If I have a project I"ve started, and it's GPLd, and you submit me a little diff, a bugfix, say... you do not, i'm afraid, automatically become a co-author.
Even if you submit a whole subsection to a peice of code..... the language you submitted it to me really DOES matter. IF you gave me a patch, and said "here, if you want ot include this in the project". You just GAVE it to me... you just assumed I was going to publicly release it in the GPL version. I still retain copyright, even if I include the code you gave me.
Just because the project is GPL does not *necessarily* mean that all changes submitted by others grants them co-authorship.
TO start with, both Microsoft's code, and, say, RMS, are protected by copyright laws. In that, sure, they are the same.
Microsoft, however, makes you agree to a bunch of additional terms above and beyond the protections it would be provided under just copyright law. Stuff like "no reverse engineering" "No benchmarks" "not transferrable to another system" etcetera. You get the idea.
RMS code, released under the GPL, does NOT require you to accept ANY license at all. The GPL is NOT a use license. You are free to do anything with the code that standard copyright laws allowed. IN ADDITION to that, you can choose to accept the terms of the GPL, which grants you additional rights ABOVE and BEYOND what copyright alone allows you to do. You are still free to contact the copyright holder and request other licensing as well.
So it all really depends on what you mean by freedom. I agree, real freedom would be simply releasing it into the public domain, where anyone can do anything at all with it. The GPL is just pushing an agenda.
The GPL does say that the only way you may legally distribute the software is if you follow the terms regarding source distribution.
If you are NOT distributing the source, then the GPL does not give you the right to distribute the software.. which means if you are distributing it without releasing source, you are distributing in violation of COPYRIGHT law.
Your source STILL does not belong to the public; though you can be sued for copyright violation by the copyright holder. Releasing that source may be one out for you, as then you could cite the GPL as giving you permission to redistribute.
So my point is only that the GPL does not automatically make something free, or automatically open up source. They can always keep it to themselves, and face legal consequences from the copyright holders if they should choose to prosecute.
The reason the "standard parts" clause is important is because, if I sell, say, my version of linux that has, say, a bunch of private libraries (not based on GPL code.. they are totally written by me) included, and then I use GPL code and link against those libraries (perhaps my libs are high performance itanic libs for math, who knows)... and distribute that code.. I am not violationg the GPL by linking aganist proprietary libraries. I claim those libraries are part of my OS, and that OS is the target platform. This is not a stretch of the rules. It's plain as day.
If I was that sysadmin, and I asked you for a password, and you refused, I would walk away, and tell your boss you refused to cooperate. It's not your choice. Unless, of course, it was against some company policy or contract you had signed....
They should change the password, log in, and then get you to set up a new one. Yup. That would make sense.
Except in practice, it's a royal pain in the ass.
If you have to wipe out someone's password (presumably because they aren't there with you to log in), and then perhaps YOU aren't going to be around later, you risk making sure they can't do anything for the rest of the day. Especially with windows and other systems with a real trust model, (where the superuser can't just assume any identity without changing passwords), it's just a pain.
The procedures you mention all make good sense, but have you implemented them in a real business?
Now, of the people out there who do real sysadmin for real businesses... how many of you have ever asked a user for their password? Maybe to log into an application to test something, or to see if their account is working right, or whatever.
It's very, very common. This desensitizes people.
Furthermore, if people percieve the person who is asking them for their password to be in any position of authority over them, they will give it up. This is NORMAL human behavior.. if the boss or hr manager, or anyone else who you percieve to have more authority to you and/or who is helping you asks for your keys, or your password, or any other piece of information maybe they shouldn't know, but which won't hurt in that instance, they give it up.
Of all those who are going to pipe up and say "no way I'd never give out my password", how many of you have actually been in that position and refused to give it out? That's the number that really matters.
Without strict, enforced policies that everyone adheres to religiously, this will always happen. Unless people are regularly tested by cold calls, and other things, and then disciplined harshly for divulging their passwords, these kind of statistics are to be expected.
If they are distributing non-cmopliant softwar emixed with GPL, their stuff is not "automatically GPL" They are merely distributing a work without permission (as the GPL does not apply, because they obviousyl aren't following the terms, and nothing else gives them permission to distribute; copyright law forbids it)
A linux distribution does not carry a large obligation to redistribute. You must provide source & licenses of all GPL components to those whom you have distributed to; in this case, their customers. If NON-GPL software is mixed in, THAT IS FINE.. as long as that software constitutes separate items from the GPL parts.
