FreeDOS implements similar controls to the "in-DOS" flag. Of course you are free to modify it to do otherwise (and it would probably be accepted). It gets trick as incompatibility becomes an issue. Heck, Microsoft had problems of their own with version compatibility.
RxDOS is a commercial, real-time DOS that implements a re-entrant kernel. Although it is commercial, it comes with source code, and it is based on a book by the developer. Looks like he just moved web sites and info is not up yet, but you can find the home page here when it's back up.
Kudos to Jim & Co on an excellent effort. FreeDOS is one frustrating project to work on, given all the quirks and undocumented structures. Worse than what the Samba team has to deal with IMHO.
The only reason Linus even owns the trademark is because of greedy @$$ decided to do it. Then he had his lawyers start forcing the (R) on everything that beared the name "Linux." Authors, publishers and the like.
Linux would have rather had some pro-Linux organization do it and keep it open. He talked about this after the whole fiasco started. He NEVER intended to register it himself.
Despite the names, BSD and Linux development is interwoven. Both benefit from each other. Please educate yourself on the history of BSD and Linux.
Understand that I'm a pro-GPL'er. I prefer GPL licensed code. But without a number of the BSD, artistic and other licensed code out there, Linux would not be complete.
There is a good ammount of code exchanged between Linux and FreeBSD. If anything, start with the Net2/3 code.
I work for a small, semiconductor technology startup. When a company is working in the red, of course they are going to be tight. On the flip-side, they need good people. Like anyone else, they are willing to pay for it... in both salary and stock options.
All I can advise you on is to look for these things before you join (that haven't already been mentioned above):
Find out how much money the have in the bank, and how long that will last
And that includes how long they expect to be in the red. No company in their right mind will have an IPO while they are in the red. So, until then, all you have from them is your salary. If they company has several million in the bank (usually secured through private or government investments), you are probably looking at a sound company with a future. And that means you'll get paid for the next few years before IPO.
A good indicator you are on shaky ground is the fact that they do not want to pay you even the lower-end market value for your employment. That means they are probably strapped for cash, not a good move. Although that could be because you are a commodity item. And it that is true, it may not be such a revolutionary startup.
Look for other unique assets the company may have, like a patent portfolio?
As with other Slashdot'ters, I think almost all software patents are quite lame and trival ideas. But many advanced hardware patents took years of research and dedication. As it is with my company. We have a large patent portfolio that makes us an inviting acquisition target should money become an issue (it has not yet, and probably won't). We have also proven our technology through government programs, which has in turn helped us raise funds and woo potential investors (we are now turning many away though).
It was not too long ago that most players in the semiconductor market stopped short of just laughing at our ideas and concepts. Today those same companies, and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) itself, believes our approach is the correct one to solving the IC design problems of the 21st century. And those same companies are now admist organizing accelerated R&D programs to catch-up on the last 20 years we invented.
There are ways of implementing concepts similiar to our technology outside of our patents and current product focus. The ideas are nothing new (although we thought of most of them), and our patents and designs exploit what we believe is the best course (meaning we do not have lame, broad patents that stiffle innovation, in fact, we have been promoting it as the best course of future IC design). Of course companies like Motorola (and others, including some very prestigeous individuals I cannot mention at this time) have decided that our technology has already been proven and already developed to the point where it is commercially viable. But there will always be those who wish to "re-invent the wheel," hating us because we already dealt with the issues they are now having (e.g. Intel).
So, ask for what you want, but tell them you are flexible
If you and your skills are a valued commodity, they will pay. The salary may be slightly below market value, but they should more than make-up for it in stock options. And as one Slashdot'ter above mentioned, you need to know what percentage of the total "stockpile" is available to you.
But if they company has money in the bank to last a year or longer, long enough to its first product, ask for what you want and expect to get at least market value. I did with my company and walked into it with a nice raise. And since they did not meet the salary I wanted, they gave me additional stock options. I got the offer the very next day, that is how valuable they saw me.
One more thing: Non-Disclosure, Accepable; Non-Compete, UNAcceptable!
A company has the right to protect is technology, trade secrets and the like. As such, you will be presented with a Non-Disclosure Agreement. That is fine, sign it. But when the company wants you to sign a Non-Compete, give them two options for them to choose from:
No, I will not sign it. You must hire me without my signing it.
Okay, with one additional addendeum: You place the duration of the Non-Compete x My Salary (e.g. 2 years x $30K = $60K) in an escrow account. Should I leave the company and you state I am in violation of my Non-Compete clause in my new employment (whether 3rd pary or self-employeed), you agree to release those escrow funds to me.
You will get stares, disbelief and other "pep-talks" from others. But the fact of the matter is that "non-competes" ARE at least partially enforcable in many states IF you sign. As such, don't. If they won't reason, get a lawyer. He may not get rid of the non-compete, but he will narrow its focus so you can work after you leave the company.
As it was with my new company. I refused to sign the non-compete. My future boss, his boss, the head-hunter, and everyone else tried to reason with me. After a week, I got a lawyer, and we write a narrowed agreement. The next day, my future employer threw the Non-Compete completely out, they wanted me on-board ASAP. They said they would draft a new, narrower Non-Compete for everyone later on (or expand the Non-Disclosure). Unfortunately for them, no state law that I know of will enforce an agreement on you AFTER you have already started employment.
