There was a cool write-up of this in Salon right after he died. See the last couple paragraphs of the second page. Kind of cool for a guy that helped so many people, most of them who never got to thank him.
Which version of NTFS? I think there were some extensions thrown on it in going to NT5/NT2000. Can anyone who knows more on this verify?
I don't think MIPS or PPC made it to NT4. Alpha died early in NT4 cycle, maybe a service pack or two. You're looking at very old technology. This still looks like x86 only.
A troll who actually read my post, and made a post from it? Personally I think it's really pathetic.
Trolls should either be:
FUNNY!!!
The Monty Python parrot bit is good. I laughed when someone trolled with a phrase from "The Message" by Grandmaster Flash. Even a post run through jive or kraut would be cool the first time. DO SOMETHING CREATIVE.
Some dumbfuck trollbot so at least there was some thought into auto-replying to slashdot. You may have had to read some perldoc.pod about libwww or whatever, and spent 5 or 10 minutes checking CGI docs. But even these are pathetic... the nut has already been cracked. The great skill in posting to a forum specifically designed for people to post has somehow been acquired before you picked up "learn Perl in 21 days".
Get a freaken life. Why does being able to post about an OS entertain you all that much? Didn't your momma show you enough love as a child? The direction of the Universe is chaos and entropy. You getting your jolleys on how you're "giving it to Slashdot, giving it to *BSD" is stupid, you're just another cog in the machine. Anyone can spraypaint a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It takes a real genius to paint it in the first place.
And of course, rants like these are just what the trolls want, so I'm fuelling the problem, yadda yadda....
Merge of Darwin msdosfs, other fixes Not done Apple's Darwin operating system has fairly extensive improvements to msdosfs and other kernel services; these fixes must be reviewed and merged to the FreeBSD tree.
Since one reason the GPL people attack the BSD license so much is that it doesn't require give backs, it's good to see some people do the right thing.
If you check the FAQ page out, you'll see that one of "the people behind AskIgor" is Andreas Zeller, the guy who co-created DDD.
This is a tool, nothing more. Computers are deterministic state machines, but the state machine is essentially infinite. Anything that cuts down the number of states you need to look at is good.
For those who didn't recognise the name, this fine gentleman is responsible for DDD. which has saved me (and a lot of other developers I've known in school and professionally) lots and lots of hours of debugging time.
Andreas, I'd just like to say thanks.
Andreas is mentioned with a blurb in the FAQ, but I know most Slashdot readers don't read the main page in the article, much less links off the main page. It should have been mentioned in the submission.
Being where we were with Office 1997 is not good enough for us But it's good enough for me, and I believe to a vast percentage of users. If someone gave me Word 95 with native mousewheel support, I'd use it. Native support came in Word 97, which I didn't want, except for this one feature. There are no other new features since then that I've personally wanted. MS is finding I'm not alone - they're increasingly using dropping support as a weapon to force people to upgrade.
BTW: I haven't touched this in a while, so I looked around. All of this stuff was released opensource, can be seen at the project UDI sourceforge page with a link to download the source from cvs. The usb stuff isn't shipped as part of the environment, but is being used. I guess they closed the drivers, even though essentially they're just BSD code ported to USI.
Actually, I was a part of this. UDI is The Uniform Driver Interface Project. I'm not sure what they mean about San Jose part, we're Midwest. Maybe another group did this in parallel? I don't know. Maybe they ported the USB stack in OSR5 is native DDI and built on USB. I can say that the UDI USB stack that shipped in OpenServer 8.0 is BSD code. Not that this is illegal, or violates any contracts. Just it's assholish of them to (threaten to) sue BSD when they use BSD code themselves. Wouldn't be the first time - ATT UNIX had many BSD enhancements, but that didn't stop them from suing.
The theory of UDI is you have this virtual environment thats consistent across all architectures. All drivers are 100% source compatible across all architectures. Environments with the same C ABI are binary compatible.
