Do you get mad when someone discovers a flaw in Internet Explorer? Oh, but this is different, they're blackmailing Microsoft...
Yes, yes it is. It's one thing to say, "we're going to release this flaw," or just outright releasing it. It's quite another to say, "we're going to release this unless you release a new version of IE for Unix."
OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case.
Re-read my post. Chris Sontag said that Microsoft could be a future target; the agreement between MS and SCO is only for a few libraries. SCO's main thrust here is that every modern OS since SysV violates SCO's "intellectual property." If they do the same things that SysV could, they're infringing. In effect, then, any multi-user POSIX-compatible system would be fair game.
Yes, MS's move to license Services for Unix probably was a token to SCO. But SCO seems eager to bite the hand that feeds it.
It is not a matter of reeling in compensation for this. It's a question of what form it takes - the form of settlement - if it goes all the way to litigation. Those are, to me, more the unknowns.
IBM is going to string this out as long as possible, and won't settle. Why? Because SCO's continued existence as a company depends upon revenue from this case. It's the same reason they aren't suing other people (Apple, Microsoft, and the BSD's have been mentioned as targets, and one can infer from other comments that SGI is a target too); they don't have the money to carry on this long litigation.
In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise. If, in fact, SGI is a target, there would be a much greater chance of SCO winning, and getting some money. SGI doesn't have much money to give, but you start to establish some precedent.....
[M]ost graphical routines in OS X (including the codecs used by Quicktime and iChat) make heavy use of AltiVec. Generic int+fp non-graphical benchmarks show the G4 to be very similar to the G3, but real world use is far different. Photoshop, iMovie, Final Cut Pro, as well as the overall feel of OS X is far better on a G4, so long as there's not a huge difference in clockspeed.
I've only used a G4 with OSX a couple of times, so it's hard for me to do a head-to-head comparison (I have two G3's). But, yeah, in benchmark tests, for lots of things, the processors seem quite close in performance when it comes to clock speed. Maybe those tests were done in OS9, but I can't remember.
Your use of the word "smoke" suggests that you have not yet finished junior high and spend far too much time at hardocp.com.
Junior high is a faint memory. I think it comes more from being at work on a Friday night.:-/
NetBSD's pkgsrc works very well for me on OSX. I haven't tried portage or darwin ports, but fink seemed a little strange....almost but not quite debian goodness.
Still, I think all this work is kind of weird. I can see the porting effort for things like the text-based things (emacs!) and the very large projects (OO.o!)....but running standard unix apps under X on top of OSX doesn't take advantage of OSX's strong points. For all the hype, this could be happening with people on cygwin....
Kudos to the GNUMail.app people, of showing what can be done.
Sure. But quite a few of the features that are in NTFS are from HPFS (i.e. the basic b-tree design). That's why I brought it up. From the article it sounds like NTFS was a revolutionary part of NT -- which it wasn't. NT up until version 4.0 supported HPFS natively, FWIW.
They mentioned the problems that occurred when moving a volume from one machine to another. Something like this sounds even more risky if there's a problem. With a FAT or NTFS partition, there are many programs that can at least read the partition if the system gets farked to an unbootable state. How will this work with a DB? Furthermore, will you have to have a full OS up and running to be able to query and get data out of the DB?
Whether the court will grant it or not is another matter entirely.
If IBM believes the license is perpetural, and the injunction is granted, IBM will file a counter claim for breach of contract, probably for the same amount of daily damages.
Steve has opted to take a best-of-breed Open Source solution (KHTML *is* best-of-breed when compared to Gecko, the solid, time tested *BSD *is* best-of-breed compared to the still-evolving Linux) and build Apple software around it. MacOS X is the result of uniting NextStep and *BSD open-source code, Safari is the result of uniting the GPLed KHTML browser engine with in-house code.
I find Safari nearly unusable on some pages I go to because of flaws in KHTML (I see 'em when I load up the dog that is KDE too...). I've gone back to Chimera, and rarely have a problem with a page rendering incorrectly. And Darwin isn't better than Linux -- it's a totally different system with totally different goals. Linux/*BSD are monolithic kernels with typical unix-like authentication and system calls. OSX is closer to BSD-lite, running the Mach microkernel, and using Mach IPC, etc. etc. Totally different systems.
An Open Office completely tuned to use Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Display PDF and all the other goodies available to MacOS X developers would rock the house. It would have full compatibility with MS Office from Office 97 to Office XP, something AppleWorks never had. And Apple could give back a nice polishing job that nobody at Sun has the time, inclination or will to do.