Furthermore, the GPL allows for GPL software to be linked against non-GPL libraries if those libraries ar A REGULAR PART OF THE TARGET SYSTEM. (ie: sun LIBC, Windows system libraries, etc).
Sco could write custom libraries, then link GPL software against it, and STILL be within their rights; the GPL version they would be obliged to redistribute is simple targetted at their platform, not yours, which may be similar, but not the same.
Who CARES if sco wants to charge $999 for linux? IF they can pull that off, MORE POWER TO THEM.
Why is it everytime someone charges money for something everyone freaks out?
The whole point of this whole open source/free software is that, within certain licensing constraints, anyone is FREE TO DO what they want with the software, including make money.
Seriously.. I hate SCO as much as the next guy (if not more), but give it a rest.
How has sco harmed you by offering this package? Oh, they haven't?
1) If Theo decides to close up shop, they can continue using the code they already have. 2) It's this kind of "guilt trip" that really shows you don't support the license.
"Well I know we said you can do whatever you want, but you SHOULD GIVE STUFF BACK FREE"
The original source signal DOES NOT HAVE any ultrasonics. You cannot get more information than you started with. That's information theory. The source CD was recorded with a 44.1Khz brickwall filter, and no matter how you slice it or dice it, that's all you get.
When you use a DAC during playback, you get harmonic noise because of the DAC process.. this is not part of the audio signal, or something you want to hear, it's an artifact of the dac process, and it needs to be filtered out in order to protect your equipment (and just because, well, it's not part of the recorded signal). If you use a sharp filter on the output stage, which you have to do if the signal ends at 44.1Khz and the first band of noise starts at 44.2Khz.... you end up with ringing & phasing problems that arguably DO affect the sound. By doing upsampling, OR oversampling, you ensure that the noise starts way higher up in the spectrum, so you can use a nice gentle filter to get rid of it, and can massively reduce the effects of that filter on the signal.
I do not dispute that this guy heard more soundstage when he turned on the upsampling; I'm just pointing out that you are NOT increasing the resolution of the signal..and it's absolutely NOT the same thing as recording at 24/96. You are still reading from a 16/44.1 source, and there is no way according to the laws of the universe to extract any more information than that out of the signal. The most you can get is more accurately reproducing what is recorded in that 44.1Khz sample.
And seriously... 99% of the difference people hear with really high end gear just *are not there*, and blind listening tests can prove it.
I've seen people claim that a better cable (even though the one they had was already very good) provided richer, deeper bass and cleaner highs. I've seen them claim a vibration dampener under their headphone amp cleaned up the signal a lot. (it wasn't in an environment with any real vibration to speak of to begin with).
And I've seen people who claim to be "audio engineers" say they can hear the difference on a computer between playing back a sample from 2 different hard drives.
So you can't take it too seriously.
Are upsamplers a nice piece of home audio gear? for sure.
DO they make stuff sound better? Some say yes.
Does it actually increase the resolution of your source? Hell no.
(And I like good audio gear myself... I listen on $600 Grado heaphones, on a nice Creek amp)
actually, simulations were done about 2 years ago, it was posted on slashdot I believe... the bubbles on the outside DO go down (how is that defying gravity, by the way?)
All the rising bubbles towards the center end up creating a downward flow at the edge of the glass, where there is little resistance to the bubbles flowing downwards.. so they do. Look even closer.
Upsampling dacs show an improvement through allowing the use of gentler filters, rather than really steep "brickwall" cutoff filters at 42Khz.
They shift quantization noise way higher up in the spectrum so you can filter it out more gently.
The only other reason they provide better sound is because gear that accepts 24/196 tends to have better analog components all around.
SO yes, tehre are reasons for upsampling to sound better.. but none of them have to do with what comes to midn at first: The increased detail available at higher rates. Absolutely none.
So you use an s/pdif input card and record the data digitally on your pda... WHOPIE.
You still need, as it says, a DAC. Got a really small high quality dac? High quality mic? Got enough storage capacity for high quality recording on your pda?
The linked article states they filter results based on location for LEGAL reasons. What do you want them to do? Lose the ability to do business in other countries?
The mere fact that they COULD adjust results for some other reason, based on location, just speaks for the sophistication of their system.
Alcohol ruins a lot more lives than pornography does.
- Technically we call it "100baseT Full Duplex" - The 100 refers to 100 bits/second as a maximum channel capacity, not the maximum transfer rate between two hosts. it takes multiple hosts using the channel at the same time to saturate the channel. - Half of the bandwidth of 802.11b is NOT set for " each direction". The full amount can be used for either direction.. it's half duplex. Further, the 11mbps refers to the radio channel, not any " direction".
