Got a NIC in the first shipment. Added a bash shell hack the first night. Posted screenshots to the website the first night. (http://www.bestkungfu.com/nicfit)
It's a cute little box, and for the price, quite reasonable. Try to build a thin client cheaper, and you'd be hard pressed. Yes, you could add a harddrive, but WHY?
Runs Linux, quite nicely. It's a homebrew, not based on anyone else's distro. This from the horse's mouth...
The 4 meg is an IDE flash disk, and it's a little daughterboard. You could remove it and use it elsewhere (hint hint)
The guys at Thinknic are GREAT... and they have been VERY very supportive and more on the mailing list(s). Everything we could wish for and more.
As for the GPL, they ARE going to release source... already asked for it, and it's been assured to me they will be taking care of it. In fact, I told them that a/. thread was gonna happen on it. Gee, I love when I'm right (too easy to predict/. these days)
Tonight I cracked the root password for the box, so I not only own one, I 0wN one. (grin)
Personally, I want to see additional CD and flash stuff developed for it. It's happening now... check out the mailing lists for more details (egroups.com)
Larry has a hit on his hands. I can see lots of people and companies buying these. Custom CDs will be used by companies, making upgrading a breeze. Schools, hotels, libraries, other public places will benefit from a cheap and useful terminal that won't be easily broken.
After the first slashdot article, I bought one. The unit blew up (literally, blue sparks and smoke and scorch marks on the unit). I suspect a cheap power supply. The replacement unit works so far, but the power supply does run hot.
I plan on a battery pack to make it really portable.
It is lacking ethernet (usb/ethernet is not nearly the same) and irda.
Will review more complete shortly on www.advogato.org
802.11 card for Visor slot????
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 1
You wrote: It is a PalmOS based machine with a slot that will (eventually) take an 802.11 card
WHERE did you hear (or find) this???
That would really solve some problems for me... 802.11 based PalmOS system would be killer.... Walk around the office, with a live network connection, server/database access.
11. Why doesn't the Security Standard select specific technologies to be used?
To select a specific technology to satisfy the security requirements found in HIPAA would tend to bind the health care community to systems and/or software that may soon be superseded by rapidly developing technologies and improvements. The Security Standard was developed with the intent of remaining "technologically neutral" to facilitate adoption of the latest and most promising developments in this dynamic field and to meet the needs of health care entities of different size and complexity. The security standard is a compendium of security requirements that must be satisfied. The particular solution will vary from business to business but each will meet the basic requirements.
The feds are doing this one right: leave the exact implementation to the hands of those who know better, but state the minimum requirements. This way instead of requiring something that goes obsolete, so long as your system does the job, you can use it.
You wrote: I believe that when the Corel beta license non-GPL flap came up, RMS said that an internal distribution (which the beta was NOT) need not supply source.
Correct. RMS (in private email to me, later quoted in a LWN letter to editor) confirmed that 'internal only' use did not require conforming to GPL limitations. It is only when you pass software beyond that boundary (and it is a grey unconfirmed line right now) that you fall into the source/redistribution issues of GPL.
The pager card uses a non-compatible flash type. (I owned one and returned it within 1 week of finding that out.) TRG was no help, didn't plan on supporting it, and Motorola & Pagemart pretty much agreed that they couldn't be bothered to support flash at all. They did say they'd release a flash upgrade IF a flash upgrade ever came out, but don't hold yer breath. Pager info is in the flashrom, and if you can change that, you can eavesdrop on other pager.... so they have no incentive to make it easy to do so.
I tried Armed a few months ago... twice in fact. Neither the first or second beta worked. They'd unzip (no nice install, just unzip) and then they'd crash when I tried to loadlin the system. Same system, WinLinux 2000 worked almost perfect on the first time. Not impressed with Armed, but I'd recommend WinLinux 2000 to newbies looking to stick toes in the water... Seth
for those interested...ESR got back to me regarding the GPL/internal question:
From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Seth Cohn Subject: Re: Fwd: GPL question... >Is an internal ONLY change to a GPLed program subject to GPL >copying and distribution requirements, source providing requirements, >etc?
No, in my opinion. GPL requirements trigger when you distribute binaries to a third party. There are some definitional questions about what constitutes an `internal-only' release, but the principle is clear.
Amy Fong of Corel (check deja.com for her posts re her Corel coding position) claims on Technocrat (and maybe as AC on/.) that Corel did this with intent.
She is in a position to know. Can someone confirm that it is her, and not an imposter claiming to be her? Anyone have her PGP/GPG key?
If this is true, Corel should NOT be forgiven as 'making a mistake' but should apologize to all of Debian (and Linux community) publically. Someone there decided that 'nobody reads agreements.'