If that were easy to do, the native port would be well-along by now. OO.o is big spaghetti code that doesn't necessarily translate well. Besides, it'd still be a crappy OSX application because it doesn't use ObjectiveC or Cocoa.
As for Sun, you're right. But I think Apple would be wise to buy them out.
As far as an Outlook-killer goes...I could definitely see Apple taking Evolution and running with it in a similar fashion to what I am suggesting they might do with Open Office. They might even hire some of the people who worked on Entourage back to make it happen.
Except that you haven't been paying attention to Apple's philosophy regarding applications lately. They're almost adopting a unix-like philosophy where you've got small apps that do a few things well, and will work with each other. There aren't many functions that exist in Evolution which don't already exist in Mail.app, Address Book, iCal, iSync, etc. etc. Quit trolling.
Apple is no longer the teetering, smoking hulk that needed Bill Gates' checkbook to shore up while Steve Jobs did all the things he had to do to revitalize the Apple brand.
And if you think that MS bailed out Apple you also think that the Federal Government bailed out Chrysler. 150Mil from MS to Apple is now and was then chump change. What it did was get MS to commit to development for awhile, and provide an antitrust check to keep the Mac platform humming along until OSX was finished.
Then you're not the fictional person I'm talking about.:-) Essentially, he's asking those people who have seen the source, and worked on the compatibility to trust him with any information they'd disclose. I'm saying that this is foolish, because he can be compelled to disclose whatever he knows.
Unless he's willing to pull a Gordon Liddy and not talk at all (and perhaps go to jail for it).
Still, I maintain, that people are going about this in the wrong way. Everybody who is on GNU/Linux's (and IBM's) side in this issue knows that there's nothing here that SCO has to stand on. They throw out contradictory statments on a daily basis. They have no case. We know it. They know it. So? Let the lawyers figure it out. I have enough confidence in the legal system that this will turn out properly.
We don't need people collecting this data. We don't need websites with radical motives. We don't need picketing in Utah. We don't need disruption of parent companies. We don't need protests of SCO's customers. We don't need whiny emotional appeals about the gifts developers have given.
IBM doesn't need any of those things either. But it seems that some people fail to realize that.
And I understand the desire to do something to stick it to SCO......
But there is little that the developer or the user can do here, except sit back and watch the courts.
(I think that covers all the exemptions from being compelled to testify) If the answer is "no" on all accounts, don't talk to him. He can in no way guarantee that you won't be compelled to testify at trial, or that you, yourself, will be safe from prosecution. This is just doing discovery for SCO's attorneys, pointing out individuals with names of people who could have tainted the Linux source. I'm of the opinion that they have absolutely no proof of this, why assist them in finding it?
I understand the community wants to do something here. There is, however, little we can do to help, other than keep our mouths shut. Want to help? Convert an AIX or SCO Unix machine to Linux. We don't want to show support for SCO in any way.
Then let the folks who sign their correspondance "Esquire" figure this out.
And you kill system stability with it. X server crashes, so does the machine.
Need a new version of X? Gotta build a new kernel. Furthermore, many PC systems would become unbootable by conventional means (1.44MB floppy, or 2.88M floppy image for a CD boot), because the kernel would be *huge*.
What can live in user space should live in user space. FWIW, Linus, despite his pot-shots towards The Hurd, has been pretty good about keeping things out of the kernel that don't belong there.
In the market for a 64-bit workstation?
on
Inside the PowerPC 970
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Fast forward a few months....hmm...a few options:
Sun: Nice hardware, very expensive, CDE. AMD: Commodity hardware, cheap, WinXP. HP: Intel hardware, very expensive, CDE or WinXP. I think I know what I'd buy.
Of course, the Athlon64/Opteron would get quite a bit of consideration due to my hobbies.
1. Jeep has operated continuously, albeit under different companies; Willys-Overland, Kaiser-Fraiser, American Motors, and Chrysler. Chrysler didn't relaunch the brand.
2. The SCO lawsuit has nothing to do with the Unix trademark, it has to do with System V intellectual property. For what it's worth, IBM calls Linux, umm.....Linux.
Darwin is Mach. It has a FreeBSD 4.4 userland, but does *not* use a FreeBSD kernel. Some of the networking code is used, also, iirc. It's more comparable to the old BSD-lites that ran on top of mach, except that Apple has modified mach to allow the BSD subsystem to share address space with mach to enhance performance. Take a look at this article about modifying the NetBSD kernel so that it can run Darwin code. They're different beasts.
