This isn't exactly fast, but it's about the same speed of many of today's 10K rpm drives (probably the smaller ones - lower densities). A SUSTAINED transfer rate like that is pretty respectable. I believe that you're comparing it to the IDE/SCSI controller/protocol rates... (generally 66MB/s IDE and 80 (maybe higher now?) MB/s for scsi are the current limits). However, disks don't spin that fast... (They can burst it from their caches... woooo... that's useful...)
You will get higher rates out of current-day disks since they have such high density... but you still have several ms of access time... THIS is what kills us... 99% of the time, I'm not reading huge sequential sections off of the disk! Solid state would virtually eliminate the access time...
Quite a bit of work had gone into turning Midnight Commander (MC) into GNOME Midnight Commander (GMC), which is/was the default GNOME file manager.
I now hear talk about a "new" file manager, one that uses GNOME VFS. What's the reasoning behind the switch? Why not continue with GMC? Does anyone know?
GMC is not very extensible, very powerful, very stable, or very usable. It was originally developed just to get something out of the door quickly, I think... and then they started thinking about it, and decided that they could do MUCH better.
Linus's cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model.
I realize that they can pull back any code they want, as long as they generated it.
Let me restate the question a little more clearly: AOL GPLs TiK Programmer X adds function Foo AOL copies function Foo into their AIM client Is AIM now plagued by the GPL "virus" ?
This seems to be what the article was saying, but it was probably just a feature transfer and not an actual code transfer, so the GPL doesn't apply. (I can't imagine AOL being that idiotic.) The question, however, is more of a hypothetical legal one than anything else. If that had happened, would AOL be in violation?
From the article: Ironically, some of the features that open-source developers have added to the TiK client, such as news feeds and file transfer, have been incorporated into the latest versions of AOL's AIM offerings.
I wonder if they used any of the actual donated code in their newer AIM client versions. Doesn't that mean that they have to release the source for AIM under the GPL? (Note that I know nothing of AIM, have never used it, and have only seen it from a distance)
Reverse Engineering - Who owns the data?
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 2
Who owns the data that will be 'protected' by this reverse engineering clause? Let's assume that I'm writing a book using MS Word (or any other software that prohibits the reverse engineering of file formats). I save my file... I lose my license to Word (maybe I lost the cd and my hd crashed, or switched office software) and I want to edit (read, print out, etc) my book. Without that license, I am no longer able to do ANYTHING with my book and pulling the data from the file format that I don't have a license to use is illegal (a form of reverse engineering)...
This is like putting your items (book) in a (insecure;)) safe (file) that is locked with a key (Word)... You lose the key and suddenly, you have no legal right to get your items from the safe YOU OWN. Sure, the safe is easy enough to break... You could get a locksmith to unlock it for you... but it's illegal to do so! If the owner of the key owns the safe too, then it is their right to keep you from opening it...
Now let's blur the safe and the contents a bit... Suppose the safe is constructed out of the contents you claim to own and that it's built with the key. The key is the tool that can reorganize the safe into its (usable) contents... The contents and the safe are one. If you own the contents, how can you not own the safe? (Yes, the key made the safe out of your contents... but if you didn't want it to? Save as Text... hmmmm... Now you own the contents and they aren't locked in a safe... but wait... since you refused the safe, the key stole some of the contents (formatting info, graphics, etc)...)
Let's assume that since we own the contents and the materials used to construct the safe (and since the option of not putting our items in the safe STEALS the contents) that we own the safe. Who can tell me that it's not my right to get a locksmith to break open MY safe to get to MY items? Who can tell the locksmith that he can't do it... or that he can't make the tools to do it?! Who can say that he can't observe the obvious parts of the original key in his attempts to make such a tool (granted - this last part of the argument is a bit thin)
I think that this analogy fits the reverse engineering of software fairly well... It's my file and if I want to be able to read my own data, I have the right to try, and I -think- that I should have a right to look at obvious parts of the original key in my attempt to reach my data.
I haven't seen any of the artificial bandwidth limiting, yet... Most of the people I've heard from (mostly here on/.) seem to be getting well above the guaranteed speeds...
I got a Kinesis kbrd about a month ago (and I decided to switch to dvorak while learning the feel of the keyboard)... I recommend it highly... After about 3 weeks, the pain started to diminish and now it's almost gone and only returns when I have to use a normal keyboard for a while.
I haven't had any problems with the shift key, but I have read about others who have.... You might want to consider calling Kinesis for a replacement... rumour has it that a few of their kbrds have sticky keys and they'll replace them for free... You might want to check on it...
I also recommend getting a remappable keyboard (I have the classic) if you have to use it in Windows or on a Mac... After using it, you might decide that some of the keys are in bad positions...
