The loophole is due to Torvalds saying he will not sue. Read on...
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
Why Caldera!?!? Because it has a stable kernel. One that is not written by linux torvalds, but is instead written by Ken & Dennis (well, it is based on SVR5)
The difference is that Reiser is NOT a journaling filesystem (well, not any more that, say, NT or BSD UFS filesystems are), since it only journals the meta data (filenames, directory names, permissions, timestamps etc.) This should be a bare minimum absolute requirement for a filesystem in any case. Reiser is simply bringing linux up to the same state as NT or BSD, in that a system crash will leave the filesystem in a sensible state even if a bit of data is lost (by sensible we mean that directory and file nodes all match or are at least fixable - with linux in the current state it is all too easy to get the fielsystem in a seriously bad state)
XFS however is a true journaling filesystem. The filesystem will not take an hour to fsck 100Gig+ disks. It will take a minute or two. This is because the filesystem data is journaled (as well as the meta data).
However, I still am puzzled as to how the hell XFS (or even reiser) can get around the fact that linux doesn't have an raw devices or a working fsync call. How can the filesystem code possibly know when data is on the disk when the kernel is caching it (and lies wrt to stuff like fsync()s?) Answers on a postcard please.
The big joke is that the errors were never meant to be on full time, only during wartime. However, during the Gulf war, the errors were turned off! (apparently the military were using civilian GPS units since they had trouble making enough of their own that decrypted the "jitter")
Written by Feynman himself, and is an extremely good summary of how the engineers knew the safety was shit, but the managers didn't believe them. A great read.
I buy the first readers arguments. After all, a company is less likely to have a "god" (read ADD megalomaniac with bad breath and small penis) directing the project.
I tried hard as hell to contribute to perl. Because I didn't know how to package up some modules, I was ignored, so I did it, and was then scoffed at because I did it "wrong" (despite the fact it worked for me...). So I refused to place them on CPAN (and we're not talking shit here - it was 2 months worth of work porting python C modules to perl).
The real problem with Perl is
(a) Tom Christainsan - he still doesn't see the need for threads - we were trying to get this years ago
(b) their hatred of java - I tried to get them to do a java implementation of perl (and offered to help naturally), which would then have run on all JVMs etc, allowed applets to be developed in perl etc. They *hated* the thought of this. They tried to do project like Penguin (signed perl as an alternative to java's superior security model), and Ned Flanders javaperl thing (came with the O'reilly books - I got a free copy from them for some code of mine in the book) - this was *STUPID* - it embedded perl in java - who wants to do that? People want it the other way around - to embed java in perl - imagine if we could use the Swing libraries from perl? (bye bye perl/tk)
(c) Their refusal to change perl bytecodes to the JVM - they could do this without breaking any code. I started on it but was out of my depth. Again, their hatred of java blew this.
(d) The *STUPID* decision to put the 'eval' keyword in the language (and Larry is a language designed, huh?) This is fine when we're talking about a 50k lisp system, but a 1 meg perl language? - you don't include 'eval' in something that size. This is the sole reason we have no perl compiler - because the compiler is built into the interpreter - they are the same thing (and don't mail me about 'B' - I assure you I've been there and done that).
(e)
Their "there's more than one way to do it" motto. This is the most stupid programmers motto ever.
So you use different idioms to me - great. Ever heard of patterns larry? (not as if I live by patterns like some people, but idioms are undoubtedly useful). Do things the same way in languages!
(f) Their other motto that you only have to know 20% of the language to use it. This makes it a throwaay write once language, since the 20% of perl you know, is unlikely to be the same 20% the next huy knows, etc. etc.
...
(z) Chip went off to write a second generation perl. What was he going to write it in? C++.
!!!!!!
Why the hell would a C++ implementation of Perl improve it? Now a java one would, since we'd have a perl that ran (and more importantly, LINKED AGAINST) JVM bytecodes.
Spastics, the lot of them. And Larry (or Ned Flanders, or whatever) is NOT funny. Nor linguistic (I did language science at univercity, so don't try to tell me about that shit)
For the same reason a local company in Brighton, UK, used to have, wait for it.... a 17 bit computer (called a Molecular - "Molly" to friends - she was even water cooled.)
Anyway, the designers design a 16 bit machine, with one bit of parity, and of course a manager comes along and says "Sod this, we're not wasting a bit on parity - use it!".
So they did.
So then they had a 17 bit processor. 17 bit memeory. 17 bit programs. Not 16+1 bits (as originally designed), but 17 real bits.
Sounds like something out of Dilbert, but it's true. --
Do gravity waves prove the existance of God?
I'm impressed. 16 kilobytes of assember to measure a methane (or is that metan?) slash oxygen
mixture? Perhaps it needed to store a "map" of the mine versus revs/second or something, to get the mixture right? Or was it doing FFTs or something?
16K of Z80! You can do chess in 1k!
Gary
(And just *who* is the father of Linux Torvalds
wife's new kid?)
Slashdot Mirror
No, they fuck each other in the ass when she's in the bathroom giggling ....
Didn't Darth Vader kill him in the first episode?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware.
In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself.
However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source,
since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring
to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary
drivers can be
distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of
their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system
calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like
to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true?
(But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK).
And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable
module?
Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).
And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:
I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.
I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.
But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?
Why Caldera!?!? Because it has a stable kernel. One that is not written by linux torvalds, but is instead written by Ken & Dennis (well, it is based on SVR5)
Caldera is the most stable linux distro by far!