Also, the change to FreeBSD compatibility is recent. The userland used to be based on NetBSD. Not that it makes that big a difference.....
....with its scsi disks and four fans, but I've gotten to the point where I can't sleep when it's off. I actually can't hear the drives most of the time over the fans.
It's much quieter than my ceiling fan, though, which I've had on the last couple of days because it's been warm.
Whenever I need silence, everything but the iBook goes off.
The Mini-ITX machine reviews are interesting. I've been meaning to get one to put in this dead Apple IIgs I've got.
To contribute to GCC, in fact, it is not enough that you GPL your code and give a license to the GNU Project. No, you have to ASSIGN COPYRIGHT of the code to GNU, basically saying that the code is no longer yours, and that you would no longer have the right to take code from an existing work (such as a commercial compiler which you wrote) and contribute it to GCC, because you would no longer own the original code due to copyright violation.
Does this remind anyone of recording companies requiring artists to hand over their original works?
Actually, it's more akin to a bass player who writes his own bass line to the song. The music publishing company, and primary writer retain copyright on the song, with the bassist possibly getting a co-billing. If the bassist got that co-billing as a writer, he would be able to use that same line in another work, possibly (assuming the publisher didn't have a problem).
Everything done in a GNU project benefits the FSF (at the very least, with added prestige) -- they can claim that they, and they alone, own the code. This includes the right to, if they chose, hire coders to develop the HURD into a useable OS kernel (refer to my sig here), and release it under a closed-source license. Or, to make major improvements to GCC and sell it commercially under a non-GPL license.
Two things here. 1. The hurd developers, for the most part, do assign their copyrights over to the FSF, unlike say, Linux devlopers. How many times have you seen Donald Becker's name pop up somewhere?:-) I don't have a problem with either way, really, so long as the code is GPL'd.
2. As far as re-releasing things under a new license, I don't think that'd be possible as it stands now. Although the FSF owns many of the copyrights in those programs you mention, they don't own all of them, and probably would be unable to collect them. In the case of the Hurd, many of the daemons that borrow from the Linux kernel would have to be rewritten to exclude code taken under the GPL (if you use GPL code you have to release as GPL).
If Walter Bright decided to allow the FSF to use major portions of his C++ compiler, which he sells commercially (and includes, I believe, much better support for C++ templates than GCC), he would have to assign copyright of his code to the FSF, therefore preventing him from using it in releases of his commercial compiler in the future.
I've never used Walter's compiler, but, I don't think this is the case. If Bright's compiler is GPL'd, they could use his code and not have him assign the copyright. I understand why they've chosen to stay copyright-pure with the core components of the GNU system. They don't have to, but it just makes things easier if the process servers come knocking at the door with a large lawsuit.
You're thinking of the Pacer, not the Gremlin. The Gremlin was the standard AMC Hornet with about a foot lopped off. Considering that the basic Hornet platform survived for ninteen years (1970-1988, when the last AMC Eagle was made), I'd say that it was a pretty good design.
The Pacer, otoh, yes, you're correct. It was originally supposed to have a Wankel rotary engine and front wheel drive. Due to development problems and fuel economy regulations, they widened the car, made it rear wheel drive, and shoehorned the standard AMC (232 or 258 cid) inline six in. Heavy, underpowered, weird-looking. Some interesting innovations (rack and pinion steering), but basically a strange car.
I have a dual P4 machine at work that I'm going to be installing Linux on soon to use as a mail server. IIRC, it's an Intel-branded board, though. But the performance I see here looks nice.
As for myself, I have a dual proc machine, but it isn't good for much (SS10).
And I wonder how Linux would run on one of these. Anyone? Anyone?:-D
1. It would have to be appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals first. Since the judge ruled that he doesn't have standing to sue, an intermediate appeal is unlikely.
2. The Supreme Court normally only takes on cases today where there's a disparity between rulings in different circuits. If a similar case is brought in say, Alabama, and the decision is different, and it's upheld on appeal, then the Supreme Court might take it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you get mad when someone discovers a flaw in Internet Explorer? Oh, but this is different, they're blackmailing Microsoft...
Yes, yes it is. It's one thing to say, "we're going to release this flaw," or just outright releasing it. It's quite another to say, "we're going to release this unless you release a new version of IE for Unix."
Blackmail needn't involve cash.
Get the cash out before the next round of lawsuits.
