The lost cities of gold, Ulysses 31, Inspector gadget, The sunken worlds (I'm not sure this is the actual American title?), and Jayce are all the work of a French company called D.I.C, lead by Jean Chalopin. They're probably still holding the rights to those cartoons.. I am actually pondering buying rights of one of them, in a couple years if what I'm doing right now works out as expected.
There are rumors of a follow-up series to the lost cities of gold (they still had 6 to find:), and a movie being made out of Ulysses 31..
I'm not a particularily nostalgic person, but my friends and I keep talking about the fact that there were *really* good cartoons in our childhood such as the ones above, with well thought-out plots and characters; I'm 24 now, but I surprise myself remembering the title songs:) Today it's Pokemon. Ah well, as long as children enjoy it, it's all that matters:)
We (at suntech) have been doing that; so far as freelancing contracts (ie. we settle a contract with a freelancer, (s)he gets it done, and then gets paid), so the company isn't taking a big risk, provided that nothing critical is being outsourced to a freelancer.
However we'll soon setup an actual telecommuting contract with someone, too bad you didn't wait a few weeks to ask that, I would have had more to tell about this particular experience:)
So far we only had very good experiences with freelancers, but I knew people beforehand, and they are pretty wellknown for being serious (such as the excellent Andrew Apted of GGI fame:). But we never know for sure..:)
What I can say is that we only do that with people we really trust professionally, ie. that they'll get things done in the time we agree on, will be available in normal daytime for questions and problems, and will not disappear as soon as the job is done; we ask for a few months of post-coding maintenance, in case we bump on bugs and such.
Just be sure to put yourself in the position of your employer before you ask for that.. It can have many advantages (like getting top coding skills that you would never get in-house; if you're that good) but the risks are pretty high for the employer; think about it, and reassure them:)
There is nothing to laugh about. In my country (France), the Raëliens are known to be a sect. They use all the traditional techniques to recruit people who feel bad about themselves. Their "human cloning" program and 'scientific evidence' is full of holes. They consider that the Dolly sheep cloning means we can clone humans today. They contradict themselves saying in some place that they can do it today, and in other places that this should be possible sometime soon.
Well, this is just to say, do not take their site as scientific evidence. We might be able to perform human cloning (or cloning of damaged organs) sometime, but I doubt it'll come from them.
In the meantime, we can play gods by hacking code and controlling what it does;) Not the same kind of creation, but quite interesting also.
For the various posts that seem to be interested in the BSD release timeline, here is how it went:
1977: 1BSD (based on UNIX time-sharing system sixth edition from Bell) 1978: 2BSD (based on 1BSD) 1979: 3BSD (based on 2BSD and 32V which itself was derived from unix seventh edition) mid-79: 4.0BSD (derived from 3BSD) 1981: 4.1BSD (derived from 4.0BSD) 1982: 4.1aBSD 1983: 4.1cBSD (not based on System V) 1984: 4.2BSD (not based on System V release 2); SunOS is based on it. 1986: 4.3BSD 1988: 4.3BSD-Tahoe 1990: 4.3BSD-Reno 1991: NET/2 (386BSD spun from it) mid-1992: NetBSD 0.8 spawns from NET/2 1993: FreeBSD 1.0 spins from 386BSD as well mid-1993: 4.4BSD 1994: 4.4BSD lite 1 1995: FreeBSD 2.0, 4.4BSD Lite-2, BSDI 2.0 spin from 4.4BSD lite 1
Note that I'm a linux person, so don't hold me accountable for those dates:) Rather trust the book "the design and implementation of the 4.4BSD operating system" by marshall kirk mckusick et al.
I could be mistaken, but I think you'll find a very serious absence of 30-year-old code in any of the three major BSDs.
It's not meant to be taken literally. It can be 5 or 10 year old code. Some of the source files like C headers for network protocols (tcp/ip et al) were certainly created more than 20 years ago, IIRC for 4.2BSD.
As I said old doesn't mean bad, just that there was no point in changing what wasn't broken. It doesn't mean any of the BSD code is out of date.