Used it.... discovered it yesterday.
on
WinLinux 2000
·
· Score: 5
I downloaded it yesterday, and it works well for what it does.
Unpacks into a UMSDOS directory, c:\linux
Autodetects all of your hardware based on your _windows_ settings. Really nice. I'd like to see more of this in the other distros. Save it to a floppy, and that would solve a lot of questions newbies have (like irq,i/o etc)
If it's wrong (such as missing my video card), you can override the setting. It did really well, finding my printer (hp laserjet), joystick but not sound card (no sound setting?), mouse, modem, timezone.
It asks for a user and password, and even gives you the option to make root the same password.
Gives you a menu option (aka icon) to reboot system into Linux.
I've tried a few of these UMSDOS ones. Armed Linux didn't work with this system, but WinLinux2000 did work. I ended up with a nice (if slow due to UMSDOS) Linux system. Won't replace any of my real linux boxen, but for newbies wanting to try Linux, this is a new option.
Another option is DemoLinux, an entirely CD based Linux. I've had good luck with that one too. http://www.demolinux.org
Ok, I don't care if I get in trouble for this or whatever but anyways, I work there and this honest mistake is total bull. (FYI I'm totally infuriated by this crap)
According to my manager, he had left the agreement people with a 2 paragraph beta-test agreement and then so and so either decided to ignore it or whatever happened and then there was a story that somebody didn't expect people to actually read the agreement.
True they told Bruce that it will be fixed but I felt it was important to let it out that it's not an _honest_ mistake.
I've sent this already to GNU and Bruce... and just sent to ESR... anyone else who wants to take a shot at it, feel free. But I want legal answers, NOT opinions from knownothings.
--- With the hoopla over Corel Linux's illfated Beta license, a question has come up, and I'd like RMS's opinion, as well as any legal ones FSF can provide.
The question:
Is an 'internal use' ONLY change to a GPLed program subject to GPL copying and distribution requirements, source providing requirements, etc?
Example: I modify a GPLed program for personal use only, my own use, of course I do not have to provide source to the changes.
I modify a GPLed program (let's call it a cgi program on the web), I do not have to provide source for the changes, if I do not distribute the code, only use it myself on a web page. Right?
I modify a GPLed program for use in my business, my users only, no external users. Do I have to provide source, etc? This is the real gray area. A lot of businesses have modified GPL code for internal use only, and they do not think they have to 'release', nor should they (in my opinion), unless and until it's given to the public (whatever that means) in some form, for free or pay or whatever. Does 'Internal Usage' involve copying and/or distribution?
If so, does in house changes mean that a user has GPLed rights to distribute beyond the company?
If so, GPLed code can never be under NDA, even in the case of internal use only, say security changes to the source, etc?
---- Answers to these please... Flames to/dev/null
As I see it, Corel is distributing a PRIVATE software package, to a limited number of people, hand chosen by them. Under the GPL, this is not public distribution, and not subject to all of the GPL _YET_. This is an inhouse only beta test, even if they are picking people from 'outside'.
I might be wrong here. I checked the GPL and I don't see a definition of 'distribution' but it was my understand that inhouse use did NOT mean that you were forced to distribute source to others (or other GPL-ish activities). If I'm wrong, then section 4 means that anyone can distribute the beta:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
As someone who working in the Medical Industry, I can tell you the 'closed source' stuff is more buggy than 'open source' stuff.
Lots of FUD in the comments going on here...
With closed source, I'm stuck relying on the single source for fixes. Whoever that might be.
With open source, if need be, I can hire someone to fix the problem, or get the fix for free, because everyone watches out for the problems together.
I'd trust my life to something GPLed with far more confidence to something with a EULA like Microsoft's. Ever notice that anything with Java isn't safe for use in Nuclear Plants, Medical equipment, or other 'dangerous' environs?
Slashdot Mirror
Got a NIC in the first shipment. Added a bash shell hack the first night. Posted screenshots to the website the first night. (http://www.bestkungfu.com/nicfit)
/. thread was gonna happen on it. Gee, I love when I'm right (too easy to predict /. these days)
It's a cute little box, and for the price, quite reasonable. Try to build a thin client cheaper, and you'd be hard pressed. Yes, you could add a harddrive, but WHY?
Runs Linux, quite nicely. It's a homebrew, not based on anyone else's distro. This from the horse's mouth...
The 4 meg is an IDE flash disk, and it's a little daughterboard. You could remove it and use it elsewhere (hint hint)
The guys at Thinknic are GREAT... and they have been VERY very supportive and more on the mailing list(s). Everything we could wish for and more.