- Full channel usage happens with multiple hosts, not with only two. with two hosts.. just like ethernet, but the delays and wait times are larger, adn there is more protocol overhead, due to the lack of collision detection.
10Mbps ethernet is 10mbps because that's how many bits per second the channel itself can hold. It actually means nothing at all about the host to host bandwidth. In the case of ethernet, the numbers are very close, so nobody really thinks about it.
11Mbps wireless is the same thing.. it's the bitrate of the radio channel, not the useful data rate of the protocol itslef... and with wireless, there is more overhead. A lot more.
If these numbers are not satisfactory, what number should be reported? It's the only number that is actually standard.. everything else depends on the conditions of the setup, network, and protocols in use.
Apologies for the bad grammar and typos.
on
Linux SMP Round-Up
·
· Score: 1
I'm definately still suffering from the flu. I just re-read that and it's got way more than my average number of mistakes.
Re:Does linux support hypertrheading?
on
Linux SMP Round-Up
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
4 cpus for the price of 2? No.. that's not what hyperthreading is about.
At least, not from what I've gleaned from all the documentation out there.
Hyperthreading is about optimizing the pipelining features of the processor... wheras normally. If the processor knows that 2 instructions are independent of each other, it can run whatever stages of them it has roon for in the pipeline, concurrently. Normaly, preduction and whatnot have to be done, and this is only somewhat effective.
By forcing the OS to treat ti as 2 processors, it now has a clue as to which instructions are definately unrelated, as the higher layer OS has already decided they go to separate processors.
So Hyperthreading is really using 2 virtual processors to better use up the resources of a single processor.. so for some operations it may yield near double the perforamnce, but overall, there is no way this is going to give you the same boost as the equivalent number of processors will.
Yes, linux currently supports hyperthreading. You will see that 4 processors show up on a dual processor xeon system.
Slashdot Mirror
why would you want to put swap on a ramdrive? Why not just do something like.. USE THE RAM.
Swap's only purpose is to account for lack of ram.
If I have a project I"ve started, and it's GPLd, and you submit me a little diff, a bugfix, say...
you do not, i'm afraid, automatically become a co-author.
Even if you submit a whole subsection to a peice of code..... the language you submitted it to me really DOES matter. IF you gave me a patch, and said "here, if you want ot include this in the project". You just GAVE it to me... you just assumed I was going to publicly release it in the GPL version. I still retain copyright, even if I include the code you gave me.
Just because the project is GPL does not *necessarily* mean that all changes submitted by others grants them co-authorship.
I'm not a GPL zealot by any means.. however..
TO start with, both Microsoft's code, and, say, RMS, are protected by copyright laws. In that, sure, they are the same.
Microsoft, however, makes you agree to a bunch of additional terms above and beyond the protections it would be provided under just copyright law. Stuff like "no reverse engineering" "No benchmarks" "not transferrable to another system" etcetera. You get the idea.
RMS code, released under the GPL, does NOT require you to accept ANY license at all. The GPL is NOT a use license.
You are free to do anything with the code that standard copyright laws allowed.
IN ADDITION to that, you can choose to accept the terms of the GPL, which grants you additional rights ABOVE and BEYOND what copyright alone allows you to do. You are still free to contact the copyright holder and request other licensing as well.
So it all really depends on what you mean by freedom. I agree, real freedom would be simply releasing it into the public domain, where anyone can do anything at all with it. The GPL is just pushing an agenda.
You are misstating something though.
The GPL does say that the only way you may legally distribute the software is if you follow the terms regarding source distribution.
If you are NOT distributing the source, then the GPL does not give you the right to distribute the software.. which means if you are distributing it without releasing source, you are distributing in violation of COPYRIGHT law.
Your source STILL does not belong to the public; though you can be sued for copyright violation by the copyright holder. Releasing that source may be one out for you, as then you could cite the GPL as giving you permission to redistribute.
So my point is only that the GPL does not automatically make something free, or automatically open up source. They can always keep it to themselves, and face legal consequences from the copyright holders if they should choose to prosecute.
The reason the "standard parts" clause is important is because, if I sell, say, my version of linux that has, say, a bunch of private libraries (not based on GPL code.. they are totally written by me) included, and then I use GPL code and link against those libraries (perhaps my libs are high performance itanic libs for math, who knows)... and distribute that code.. I am not violationg the GPL by linking aganist proprietary libraries. I claim those libraries are part of my OS, and that OS is the target platform. This is not a stretch of the rules. It's plain as day.