Unless all your clients are running Win2k with the antitrust service pack, and have no permissions....you can't elminate Internet Exploder.
I've installed the Netscape versions of Mozilla on the systems I maintain, and urge people to use them. It seems to work.
OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case.
Re-read my post. Chris Sontag said that Microsoft could be a future target; the agreement between MS and SCO is only for a few libraries. SCO's main thrust here is that every modern OS since SysV violates SCO's "intellectual property." If they do the same things that SysV could, they're infringing. In effect, then, any multi-user POSIX-compatible system would be fair game.
Yes, MS's move to license Services for Unix probably was a token to SCO. But SCO seems eager to bite the hand that feeds it.
It is not a matter of reeling in compensation for this. It's a question of what form it takes - the form of settlement - if it goes all the way to litigation. Those are, to me, more the unknowns.
IBM is going to string this out as long as possible, and won't settle. Why? Because SCO's continued existence as a company depends upon revenue from this case. It's the same reason they aren't suing other people (Apple, Microsoft, and the BSD's have been mentioned as targets, and one can infer from other comments that SGI is a target too); they don't have the money to carry on this long litigation.
In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise. If, in fact, SGI is a target, there would be a much greater chance of SCO winning, and getting some money. SGI doesn't have much money to give, but you start to establish some precedent.....
[M]ost graphical routines in OS X (including the codecs used by Quicktime and iChat) make heavy use of AltiVec. Generic int+fp non-graphical benchmarks show the G4 to be very similar to the G3, but real world use is far different. Photoshop, iMovie, Final Cut Pro, as well as the overall feel of OS X is far better on a G4, so long as there's not a huge difference in clockspeed.
:-/
I've only used a G4 with OSX a couple of times, so it's hard for me to do a head-to-head comparison (I have two G3's). But, yeah, in benchmark tests, for lots of things, the processors seem quite close in performance when it comes to clock speed. Maybe those tests were done in OS9, but I can't remember.
Your use of the word "smoke" suggests that you have not yet finished junior high and spend far too much time at hardocp.com.
Junior high is a faint memory. I think it comes more from being at work on a Friday night.
No, that would apply to the G4, too. There isn't much difference between the two. G4 == G3 + altivec. A 600 MHz G3 would smoke a 350 MHz G4.
NetBSD's pkgsrc works very well for me on OSX. I haven't tried portage or darwin ports, but fink seemed a little strange....almost but not quite debian goodness.
Still, I think all this work is kind of weird. I can see the porting effort for things like the text-based things (emacs!) and the very large projects (OO.o!)....but running standard unix apps under X on top of OSX doesn't take advantage of OSX's strong points. For all the hype, this could be happening with people on cygwin....
Kudos to the GNUMail.app people, of showing what can be done.
Sure. But quite a few of the features that are in NTFS are from HPFS (i.e. the basic b-tree design). That's why I brought it up. From the article it sounds like NTFS was a revolutionary part of NT -- which it wasn't. NT up until version 4.0 supported HPFS natively, FWIW.
They mentioned the problems that occurred when moving a volume from one machine to another. Something like this sounds even more risky if there's a problem. With a FAT or NTFS partition, there are many programs that can at least read the partition if the system gets farked to an unbootable state. How will this work with a DB? Furthermore, will you have to have a full OS up and running to be able to query and get data out of the DB?
Although I do take issue with the discussion of NTFS. Where's the references back to HPFS?
Whether the court will grant it or not is another matter entirely.
If IBM believes the license is perpetural, and the injunction is granted, IBM will file a counter claim for breach of contract, probably for the same amount of daily damages.
This means nothing. It's just more grandstanding.
Steve has opted to take a best-of-breed Open Source solution (KHTML *is* best-of-breed when compared to Gecko, the solid, time tested *BSD *is* best-of-breed compared to the still-evolving Linux) and build Apple software around it. MacOS X is the result of uniting NextStep and *BSD open-source code, Safari is the result of uniting the GPLed KHTML browser engine with in-house code.
I find Safari nearly unusable on some pages I go to because of flaws in KHTML (I see 'em when I load up the dog that is KDE too...). I've gone back to Chimera, and rarely have a problem with a page rendering incorrectly. And Darwin isn't better than Linux -- it's a totally different system with totally different goals. Linux/*BSD are monolithic kernels with typical unix-like authentication and system calls. OSX is closer to BSD-lite, running the Mach microkernel, and using Mach IPC, etc. etc. Totally different systems.
