Ask him where he submitted it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he posted it on the incorrect forum (or didn't send it to the maintainers). If he sends it to the right people, then it should be looked at, and most likely integrated. But just sending it to some random usenet forum that says 'x-bsd' just wont do.
lol. Ok, if they're all screwing and having a blast while I continue to do the programming and design, well.. more power to em.:) So far I've been tryng to learn CGI (Perl & C++ varients), and UNIX shell scripting, though there'll be some extra bits here and there that have no clue how to do, yet. Gotta sketch out the whole design as OOP, see where everything links together, do as much as I can and hope to get the rest done when possible. hmm.. if they wanna do the web page where the user inputs the data...
The guys I know will help out, hopefully a significant amount. At least I expect it. Dunno about the gals.. which kinda sucks. (no pun intended)
I was a bit disapointed when they waitlisted me. But now when I think about it, I can just go here at IIT, which I like quite a lot (enough that I was debating the two initially), and then go to CMU for graduate work. IIT being #11, giving me merit-based money, has an agressive CS/engineering department (compared to friends colleges, etc), and is pretty nice to stay at. CMU for $120k/4years, or IIT for $46k/5years for CS, CPE (computer engineering), and working on a minor over the summers (gonna be painful).. that's a good trade.:-) Just go for a masters afterwards...
My parents went to stanford for grad. and personally its not my type of place, and MIT just never interested me. Likely a lot of people feel the same way. I dunno.. for me CMU always sounded good since freshman year...
At my college, Illinois Tech, there's a bunch. My TAs were female, my core has an ok number (maybe 10%, though), and in every CS class I've taken I always see a few. Not that its 50-50 or anything, but they are there. Actually, a requirement for any major is to take a CS class. Most take the standard first year basics, but in some departments they take fortran (ie chem) or basic (architecture), though not from the CS department.
On a core project I'm doing, there are two females in the 6 member group. Ok, to be quite honest they've been a pain to work with because they just don't care, but they'll have to as they are CS majors. But, the other guys haven't lifted a finger either (I've started programming as designing), though they're quite happy to think and ponder over the project with me. The two TAs though were sharp and extremely useful. I was actually thinking the mixture would go up, but maybe there's just to many guys jumping in. After all, CS is starting to look like a libral arts major...
Actually, no. There not similar. He reminds me of Bill Jolitz, who created 386BSD. Still, that's a bit far stretched. He replaced the AT&T code from Net/2 to create an OS, and then seemed to lose interest. One hypothesis for this is that the lawsuit was raging and if he kept active, he could have been sued. So, he declined to keep the project going, which was why a patch kit was created. The only member of that group I know of is JKH, although probably some other big names were there two. From 386BSD came NetBSD, and a few months later FreeBSD.
386BSD is no where to be found, nor is Bill and his wife. I'd be interested in knowing whatever happened to him. However, Linus is no way near Tesla, as he had only ego driving him, which he has stated before. Other big names have agreed, and said fame among hackers is why they do any of it.
As netscape just crashed upon doing preview of a real reply, I'll just do a quick summery.
1. Never attacked Katz, just said it was bound to happen and the government has done something similar for years. 2. As I said, my brother had his own machine, for essays, games (Qbert, zork, etc), etc. 3. The computers were largly used for work. He used MathCad, and AutoCAD significantly, as well as PcTex (similar to PCDOS's edit, but Tex) along with other tools I forget. He also had Windows and Geoworks (the latter favored), and drive sizes were 40mb, and 210mb, respectively. 4. Internet use was only true between after the divorce, where he did not have an ISP since things were quite messy. Considering how young the 'net was at this time, and how little the Lab's service was used, don't get mad. 5. The people who did exploit the computers were the 'security' and some network 'professionals.' They have lied under oath concerning logs and audits about computer usage, and only after the nuclear tech-China issue, even bothered to put up a firewall. The 2 day 'employee training period' after it, merely told them to install a licensed copy of NAV. My father only replaced the HP workstation after it was hacked to death, along with half of the computers there. And, to make matters worse, when one of them was fired, she refused to return expenisive computer parts (ie, network tape backup device) because she was using them for her own personal business.
Its not like the Labs are perfect. Heck, a major person in charge of the Laser department was fired because he lied about having a Ph.D. He also did very little other than waste money, while making over $200k (the scientists make max of around $100k), and giving himself countless 'awards' for excellence. Oh yeah, me popping in the Pirates floppy or using Reader Rabit on the 287 was such a horrible thing.