As for the GPL, they ARE going to release source... already asked for it, and it's been assured to me they will be taking care of it. In fact, I told them that a
Tonight I cracked the root password for the box, so I not only own one, I 0wN one. (grin)
Personally, I want to see additional CD and flash stuff developed for it. It's happening now... check out the mailing lists for more details (egroups.com)
Larry has a hit on his hands. I can see lots of people and companies buying these. Custom CDs will be used by companies, making upgrading a breeze. Schools, hotels, libraries, other public places will benefit from a cheap and useful terminal that won't be easily broken.
Summary: Recommended. Highly. Cheap and good.
(Insert gratuitous /. reference of your choice here)
If this generates a few mutants, I predict that
next year's X-men sequel will be old hat.
It's the 5P, not the 4P
It's the one with the green scan button in the front.
And YES, this is the coolest hardware easter egg ever.
Music made by moving the scan head back and forth and the whine of the motor plays the notes.
Amazing!
moderate that up.....
After the first slashdot article, I bought one.
The unit blew up (literally, blue sparks and smoke and scorch marks on the unit). I suspect a cheap power supply. The replacement unit works so far, but the power supply does run hot.
I plan on a battery pack to make it really portable.
It is lacking ethernet (usb/ethernet is not nearly the same) and irda.
Will review more complete shortly on www.advogato.org
When will a version of Mandrake for i386
be released?
Our user group has a number of 486 machines
we'd like to put Mandrake on. Mandrake has the
best 'out of box' desktop right now.
thank you very much.....
I wrote that....
Hope I win the T-Shirt....
His name is in the document about 5 times....
You wrote:
It is a PalmOS based machine with a slot that will (eventually) take an 802.11 card
WHERE did you hear (or find) this???
That would really solve some problems for me...
802.11 based PalmOS system would be killer....
Walk around the office, with a live network connection, server/database access.
any pointers please???
To illustrate:
from the FAQ (http://www.hipaainfo.com/faqs.htm)
11. Why doesn't the Security Standard select specific technologies to be used?
To select a specific technology to satisfy the security requirements found in HIPAA would tend to bind the health care community to systems
and/or software that may soon be superseded by rapidly developing technologies and improvements. The Security Standard was developed with the intent of remaining "technologically neutral" to facilitate adoption of the latest and most promising developments in this dynamic field
and to meet the needs of health care entities of different size and complexity. The security standard is a compendium of security requirements
that must be satisfied. The particular solution will vary from business to business but each will meet the basic requirements.
It's HIPAA
Check out
http://www.hipaainfo.com/
among other sources of info.
The feds are doing this one right: leave the
exact implementation to the hands of those who
know better, but state the minimum requirements.
This way instead of requiring something that goes obsolete, so long as your system does the job, you can use it.
PKI is one way to go, PGP is another...
You wrote:
I believe that when the Corel beta license non-GPL flap came up, RMS said that an internal distribution (which the beta was NOT) need not
supply source.
Correct. RMS (in private email to me, later quoted in a LWN letter to editor) confirmed that 'internal only' use did not require conforming to GPL limitations. It is only when you pass software beyond that boundary (and it is a grey unconfirmed line right now) that you fall into the source/redistribution issues of GPL.
You wrongly said:
If you GPL something, and then sell it to me. I am not allowed to redistribute it.
that is 100% untrue. I can sell you my (or anyone's) GPL code for 100 BILLION dollars, and you can resell it for 2 cents to the next guy.
Or vice versa: I can sell it to you for $1, and you resell it to someone else for $100.
Nothing stops you. THAT is the point.
The pager card uses a non-compatible flash type.
(I owned one and returned it within 1 week of finding that out.) TRG was no help, didn't plan on supporting it, and Motorola & Pagemart pretty much agreed that they couldn't be bothered to support flash at all. They did say they'd release a flash upgrade IF a flash upgrade ever came out, but don't hold yer breath. Pager info is in the flashrom, and if you can change that, you can eavesdrop on other pager.... so they have no incentive to make it easy to do so.
I tried Armed a few months ago... twice in fact. Neither the first or second beta worked. They'd unzip (no nice install, just unzip) and then they'd crash when I tried to loadlin the system. Same system, WinLinux 2000 worked almost perfect on the first time. Not impressed with Armed, but I'd recommend WinLinux 2000 to newbies looking to stick toes in the water... Seth
for those interested...ESR got back to me regarding the GPL/internal question:
From: "Eric S. Raymond"
To: Seth Cohn
Subject: Re: Fwd: GPL question...
>Is an internal ONLY change to a GPLed program subject to GPL
>copying and distribution requirements, source providing requirements,
>etc?
No, in my opinion. GPL requirements trigger when you distribute binaries
to a third party. There are some definitional questions about what
constitutes an `internal-only' release, but the principle is clear.