An Open Office completely tuned to use Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Display PDF and all the other goodies available to MacOS X developers would rock the house. It would have full compatibility with MS Office from Office 97 to Office XP, something AppleWorks never had. And Apple could give back a nice polishing job that nobody at Sun has the time, inclination or will to do.
If that were easy to do, the native port would be well-along by now. OO.o is big spaghetti code that doesn't necessarily translate well. Besides, it'd still be a crappy OSX application because it doesn't use ObjectiveC or Cocoa.
As for Sun, you're right. But I think Apple would be wise to buy them out.
As far as an Outlook-killer goes...I could definitely see Apple taking Evolution and running with it in a similar fashion to what I am suggesting they might do with Open Office. They might even hire some of the people who worked on Entourage back to make it happen.
Except that you haven't been paying attention to Apple's philosophy regarding applications lately. They're almost adopting a unix-like philosophy where you've got small apps that do a few things well, and will work with each other. There aren't many functions that exist in Evolution which don't already exist in Mail.app, Address Book, iCal, iSync, etc. etc. Quit trolling.
Apple is no longer the teetering, smoking hulk that needed Bill Gates' checkbook to shore up while Steve Jobs did all the things he had to do to revitalize the Apple brand.
And if you think that MS bailed out Apple you also think that the Federal Government bailed out Chrysler. 150Mil from MS to Apple is now and was then chump change. What it did was get MS to commit to development for awhile, and provide an antitrust check to keep the Mac platform humming along until OSX was finished.
Then you're not the fictional person I'm talking about. :-) Essentially, he's asking those people who have seen the source, and worked on the compatibility to trust him with any information they'd disclose. I'm saying that this is foolish, because he can be compelled to disclose whatever he knows.
Unless he's willing to pull a Gordon Liddy and not talk at all (and perhaps go to jail for it).
Still, I maintain, that people are going about this in the wrong way. Everybody who is on GNU/Linux's (and IBM's) side in this issue knows that there's nothing here that SCO has to stand on. They throw out contradictory statments on a daily basis. They have no case. We know it. They know it. So? Let the lawyers figure it out. I have enough confidence in the legal system that this will turn out properly.
We don't need people collecting this data.
We don't need websites with radical motives.
We don't need picketing in Utah.
We don't need disruption of parent companies.
We don't need protests of SCO's customers.
We don't need whiny emotional appeals about the gifts developers have given.
IBM doesn't need any of those things either. But it seems that some people fail to realize that.
And I understand the desire to do something to stick it to SCO......
But there is little that the developer or the user can do here, except sit back and watch the courts.
I'll begin with a question....
Is ESR your wife, shrink, attorney, or priest?
(I think that covers all the exemptions from being compelled to testify) If the answer is "no" on all accounts, don't talk to him. He can in no way guarantee that you won't be compelled to testify at trial, or that you, yourself, will be safe from prosecution. This is just doing discovery for SCO's attorneys, pointing out individuals with names of people who could have tainted the Linux source. I'm of the opinion that they have absolutely no proof of this, why assist them in finding it?
I understand the community wants to do something here. There is, however, little we can do to help, other than keep our mouths shut. Want to help? Convert an AIX or SCO Unix machine to Linux. We don't want to show support for SCO in any way.
Then let the folks who sign their correspondance "Esquire" figure this out.
And you kill system stability with it. X server crashes, so does the machine.
Need a new version of X? Gotta build a new kernel. Furthermore, many PC systems would become unbootable by conventional means (1.44MB floppy, or 2.88M floppy image for a CD boot), because the kernel would be *huge*.
What can live in user space should live in user space. FWIW, Linus, despite his pot-shots towards The Hurd, has been pretty good about keeping things out of the kernel that don't belong there.
Fast forward a few months....hmm...a few options:
Sun: Nice hardware, very expensive, CDE.
AMD: Commodity hardware, cheap, WinXP.
HP: Intel hardware, very expensive, CDE or WinXP.
I think I know what I'd buy.
Of course, the Athlon64/Opteron would get quite a bit of consideration due to my hobbies.
But I think it'd end up being the Mac.
1. Jeep has operated continuously, albeit under different companies; Willys-Overland, Kaiser-Fraiser, American Motors, and Chrysler. Chrysler didn't relaunch the brand.
2. The SCO lawsuit has nothing to do with the Unix trademark, it has to do with System V intellectual property. For what it's worth, IBM calls Linux, umm.....Linux.
Moderators on crack once again.....