If I was that sysadmin, and I asked you for a password, and you refused, I would walk away, and tell your boss you refused to cooperate.
It's not your choice.
Unless, of course, it was against some company policy or contract you had signed....
Otherwise, you are just being a smartass.
They should change the password, log in, and then get you to set up a new one. Yup. That would make sense.
Except in practice, it's a royal pain in the ass.
If you have to wipe out someone's password (presumably because they aren't there with you to log in), and then perhaps YOU aren't going to be around later, you risk making sure they can't do anything for the rest of the day. Especially with windows and other systems with a real trust model, (where the superuser can't just assume any identity without changing passwords), it's just a pain.
The procedures you mention all make good sense, but have you implemented them in a real business?
The statistics are not that shocking.
Now, of the people out there who do real sysadmin for real businesses... how many of you have ever asked a user for their password? Maybe to log into an application to test something, or to see if their account is working right, or whatever.
It's very, very common. This desensitizes people.
Furthermore, if people percieve the person who is asking them for their password to be in any position of authority over them, they will give it up. This is NORMAL human behavior.. if the boss or hr manager, or anyone else who you percieve to have more authority to you and/or who is helping you asks for your keys, or your password, or any other piece of information maybe they shouldn't know, but which won't hurt in that instance, they give it up.
Of all those who are going to pipe up and say "no way I'd never give out my password", how many of you have actually been in that position and refused to give it out? That's the number that really matters.
Without strict, enforced policies that everyone adheres to religiously, this will always happen. Unless people are regularly tested by cold calls, and other things, and then disciplined harshly for divulging their passwords, these kind of statistics are to be expected.
NO, NO, and NO
If they are distributing non-cmopliant softwar emixed with GPL, their stuff is not "automatically GPL"
They are merely distributing a work without permission (as the GPL does not apply, because they obviousyl aren't following the terms, and nothing else gives them permission to distribute; copyright law forbids it)
A linux distribution does not carry a large obligation to redistribute. You must provide source & licenses of all GPL components to those whom you have distributed to; in this case, their customers. If NON-GPL software is mixed in, THAT IS FINE.. as long as that software constitutes separate items from the GPL parts.
Furthermore, the GPL allows for GPL software to be linked against non-GPL libraries if those libraries ar A REGULAR PART OF THE TARGET SYSTEM. (ie: sun LIBC, Windows system libraries, etc).
Sco could write custom libraries, then link GPL software against it, and STILL be within their rights; the GPL version they would be obliged to redistribute is simple targetted at their platform, not yours, which may be similar, but not the same.
Who CARES if sco wants to charge $999 for linux? IF they can pull that off, MORE POWER TO THEM.
Why is it everytime someone charges money for something everyone freaks out?
The whole point of this whole open source/free software is that, within certain licensing constraints, anyone is FREE TO DO what they want with the software, including make money.
Seriously.. I hate SCO as much as the next guy (if not more), but give it a rest.
How has sco harmed you by offering this package? Oh, they haven't?
1) If Theo decides to close up shop, they can continue using the code they already have.
2) It's this kind of "guilt trip" that really shows you don't support the license.
"Well I know we said you can do whatever you want, but you SHOULD GIVE STUFF BACK FREE"
The original source signal DOES NOT HAVE any ultrasonics. You cannot get more information than you started with. That's information theory. The source CD was recorded with a 44.1Khz brickwall filter, and no matter how you slice it or dice it, that's all you get.
When you use a DAC during playback, you get harmonic noise because of the DAC process.. this is not part of the audio signal, or something you want to hear, it's an artifact of the dac process, and it needs to be filtered out in order to protect your equipment (and just because, well, it's not part of the recorded signal). If you use a sharp filter on the output stage, which you have to do if the signal ends at 44.1Khz and the first band of noise starts at 44.2Khz.... you end up with ringing & phasing problems that arguably DO affect the sound.
By doing upsampling, OR oversampling, you ensure that the noise starts way higher up in the spectrum, so you can use a nice gentle filter to get rid of it, and can massively reduce the effects of that filter on the signal.
I do not dispute that this guy heard more soundstage when he turned on the upsampling; I'm just pointing out that you are NOT increasing the resolution of the signal..and it's absolutely NOT the same thing as recording at 24/96. You are still reading from a 16/44.1 source, and there is no way according to the laws of the universe to extract any more information than that out of the signal.
The most you can get is more accurately reproducing what is recorded in that 44.1Khz sample.
And seriously... 99% of the difference people hear with really high end gear just *are not there*, and blind listening tests can prove it.