I personally like these cases over the more fully translucent Suntek/Antec/whoever ones. Most of the Suntek ones usually come with a crappy 235W, non-UL Listed PS that is more like a 200W UL one. I couldn't power up most mainboards in it until I upgraded the PS. And they are usually $90+ with UL Listed PS.
These little $36 babies are great. They feature extra port cut-outs (whereas the Suntek are lacking). An AT backplate (for those newer AT boards with ATX power connectors), along with the standard 2 ATX ones. And a nice, 250W ATX power supply (upgradable to 300W). Not fully tranlucent, but still cool looking with the hidden floppy drive. And you don't have to worry about matching the drives, since the drive area is beige.
I like the reseller too, Directron. They do NOT charge outrageous shipping charges (they make no profit on shipping). It will cost you only $10 + $10/case to ship (quite good compared to most other on-line stores, especially most of those who rank high on Pricewatch).
And NO, I do NOT work for them!
[ They also sell the Suntek case (with very crappy 235W PS), and a matching $9 KB and $8 Mouse for it too. IMHO, you'll definately need to upgrade the PS on it, and the mouse is pretty crappy too (but what do you expect for $8?;-). ]
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Re:I think everyone is missing the point here ...
on
Red Hat Buying Cygnus?
·
· Score: 1
I meant that both Caldera and SuSE reserve some software as non-GPL. And I'm *NOT* talking about licensed/bundled software, even RedHat does that.
I mean RedHat releases ever bit of software it produces as GPL *AND* they also have a 100% completely redistributable distro for download.
Both Caldera and SuSE reserve that due to licensing issues with even their own software (e.g. SuSE's YaST, Caldera's DR-DOS, etc...).
I don't see RedHat doing anything that hurts. In fact, they may actually help!!!
Cygnus is quite profitable. And they have a lot of non-Linux products and interests. In fact, they are a great company when it comes to bringing OpenSource to non-OpenSource platforms. And they work akin to Sendmail (free product, charge for GUI and support).
So get off the "next monopoly" thing with RedHat which is impossible. In fact, I like that RedHat is at the top. It would be MUCH DIFFERENT if Caldera or SuSE was on top.
Boolean logic was NEVER DESIGNED to work in computers!
Digital circuits require a "control" line to work. In the original mathematics, this was the "mathmatician." Again, this is fine for boolean calculations by hand, but not autonomously in digital computers.
So when computers rolled around, someone thought, hey, let's just use a synchronous clock for boolean logic. Well, that was great for 2KHz, 1MHz and probably as high as 100MHz. But for 1GHz?! FORGET IT!
In essence, as long as we keep teaching boolean as a form of digital logic, the longer computers will continue to hard to design at higher speeds and lower densities!
Again, boolean algebra is NOT the IDEAL MATH to use for digital circuits. Our NCL process is.
With NCL, you can describe MORE GATES, MORE DESIGNS. And things like INVERTS require NO GATES.
Additionlly, boolean clocked gates require two states, low and high. Even when a gate is "off", there is still some low voltage running through it. With NCL and its dual-rail implementation, OFF MEANS OFF and you use NO POWER when it is off.
While boolean logic DOES exist AND there should be books written on it and its theory. Any "CONTEMPORARY" book on Digital Logic Design should AT LEAST mention asynchoronous logic design and the concept of things like NCL and other techniques.
The days of using elementary boolean gates are over. It is NOT ideal for digital logic design. Luckily for the industry, companies like Theseus Logic are designing software that converts boolean circuits into non-boolean circuits for the computers of tomorrow.
Traditional, clocked Boolean logic is flawed as numerous design failures have begun to occur - e.g. the original designs of the AMD K5/6, IBM PPC620, Intel Coppermine, etc... which set back product releases anywhere from 6-36 months
Why? Synchronizing millions of gates at near-GHz speeds is next to impossible. As such, even the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) knows that the industry must return to asynchronous and "clockless" logic as laid out in its 2001, 2003 and 2005 milestone plans.
We at Theseus Logic have the answer. This post if VERY COINCIDENTAL since we just annouced a STRATEGIC ALLIANCE with Motorola (Press Release Here) to bring our patented Null Convention Logic (NCL) technology to Motorola's 8 and 32-bit product designs.
Like other async technologies, NCL benefits fro async's inherit no/low-power, low-EMI emissions and high EMF tolerance. But UNLIKE TRADITIONAL ASYNC DESIGNS, NCL not only can co-exist with clock boolean logic in the same circuit, but you can use off-the-self sync design tools to design in NCL (via the use of a post-processor for many industry tools like Synopsys).
And lastly, as clocked boolean designs have to be redesigned for each feature size reduction (e.g. 0.25um -> 0.18um, etc...) and voltage variations (e.g. 3.3V vs. 2.5V, etc...), NCL circuits require LITTLE OR NO REDESIGN when new technology becomes available! As such, we call NCL designs "Timeless Solutions(TM)" because they deliver on both the delay-insensitive nature of async *AND* NCL designs can be re-used over and over again for a log period of time!
Again, visit Our Web Site to learn more about NCL technology and design. Note, content is slightly out of date, but the technology is nothing new. The technology was invented in the '70s, researched in the '80s and has finally become viable in the '90s.
The University of Central Florida has graduate programs in NCL design and technology which usually involve Theseus sponsorship and/or employment at Theseus (both during and post-educational).