First, we should look at it this way: there are 12 million people that use a free unix-like operating system. Most if not all opensource applications run equally well on both. One (Linux) is an implementation from scratch, the other (Free/Net/OpenBSD) has royal blood as it is the direct descendant of 4.4BSD which itself descends from Unix. This should keep happy both the new army of coders that like to toy with new concepts, and the traditionalists for whom 30 year old code doesn't mean outdated, but proven and stable. Both points of view can be defended I think. We therefore have 12 million users and users-developers of free unixish applications, that's great and was absolutely unthinkable 10 years ago!
As for the technical side, I keep having to look at both the linux and freebsd kernels as part of my work; they are good references. Both have very good parts. I have to say that usually, the solution adopted by FreeBSD is simpler and a lot more commented/documented (take the bogomips case for example; people are starting to wonder what will happen if the cpu speed changes at runtime, how to detect and recalculate it, etc; freebsd spins simply by looking at changes in the hardware clock counter. simpler:). Same for NIC drivers usually (hello, donald becker, do comment weird things:-). But the linux kernel is full of good and new ideas.
So we need both if we want to keep the high standards we are used to have in the free unices now. That was my original point:) Long and happy life to all the linux and free/open/netbsd hackers, be it kernel or office applications writers:)
Does anybody know what operating system (if any) runs the new 'brain' ? Is it VxWorks like pathfinder, or maybe just a very thin blanket over the hardware (just enough to get C code working or something) ?
Actually, why was it needed to upgrade the cpus? I mean, I thought hubble's cpu doesn't do more than controlling movements and handling communication protocols so it can send pictures. The new 'brain' will be 20 times faster, but what's the point? Does the telescope perform calculations on-site ? Just wondering.
Re:Pascal had an intermediary form before gcc
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Probably not. Pascal compilers did that in the late 70s for machine portability. The Pascal code was compiled to an intermediary called P-code, which was then compiled to machine code by an architecture dependent piece.
You're right on that one. I did hear about P-code, it just escaped my mind:) The fact that Stallman applied that principle to more than one language is brilliant tho; it's the key to both the unchallenged architecture portability of gcc (if you have something that can do 1 and 0, and at least 32 of them, it runs on it:-) and the numerous languages it supports with the same back-end (c, c++, java..).
As someone said, the power of a system is not expressed by the number of its components, but the number of interconnections between them:)
Wish we'd have more articles like that.
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 2
This is a very nice talk showing for once, not just the political ideas of Richard Stallman, but why he deserves so much respect whatever his positions are: his incredible programming skills. I really believe he's one of the great minds of our time. Heck, gcc, emacs, POSIX, what else:) gcc sources are a good example. I don't know if he's the one that came up with the idea of compiling to an intermediate form and then having each cpu target translate the intermediate, prepackaged form to machine code, but that's a fabulous idea.
Yet another person who put an easter egg in a C compiler; the other one (putting both a (harmless) backdoor in his C compiler, and code in the compiler that would detect unmodified C compiler sources and insert the hack as the compiler was built) was more creative though.
Re:This v2-os.. no protection.
on
V2 OS
·
· Score: 1
Oh, it's not based on V2:) The only link is that we happened to hire the guy who worked on it (we knew that beforehand, just not that he was going to distribute it free of charge). It's an operating system and development environment, too, however. And we modestly think it's (r)evolutionary.
Re:This v2-os.. no protection.
on
V2 OS
·
· Score: 1
V2_OS is designed with a highly specialized task in mind (that I'll let the creators reveal if they want to:) and it serves its purpose at many times the speed of any other OS around for this particular usage.
As for memory protection, etc, you're right; it's an useful feature for any secure application. Don't worry, the guy who wrote V2_OS will be integrated next month in another project at my company that will be a lot more revolutionary (and no, that doesn't mean the desktop is red instead of blue..:)
Actually, V2_OS is the work of a single person, Joost Faassen, a 21-year-old Dutchman, who is both good at assembly and OS programming, and a modest, nice person. Granted the OS is not revolutionary, but it's a Nice Hack(tm). I can say that, because we hired that person at my company (before he released V2_OS to the public, that is, that's not related:), he'll help work on the 'revolutionary' part here on another project.. You'll see and hear more of it real soon.
