"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview
What's also interesting, is that since SCO has shipped Linux kernel, they are accepting that it is ok. So if this hypothetical code exists, they gave it away.
I also wish to enclose the obligatory "fuck off and die, SCO", now that we are on the topic.
Terrorists can't afford windows, and those that can are easy to hack into
I can already imagine Osama bin Laden in his cave, scratching his head about how he can afford the license for his Windows laptop. Even a cold-bloded terrorist has *some* sense of good conduct, and always licenses his software legally. It might mean a few less bombs or kalashnikovs, but what the heck.
It's nice to see that have included so much documentation about the architecture & philosophy, considering how early in the development they are. That's *real* openness.
They should start shipping TCPA hardware where the user controls the keys. Put that hardware in every box sold. Document the hardware thoroughly, even make Linux the first OS to support it with OSS drivers.
That way, there would be no legitimate reason to implement palladium, since users already have all the "trusted" stuff they might need, without submitting to bitchdom for microsoft.
It's their right to do so. I don't see a reason how they are doing something "wrong". It's their product, and they have said they have discontinued it. It's up to the users to find a suitable fix for the system.
Kinda makes one think of benefits of open source; if something like this happens, you can always hire some hacker to fix the hole, wherever it is, for the right amount of money.
It's actually a little known fact that Open Source is, directly or indirectly, in close cooperation with Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups. Linus Torvalds, during his years in Finland, participated in the Finnish wings of PLO, IRA and, when he had time, NSDAP.
Stallman is also a card-carrying islamist, testified beyond doubt by his beard and fanaticism. Al-Qaida was intended to be named GNU/Qaida, but the principal leaders of the group felt that it would have been too obvious a giveaway.
So, would somebody think of the children and put a timely end to this Open Source nonsense (or "Free Software", when we are dealing with more extreme factions)? I'm sure Microsoft, patriots that they are, would be more than happy to contribute resources to this non-profit movement. The future is in our hands!
Are you saying that Microsoft would need to contact *me* to everytime they wanted to sign a new version of Word, so it could run on my PC?
Yes, if they wanted to use TCPA for this purpose. However, they don't, hence Palladium. TCPA is not a MS thing. Additionally, even if they did sign Word, you could always crack the program and run it. TCPA doesn't enforce that you can only run "authorized" programs, which is what Palladium will do. You can't lock down a system with TCPA hardware.
but I'll be buying them if and only if they don't include TCPA/Palladium/Trusted PC Platform/Name of lockdown scheme of the week.
I dunno, TCPA seems kinda cool & useful. It doesn't lock down anything, it is basically just a way to encrypt/decrypt data without having the keys on a local file system (i.e. keys are stored on a black-box hardware). Spreading popularity of TCPA might also render Palladium and other DRM methods worthless. TCPA != DRM. Some IBM articles reported on/. a while ago clarified this point quite a bit.
With TCPA, *you* would hold all the keys (since you can access your own hardware, hopefully), and no centralized entity (*cough* ms *cough*) would have anything to say about it.
You have too much confidence in the coding style/quality of coders. eg: what happens when you put an int into a pointer or vice-versa
You create a hall-of-shame website where you list all the programmer-wannabes that make such mistakes. I would guess the peer pressure in the open source community will be enough.
The main perk of popularization of 64 bits is, if we think of the future, that more source code will be written with 64 bit capability in mind. Long ints will be used where they seem to be needed, etc. Open source movement is probably the most obvious benefactor, considering how harnessing that extra mile is/will be a trivial matter of recompiling. If we get a fast, cheap, non-x86 64 bit system in the future, all the better. But 64 bit capability should definitely be available on the desktops of the masses also, whether they needed 10 gig databases or not! More power for AMD!
I'm looking forward to industrial strength, rock solid Opteron servers to finally put to rest all the speculation how Linux on x86 machines is not up to all the tasks of Solaris/HP-SUX systems...