Well, Ford's giving a computer out is nice I'm sure, and expected from the sub-$1000 boom, but I know the government Labs, or at least LLNL, has been loaning out computers/equipment for home use for ages. My father, in the 80s to early 90s, used to just loan out all of our computers (except my brothers TRS80/Tandy1000) from the lab, which included a full 287 and 486DX-50.
Back in about '93 he tried to return some of the parts, which they then accused him of stealing. Of course, it was simply that they depreciated it to zero, deleted the records, etc. So now.. he doesn't take out hardware, but does have 3 PCs for work in his office.:-)
And for the 'net.. you simply called them. A machine would pick up, take your ID, call back from the records, take a passcode, and log you ont a VAX/VMS system. From there, rlogin to your own machine (an HP Unix workstation), and off you go. Yeah, secure, and just like now, your employer would watch everything you do. So, no difference except they provided the firewall, and paid the telephone charges. Oh... the days of the 300 baud modem.:-)
The question is about who own's your code. Stop saying someone is stealing the code when it was freely given to them. The BSD encourages massive code reuse, which means the programmer, corperate or not, wont have to re-implement the world all over again. That's how technology progresses, everything builds upon everything else.
The idea behind BSD is to help the community, for the comman person, the programmer, the corperation, and the user. It works, as helping one in turn helps the rest. If I gave you a lemonade, or a coke, told you it was absolutely yours to use, sell, give, etc. Even had a contract between us, and then after you drank it accused you of stealing, who would you think was nuts?
The GPL believes that no one should own the code, yet their advocates are afraid of someone stealing it, or even NON-GPL code. BSD believes in helping further technical advancement, and thus allows for reuse and splinters. In the end, splinters are a BOON, because (especially with open source) the best one comes out on top, or is applied in very new directions. If not the best standard is derived and pushed by a huge company, killing the smaller, the larger must still compete because no one will follow it if there are absolutely no benefits. And, would these features even come about if it wasn't for the free code? If they would have, obviously at a later date. The problem?
wtf are you talking about? Nik is well known as a FreeBSD project member. He never, ever, ever claimed otherwise. He has a right to have multiple addresses, so that he can organize better./. stuff goes to his slashdot account, whereas BSD project talks go to his freebsd acount, and personal life of "I want to get away from all the cool hackers and all the whinners" goes to his personal account. If you wish uptodate BSD informaton, look at DDNs, where Nik gets much of the stories from. He has a life beyound slashdot, which is unique among the crowd working there.
So don't make things up. If you want to say 'hey Nik is a member of FreeBSD' then a lot of people here will respong with 'Ya, aint it great!'
oh and hey.. you've already posted this message before on other BSD threads that got on the cover page. Give it a rest.
I'd have actually been impressed if China used their own design, but since it just an old proven Russian design, tweaked by chinese scientists (maybe the computers don't use vacume tubes..:-) Nasa's been screwing up and lying[1], Russia does less.. so maybe this is good news. But of course.. the only reason so far for politions to be behind these is for prestige (ie US catching up), or drooling over what war power it could bring. The latter is more plausable for the main reason behind China's aggressiveness.
[1] Nasa scientists did not get th conversion wrong, but rather to save costs the navigation system was coded, but not tested. A small error brought it off course, which the scientists saw and asked for permission to fix. As the navigation system said things were ok, it was denied. Of course, by the time the truth came out, people weren't interested anymore
A follow up, due to a link where you finally admitted the truth entirely, you admit you had no involvement, claim that the media has lied, and say you will not talk to them unless force.. "I'm pretty sure that I will do everything to avoid the media in the future"
but, in the LinuxWorld article, at the end, you say... "ABC News is coming tomorrow, and I was supposed to demonstrate DVD playback under Linux. So I'm going to call some people now and try to get hold of a computer with a DVD-ROM and get Linux installed on it."
Again, why should anyone care what happens to you, when the origional release was for windows, for pirating, and had nothing to do with breaking a legal "monopoly".
You origionally claimed to have written the code for DeCSS, obtaining publicity on slashdot and real news forums, but once arrested readily admitted to only linking to the code. Why should anyone think of you more than just a 'script kiddy' (if that) whose ego got himself and his father arrested?
From first CNN article, one of many of such claims... "I made this program to be able to view DVD on my Linux," claims Johansen. "This way, the film industry no longer has a monopoly making DVD players."
From a later LinuxWorld arti cle (on CNN)... "the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part."
and, where you clarify your involvement...