Darwin is Mach. It has a FreeBSD 4.4 userland, but does *not* use a FreeBSD kernel. Some of the networking code is used, also, iirc. It's more comparable to the old BSD-lites that ran on top of mach, except that Apple has modified mach to allow the BSD subsystem to share address space with mach to enhance performance. Take a look at this article about modifying the NetBSD kernel so that it can run Darwin code. They're different beasts.
Also, the change to FreeBSD compatibility is recent. The userland used to be based on NetBSD. Not that it makes that big a difference.....
....with its scsi disks and four fans, but I've gotten to the point where I can't sleep when it's off. I actually can't hear the drives most of the time over the fans.
It's much quieter than my ceiling fan, though, which I've had on the last couple of days because it's been warm.
Whenever I need silence, everything but the iBook goes off.
The Mini-ITX machine reviews are interesting. I've been meaning to get one to put in this dead Apple IIgs I've got.
To contribute to GCC, in fact, it is not enough that you GPL your code and give a license to the GNU Project. No, you have to ASSIGN COPYRIGHT of the code to GNU, basically saying that the code is no longer yours, and that you would no longer have the right to take code from an existing work (such as a commercial compiler which you wrote) and contribute it to GCC, because you would no longer own the original code due to copyright violation.
:-) I don't have a problem with either way, really, so long as the code is GPL'd.
Does this remind anyone of recording companies requiring artists to hand over their original works?
Actually, it's more akin to a bass player who writes his own bass line to the song. The music publishing company, and primary writer retain copyright on the song, with the bassist possibly getting a co-billing. If the bassist got that co-billing as a writer, he would be able to use that same line in another work, possibly (assuming the publisher didn't have a problem).
Everything done in a GNU project benefits the FSF (at the very least, with added prestige) -- they can claim that they, and they alone, own the code. This includes the right to, if they chose, hire coders to develop the HURD into a useable OS kernel (refer to my sig here), and release it under a closed-source license. Or, to make major improvements to GCC and sell it commercially under a non-GPL license.
Two things here. 1. The hurd developers, for the most part, do assign their copyrights over to the FSF, unlike say, Linux devlopers. How many times have you seen Donald Becker's name pop up somewhere?
2. As far as re-releasing things under a new license, I don't think that'd be possible as it stands now. Although the FSF owns many of the copyrights in those programs you mention, they don't own all of them, and probably would be unable to collect them. In the case of the Hurd, many of the daemons that borrow from the Linux kernel would have to be rewritten to exclude code taken under the GPL (if you use GPL code you have to release as GPL).
If Walter Bright decided to allow the FSF to use major portions of his C++ compiler, which he sells commercially (and includes, I believe, much better support for C++ templates than GCC), he would have to assign copyright of his code to the FSF, therefore preventing him from using it in releases of his commercial compiler in the future.
I've never used Walter's compiler, but, I don't think this is the case. If Bright's compiler is GPL'd, they could use his code and not have him assign the copyright. I understand why they've chosen to stay copyright-pure with the core components of the GNU system. They don't have to, but it just makes things easier if the process servers come knocking at the door with a large lawsuit.
You're thinking of the Pacer, not the Gremlin. The Gremlin was the standard AMC Hornet with about a foot lopped off. Considering that the basic Hornet platform survived for ninteen years (1970-1988, when the last AMC Eagle was made), I'd say that it was a pretty good design.
The Pacer, otoh, yes, you're correct. It was originally supposed to have a Wankel rotary engine and front wheel drive. Due to development problems and fuel economy regulations, they widened the car, made it rear wheel drive, and shoehorned the standard AMC (232 or 258 cid) inline six in. Heavy, underpowered, weird-looking. Some interesting innovations (rack and pinion steering), but basically a strange car.
Take a look at this page for more info.
AMC Gremlin. And they didn't have the Pinto's exploding problems. Good car, actually, if a bit odd-looking.
I have a dual P4 machine at work that I'm going to be installing Linux on soon to use as a mail server. IIRC, it's an Intel-branded board, though. But the performance I see here looks nice.
:-D
As for myself, I have a dual proc machine, but it isn't good for much (SS10).
And I wonder how Linux would run on one of these. Anyone? Anyone?
1. It would have to be appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals first. Since the judge ruled that he doesn't have standing to sue, an intermediate appeal is unlikely.
2. The Supreme Court normally only takes on cases today where there's a disparity between rulings in different circuits. If a similar case is brought in say, Alabama, and the decision is different, and it's upheld on appeal, then the Supreme Court might take it up.