Exactly what is the point of running make -j 2 if VMWare only takes advantage of 1 processor (except maybe for shits and giggles)?
Because it is actually faster than w/o -j 2. I have a single cpu system and use something like -j 8. Compiling with multiple concurrent processes ensures that cpu keeps doing something while blocking on i/o, instead of just waiting. If your system has a lot of ram (>64MB), it can hack it.
But the whole thing is silly anyway, it can only possibly affect more recent parts of Linux, the core parts (e2fs filesystem etc) are pretty obviously developed independently of SCO, and owes nothing to them.
Yep. I've got the impression that IBM has only recently started contributing scalability-related stuff, i.e. their work will be seen in 2.6 series of kernels. If this is what SCO is whining about, it is *very* hard to justify 1bn+ damages (from a non-production kernel!).
If nothing else, the Unix community will see that SCO has the right to revoke the license to use Unix, such as AIX. I guess that acts more as FUD against Unix, not Linux. Law-saffy companies will benefit from going the Linux way, since Unix is a bitch of SCO. Of course this might motivate people to go for windows also...
But of course I agree with millions of other people that SCO should be bitchslapped hard, and repeatedly until they die. I would assume that UnitedLinux doesn't want to be associated with SCO anymore, how realistic is it to kick them out?
Quad-xeon Dell PowerEdge 6600 8Gb RAM, with RedHat Advanced Server and 4 HDs: $31,168
SunFire V480, quad-UltraSPARC, 8Gb RAM with Solaris and 2 HDs: $43,995.00
Care to compare the performance of these beasts? I would assume the Quad-Xeon would kick SunFire's ass by a significant margin, considering how slow UltraSparc is.
Since the price difference is only 30%, SCSI should be the obvious choice for server type tasks... considering all the other benefits of SCSI. IDE seems kinda hackish in comparison.
This is why experienced Python programmers store their programs as XML.
Huh? I consider myself an experienced Pythom programmer, and I've never heard of programs being stored in XML.
BTW, once you realize that you should use The Editor, whatever the platform, you will realize that all this whitespace whining is worthless. And other editors, on win32 and Unix alike, can be trivially configured to write tabs as spaces.
Remember that Opteron, AMD's 64 bit server chip, will ship before Athlon 64. Shipping Athlon 64 before MS ships x86-64 windows wouldn't make much sense, considering how small the market for such a powerfull linux desktop is at the moment - while Linux will Ki11 on Opteron.
Yet again, perfectly in time to be included in the next Red Hat.
GNOME can now show that an application is starting, so you don't feel the need to click a second time. For instance, if the application supports it, the cursor may change to a clock while the application starts if the application supports startup notification. Unlike some past attempts at UNIX startup notification, the new standard is reliable and robust, in keeping with the GNOME philosophy of things that "just work."
Does anyone know whether the KDE equivalent is a past attempt they are talking about?
Performance in the data center isn't there yet for Linux. Almost nobody with a serious databasee will run it on Linux. Even though DB2 and Oracle run on Linux, it's just not as fast yet.
Oracle (I think it was Larry, but can't remember) said somewhere recently that they expected Oracle to perform worse on Linux than on a proprietary Unix platform. They were surprised to see that Linux actually performed better. So please stop spreading FUD. One of the reasons for this is that IA32 hardware is actually faster than expensive proprietary unix hardware. Belief in superior performace of PA-RISC, SPARC etc. is mostly superstition or attending too many promotional sessions by Hp and the like.
One rule of thumb is that if you think you can cope with 4 or less processors, go for Linux on IA32.
Slashdot Mirror
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview
What's also interesting, is that since SCO has shipped Linux kernel, they are accepting that it is ok. So if this hypothetical code exists, they gave it away.
I also wish to enclose the obligatory "fuck off and die, SCO", now that we are on the topic.