I don't think this sort of link is supposed to hook up a computer, but rather an entire site... 10gb/s is wasted on a single PC, workstation, or server... even a decently sized workgroup would waste the link...
a) Bad weather? Falling rain/snow, fog, dust clouds, tree leaves, a bird... Poof. Terrible reception.
b) Not mobile? One of the big things that radio networks are good for is allowing laptop users to move through the areas of service. Lasers are directed...
c) Useless for people needing the high speed link - see a
The way I see this technology working isn't too impressive. It seems to me that it would just link directly into a more conventional network for temporary use when the weather is known (or projected) to be good... The conventional net would then be divided among a large number of users... The distances it carries data can't be great, because as distance increases, the likelihood of an interruption also increases. Also, even tightly focused laser beams become diffuse eventually... From the way the article presented it, it seems like there would be multiple nodes each feeding data to the next... but then you have to have permission to put a node down on property that you don't own... The only real use I see for this is for very short term things where laying the lines is too much hassle and 100% uptime isn't particularly important... ie. conferences, expos, etc...
I did this several years ago when I was new to UNIX... There are several things one must know before its easy to find more help...
I suggest just going to any old bookstore and looking at various intro to UNIX books. Before picking one at least read the table of contents and the first couple of pages to get an idea of the quality...
I believe I got an Osborne book at the time and I thought that it was fairly helpful, but from what I remember, it was geared more towards things like awk/sed/sendmail/etc than ls/cd/cat/man/more although it almost certainly mentioned those (I think I skipped those sections). From what I remember, it also gave a decent intro to the UNIX design philosophy (lots of little tools) which is a must.
The best thing to do might just be to write basic commands and their meanings on a sheet of paper and be sure to tell him about man... As long as he has patience and isn't afraid to try things out (read: doesn't run as root... possibly not as himself if he has important files), he'll learn that way...
You really need a P3 or a K7 because they both offer an enhanced internet experience! Surely you wouldn't have noticed that large graphic if you had one!
(In case there's any doubt, yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
Sorry... Moderation -shouldn't- rank posters but content.;)
My point was that there was no sense in crying about the downgraded post. There are reasons (but if you try hard enough, you can justify anything:( ) for the choices and as long as the important DATA gets moved up, it -shouldn't- really matter whose name was on the post.
When you start imposing penalties for no reason (moderating down because two people posted the same thing at the same time) then if there -must- be a long term penalty, it should be assigned to the AC because AC's are immune...
I think you're looking at moderation the wrong way... (well, at least differently from how I look at it). Moderation doesn't rank posters but content. If there is a case of redundant data, it shouldn't matter WHOSE name gets put on it but rather that the (important) data be moderated up and viewed by more people. And in the case where two people post the same data at about the same time and one is an AC (assuming EXACTLY the same data), the AC's post should be the one that is considered redundant because (from what I remember of moderation) moderation adjustments stick with the user. ie - a user's starting comment rank will fall if his post is moderated down... but AC's don't have a rank and are therefore unaffected by being moderated down.
Yes, I know this is off topic, but this whole thread will probably be moderated down off the map soon, anyway.:)
Note that I haven't read the more recent/. moderation instructions since I have no interest in being a moderator, so this info may even be incorrect...:(
Making lawyers pay the difference would eliminate almost all personal suits against corporations. Most lawyers wouldn't be able to take a case because of the possibility of losing. (Afterall, the corporations would be able to hire the better lawyers, most likely.)
A better solution might possibly be to make the person/company with a losing claim pay their lawyer and pay the other company the same amount (with some predefined minimum, in case they got a discount lawyer). This way, you have a maximum risk of 2*n rather than some unknown (which most people would not be able to pay), and there is a penalty to you for a faulty suit based on your ability to pay it.
However, it is very feasible that lawyers can pick up this tab if they think the case will win, but this should be the individual's decision rather than specified by law.
Slashdot Mirror
You will get higher rates out of current-day disks since they have such high density... but you still have several ms of access time... THIS is what kills us... 99% of the time, I'm not reading huge sequential sections off of the disk! Solid state would virtually eliminate the access time...
I now hear talk about a "new" file manager, one that uses GNOME VFS. What's the reasoning behind the switch? Why not continue with GMC? Does anyone know?
GMC is not very extensible, very powerful, very stable, or very usable. It was originally developed just to get something out of the door quickly, I think... and then they started thinking about it, and decided that they could do MUCH better.
Linus's cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model.
Let me restate the question a little more clearly:
AOL GPLs TiK
Programmer X adds function Foo
AOL copies function Foo into their AIM client
Is AIM now plagued by the GPL "virus" ?
This seems to be what the article was saying, but it was probably just a feature transfer and not an actual code transfer, so the GPL doesn't apply. (I can't imagine AOL being that idiotic.) The question, however, is more of a hypothetical legal one than anything else. If that had happened, would AOL be in violation?
Ironically, some of the features that open-source developers have added to the TiK client, such as news feeds and file transfer, have been incorporated into the latest versions of AOL's AIM offerings.
I wonder if they used any of the actual donated code in their newer AIM client versions. Doesn't that mean that they have to release the source for AIM under the GPL? (Note that I know nothing of AIM, have never used it, and have only seen it from a distance)
This is like putting your items (book) in a (insecure ;)) safe (file) that is locked with a key (Word)... You lose the key and suddenly, you have no legal right to get your items from the safe YOU OWN. Sure, the safe is easy enough to break... You could get a locksmith to unlock it for you ... but it's illegal to do so! If the owner of the key owns the safe too, then it is their right to keep you from opening it...