Slashdot Mirror
The lost cities of gold, Ulysses 31, Inspector gadget, The sunken worlds (I'm not sure this is the actual American title?), and Jayce are all the work of a French company called D.I.C, lead by Jean Chalopin. They're probably still holding the rights to those cartoons.. I am actually pondering buying rights of one of them, in a couple years if what I'm doing right now works out as expected.
:), and a movie being made out of Ulysses 31..
:) Today it's Pokemon. Ah well, as long as children enjoy it, it's all that matters :)
There are rumors of a follow-up series to the lost cities of gold (they still had 6 to find
I'm not a particularily nostalgic person, but my friends and I keep talking about the fact that there were *really* good cartoons in our childhood such as the ones above, with well thought-out plots and characters; I'm 24 now, but I surprise myself remembering the title songs
We (at suntech) have been doing that; so far as freelancing contracts (ie. we settle a contract with a freelancer, (s)he gets it done, and then gets paid), so the company isn't taking a big risk, provided that nothing critical is being outsourced to a freelancer.
:)
:). But we never know for sure.. :)
:)
However we'll soon setup an actual telecommuting contract with someone, too bad you didn't wait a few weeks to ask that, I would have had more to tell about this particular experience
So far we only had very good experiences with freelancers, but I knew people beforehand, and they are pretty wellknown for being serious (such as the excellent Andrew Apted of GGI fame
What I can say is that we only do that with people we really trust professionally, ie. that they'll get things done in the time we agree on, will be available in normal daytime for questions and problems, and will not disappear as soon as the job is done; we ask for a few months of post-coding maintenance, in case we bump on bugs and such.
Just be sure to put yourself in the position of your employer before you ask for that.. It can have many advantages (like getting top coding skills that you would never get in-house; if you're that good) but the risks are pretty high for the employer; think about it, and reassure them
There is nothing to laugh about. In my country (France), the Raëliens are known to be a sect. They use all the traditional techniques to recruit people who feel bad about themselves. Their "human cloning" program and 'scientific evidence' is full of holes. They consider that the Dolly sheep cloning means we can clone humans today. They contradict themselves saying in some place that they can do it today, and in other places that this should be possible sometime soon.
;) Not the same kind of creation, but quite interesting also.
Well, this is just to say, do not take their site as scientific evidence. We might be able to perform human cloning (or cloning of damaged organs) sometime, but I doubt it'll come from them.
In the meantime, we can play gods by hacking code and controlling what it does
For the various posts that seem to be interested in the BSD release timeline, here is how it went:
:) Rather trust the book "the design and implementation of the 4.4BSD operating system" by marshall kirk mckusick et al.
1977: 1BSD (based on UNIX time-sharing system sixth edition from Bell)
1978: 2BSD (based on 1BSD)
1979: 3BSD (based on 2BSD and 32V which itself was derived from unix seventh edition)
mid-79: 4.0BSD (derived from 3BSD)
1981: 4.1BSD (derived from 4.0BSD)
1982: 4.1aBSD
1983: 4.1cBSD (not based on System V)
1984: 4.2BSD (not based on System V release 2); SunOS is based on it.
1986: 4.3BSD
1988: 4.3BSD-Tahoe
1990: 4.3BSD-Reno
1991: NET/2 (386BSD spun from it)
mid-1992: NetBSD 0.8 spawns from NET/2
1993: FreeBSD 1.0 spins from 386BSD as well
mid-1993: 4.4BSD
1994: 4.4BSD lite 1
1995: FreeBSD 2.0, 4.4BSD Lite-2, BSDI 2.0 spin from 4.4BSD lite 1
Note that I'm a linux person, so don't hold me accountable for those dates
Linux of course appeared in 1991.
I could be mistaken, but I think you'll find a very serious absence of 30-year-old code in any of the three major BSDs.
It's not meant to be taken literally. It can be 5 or 10 year old code. Some of the source files like C headers for network protocols (tcp/ip et al) were certainly created more than 20 years ago, IIRC for 4.2BSD.