Terrorists can't afford windows, and those that can are easy to hack into
I can already imagine Osama bin Laden in his cave, scratching his head about how he can afford the license for his Windows laptop. Even a cold-bloded terrorist has *some* sense of good conduct, and always licenses his software legally. It might mean a few less bombs or kalashnikovs, but what the heck.
Yeah, welcome to the nineties, wintel kiddies!
What part of "commodity" you don't understand?
Wooo Haaa!
;-)?
The era of commodity 64 bits is here, hopefully to stay!
I feel like celebrating, probably as much as for Mozilla 1.0. (What, I need to get a life for what
It's nice to see that have included so much documentation about the architecture & philosophy, considering how early in the development they are. That's *real* openness.
Seriously.
They should start shipping TCPA hardware where the user controls the keys. Put that hardware in every box sold. Document the hardware thoroughly, even make Linux the first OS to support it with OSS drivers.
That way, there would be no legitimate reason to implement palladium, since users already have all the "trusted" stuff they might need, without submitting to bitchdom for microsoft.
It's their right to do so. I don't see a reason how they are doing something "wrong". It's their product, and they have said they have discontinued it. It's up to the users to find a suitable fix for the system.
Kinda makes one think of benefits of open source; if something like this happens, you can always hire some hacker to fix the hole, wherever it is, for the right amount of money.
From the article:
The O-O factory, now chiefly represented by Java and C#, where the Big Company Programmers building Big Systems on Big Iron live.
So someone is actually using C#? In a big company, building big systems? And most surprisingly, on big iron?!?
It's actually a little known fact that Open Source is, directly or indirectly, in close cooperation with Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups. Linus Torvalds, during his years in Finland, participated in the Finnish wings of PLO, IRA and, when he had time, NSDAP.
Stallman is also a card-carrying islamist, testified beyond doubt by his beard and fanaticism. Al-Qaida was intended to be named GNU/Qaida, but the principal leaders of the group felt that it would have been too obvious a giveaway.
So, would somebody think of the children and put a timely end to this Open Source nonsense (or "Free Software", when we are dealing with more extreme factions)? I'm sure Microsoft, patriots that they are, would be more than happy to contribute resources to this non-profit movement. The future is in our hands!
Are you saying that Microsoft would need to contact *me* to everytime they wanted to sign a new version of Word, so it could run on my PC?
Yes, if they wanted to use TCPA for this purpose. However, they don't, hence Palladium. TCPA is not a MS thing. Additionally, even if they did sign Word, you could always crack the program and run it. TCPA doesn't enforce that you can only run "authorized" programs, which is what Palladium will do. You can't lock down a system with TCPA hardware.
but I'll be buying them if and only if they don't include TCPA/Palladium/Trusted PC Platform/Name of lockdown scheme of the week.
/. a while ago clarified this point quite a bit.
I dunno, TCPA seems kinda cool & useful. It doesn't lock down anything, it is basically just a way to encrypt/decrypt data without having the keys on a local file system (i.e. keys are stored on a black-box hardware). Spreading popularity of TCPA might also render Palladium and other DRM methods worthless. TCPA != DRM. Some IBM articles reported on
With TCPA, *you* would hold all the keys (since you can access your own hardware, hopefully), and no centralized entity (*cough* ms *cough*) would have anything to say about it.
You have too much confidence in the coding style/quality of coders. eg: what happens when you put an int into a pointer or vice-versa
You create a hall-of-shame website where you list all the programmer-wannabes that make such mistakes. I would guess the peer pressure in the open source community will be enough.
The main perk of popularization of 64 bits is, if we think of the future, that more source code will be written with 64 bit capability in mind. Long ints will be used where they seem to be needed, etc. Open source movement is probably the most obvious benefactor, considering how harnessing that extra mile is/will be a trivial matter of recompiling. If we get a fast, cheap, non-x86 64 bit system in the future, all the better. But 64 bit capability should definitely be available on the desktops of the masses also, whether they needed 10 gig databases or not! More power for AMD!