At one time, back when SCO/Caldera actually sold OSes for a living, they wanted to migrate people from OpenServer to UnixWare. One of the problems they saw was with device drivers. Nobody wanted to spend real money to port drivers to UnixWare. Why spend all that testing for an OS that won't give you a lot of sales (because lack of OS sales means no market)? So they came up with Project UDI, which is a driver environent, consistent across all platforms. You virtualize things and give a common API. The environment also handles synchronization, so you don't have to worry about locking data - you'll never get preempted. I forgot the timing, but I think UnixWare had this on top of the 7.x DDI, then OpenUnix 8 (which had a LOT of Linux stuff) had UDI as the native DDI, and the old DDI on top of it.
We talked to other major UNIX guys, but the proprietary ones said no; they were big enough in most cases for people to target their OS specifically, so it became strategic to not support having drivers for other OSes. Stallman hated (hates? it's pretty much dead) the idea because it makes it easier to close drivers (binary compatibility across a large number of potential platforms).
It was a weird environment, and you don't program like normal DDIs, it's more of a message passing architecture, with marshalling and unmarshalling of parameters on either side of a call (the marshalling was a major source of bugs early on). It seems pretty much dead in the water now. And yes, the USB stack is definitely the "Net"BSD one. I put "Net" in quotes because the stack is essentially shared across Net,Free,Open, and I assume now, DragonflyBSD.
SVR4 is the merger of SVR3, released in 1987, and BSD UNIX. The gall of it is SVR4 was released in 1989, about the time of the suit, so they were suing UCB about the time they were using their stuff. BSD didn't get off the hook from the SVR3 => SVR4 changes (these are all allowed by the BSD license) but by showing that stuff in the SVR3 core was infringing on the BSD license.
Do you think a company that can pretend the warmed over crud that is UnixWare was infringed upon by IBM contibuting well engineered, real Enterprise stuff to Linux would be stopped by a little hacker speak? Ye of little faith...
BSDers don't get outraged much, man.... the whole Berkely thing. Even the "BSD is dead" trolls get ignored more than anything else.
The main advantage is more people realize that SCO is just on the pipe. They're going after a settlement thats years old, that was settled well before they got their dirty mitts on the code, suing one of the major contributers to UNIX (UC Berkely contributing minor things such as, Idunno, the VM?). Once people see that, they might realize SCO is truly the Smoking Crack Organization. The SCOX is only up 1.5% on this "breaking" news, so maybe people are starting to get wise.
This wrapper sounds a bit like the UDI Project creates a universally consistent driver DDI across all platforms. All drivers are source code compatible for all platforms with an environment. Drivers are binary compatible between platforms with a common C ABI.
Unfortunately Caldera was the main weight behind this, back when they actually did something silly like write code to make money instead of sue. They fell on hard times and essentially pulled support, and it's been dead in the water since.
Godwin's Law? As a Usenet discussion (err, Slashdot discussion) grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Interestingly enough, they've changed their server banner to return less information. Maybe as a response to a bunch of hacking attempts. The less information they give, the harder it is to punch holes.
(*) the information given in Netcraft is to be taken with a grain of salt. One, it can get confused by proxies, which sometiems results in folks seeing IIS on Linux (Linux proxies in front of Windows IIS servers). The other thing is this seems to be hosted externally through an outfil called NFT. Still seems stupid that SCO didn't tell them to use SCO servers.
You don't understand the post. The point is not that FreeBSD is going boldly into the 80s with dynamic linking, it's that the default world now has binaries living in/bin and/sbin as dynamic instead of static. For a long time they were all static linked because of recovery issues. Now they are dynamically linked (with an option to be static if you're paranoid). They probably link against only stuff in/lib which will be on the root partition. Anything in/usr/lib would be dangerous if/usr was toasted - your shell would go bye bye.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a cool write-up of this in Salon right after he died. See the last couple paragraphs of the second page. Kind of cool for a guy that helped so many people, most of them who never got to thank him.