I've seen people claim that a better cable (even though the one they had was already very good) provided richer, deeper bass and cleaner highs.
I've seen them claim a vibration dampener under their headphone amp cleaned up the signal a lot. (it wasn't in an environment with any real vibration to speak of to begin with).
And I've seen people who claim to be "audio engineers" say they can hear the difference on a computer between playing back a sample from 2 different hard drives.
So you can't take it too seriously.
Are upsamplers a nice piece of home audio gear? for sure.
DO they make stuff sound better? Some say yes.
Does it actually increase the resolution of your source? Hell no.
(And I like good audio gear myself... I listen on $600 Grado heaphones, on a nice Creek amp)
His point was that in many applications, if you tell them to bind to "0.0.0.0", they map that to INADDR_ANY
actually, simulations were done about 2 years ago, it was posted on slashdot I believe...
the bubbles on the outside DO go down (how is that defying gravity, by the way?)
All the rising bubbles towards the center end up creating a downward flow at the edge of the glass, where there is little resistance to the bubbles flowing downwards.. so they do. Look even closer.
Upsampling dacs show an improvement through allowing the use of gentler filters, rather than really steep "brickwall" cutoff filters at 42Khz.
They shift quantization noise way higher up in the spectrum so you can filter it out more gently.
The only other reason they provide better sound is because gear that accepts 24/196 tends to have better analog components all around.
SO yes, tehre are reasons for upsampling to sound better.. but none of them have to do with what comes to midn at first: The increased detail available at higher rates. Absolutely none.
No, lossless compression does not at all need to use the entire audio clip. It's block based.
You made that up.
So you use an s/pdif input card and record the data digitally on your pda... WHOPIE.
You still need, as it says, a DAC. Got a really small high quality dac? High quality mic? Got enough storage capacity for high quality recording on your pda?
A portable DAT recorder is still way better.
The linked article states they filter results based on location for LEGAL reasons. What do you want them to do? Lose the ability to do business in other countries?
The mere fact that they COULD adjust results for some other reason, based on location, just speaks for the sophistication of their system.
Alcohol ruins a lot more lives than pornography does.
- Technically we call it "100baseT Full Duplex"
- The 100 refers to 100 bits/second as a maximum channel capacity, not the maximum transfer rate between two hosts. it takes multiple hosts using the channel at the same time to saturate the channel.
- Half of the bandwidth of 802.11b is NOT set for " each direction". The full amount can be used for either direction.. it's half duplex. Further, the 11mbps refers to the radio channel, not any " direction".
- Full channel usage happens with multiple hosts, not with only two. with two hosts.. just like ethernet, but the delays and wait times are larger, adn there is more protocol overhead, due to the lack of collision detection.
It's just the physics of it.
10Mbps ethernet is 10mbps because that's how many bits per second the channel itself can hold. It actually means nothing at all about the host to host bandwidth. In the case of ethernet, the numbers are very close, so nobody really thinks about it.
11Mbps wireless is the same thing.. it's the bitrate of the radio channel, not the useful data rate of the protocol itslef... and with wireless, there is more overhead. A lot more.
If these numbers are not satisfactory, what number should be reported? It's the only number that is actually standard.. everything else depends on the conditions of the setup, network, and protocols in use.
I'm definately still suffering from the flu. I just re-read that and it's got way more than my average number of mistakes.
4 cpus for the price of 2? No.. that's not what hyperthreading is about.
At least, not from what I've gleaned from all the documentation out there.
Hyperthreading is about optimizing the pipelining features of the processor... wheras normally. If the processor knows that 2 instructions are independent of each other, it can run whatever stages of them it has roon for in the pipeline, concurrently. Normaly, preduction and whatnot have to be done, and this is only somewhat effective.
By forcing the OS to treat ti as 2 processors, it now has a clue as to which instructions are definately unrelated, as the higher layer OS has already decided they go to separate processors.
So Hyperthreading is really using 2 virtual processors to better use up the resources of a single processor.. so for some operations it may yield near double the perforamnce, but overall, there is no way this is going to give you the same boost as the equivalent number of processors will.
Yes, linux currently supports hyperthreading. You will see that 4 processors show up on a dual processor xeon system.
No.
They have rights to the content of your submission; not the subject.
THat means you can't sue them for republishing it. OR whatever.
SO if you submit an essay, or whatever, they can do what they want freely with it.
IT does NOT mean they own anyhting you MENTION in it.
You caught me.
Exactly. Perfectly clear and understandbale, isn't it?
How then can they sue people for pirating software, if it's only the unlicensed USE of that software that is illegal? Quite the double standard, no?