I'm looking forward to industrial strength, rock solid Opteron servers to finally put to rest all the speculation how Linux on x86 machines is not up to all the tasks of Solaris/HP-SUX systems...
They typically do all their scripts in Python.
Ditto for Red Hat.
Exactly what is the point of running make -j 2 if VMWare only takes advantage of 1 processor (except maybe for shits and giggles)?
Because it is actually faster than w/o -j 2. I have a single cpu system and use something like -j 8. Compiling with multiple concurrent processes ensures that cpu keeps doing something while blocking on i/o, instead of just waiting. If your system has a lot of ram (>64MB), it can hack it.
But the whole thing is silly anyway, it can only possibly affect more recent parts of Linux, the core parts (e2fs filesystem etc) are pretty obviously developed independently of SCO, and owes nothing to them.
Yep. I've got the impression that IBM has only recently started contributing scalability-related stuff, i.e. their work will be seen in 2.6 series of kernels. If this is what SCO is whining about, it is *very* hard to justify 1bn+ damages (from a non-production kernel!).
No, they shouldn't. This is SCO's attempt to get bought (because it won't float on it's own), and they don't deserve such a favour from IBM.
If nothing else, the Unix community will see that SCO has the right to revoke the license to use Unix, such as AIX. I guess that acts more as FUD against Unix, not Linux. Law-saffy companies will benefit from going the Linux way, since Unix is a bitch of SCO. Of course this might motivate people to go for windows also...
But of course I agree with millions of other people that SCO should be bitchslapped hard, and repeatedly until they die. I would assume that UnitedLinux doesn't want to be associated with SCO anymore, how realistic is it to kick them out?
Quad-xeon Dell PowerEdge 6600 8Gb RAM, with RedHat Advanced Server and 4 HDs: $31,168
SunFire V480, quad-UltraSPARC, 8Gb RAM with Solaris and 2 HDs: $43,995.00
Care to compare the performance of these beasts? I would assume the Quad-Xeon would kick SunFire's ass by a significant margin, considering how slow UltraSparc is.
the true purpose of anticipatory scheduling is revealed
Yes, as well as pre-emptive scheduling.
Since the price difference is only 30%, SCSI should be the obvious choice for server type tasks... considering all the other benefits of SCSI. IDE seems kinda hackish in comparison.
This is why experienced Python programmers store their programs as XML.
Huh? I consider myself an experienced Pythom programmer, and I've never heard of programs being stored in XML.
BTW, once you realize that you should use The Editor, whatever the platform, you will realize that all this whitespace whining is worthless. And other editors, on win32 and Unix alike, can be trivially configured to write tabs as spaces.
Remember that Opteron, AMD's 64 bit server chip, will ship before Athlon 64. Shipping Athlon 64 before MS ships x86-64 windows wouldn't make much sense, considering how small the market for such a powerfull linux desktop is at the moment - while Linux will Ki11 on Opteron.
Yet again, perfectly in time to be included in the next Red Hat.
GNOME can now show that an application is starting, so you don't feel the need to click a second time. For instance, if the application supports it, the cursor may change to a clock while the application starts if the application supports startup notification. Unlike some past attempts at UNIX startup notification, the new standard is reliable and robust, in keeping with the GNOME philosophy of things that "just work."
Does anyone know whether the KDE equivalent is a past attempt they are talking about?
Performance in the data center isn't there yet for Linux. Almost nobody with a serious databasee will run it on Linux. Even though DB2 and Oracle run on Linux, it's just not as fast yet.
Oracle (I think it was Larry, but can't remember) said somewhere recently that they expected Oracle to perform worse on Linux than on a proprietary Unix platform. They were surprised to see that Linux actually performed better. So please stop spreading FUD. One of the reasons for this is that IA32 hardware is actually faster than expensive proprietary unix hardware. Belief in superior performace of PA-RISC, SPARC etc. is mostly superstition or attending too many promotional sessions by Hp and the like.
One rule of thumb is that if you think you can cope with 4 or less processors, go for Linux on IA32.