Amy Fong of Corel (check deja.com for her posts re her Corel coding position) claims on Technocrat (and maybe as AC on /.) that Corel did this with intent.
She is in a position to know. Can someone confirm that it is her, and not an imposter claiming to be her? Anyone have her PGP/GPG key?
If this is true, Corel should NOT be forgiven as 'making a mistake' but should apologize to all of Debian (and Linux community) publically. Someone there decided that 'nobody reads agreements.'
I downloaded it yesterday, and it works well for what it does.
Unpacks into a UMSDOS directory, c:\linux
Autodetects all of your hardware based on your _windows_ settings. Really nice. I'd like to see more of this in the other distros. Save it to a floppy, and that would solve a lot of questions newbies have (like irq,i/o etc)
If it's wrong (such as missing my video card), you can override the setting. It did really well, finding my printer (hp laserjet), joystick but not sound card (no sound setting?), mouse, modem, timezone.
It asks for a user and password, and even gives you the option to make root the same password.
Gives you a menu option (aka icon) to reboot system into Linux.
I've tried a few of these UMSDOS ones. Armed Linux didn't work with this system, but WinLinux2000 did work. I ended up with a nice (if slow due to UMSDOS) Linux system. Won't replace any of my real linux boxen, but for newbies wanting to try Linux, this is a new option.
Another option is DemoLinux, an entirely CD based Linux. I've had good luck with that one too.
http://www.demolinux.org
Completely unverified rumor.... but deserves to be checked out (Can someone confirm or deny?):
Re: Corel Beta-Test Agreement - Officials Urge Calm!
by Amy Fong on Tuesday September 21, @06:20AM
Ok, I don't care if I get in trouble for this or whatever but anyways, I work there and this honest mistake is total bull. (FYI I'm totally
infuriated by this crap)
According to my manager, he had left the agreement people with a 2 paragraph beta-test agreement and then so and so either decided to
ignore it or whatever happened and then there was a story that somebody didn't expect people to actually read the agreement.
True they told Bruce that it will be fixed but I felt it was important to let it out that it's not an _honest_ mistake.
I've sent this already to GNU and Bruce... and just sent to ESR... anyone else who wants to take a shot at it, feel free. But I want legal answers, NOT opinions from knownothings.
/dev/null
---
With the hoopla over Corel Linux's illfated Beta license, a question has come up, and I'd like RMS's opinion, as well as any legal ones FSF can provide.
The question:
Is an 'internal use' ONLY change to a GPLed program subject to GPL copying and distribution requirements, source providing requirements,
etc?
Example:
I modify a GPLed program for personal use only, my own use, of course I do not have to provide source to the changes.
I modify a GPLed program (let's call it a cgi program on the web), I do not have to provide source for the changes, if I do not distribute the code, only use it myself on a web page. Right?
I modify a GPLed program for use in my business, my users only, no external users. Do I have to provide source, etc? This is the real gray area.
A lot of businesses have modified GPL code for internal use only, and they do not think they have to 'release', nor should they (in my opinion), unless and until it's given to the public (whatever that means) in some form, for free or pay or whatever. Does 'Internal Usage' involve copying and/or distribution?
If so, does in house changes mean that a user has GPLed rights to distribute beyond the company?
If so, GPLed code can never be under NDA, even in the case of internal use only, say security changes to the source, etc?
----
Answers to these please... Flames to
As I see it, Corel is distributing a PRIVATE software package, to a limited number of people, hand chosen by them. Under the GPL, this is not public distribution, and not subject to all of the GPL _YET_. This is an inhouse only beta test, even if they are picking people from 'outside'.
I might be wrong here. I checked the GPL and I don't see a definition of 'distribution' but it was my understand that inhouse use did NOT mean that you were forced to distribute source to others (or other GPL-ish activities). If I'm wrong, then section 4 means that anyone can distribute the beta:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Good one, Russ.
(Yes, this is VERY funny. Please moderate it up)
http://webpages.mr.net/bobz/ttyquake/
Nuff said.
http://www.snipix.freeserve.co.uk/linux.htm
http://www.blarg.net/~mmadore/
These 2 pages have lots of links to stuff.
From what I understand, linux-sna.org was true vaporware... never had working code. So an old version is pretty worthless.
As someone who working in the Medical Industry, I can tell you the 'closed source' stuff is more buggy than 'open source' stuff.
Lots of FUD in the comments going on here...
With closed source, I'm stuck relying on the single source for fixes. Whoever that might be.
With open source, if need be, I can hire someone to fix the problem, or get the fix for free, because everyone watches out for the problems together.
I'd trust my life to something GPLed with far more confidence to something with a EULA like Microsoft's. Ever notice that anything with Java isn't safe for use in Nuclear Plants, Medical equipment, or other 'dangerous' environs?