You are looking for a Technical College not a Traditional College.
Technical Colleges teach what you want, the latest and greatest hardware and software technologies. Specific courses on how to use specific applications that usually have a life cycle of under 10 years. Cold Fusion, ASP, JavaScript, etc... They teach PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Traditional Colleges teach more "general" concepts from the basic physics of semiconductor lattices to programming design to project management. Most of these courses do NOT teach you anything about any system, although you *MAY* end up using some of them on your own in a project for some courses. This is especially true in traditional engineering programs where you spend 75% of your coursework learning in fields COMPLETELY OUTSIDE YOUR INTENDED FOCUS (e.g. math, physics, mechanics, economics, etc...). At most Traditional Colleges you will find LITTLE PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.
"Which is better?" is not a good question. "Who are in more need?", the obvious is the former, practical technicians and engineering technologists. 250,000 new IT/computer technology jobs are created a year. Only 25,000 new, traditional engineering jobs are created a year.
Me, I am a traditional engineer, but I work in the semiconductor field. Not many openings there.;->
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
I think you are confused on what Rev Engr is ...
on
Reverse Engineering?
·
· Score: 1
Reverse engineering software is NOT quite the same as in other industries. It is MAINLY for just figuring out interfaces, formats and the like for interoperability purposes.
E.g., the Samba team does this in order to figure out what a Windows client expects from an NT PDC/SDC Server, etc...
You don't want to, ethically at least, start disassembling software and reusing code in your own. That is a GOOD WAY TO INVITE A LAWSUIT. Besides, it is pretty damn hard to learn an entire broad concept (like 3D graphics) from dissassembling. At most, you would use a dissassembler in such cases just to see how OpenGL, or DirectX handles a specific function or object, but not the entire subsystem.
If anything, only disassemble to see how things work. Otherwise, get yourself a good book, or, if you are a professional with a budget, license a toolkit from an established vendor with a proven product.
There is a REALISTIC AND WORKING 4-tier system under development. Much more cost effective than all the development during the Cold War. Defense contractors actually have to pay out of their own pocket sometimes, and then the government re-imburses them after it works! Totally 180 from the Cold War "money pits."
Jeez, if anything, this stuff is half-@$$ because the Clinton administration has done two things:
Cut off funding, and then put funding back in over the last year because Iran, N. Korea and China woke him up to the fact that MAD (mutally assured destruction) does *NOT* work against these countries. Clinton finally woke up, after cancelling some programs (a nice 3-7 years down the drain).
Reinstated the ABM treated of 1972. A treaty that died with the Soviet Union. So now, we are CRIPPLING OUR ABM EFFORTS because Clinton made that blunder!
Other issues that are SCREWING WITH ABM DEVELOPMENT COSTS are "environmentalists" (who lie out their @$$ to keep all missiles grounded), missapropriation of current ABM funds, etc...
Again, the ABM defense is a 4-tier one. IT REALLY *DOES* WORK! In fact, the American people *ARE* getting their money's worth compared to what happened in the 60s through the mid-80s.
EKV can intercept long range MRB and ICBM missiles outside the atmosphere. It is launched vi a standard ballastic missile, then searches the exo-atmosphere for targets. Even if does not intercept, it can identify targets for later interception by other systems.
THAAD (Theater High Altitude and Air Defense) can intercept upto 100 miles up. This is ALSO outside the atmosphere. Lockheed-Martin *WAS* farting around on this, but has recently replaced the management and had two COMPLETE SUCESSES!
NTW (Navy Theater Wide) not only protects us, but would be able to protect other countries. One Aegis cruiser placed in the Med would be able to defend southern Europe, Northern Africa and Israel from attack!
PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability) is the "last resort" defense. PAC-3 does *NOT* intercept outside the atmosphere, but only inside (>50% hit probability per missile, so don't knock it! We have gotten ourselves an excellent system!
Understand that A, B and D are "hit-to-kill". It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, only the bullets are traveling 20x faster than normal! But it allows the missile to be lighter (and therefore, batteries can carry 4x as many), faster and bam... when it hits, the target is shreded to pieces. In the case of A & B, they burn up in the atmosphere re-entry.
Guys, also understand this has been MONEY WELL SPENT. Especially compared to what happened in the 60s, 70s and Star Wars in the 80s. We *DID* learn a lot from Star Wars in the 80s, but it cost us >>10x as much. These new systems *ARE* worth the cost, and by 2003, everyone will see.
Again, I cannot think of a better system to develop than one that prevents a rogue state's leadership from remoting launching a ballistic missile for the "heck of it" because they don't care about the destruction of themselves. And it *HAS* happened people!
Again, the Clinton administration was DEAD WRONG on MAD, as Iran, the N. Koreans and Chinese have all shown. And they admit now that we NEED MISSILE DEFENSE! Of course they will champion it as their own, even though they cut the funding *AND* crippled the efforts by keeping the ABM treaty alive.
IMHO, both the NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers)/State BoPE (Board of Professional Engineers) *AND* the "engineering" Vendors (e.g. Microsoft, Novell, etc...).*SUCK* BIG-TIME! I explain why below...
First off, most states and state courts say you cannot call yourself an engineer without an engineering degree from an ABET accredited university *EXCEPT* for the computer industry.
