY this time', the other one says, 'make sure I'm called BY this time'.
The largest benny for an embedded system with 2.6 is timing, really. The kernel is now, for the most part, 'almost' totally preemptable, bring sort real time to the kernel. Additionally, using RTAI Fusion, you can get hard real time. RTAI extensions have phased out support for the 2.4 kernel.
But one would have to ask, I suppose. If your just replacing a legacy component with the same thing, why change the code?
You'd think. But then again, it's one of the ways they get around having tyo redistribute any of their GPLed changes. :-D
Pretty much all of which are in similar boats. Even the ones who offer to sell it to you don't if you read the fine print. They are REALLY still leasing for a one time lifetime payment.
Kudos! For Google, thats some kind of amazing acomplishment.
That's not a low UID. lol.
The guy who put the report in Exhibit A, along with his email address, it could be added, really, REALLY underestimated the issue I think. Did he really think the public court records wouldn't get out?
Exhibit A will, I suspect, lead to many, MANY more compromises now then would have happened had they given their presentation.
What HE released had the specific vulnerabilities they found. He didn't want that data out, and then published it himself!
I have to disagree that the value of something approaches nothing the more available it is. You, right now, are posting on a site that is built on these open source technologies. And everything it uses is freely available, under several licenses.
Additionally, anyone extending an open source product for commercial use is also paying nothing for something they will make a profit on. So technically, the open software is allowing them to come to market for a cheaper price then they would have to pay otherwise. Note that open source doesn't mean free source. The company needs to take that into consideration. And if they indeed don't WANT to pay the license, then by all means, write it all from scratch. Do you honestly believe that if you extend explorer in windows by use of internal APIs, that you no longer have to pay the price for windows, just because you did something more then they shipped the product with? There is a price for open source software, however, it is not monetary.
Yep. Oh, and the PS2, which STILL has decent games being released for it is also horrendously out of date, released *9* years ago. There is no way in heck one can argue that the PS3 is based on a 3 year lifecycle. 5 years. There's still a crapton of power that is underutilized in the remaining cell cores which can be tapped into in the future.