Now let's blur the safe and the contents a bit... Suppose the safe is constructed out of the contents you claim to own and that it's built with the key. The key is the tool that can reorganize the safe into its (usable) contents... The contents and the safe are one. If you own the contents, how can you not own the safe? (Yes, the key made the safe out of your contents... but if you didn't want it to? Save as Text ... hmmmm ... Now you own the contents and they aren't locked in a safe... but wait ... since you refused the safe, the key stole some of the contents (formatting info, graphics, etc)...)
Let's assume that since we own the contents and the materials used to construct the safe (and since the option of not putting our items in the safe STEALS the contents) that we own the safe. Who can tell me that it's not my right to get a locksmith to break open MY safe to get to MY items? Who can tell the locksmith that he can't do it ... or that he can't make the tools to do it?! Who can say that he can't observe the obvious parts of the original key in his attempts to make such a tool (granted - this last part of the argument is a bit thin)
I think that this analogy fits the reverse engineering of software fairly well... It's my file and if I want to be able to read my own data, I have the right to try, and I -think- that I should have a right to look at obvious parts of the original key in my attempt to reach my data.
I haven't seen any of the artificial bandwidth limiting, yet... Most of the people I've heard from (mostly here on /.) seem to be getting well above the guaranteed speeds...
The guaranteed speed is 384 Kb/s...
The maximum speed is 1.5 Mb/s
I think that it's limited on their side... probably through hardware, because everyone seems to have the same speed ratings for their services...
I got a Kinesis kbrd about a month ago (and I decided to switch to dvorak while learning the feel of the keyboard)... I recommend it highly... After about 3 weeks, the pain started to diminish and now it's almost gone and only returns when I have to use a normal keyboard for a while.
I haven't had any problems with the shift key, but I have read about others who have.... You might want to consider calling Kinesis for a replacement... rumour has it that a few of their kbrds have sticky keys and they'll replace them for free... You might want to check on it...
I also recommend getting a remappable keyboard (I have the classic) if you have to use it in Windows or on a Mac... After using it, you might decide that some of the keys are in bad positions...
I don't think this sort of link is supposed to hook up a computer, but rather an entire site... 10gb/s is wasted on a single PC, workstation, or server... even a decently sized workgroup would waste the link...
Put the laser receiver on the solid ground and run traditional line over the relatively short distance to and onboard the ship...
a) Bad weather? Falling rain/snow, fog, dust clouds, tree leaves, a bird... Poof. Terrible reception.
...
b) Not mobile? One of the big things that radio networks are good for is allowing laptop users to move through the areas of service. Lasers are directed
c) Useless for people needing the high speed link - see a
The way I see this technology working isn't too impressive. It seems to me that it would just link directly into a more conventional network for temporary use when the weather is known (or projected) to be good... The conventional net would then be divided among a large number of users... The distances it carries data can't be great, because as distance increases, the likelihood of an interruption also increases. Also, even tightly focused laser beams become diffuse eventually...
From the way the article presented it, it seems like there would be multiple nodes each feeding data to the next... but then you have to have permission to put a node down on property that you don't own...
The only real use I see for this is for very short term things where laying the lines is too much hassle and 100% uptime isn't particularly important... ie. conferences, expos, etc...
Did anyone else watch Seinfeld? ;)
I suggest just going to any old bookstore and looking at various intro to UNIX books. Before picking one at least read the table of contents and the first couple of pages to get an idea of the quality...
I believe I got an Osborne book at the time and I thought that it was fairly helpful, but from what I remember, it was geared more towards things like awk/sed/sendmail/etc than ls/cd/cat/man/more although it almost certainly mentioned those (I think I skipped those sections). From what I remember, it also gave a decent intro to the UNIX design philosophy (lots of little tools) which is a must.
The best thing to do might just be to write basic commands and their meanings on a sheet of paper and be sure to tell him about man... As long as he has patience and isn't afraid to try things out (read: doesn't run as root... possibly not as himself if he has important files), he'll learn that way...
(In case there's any doubt, yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
My point was that there was no sense in crying about the downgraded post. There are reasons (but if you try hard enough, you can justify anything :( ) for the choices and as long as the important DATA gets moved up, it -shouldn't- really matter whose name was on the post.
When you start imposing penalties for no reason (moderating down because two people posted the same thing at the same time) then if there -must- be a long term penalty, it should be assigned to the AC because AC's are immune...
Yes, I know this is off topic, but this whole thread will probably be moderated down off the map soon, anyway. :)
Note that I haven't read the more recent /. moderation instructions since I have no interest in being a moderator, so this info may even be incorrect... :(
A better solution might possibly be to make the person/company with a losing claim pay their lawyer and pay the other company the same amount (with some predefined minimum, in case they got a discount lawyer). This way, you have a maximum risk of 2*n rather than some unknown (which most people would not be able to pay), and there is a penalty to you for a faulty suit based on your ability to pay it.
However, it is very feasible that lawyers can pick up this tab if they think the case will win, but this should be the individual's decision rather than specified by law.
-- RicOS/2