I was a student in one of Thorng's EE classes,
EE231.. and AFAIK.. He mentioned this in 1997,
when i took his class.
Thorng invented/pioneered OOOE ( out of order
execution)... He mentioned that he had found out about certain infrindgement by a company, when
a student of his came to visit him, and casually mentioned that they were using this in their processors.
Funny how the world goes... 'Tis a small world after all'
PS: Thorng is a brilliant man.. but IMHO.. he is
not such a great professor, at least for EE231:-D
Really guys.. the xerox palo alto labs invented/pioneered
pretty much most computer technologies, and many other technologies we have just started to see...
So if they are starting to sue now.. all companies should start calling their lawyers right about now.. hehe
Xerox.. where bad and short sighted management is a way of operation..;)
That definetely does not exclude design from
the equation. What about all the design decisions
that were made by those who submitted the patches/
features? Are you really telling me that they were just "directed evolution" and "sheer luck".
Not it took "design decisions" by those who
,a, created the patch,b, those who accepted
the patch.
point also made by Rik van Riel
So this mumbo jumbo about no "macro design",
is really over simplifying things a bit too much.
There is no "one design methodology", and claiming that no "macro design" exists in linux or is needed is a bit too much bs.
Maybe am being a bit too harsh on the guy,
he's obviously magnitudes more knowledgeable
in programing that i'll ever dream to be.
But in his little rant about evolution,
he himself goes by this "gut feeling" he talked
about.
Heck, am mildly tempted to open up an editor on auto same, have a monkey type random stuff,
and turn on and off the power periodically,
and see what i come up with.. who knows...
it might be kernel 2.5.10..:)
Well, it is good the linux crowd took such
a good idea over.. if now only they would take
the concepts of having three branches ( RELEASE,STABLE,CURRENT) to the kernel...
On another note though.... with linux's history of root kit's, ths is certainly something i would not use for a commercial offering...
Even stallman agrees this is not good for embedded systems. Imagine every appliance you buy coming with pages and pages of copyrights. For what reason?
The only thing lacking right now in softupdates is an unattended way of the filesystem coming back up in the case of large data lost. This will be addressed when the background fsck daemon is completed, Softupdates will have all the merits of a journalled FS, plus even more speed ( disputeable ).
This whole middle east situation is so one sided, it really sickens me.
I would rant on and on, but am sure on slashdot, it would fall on death ears...
One need only to look at the reaction of the US to
the NGO resolution, which is NON biding to the UN.
SO they basically punished the UN, by usual us tactics, ie, playign wounded little girl, for a resolution drafted, and rightly so, by an OUTSIDE UN BODY.
Just because you license something under the GPL, does not mean you loose rights to it.
Sistina is Free to do whatever they please with their code, even relicensing it.
Now what they cannot do is retroactively license any previous works, but going forward they can do as they please.
AFAIK, GFS, and even LVM ( although am not so sure about LVM ), was solely developed by Sistina. Most of the patches submitted where bugfixes... and there were not many of those. So whats the queryl?
That a company/individual decides to relicense THEIR code, that THEY developed under THEIR license? maybe am missing something here? or do these screaming gpl violation gpl violation don't have a clue?
YOU might not like it, and some would say it's unfair,s ince they did benefit from the community's bug testing.. but it's NOT for YOU to decide.
It's a company tryign to do what companies should do, make money... maybe you people forgot that point.
Kinda reminds you of the whole ipf fiasco.... where he develops all the code, never gets any substabtial help from anyoen in 10 years, then when he relicenses to cover hsi ass, people scream and whine, about something they had not right to.
Some of the opinions expressed in this article are jus plain obvious and even from time to time, right.
GFS has NOTHING to do with internet wide filesystem ala distributed sharing clients..
And EVERYTHING to do with a shared file system between servers ala AFS/CODA.
Example (a).
I just setup 3 node GFS setup ( fibre array storage, and three servers connected via fibre ) to have three database servers share the same file system ( one read write server, two read only servers ).
So please, when you get some moderation points,
and have NO IDEA of what's being posted, keep the point to yourself...
damn
( yes on rare ocasions, even this hardcore FreeBSD user has been know to use linux... but the keyword is rare;) )
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, this patent is licenses by many other cpu companies, like intel for one.
I was a student in one of Thorng's EE classes,
EE231.. and AFAIK.. He mentioned this in 1997,
when i took his class.
Thorng invented/pioneered OOOE ( out of order
execution)... He mentioned that he had found out about certain infrindgement by a company, when
a student of his came to visit him, and casually mentioned that they were using this in their processors.
Funny how the world goes... 'Tis a small world after all'
PS: Thorng is a brilliant man.. but IMHO.. he is
not such a great professor, at least for EE231
Xerox announces an industry wide lawsuit...
For infringement on... well, on everything...:-P
Really guys.. the xerox palo alto labs invented/pioneered
pretty much most computer technologies, and many other technologies we have just started to see...
So if they are starting to sue now.. all companies should start calling their lawyers right about now.. hehe
Xerox.. where bad and short sighted management is a way of operation..
... over linus' coockoo's nest....
While i agree that software evolves...
That definetely does not exclude design from
the equation. What about all the design decisions
that were made by those who submitted the patches/
features? Are you really telling me that they were just "directed evolution" and "sheer luck".
Not it took "design decisions" by those who
,a, created the patch,b, those who accepted
the patch.
point also made by Rik van Riel
So this mumbo jumbo about no "macro design",
is really over simplifying things a bit too much.