This is because most states' BoPE and licensing throws all Computer, Semiconductor, Electronic and Software engineering into one big category, "Electrical." That is *MORONIC!* Especially in light of the fact that they specialize Civil into Civil, Environmental, Structural, Transportation, Waste, etc...
The ABET, ACM, IEEE, NECEE and many other professional math/electrical/computer organizations also think this is moronic! They have already devised tests, circulum and other educational/professional concepts to support a diversified set of professional programs *INCLUDING* "engineering technology" for non-degreed or non-4-year degree graduates! Of course the "damn bridge builders" in the NSPE and state BOPEs do *NOT* seem to care.
In the states of Massechusettes (excuse the misspelling) and Delaware, big IT states with the highest IT salaries, Microsoft and Novell have won the right in the courts to use the title "engineer" in a professional capacity. Why? Because the NSPE, being 80% civil/enviro folk look totally different than the CNE/MCSE computing crowd.
In Texas, a big IC design/manufacturing state, the opposite has happened. The courts have stood by the Texas BoPE and cease and decist letters have been sent to all CNE and MCSEs. Why? Because Texas actually licenses computer and software engineerings as themselves! (finally, intelligence in the universe). The main push for this was two reasons:
Fly-by-night programmers on government contracts
The Texas BoPE was getting all kinds of complaints about CNEs and MCSEs, but could do nothing about them. Remember, PEs are ANSWERABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, CNEs and MCSEs are *NOT*. PEs can be *SUED* for malpratice, just like Doctors, CNEs and MCSEs cannot.
On the flip-side, remember than vendor certifications are BIG BUSINESS and BIG $$$!!! Not just for Novell or Microsoft, but for the trainers who promise you $100,000 for one simple MCP certification. There are several problems with the use of "engineer" in the CNE/MCSE titles:
CNE and MCSE are "technicians", *NOT* engineers. You do *NOT* need calculus, mechanics, physics, etc... to install cabling, networking equipment, etc... like you do to "design" them -- yes, the REAL term of engineer! Les we forget!
If anything, I have *NO PROBLEM* with CNE/MCSEs calling themselves "engineers" in a private manner. I.e. just like sales engineers, domestic engineers, etc... But when it comes to PUBLIC PERCEPTION, this is *NOT* allowed. Why? Because state BoPE offices are getting complaints about these "engineers" which they can do nothing about.
Microsoft and Novell should call them "engineering technicians" instead. I think the state BoPEs would be interested in even helping licensing such computing technologies. Then they COULD CALL THEMSELVES "engineer" for short.
Also understand that vendor certifications are TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC! That is a OXY-MORON to traditional engineering. Engineers are *NOT* in touch with modern technology, just engineering concepts. That is what technicians are for... who are really "smarter." SGI, Sun, IBM and others do *NOT* use engineer in their certification programs. Why do Novell and Microsoft have to push the envelope on the abuse of the term?
So you see, we have a catch-22. First is the fact that the NSPE and all state BoPEs (except Texas) are filled with narrow-minded "bridge builders" and that the vendor certification route is a major MONEY MAKER and serves no real engineering purpose.
I have personally had run ins with IGNORANT CNEs and MCSEs all throughout my career. And eventually companies do wake up to the fact that 50-75% of the people who carry these certifications don't know crap, just like 50-75% of the PEs should not be considered practical technicians! I cannot believe how many CNEs and MCSEs I have run into know NOTHING about either TCP/IP nor basic security concepts (let alone any scripting like Perl!). And you do not even have to be a high school graduate nor have any work experience to get them! At least a PE has a college degree, 4 FULL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE *AND* 3 REFERENCES!!!
The basic rule of the technical world is this:
1 scientist to...
10 engineers to...
100 technicians.
E.g., 2,500 physicists graduate per year to 25,000 engineers per year to 250,000 IT jobs needed a year. Do you see a trend?
That is why the whole H1B Visa bullshit came about! You do *NOT* need calculus spewing engineers installing network switches! H1B is just a way for companies to strongarm immigrants into working cheap and replacing US engineers. The IEEE knows this and has tried to covey it to Congress. But big business wins! So instead of giving immigrants a real chance at being Americans with a green card and allowing them to change jobs and demand the same pay as Americans, they give them a Visa which allows big business to pay them shit and force them to work 20 years at the same crappy job!
This level of ignorance is universal. I hate Novell and Microsoft for extending it, and I hate the NSPE/BoPEs for locking us real computer engineers out of the PE profession by making us take tests outside our field! This has to end my friends!!!
-- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (Engineering Intern) ASIC Design Engineer
If you are an IEEE member, you can sign up in their open-enrollment period this January. Rates are typical of a business that is 300,000 employees, only you pay 100%. But it is still MANY TIMES BETTER THAN YOU ALONE!
Even if you don't go for the medical, the Life Insurance is a no-brainer! Definately check out Life regardless!
If it produces a significant ammount of excess heat, an ammount that brings in the possibility of using it for power generation, then it is a VIABLE ENERGY SOURCE WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
RedHat puts everything under/opt/kde in/usr (e.g./opt/kde/share ->/usr/share), with exception to the binaries themselves. Binaries (normally in/opt/kde/share/bin) are now in/usr/bin.
Linus has held both the project AND ideals together! Was he the first?... No! Will he be the last?... Hell no!