As I said old doesn't mean bad, just that there was no point in changing what wasn't broken. It doesn't mean any of the BSD code is out of date.
First, we should look at it this way: there are 12 million people that use a free unix-like operating system. Most if not all opensource applications run equally well on both. One (Linux) is an implementation from scratch, the other (Free/Net/OpenBSD) has royal blood as it is the direct descendant of 4.4BSD which itself descends from Unix. This should keep happy both the new army of coders that like to toy with new concepts, and the traditionalists for whom 30 year old code doesn't mean outdated, but proven and stable. Both points of view can be defended I think. We therefore have 12 million users and users-developers of free unixish applications, that's great and was absolutely unthinkable 10 years ago!
:). Same for NIC drivers usually (hello, donald becker, do comment weird things :-). But the linux kernel is full of good and new ideas.
:) Long and happy life to all the linux and free/open/netbsd hackers, be it kernel or office applications writers :)
As for the technical side, I keep having to look at both the linux and freebsd kernels as part of my work; they are good references. Both have very good parts. I have to say that usually, the solution adopted by FreeBSD is simpler and a lot more commented/documented (take the bogomips case for example; people are starting to wonder what will happen if the cpu speed changes at runtime, how to detect and recalculate it, etc; freebsd spins simply by looking at changes in the hardware clock counter. simpler
So we need both if we want to keep the high standards we are used to have in the free unices now. That was my original point
Does anybody know what operating system (if any) runs the new 'brain' ? Is it VxWorks like pathfinder, or maybe just a very thin blanket over the hardware (just enough to get C code working or something) ?
Actually, why was it needed to upgrade the cpus? I mean, I thought hubble's cpu doesn't do more than controlling movements and handling communication protocols so it can send pictures. The new 'brain' will be 20 times faster, but what's the point? Does the telescope perform calculations on-site ? Just wondering.
Probably not. Pascal compilers did that in the late 70s for machine portability. The Pascal code was compiled to an intermediary called P-code, which was then compiled to machine code by an architecture dependent piece.
:) The fact that Stallman applied that principle to more than one language is brilliant tho; it's the key to both the unchallenged architecture portability of gcc (if you have something that can do 1 and 0, and at least 32 of them, it runs on it :-) and the numerous languages it supports with the same back-end (c, c++, java..).
:)
You're right on that one. I did hear about P-code, it just escaped my mind
As someone said, the power of a system is not expressed by the number of its components, but the number of interconnections between them
This is a very nice talk showing for once, not :)
just the political ideas of Richard Stallman, but
why he deserves so much respect whatever his
positions are: his incredible programming skills.
I really believe he's one of the great minds of
our time. Heck, gcc, emacs, POSIX, what else
gcc sources are a good example. I don't know if he's the one that came up with the idea of compiling to an intermediate form and then having each cpu target translate the intermediate, prepackaged form to machine code, but that's a fabulous idea.
Yet another person who put an easter egg in a C compiler; the other one (putting both a (harmless) backdoor in his C compiler, and code in the compiler that would detect unmodified C compiler sources and insert the hack as the compiler was built) was more creative though.
Oh, it's not based on V2 :) The only link is that we happened to hire the guy who worked on it (we knew that beforehand, just not that he was going to distribute it free of charge). It's an operating system and development environment, too, however. And we modestly think it's (r)evolutionary.
V2_OS is designed with a highly specialized task in mind (that I'll let the creators reveal if they want to :) and it serves its purpose at many times the speed of any other OS around for this particular usage.
:)
As for memory protection, etc, you're right; it's an useful feature for any secure application. Don't worry, the guy who wrote V2_OS will be integrated next month in another project at my company that will be a lot more revolutionary (and no, that doesn't mean the desktop is red instead of blue..
Actually, V2_OS is the work of a single person, Joost Faassen, a 21-year-old Dutchman, who is both good at assembly and OS programming, and a modest, nice person. Granted the OS is not revolutionary, but it's a Nice Hack(tm). I can say that, because we hired that person at my company (before he released V2_OS to the public, that is, that's not related :), he'll help work on the 'revolutionary' part here on another project.. You'll see and hear more of it real soon.