There is no "one design methodology", and claiming that no "macro design" exists in linux or is needed is a bit too much bs.
Maybe am being a bit too harsh on the guy,
he's obviously magnitudes more knowledgeable
in programing that i'll ever dream to be.
But in his little rant about evolution,
he himself goes by this "gut feeling" he talked
about.
Heck, am mildly tempted to open up an editor on auto same, have a monkey type random stuff,
and turn on and off the power periodically,
and see what i come up with.. who knows...
it might be kernel 2.5.10
FreeBSD... Macro designed and proud...
check out nyi.net
See if it suits your needs.
Decent prices, services, and facilities.
..begin....
:-D
will NetBSD be next
I guess thses must be typos...
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/faq/axfrdns.html#config
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfrdns.html
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-get.html
Please... learn to have an *informed* opinion.
uh...
I didn't say (ANCIENT,OLD,BLEEDING) which is
what 2.0,2.2,2.4 are respectively....
EXACTLY what the FreeBSD jail() call does...
Basically chroot on steroids...
Well, it is good the linux crowd took such
a good idea over.. if now only they would take
the concepts of having three branches ( RELEASE,STABLE,CURRENT) to the kernel...
On another note though.... with linux's history of root kit's, ths is certainly something i would not use for a commercial offering...
Ever heard of the MIT license....?
h tm l
It's a BSD derived license...
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.
They have the most reasonable colocation system
;)
i've used....
Yes, am partly biased, i did work for them
http://nyi.net/
Again,
the slashdot moderation system working
it's wonders.
First, to your first point, ever heard of shared memory?
Second, these are not your average spec'ed little
x86 servers.
Here are the simple specs, since it's obvious
you have no idea what this machine is capable
of...
Up to 12 cpu's, 96GB of ram, Dynamic Hardware Domains, 33.6GB agreegate back plane....
And most components are hot swapable...
So yes, it CAN DEFENITELY handle that many active terminals
It Amazes me how many people in slashdot speak
out of their ass with no knowledge on the topic.
HEH....
To run FreeBSD on my Ultra 30... :-D
I second the above post... :-D
Yeah, am trolling.
;)
But I still wonder why has FreeBSD had a stable
rw support for NTFS, and the linux kernel is still
lagging...
I mean, can't they copy^H^H^H^Hmodel it after
the BSD code like they have done in some many cases?
Even if you are distributing unmodified binaries... you must still provide the original copyright/GNU license with the product, according to the GPL.
Go ahead , read it. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Even stallman agrees this is not good for embedded systems. Imagine every appliance you buy coming with pages and pages of copyrights. For what reason?
AFAIK, there are different school's of thought on the issue of Journaling Vs "SoftUpdate-like" filesystems.
_ id=2327
I could go on and on about this, but theres a perfect comment on this on daemonnews that points to a french article that summerizes the reasons.
http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story
The only thing lacking right now in softupdates is an unattended way of the filesystem coming back up in the case of large data lost. This will be addressed when the background fsck daemon is completed, Softupdates will have all the merits of a journalled FS, plus even more speed ( disputeable ).
How about some FreeBSD availability?
:)
This is a product, me, and others would not mind paying for. Good compilers are essential.
We had to throw bullets around. :-P
I did the same, even sent it to msnbc.
But no reply yet
I read this... and i was stunned...
Get rid of the spaces un the url
This whole middle east situation is so one sided, it really sickens me.
I would rant on and on, but am sure on slashdot, it would fall on death ears...
One need only to look at the reaction of the US to
the NGO resolution, which is NON biding to the UN.
SO they basically punished the UN, by usual us tactics, ie, playign wounded little girl, for a resolution drafted, and rightly so, by an OUTSIDE UN BODY.
HEH, it never ceases to amaze me.
for at least some sanity in slashdot.
Just because you license something under the GPL, does not mean you loose rights to it.
Sistina is Free to do whatever they please with their code, even relicensing it.
Now what they cannot do is retroactively license any previous works, but going forward they can do as they please.
AFAIK, GFS, and even LVM ( although am not so sure about LVM ), was solely developed by Sistina. Most of the patches submitted where bugfixes... and there were not many of those. So whats the queryl?
That a company/individual decides to relicense THEIR code, that THEY developed under THEIR license? maybe am missing something here? or do these screaming gpl violation gpl violation don't have a clue?
YOU might not like it, and some would say it's unfair,s ince they did benefit from the community's bug testing.. but it's NOT for YOU to decide.
It's a company tryign to do what companies should do, make money... maybe you people forgot that point.
Kinda reminds you of the whole ipf fiasco.... where he develops all the code, never gets any substabtial help from anyoen in 10 years, then when he relicenses to cover hsi ass, people scream and whine, about something they had not right to.
Some of the opinions expressed in this article are jus plain obvious and even from time to time, right.
God damn moderation system....
;) )
This is an obvious troll people.
GFS has NOTHING to do with internet wide filesystem ala distributed sharing clients..
And EVERYTHING to do with a shared file system between servers ala AFS/CODA.
Example (a).
I just setup 3 node GFS setup ( fibre array storage, and three servers connected via fibre ) to have three database servers share the same file system ( one read write server, two read only servers ).
So please, when you get some moderation points,
and have NO IDEA of what's being posted, keep the point to yourself...
damn
( yes on rare ocasions, even this hardcore FreeBSD user has been know to use linux... but the keyword is rare