But Linus and avoided most of the pitfalls of other projects, free or not. He does not boast his achievements, and he, more importantly, does NOT take advantage of them either! In addition, he is CAREFUL how he bashes competitors. He does it in a ETHICAL, SINCERE AND TECHNICAL FASHION -- something most software companies need a good lesson in.
He is a GREAT LEADER for the OpenSource front. He has the character as well as the technical knowledge. He is not the best of either, but the best combination of the two I have ever seen.
Everytime I enable CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, my whole system barfs on the next boot. None of the modules work, etc...
I was trying to get the 2.2.5 SBLive! module working under kernel 2.2.7. And it STILL gave me the version error even after enabling CONFIG_MODVERSIONS!
Texas is now licensing "Software Engineers"... Because of this fact.
It is a matter of public protection and trust in some cases. The state was getting burned on way too many projects by fly-by-night programmers.
Although it does not guarantee that licensed software engineers will "be any better," it *DOES* make them MUCH MORE ACCOUNTABLE (e.g. malpractice, etc...)!
I remember reading about it in 'Electronic Design' about a year ago...
LCD panel with a "Lenticular" screen over it. The screen filters out even and odd vertical pixels between the left and right eyes. The head tracker knows the position of your head so it knows how far to turn the screen "fins" so it separates the two.
Anyhow, in the future, there will be "eye trackers" which will allow the display to know what you are focusing in on. As such, it will allow you to "input" and read your eye "feedback." E.g., by focusing on a window in a GUI, it will come to the foreground!
Slashdot Mirror
FreeDOS implements similar controls to the "in-DOS" flag. Of course you are free to modify it to do otherwise (and it would probably be accepted). It gets trick as incompatibility becomes an issue. Heck, Microsoft had problems of their own with version compatibility.
RxDOS is a commercial, real-time DOS that implements a re-entrant kernel. Although it is commercial, it comes with source code, and it is based on a book by the developer. Looks like he just moved web sites and info is not up yet, but you can find the home page here when it's back up.
Kudos to Jim & Co on an excellent effort. FreeDOS is one frustrating project to work on, given all the quirks and undocumented structures. Worse than what the Samba team has to deal with IMHO.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Remember, Linus NEVER started any of this.
The only reason Linus even owns the trademark is because of greedy @$$ decided to do it. Then he had his lawyers start forcing the (R) on everything that beared the name "Linux." Authors, publishers and the like.
Linux would have rather had some pro-Linux organization do it and keep it open. He talked about this after the whole fiasco started. He NEVER intended to register it himself.
Check out the USPTO Database for Linux. Note the (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr!
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
BSD *IS* Linux! -- Re:Why is this "news" here?
Despite the names, BSD and Linux development is interwoven. Both benefit from each other. Please educate yourself on the history of BSD and Linux.
Understand that I'm a pro-GPL'er. I prefer GPL licensed code. But without a number of the BSD, artistic and other licensed code out there, Linux would not be complete.
There is a good ammount of code exchanged between Linux and FreeBSD. If anything, start with the Net2/3 code.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
If a company really wants you, ask for both ...
I work for a small, semiconductor technology startup. When a company is working in the red, of course they are going to be tight. On the flip-side, they need good people. Like anyone else, they are willing to pay for it ... in both salary and stock options.
All I can advise you on is to look for these things before you join (that haven't already been mentioned above):
Find out how much money the have in the bank, and how long that will last
And that includes how long they expect to be in the red. No company in their right mind will have an IPO while they are in the red. So, until then, all you have from them is your salary. If they company has several million in the bank (usually secured through private or government investments), you are probably looking at a sound company with a future. And that means you'll get paid for the next few years before IPO.
A good indicator you are on shaky ground is the fact that they do not want to pay you even the lower-end market value for your employment. That means they are probably strapped for cash, not a good move. Although that could be because you are a commodity item. And it that is true, it may not be such a revolutionary startup.
Look for other unique assets the company may have, like a patent portfolio?
As with other Slashdot'ters, I think almost all software patents are quite lame and trival ideas. But many advanced hardware patents took years of research and dedication. As it is with my company. We have a large patent portfolio that makes us an inviting acquisition target should money become an issue (it has not yet, and probably won't). We have also proven our technology through government programs, which has in turn helped us raise funds and woo potential investors (we are now turning many away though).
It was not too long ago that most players in the semiconductor market stopped short of just laughing at our ideas and concepts. Today those same companies, and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) itself, believes our approach is the correct one to solving the IC design problems of the 21st century. And those same companies are now admist organizing accelerated R&D programs to catch-up on the last 20 years we invented.
There are ways of implementing concepts similiar to our technology outside of our patents and current product focus. The ideas are nothing new (although we thought of most of them), and our patents and designs exploit what we believe is the best course (meaning we do not have lame, broad patents that stiffle innovation, in fact, we have been promoting it as the best course of future IC design). Of course companies like Motorola (and others, including some very prestigeous individuals I cannot mention at this time) have decided that our technology has already been proven and already developed to the point where it is commercially viable. But there will always be those who wish to "re-invent the wheel," hating us because we already dealt with the issues they are now having (e.g. Intel).
So, ask for what you want, but tell them you are flexible
If you and your skills are a valued commodity, they will pay. The salary may be slightly below market value, but they should more than make-up for it in stock options. And as one Slashdot'ter above mentioned, you need to know what percentage of the total "stockpile" is available to you.