"Actually, I was only linking [to the source code] and they wanted me to remove the link -- which I did, so that I could think it over. And then the link appeared again on my Website at the end of the week. "
There's a good how-to on this, but its not current. Its for the 2.x series, though it likely transfers up to the 3.x and 4.x with minor changes. You should read the how-to, and the handbook. If your still confused or unsure, shoot a quick query over to freebsd-questions@freebsd.org. I trust you can find the handbook yourself. Here's the URL for the how-to. (yeah, I'm lazy)
PS. Nik, any thoughts of including any updates? I think I remember on a list you saying you didn't want to bring it all the way up, as to keep it usuable for the 2.x series, but how about a section for 3.x and 4.x? Or is it still the same?
The biggest of the BSD news services is Daily.Daemonnews.org. Over the last year its been pretty efficent at posting stories. Slashdot's coverage is moderate, but Nick isn't trying to "compete."
Also, slashdot quickly created a side-bar box for DDNs. If you have an account, just add it.
It looks like on DDN's forums, someone linked to both of them.. I think. I'm still downloading, to see. Oddly, my ethernet speeds seem to be tapping out at 6kb/s.. (a server I'm d/ling from now, at 6kbps, was in the 40s yesterday)
It was. I noticed that mistake too. Considering this is slashdot, where they can't even be grammically correct, let alone be factual, what do you expect?
I believe they also said the 500mhz P3 was equivelent to their 700mhz processor, not 667mhz. Of course the P3 mobiles are considerably slower than desktop versions, but still fast. I hope that now since they have the hard part dealt with, they can work on desktop/server chips, as they can move from a simplistic internal to a complex one, though without all the problems everyone else has. Considering they have experienced Sun and Motorola engineers, it should be easy enough...
My only wonder is why people were so ignorant to why they won't publish the internal instructions. Heck, when writing object classes, the point is that implementation can be changed whenever, but the user can still make the same calls, and recieve the same result. Performance can be improved, features added, and bug squished. Just the programmer writing with that object doesn't need to know. If they tied themselves down, they'd be in the trap their breaking the microproccessor out of...
Generally BSD used UFS, but free varients are now incorperating SoftUpdates into the filesystem. I've been told that for the most part, UFS is slightly slower than ext2, but safer. The main reason is because ext2 doesn't sync as often, though both can be tweaked either for the speed or for the safety. Softupdates will do the same as a JFS for Linux, so both systems can have safe and speedy filesystems.
I haven't seen to much of an explanation of softupdates, only on McKusick's page.
I believe Intel always said they'd implement copper in 2001 - 2003, and weren't to big on it. That was back when IBM announcned it, and also when AMD licensed it from Motorola.
I know the settlement was because Intel stole, and at times hinted at it, DEC's technology. I always wondered what DEC got out of it, since Intel got the right to use Alpha technology and bought the fab. I think one bit of the deal was they had to produce some Alpha chips too, though.
Well, lets see. Athlon has a nicer bus because they licensed it from Digital. How long were they on the socket-7 system? Intel converted over, and now will go to a 200, from the current 133mhz bus. Since Intel is just a tad behind, but AMD's Athlon is still quite new, its not something to get crazy about. The 66mhz bus was a real pain when overloaded, and so I doubt a 200 will be to stuffed by most of us. Still, don't believe AMD's bus is better by AMD's engineers, its because of DEC's, who already had EV7 designed and ready to be implemented when the licensed EV6 (whether they did, I don't know).
Both Intel and AMD have talked or showed them off with cooling, never showing without. IBM has had the PowerPC at 1ghz for a long time, in lab, just like the rest of the industry. I'd be surprised if any of them were still needing to test 1ghz with massive cooling...
Whether AMD has 1.2ghz chips cranking out, I'd be surprised. AMD has said before it could be at 900mhz right now, but why rush when you can *squeeze* the market? Intel did that, and AMD is just playing the same mhz game with us. Oh yeah, I love AMD, they play the same game as everyone else. When your small, you fight the bigger capitalist by creating better products and overshadowing them. You win. AMD believes they won, maybe they have, but they wont be saints, or demons (or daemons:).
Superior performance is due to superior design, one thatcame out 3 years after Intel's. The P4, whatever it will be called, has been in the works for 3-4 years. AMD spent 1.5 years on the K7. Now, whether the P4 is any good (considering Intel spent all its engineering time on the Mercury.. ehh, name before "Merced" on Intel's media-news page), I don't know. I'd be more than happy to see an amazing deign come out again to rock the market. If Intel blows the P4, its in serious trouble.
And I 100% agree. However, you said the reverse, or my understanding was of the reverse, that BSDs tried to monopolize to a single OS, where Linux did not. Here, you failed to say whether that was a correctly understanding, or not, though said the "one world" mentality was a major thorn in Linux's success.. which would imply that your origional post was either incorrect or badly phrased.