Which version of NTFS? I think there were some extensions thrown on it in going to NT5/NT2000. Can anyone who knows more on this verify?
I don't think MIPS or PPC made it to NT4. Alpha died early in NT4 cycle, maybe a service pack or two. You're looking at very old technology. This still looks like x86 only.
Trolls should either be:
The Monty Python parrot bit is good. I laughed when someone trolled with a phrase from "The Message" by Grandmaster Flash. Even a post run through jive or kraut would be cool the first time. DO SOMETHING CREATIVE.
Get a freaken life. Why does being able to post about an OS entertain you all that much? Didn't your momma show you enough love as a child? The direction of the Universe is chaos and entropy. You getting your jolleys on how you're "giving it to Slashdot, giving it to *BSD" is stupid, you're just another cog in the machine. Anyone can spraypaint a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It takes a real genius to paint it in the first place.
And of course, rants like these are just what the trolls want, so I'm fuelling the problem, yadda yadda....
From the TODO:
Merge of Darwin msdosfs, other fixes
Not done
Apple's Darwin operating system has fairly extensive improvements to msdosfs and other kernel services; these fixes must be reviewed and merged to the FreeBSD tree.
Since one reason the GPL people attack the BSD license so much is that it doesn't require give backs, it's good to see some people do the right thing.
Unknown....
If you check the FAQ page out, you'll see that one of "the people behind AskIgor" is Andreas Zeller, the guy who co-created DDD.
This is a tool, nothing more. Computers are deterministic state machines, but the state machine is essentially infinite. Anything that cuts down the number of states you need to look at is good.
For those who didn't recognise the name, this fine gentleman is responsible for DDD. which has saved me (and a lot of other developers I've known in school and professionally) lots and lots of hours of debugging time.
Andreas, I'd just like to say thanks.
Andreas is mentioned with a blurb in the FAQ, but I know most Slashdot readers don't read the main page in the article, much less links off the main page. It should have been mentioned in the submission.
Computers are deterministic state machines. The problem is just that they have essentially an ifinite number of states.
Linux fanboy: "When will the Longhorn fake-commandline-console look and behave like bash and therefore be ready for serious work?
Cygwin
My mom caught me worthing my while once... said I'd go blind and everything.
Is this trying to replace the cardboard cutout dog as everyone's favorite debugging tool?
GNUWin Maelstrom rules!!!! From a player from the old MacOS 7 days...
How'd this get modded up when every one of his www links fail? as the sign says...
Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!
Being where we were with Office 1997 is not good enough for us
But it's good enough for me, and I believe to a vast percentage of users. If someone gave me Word 95 with native mousewheel support, I'd use it. Native support came in Word 97, which I didn't want, except for this one feature. There are no other new features since then that I've personally wanted. MS is finding I'm not alone - they're increasingly using dropping support as a weapon to force people to upgrade.
BTW: I haven't touched this in a while, so I looked around. All of this stuff was released opensource, can be seen at the project UDI sourceforge page with a link to download the source from cvs. The usb stuff isn't shipped as part of the environment, but is being used. I guess they closed the drivers, even though essentially they're just BSD code ported to USI.
Actually, I was a part of this. UDI is The Uniform Driver Interface Project. I'm not sure what they mean about San Jose part, we're Midwest. Maybe another group did this in parallel? I don't know. Maybe they ported the USB stack in OSR5 is native DDI and built on USB. I can say that the UDI USB stack that shipped in OpenServer 8.0 is BSD code. Not that this is illegal, or violates any contracts. Just it's assholish of them to (threaten to) sue BSD when they use BSD code themselves. Wouldn't be the first time - ATT UNIX had many BSD enhancements, but that didn't stop them from suing.
The theory of UDI is you have this virtual environment thats consistent across all architectures. All drivers are 100% source compatible across all architectures. Environments with the same C ABI are binary compatible.