But if they company has money in the bank to last a year or longer, long enough to its first product, ask for what you want and expect to get at least market value. I did with my company and walked into it with a nice raise. And since they did not meet the salary I wanted, they gave me additional stock options. I got the offer the very next day, that is how valuable they saw me.
One more thing: Non-Disclosure, Accepable; Non-Compete, UNAcceptable!
A company has the right to protect is technology, trade secrets and the like. As such, you will be presented with a Non-Disclosure Agreement. That is fine, sign it. But when the company wants you to sign a Non-Compete, give them two options for them to choose from:
You will get stares, disbelief and other "pep-talks" from others. But the fact of the matter is that "non-competes" ARE at least partially enforcable in many states IF you sign. As such, don't. If they won't reason, get a lawyer. He may not get rid of the non-compete, but he will narrow its focus so you can work after you leave the company.
As it was with my new company. I refused to sign the non-compete. My future boss, his boss, the head-hunter, and everyone else tried to reason with me. After a week, I got a lawyer, and we write a narrowed agreement. The next day, my future employer threw the Non-Compete completely out, they wanted me on-board ASAP. They said they would draft a new, narrower Non-Compete for everyone later on (or expand the Non-Disclosure). Unfortunately for them, no state law that I know of will enforce an agreement on you AFTER you have already started employment.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
$10 + $10/case to ship -- WRONG!
I meant about $10 + $6/case to ship! When I one, it cost ~$16, two cost me ~$22, three ~$28 (I seem to order a couple every few months).
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
AT/ATX Cases for $36 with 250W UL Listed PS ...
V-Tech 738F Semi-Transparent ATX Case
I personally like these cases over the more fully translucent Suntek/Antec/whoever ones. Most of the Suntek ones usually come with a crappy 235W, non-UL Listed PS that is more like a 200W UL one. I couldn't power up most mainboards in it until I upgraded the PS. And they are usually $90+ with UL Listed PS.
These little $36 babies are great. They feature extra port cut-outs (whereas the Suntek are lacking). An AT backplate (for those newer AT boards with ATX power connectors), along with the standard 2 ATX ones. And a nice, 250W ATX power supply (upgradable to 300W). Not fully tranlucent, but still cool looking with the hidden floppy drive. And you don't have to worry about matching the drives, since the drive area is beige.
I like the reseller too, Directron. They do NOT charge outrageous shipping charges (they make no profit on shipping). It will cost you only $10 + $10/case to ship (quite good compared to most other on-line stores, especially most of those who rank high on Pricewatch).
And NO, I do NOT work for them!
[ They also sell the Suntek case (with very crappy 235W PS), and a matching $9 KB and $8 Mouse for it too. IMHO, you'll definately need to upgrade the PS on it, and the mouse is pretty crappy too (but what do you expect for $8? ;-). ]
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
I meant that both Caldera and SuSE reserve some software as non-GPL. And I'm *NOT* talking about licensed/bundled software, even RedHat does that.
I mean RedHat releases ever bit of software it produces as GPL *AND* they also have a 100% completely redistributable distro for download.
Both Caldera and SuSE reserve that due to licensing issues with even their own software (e.g. SuSE's YaST, Caldera's DR-DOS, etc...).
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
I don't see RedHat doing anything that hurts. In fact, they may actually help!!!
Cygnus is quite profitable. And they have a lot of non-Linux products and interests. In fact, they are a great company when it comes to bringing OpenSource to non-OpenSource platforms. And they work akin to Sendmail (free product, charge for GUI and support).
So get off the "next monopoly" thing with RedHat which is impossible. In fact, I like that RedHat is at the top. It would be MUCH DIFFERENT if Caldera or SuSE was on top.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Here's the COUNTER-POINT:
Boolean logic was NEVER DESIGNED to work in computers!
Digital circuits require a "control" line to work. In the original mathematics, this was the "mathmatician." Again, this is fine for boolean calculations by hand, but not autonomously in digital computers.
So when computers rolled around, someone thought, hey, let's just use a synchronous clock for boolean logic. Well, that was great for 2KHz, 1MHz and probably as high as 100MHz. But for 1GHz?! FORGET IT!
In essence, as long as we keep teaching boolean as a form of digital logic, the longer computers will continue to hard to design at higher speeds and lower densities!
Again, boolean algebra is NOT the IDEAL MATH to use for digital circuits. Our NCL process is.
With NCL, you can describe MORE GATES, MORE DESIGNS. And things like INVERTS require NO GATES.
Additionlly, boolean clocked gates require two states, low and high. Even when a gate is "off", there is still some low voltage running through it. With NCL and its dual-rail implementation, OFF MEANS OFF and you use NO POWER when it is off.
While boolean logic DOES exist AND there should be books written on it and its theory. Any "CONTEMPORARY" book on Digital Logic Design should AT LEAST mention asynchoronous logic design and the concept of things like NCL and other techniques.
The days of using elementary boolean gates are over. It is NOT ideal for digital logic design. Luckily for the industry, companies like Theseus Logic are designing software that converts boolean circuits into non-boolean circuits for the computers of tomorrow.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
All "Contemporary" Logic Design is OUT OF DATE!!!