The difference is that Reiser is NOT a journaling filesystem (well, not any more that, say, NT or BSD UFS filesystems are), since it only journals the meta data (filenames, directory names, permissions, timestamps etc.) This should be a bare minimum absolute requirement for a filesystem in any case. Reiser is simply bringing linux up to the same state as NT or BSD, in that a system crash will leave the filesystem in a sensible state even if a bit of data is lost (by sensible we mean that directory and file nodes all match or are at least fixable - with linux in the current state it is all too easy to get the fielsystem in a seriously bad state)
XFS however is a true journaling filesystem. The filesystem will not take an hour to fsck 100Gig+ disks. It will take a minute or two. This is because the filesystem data is journaled (as well as the meta data).
However, I still am puzzled as to how the hell XFS (or even reiser) can get around the fact that linux doesn't have an raw devices or a working fsync call. How can the filesystem code possibly know when data is on the disk when the kernel is caching it (and lies wrt to stuff like fsync()s?) Answers on a postcard please.
The big joke is that the errors were never meant to be on full time, only during wartime. However, during the Gulf war, the errors were turned off! (apparently the military were using civilian GPS units since they had trouble making enough of their own that decrypted the "jitter")
Adam Shostack summed up all the current "frequently asked and answered" questions in his paper at http://www.homeport.org/~adam/review.html.
It is worth reading if you are trying to write secure software.
Also, check out qmail for an example of well written secure software.
(Beware of Adam's other material - he is pro-linux and anti-MS, and believes that only open source software can be safe etc. etc.)
HIV is *retro* virus.
There are no known retro viruses (virii?) that harm us.
They can nly replicate within cells (i.e. they use our own cell division to duplicate).
Killing their host is suicide.
Why is AIDS the only retroviruthat harms us? Why does it discriminate between sexes? Why does it have a 10/20 year latency?
The point is this - the truth is not known. Regatrdless of whther or not Duesbirg is correct, do more reeasrch in these "wacko" areas.
The truth can withstand scrutiny.
Written by Feynman himself, and is an extremely good summary of how the engineers knew the safety was shit, but the managers didn't believe them. A great read.
You can all thank me later.
That's right - I paid $500 for my card from local drug dealer, and now they've broken it!
I'm going to sue!
I buy the first readers arguments. After all, a company is less likely to have a "god" (read ADD megalomaniac with bad breath and small penis) directing the project.
...). So I refused to place them on CPAN (and we're not talking shit here - it was 2 months worth of work porting python C modules to perl).
I tried hard as hell to contribute to perl. Because I didn't know how to package up some modules, I was ignored, so I did it, and was then scoffed at because I did it "wrong" (despite the fact it worked for me
The real problem with Perl is
(a) Tom Christainsan - he still doesn't see the need for threads - we were trying to get this years ago
(b) their hatred of java - I tried to get them to do a java implementation of perl (and offered to help naturally), which would then have run on all JVMs etc, allowed applets to be developed in perl etc. They *hated* the thought of this. They tried to do project like Penguin (signed perl as an alternative to java's superior security model), and Ned Flanders javaperl thing (came with the O'reilly books - I got a free copy from them for some code of mine in the book) - this was *STUPID* - it embedded perl in java - who wants to do that? People want it the other way around - to embed java in perl - imagine if we could use the Swing libraries from perl? (bye bye perl/tk)
(c) Their refusal to change perl bytecodes to the JVM - they could do this without breaking any code. I started on it but was out of my depth. Again, their hatred of java blew this.
(d) The *STUPID* decision to put the 'eval' keyword in the language (and Larry is a language designed, huh?) This is fine when we're talking about a 50k lisp system, but a 1 meg perl language? - you don't include 'eval' in something that size. This is the sole reason we have no perl compiler - because the compiler is built into the interpreter - they are the same thing (and don't mail me about 'B' - I assure you I've been there and done that).
(e)
Their "there's more than one way to do it" motto. This is the most stupid programmers motto ever.
So you use different idioms to me - great. Ever heard of patterns larry? (not as if I live by patterns like some people, but idioms are undoubtedly useful). Do things the same way in languages!
(f) Their other motto that you only have to know 20% of the language to use it. This makes it a throwaay write once language, since the 20% of perl you know, is unlikely to be the same 20% the next huy knows, etc. etc.
...
(z) Chip went off to write a second generation perl. What was he going to write it in? C++.
!!!!!!
Why the hell would a C++ implementation of Perl improve it? Now a java one would, since we'd have a perl that ran (and more importantly, LINKED AGAINST) JVM bytecodes.
Spastics, the lot of them. And Larry (or Ned Flanders, or whatever) is NOT funny. Nor linguistic (I did language science at univercity, so don't try to tell me about that shit)
They are doomed to fail.
Anyway, the designers design a 16 bit machine, with one bit of parity, and of course a manager comes along and says "Sod this, we're not wasting a bit on parity - use it!".
So they did.
So then they had a 17 bit processor. 17 bit memeory. 17 bit programs. Not 16+1 bits (as originally designed), but 17 real bits.
Sounds like something out of Dilbert, but it's true.
-- Do gravity waves prove the existance of God?
I'm impressed. 16 kilobytes of assember to measure a methane (or is that metan?) slash oxygen
mixture? Perhaps it needed to store a "map" of the mine versus revs/second or something, to get the mixture right? Or was it doing FFTs or something?
16K of Z80! You can do chess in 1k!
Gary
(And just *who* is the father of Linux Torvalds
wife's new kid?)
I think he means methane?
Gary (Who *is* the father of linux torvalds wife's new brat?)
And the alarm was switched by big clunky relays that arc'd between the contacts, causing ....
Gary
(Who is the father of Linux Torvalds wife's new kid?)
Hmmm, on second thoughts, I'd sooner hear a Slashsdot news story about Linux Torvalds wife's new kid (I wonder who the father is?)
Gary