At one time, back when SCO/Caldera actually sold OSes for a living, they wanted to migrate people from OpenServer to UnixWare. One of the problems they saw was with device drivers. Nobody wanted to spend real money to port drivers to UnixWare. Why spend all that testing for an OS that won't give you a lot of sales (because lack of OS sales means no market)? So they came up with Project UDI, which is a driver environent, consistent across all platforms. You virtualize things and give a common API. The environment also handles synchronization, so you don't have to worry about locking data - you'll never get preempted. I forgot the timing, but I think UnixWare had this on top of the 7.x DDI, then OpenUnix 8 (which had a LOT of Linux stuff) had UDI as the native DDI, and the old DDI on top of it.
We talked to other major UNIX guys, but the proprietary ones said no; they were big enough in most cases for people to target their OS specifically, so it became strategic to not support having drivers for other OSes. Stallman hated (hates? it's pretty much dead) the idea because it makes it easier to close drivers (binary compatibility across a large number of potential platforms).
It was a weird environment, and you don't program like normal DDIs, it's more of a message passing architecture, with marshalling and unmarshalling of parameters on either side of a call (the marshalling was a major source of bugs early on). It seems pretty much dead in the water now. And yes, the USB stack is definitely the "Net"BSD one. I put "Net" in quotes because the stack is essentially shared across Net,Free,Open, and I assume now, DragonflyBSD.
SVR4 is the merger of SVR3, released in 1987, and BSD UNIX. The gall of it is SVR4 was released in 1989, about the time of the suit, so they were suing UCB about the time they were using their stuff. BSD didn't get off the hook from the SVR3 => SVR4 changes (these are all allowed by the BSD license) but by showing that stuff in the SVR3 core was infringing on the BSD license.
Do you think a company that can pretend the warmed over crud that is UnixWare was infringed upon by IBM contibuting well engineered, real Enterprise stuff to Linux would be stopped by a little hacker speak? Ye of little faith...
BSDers don't get outraged much, man.... the whole Berkely thing. Even the "BSD is dead" trolls get ignored more than anything else.
The main advantage is more people realize that SCO is just on the pipe. They're going after a settlement thats years old, that was settled well before they got their dirty mitts on the code, suing one of the major contributers to UNIX (UC Berkely contributing minor things such as, Idunno, the VM?). Once people see that, they might realize SCO is truly the Smoking Crack Organization. The SCOX is only up 1.5% on this "breaking" news, so maybe people are starting to get wise.
Used to. They removed it a few years back, I think goiung form NT 3.5 => 4.0, but I forgot.
This wrapper sounds a bit like the UDI Project creates a universally consistent driver DDI across all platforms. All drivers are source code compatible for all platforms with an environment. Drivers are binary compatible between platforms with a common C ABI.
Unfortunately Caldera was the main weight behind this, back when they actually did something silly like write code to make money instead of sue. They fell on hard times and essentially pulled support, and it's been dead in the water since.
Godwin's Law?
As a Usenet discussion (err, Slashdot discussion) grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Don't bother writing SCO, they don't seem to be using it.(*)
Interestingly enough, they've changed their server banner to return less information. Maybe as a response to a bunch of hacking attempts. The less information they give, the harder it is to punch holes.
(*) the information given in Netcraft is to be taken with a grain of salt. One, it can get confused by proxies, which sometiems results in folks seeing IIS on Linux (Linux proxies in front of Windows IIS servers). The other thing is this seems to be hosted externally through an outfil called NFT. Still seems stupid that SCO didn't tell them to use SCO servers.
You don't understand the post. The point is not that FreeBSD is going boldly into the 80s with dynamic linking, it's that the default world now has binaries living in /bin and /sbin as dynamic instead of static. For a long time they were all static linked because of recovery issues. Now they are dynamically linked (with an option to be static if you're paranoid). They probably link against only stuff in /lib which will be on the root partition. Anything in /usr/lib would be dangerous if /usr was toasted - your shell would go bye bye.
Will we now get homeless robots opening doors at McDonald's and train stations asking "spare some amp-hours when you get out please?"