Traditional, clocked Boolean logic is flawed as numerous design failures have begun to occur - e.g. the original designs of the AMD K5/6, IBM PPC620, Intel Coppermine, etc... which set back product releases anywhere from 6-36 months
Why? Synchronizing millions of gates at near-GHz speeds is next to impossible. As such, even the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) knows that the industry must return to asynchronous and "clockless" logic as laid out in its 2001, 2003 and 2005 milestone plans.
We at Theseus Logic have the answer. This post if VERY COINCIDENTAL since we just annouced a STRATEGIC ALLIANCE with Motorola (Press Release Here) to bring our patented Null Convention Logic (NCL) technology to Motorola's 8 and 32-bit product designs.
Like other async technologies, NCL benefits fro async's inherit no/low-power, low-EMI emissions and high EMF tolerance. But UNLIKE TRADITIONAL ASYNC DESIGNS, NCL not only can co-exist with clock boolean logic in the same circuit, but you can use off-the-self sync design tools to design in NCL (via the use of a post-processor for many industry tools like Synopsys).
And lastly, as clocked boolean designs have to be redesigned for each feature size reduction (e.g. 0.25um -> 0.18um, etc...) and voltage variations (e.g. 3.3V vs. 2.5V, etc...), NCL circuits require LITTLE OR NO REDESIGN when new technology becomes available! As such, we call NCL designs "Timeless Solutions(TM)" because they deliver on both the delay-insensitive nature of async *AND* NCL designs can be re-used over and over again for a log period of time!
Again, visit Our Web Site to learn more about NCL technology and design. Note, content is slightly out of date, but the technology is nothing new. The technology was invented in the '70s, researched in the '80s and has finally become viable in the '90s.
The University of Central Florida has graduate programs in NCL design and technology which usually involve Theseus sponsorship and/or employment at Theseus (both during and post-educational).
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
You are talking about TWO DIFFERENT WORLDS!
You are looking for a Technical College not a Traditional College.
Technical Colleges teach what you want, the latest and greatest hardware and software technologies. Specific courses on how to use specific applications that usually have a life cycle of under 10 years. Cold Fusion, ASP, JavaScript, etc... They teach PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Traditional Colleges teach more "general" concepts from the basic physics of semiconductor lattices to programming design to project management. Most of these courses do NOT teach you anything about any system, although you *MAY* end up using some of them on your own in a project for some courses. This is especially true in traditional engineering programs where you spend 75% of your coursework learning in fields COMPLETELY OUTSIDE YOUR INTENDED FOCUS (e.g. math, physics, mechanics, economics, etc...). At most Traditional Colleges you will find LITTLE PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.
"Which is better?" is not a good question. "Who are in more need?", the obvious is the former, practical technicians and engineering technologists. 250,000 new IT/computer technology jobs are created a year. Only 25,000 new, traditional engineering jobs are created a year.
Me, I am a traditional engineer, but I work in the semiconductor field. Not many openings there. ;->
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Reverse engineering software is NOT quite the same as in other industries. It is MAINLY for just figuring out interfaces, formats and the like for interoperability purposes.
E.g., the Samba team does this in order to figure out what a Windows client expects from an NT PDC/SDC Server, etc...
You don't want to, ethically at least, start disassembling software and reusing code in your own. That is a GOOD WAY TO INVITE A LAWSUIT. Besides, it is pretty damn hard to learn an entire broad concept (like 3D graphics) from dissassembling. At most, you would use a dissassembler in such cases just to see how OpenGL, or DirectX handles a specific function or object, but not the entire subsystem.
If anything, only disassemble to see how things work. Otherwise, get yourself a good book, or, if you are a professional with a budget, license a toolkit from an established vendor with a proven product.
Good luck ...
There is a REALISTIC AND WORKING 4-tier system under development. Much more cost effective than all the development during the Cold War. Defense contractors actually have to pay out of their own pocket sometimes, and then the government re-imburses them after it works! Totally 180 from the Cold War "money pits."
Jeez, if anything, this stuff is half-@$$ because the Clinton administration has done two things:
Other issues that are SCREWING WITH ABM DEVELOPMENT COSTS are "environmentalists" (who lie out their @$$ to keep all missiles grounded), missapropriation of current ABM funds, etc...
Again, the ABM defense is a 4-tier one. IT REALLY *DOES* WORK! In fact, the American people *ARE* getting their money's worth compared to what happened in the 60s through the mid-80s.
Understand that A, B and D are "hit-to-kill". It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, only the bullets are traveling 20x faster than normal! But it allows the missile to be lighter (and therefore, batteries can carry 4x as many), faster and bam ... when it hits, the target is shreded to pieces. In the case of A & B, they burn up in the atmosphere re-entry.
Guys, also understand this has been MONEY WELL SPENT. Especially compared to what happened in the 60s, 70s and Star Wars in the 80s. We *DID* learn a lot from Star Wars in the 80s, but it cost us >>10x as much. These new systems *ARE* worth the cost, and by 2003, everyone will see.
Again, I cannot think of a better system to develop than one that prevents a rogue state's leadership from remoting launching a ballistic missile for the "heck of it" because they don't care about the destruction of themselves. And it *HAS* happened people!
Again, the Clinton administration was DEAD WRONG on MAD, as Iran, the N. Koreans and Chinese have all shown. And they admit now that we NEED MISSILE DEFENSE! Of course they will champion it as their own, even though they cut the funding *AND* crippled the efforts by keeping the ABM treaty alive.
IMHO, both the NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers)/State BoPE (Board of Professional Engineers) *AND* the "engineering" Vendors (e.g. Microsoft, Novell, etc...).*SUCK* BIG-TIME! I explain why below ...
So you see, we have a catch-22. First is the fact that the NSPE and all state BoPEs (except Texas) are filled with narrow-minded "bridge builders" and that the vendor certification route is a major MONEY MAKER and serves no real engineering purpose.
I have personally had run ins with IGNORANT CNEs and MCSEs all throughout my career. And eventually companies do wake up to the fact that 50-75% of the people who carry these certifications don't know crap, just like 50-75% of the PEs should not be considered practical technicians! I cannot believe how many CNEs and MCSEs I have run into know NOTHING about either TCP/IP nor basic security concepts (let alone any scripting like Perl!). And you do not even have to be a high school graduate nor have any work experience to get them! At least a PE has a college degree, 4 FULL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE *AND* 3 REFERENCES!!!
The basic rule of the technical world is this:
E.g., 2,500 physicists graduate per year to 25,000 engineers per year to 250,000 IT jobs needed a year. Do you see a trend?
That is why the whole H1B Visa bullshit came about! You do *NOT* need calculus spewing engineers installing network switches! H1B is just a way for companies to strongarm immigrants into working cheap and replacing US engineers. The IEEE knows this and has tried to covey it to Congress. But big business wins! So instead of giving immigrants a real chance at being Americans with a green card and allowing them to change jobs and demand the same pay as Americans, they give them a Visa which allows big business to pay them shit and force them to work 20 years at the same crappy job!
This level of ignorance is universal. I hate Novell and Microsoft for extending it, and I hate the NSPE/BoPEs for locking us real computer engineers out of the PE profession by making us take tests outside our field! This has to end my friends!!!
-- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (Engineering Intern)
ASIC Design Engineer
If you are an IEEE member, you can sign up in their open-enrollment period this January. Rates are typical of a business that is 300,000 employees, only you pay 100%. But it is still MANY TIMES BETTER THAN YOU ALONE!
Even if you don't go for the medical, the Life Insurance is a no-brainer! Definately check out Life regardless!
If it produces a significant ammount of excess heat, an ammount that brings in the possibility of using it for power generation, then it is a VIABLE ENERGY SOURCE WHATEVER IT MAY BE.
I am sick of all the Yes/No Cold Fusion BS.
-- The BS
Use symlinks stupid! ;->
ln -s /usr /opt/kde /usr/bin /usr/share/bin
ln -s
RedHat puts everything under /opt/kde in /usr (e.g. /opt/kde/share -> /usr/share), with exception to the binaries themselves. Binaries (normally in /opt/kde/share/bin) are now in /usr/bin.
-- BitMan
Philosophy is what the Ph in PhD means!
Linus has held both the project AND ideals together! Was he the first? ... No! Will he be the last? ... Hell no!
But Linus and avoided most of the pitfalls of other projects, free or not. He does not boast his achievements, and he, more importantly, does NOT take advantage of them either! In addition, he is CAREFUL how he bashes competitors. He does it in a ETHICAL, SINCERE AND TECHNICAL FASHION -- something most software companies need a good lesson in.
He is a GREAT LEADER for the OpenSource front. He has the character as well as the technical knowledge. He is not the best of either, but the best combination of the two I have ever seen.
-- BitMan
Everytime I enable CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, my whole system barfs on the next boot. None of the modules work, etc...
I was trying to get the 2.2.5 SBLive! module working under kernel 2.2.7. And it STILL gave me the version error even after enabling CONFIG_MODVERSIONS!
Because of this fact.
It is a matter of public protection and trust in some cases. The state was getting burned on way too many projects by fly-by-night programmers.
Although it does not guarantee that licensed software engineers will "be any better," it *DOES* make them MUCH MORE ACCOUNTABLE (e.g. malpractice, etc...)!
It will trail the K7 by 3 months to market.
The Coppermine is like the Celeron only with TWICE the L2 cache and the P3 instruction set (with SSE).
I think AMD will do MUCH BETTER once SLDRAM is on the market (i.e. the latency of DRDRAM just sux!).
I remember reading about it in 'Electronic Design' about a year ago ...
LCD panel with a "Lenticular" screen over it. The screen filters out even and odd vertical pixels between the left and right eyes. The head tracker knows the position of your head so it knows how far to turn the screen "fins" so it separates the two.
Anyhow, in the future, there will be "eye trackers" which will allow the display to know what you are focusing in on. As such, it will allow you to "input" and read your eye "feedback." E.g., by focusing on a window in a GUI, it will come to the foreground!
Neat huh?
COAS IS GPL
It is an open project just like any other OpenSource software. Other distributors are welcome to use it.
If there is one thing holding other distributors like SuSE back, it is their proprietary administration programs (e.g. YaST in the case of SuSE).
FreeBSD can sign a NDA with a vendor to get specs. They did this back when Adaptec did NOT support Linux. Hence, why I used FreeBSD for a small stint.
The CPUs used were Slot2 Pentium II Xeons. Memory limitation is the same as caching limitation.
Early Pentium II's only cached 384MB, later ones cached only 512MB. The limitation has been removed in most newer PIIs.