Explain. Linux advocates are often critisized for their "one OS, one world - but my OS" mentality. The GPL helps them, because fragmentation, while plausable, is difficult. With Linux's "culture" very quick to attack anything people assume the majority may be queasy about, its rather the other way around. The BSDL has created fragmentation, or rather helped competing product development time through their code, which improves the entire community. Windows uses BSD code, most UNIX OSes use BSD code, etc. You even say "*BSD" meaning all bsds. There is no single free BSD OS that has become popular while the rest perish, where as with the GPL only Linux is noticed, others fall through the cracks.
So I'd say if you want a single OS, Linux is it. Its multi-platform, advocates pressure venders to ensure their product (OS, hardware, etc) is compatable, etc. Linux tries to be everything to everyone.. OSes like Windows, MacOS, BeOS, BSDs, etc. generally first try to be the best for one, and keep the rest satisfied.
I don't know what type of thugs you think BSD supporters are, but no one is, or will, try to get you. No one is or will try to force you to believe some political idea, that BSD is superior, or demean you for disagreeing. You were only moderated down for coming into our community and making broad hateful remarks. If your searching for a cultish society where your brainwashed with propiganda, those exist, just the BSD community isn't one.
Now if you have a constructive critisism, such as in what way FreeBSD is "weak," surely someone more knowledgable will either correct you, or agree there's a problem. But you don't want to do that, judging from you posts and user history, so until you do, please just go away, be quiet, or post non-flamitory remarks.
Umm... you entirely neglect his point. I can only assume your just brainwashed into not seeing it, or knowingly neglecting it.
1. Very few customers demand "free software," the majority, individuals and organizations, demand open source software. Especially the type that allows them to manipulate it (I'm using the definition of open source as in open, not as in OSI's version, which the GPL still fails at). Customers wish to see the code, so that if the provider stops producing the product, or if the product is doing an extremely important task (think military projects, especially where safety comes in), they can go over it. Asking for free software is asking for software which cannot be charged for, and must be open source. Sure, people always want to get everything for nothing, but they wont demand it. Otherwise, we would have free food, free housing, free transportation. None of that has been demanded by the majority of the U.S. citizens, or even by the world.
2. Companies provide a product so they can be successful. If you look at companies in the "free software" world, they do not create more than a fraction of the product, and most of the time just manipulate slightly what already existed. They provide easy access, marketing channels, and some support. Oh, and even a pretty box (not always) if your lucky. For the rest of the world, customers demand software that fits a need, and it is highly desireable, though not always demanded, it is open source. Companies will create software to meet this demand and charge for it. If its open source, they may be selling the righ to use their code except in a competing product, i.e. internally. All parties are satisfied.
3. Developers working for the companies must be payed. I'm sorry, but this is not a Marxian society where individual is rewarded for their product, rather than selling a commodity called work. Here, we must sell. "Free software" demands that the worker's commodity be free - not as in "freedom" but as in it can't be charged for. The worker sells his commodity, the means he and his family survives on, for nothing. If he continues to do this, he will starve. The only solution that has been found is to work for a company that sells support, so that if customers have a problem they will pay for the programmer's commodity, paying for him to tackle a task, not for the code itself.
Your last lines are utter nonsense. You demand free software (and claim everyone else does too), which means you will accept nothing other than free software. When you demand free software, as in the broad way you have said it, you are demanding everything be free software. You cannot turn around and say you will write propietary software and tell us you should be paid for it. I must sell my commodity for nothing to please people, but all of a sudden when its your commodity you want us to pay?
Developers create free software most of the time on their own time. Not on the company's time. That is fine, not with the FSF, but fine with most sane people. Personally if I'm going to sell my commodity for nadda, than I'm going to make it free, as in freedom. I'd use the BSDL or the like (ie, Apache's tweak), because my commodity is already gone. The GPL asks me, and demands others, to give away my commodity and force the rest of the world to do the same. I'd rather not be under a tolitarium society where it is not the people that demand it, but a legal body. The GPL is far from freedom, as you put it in an earlier post.
As a matter of fact, with the customers demanding free software, the people can be wrong. The majority is often wrong, swayed by sweet talk or lies, or whatever. I believe under Napolean III, he gave the people of France the vote of whether to have the right to vote. They voted their rights away.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask him where he submitted it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he posted it on the incorrect forum (or didn't send it to the maintainers). If he sends it to the right people, then it should be looked at, and most likely integrated. But just sending it to some random usenet forum that says 'x-bsd' just wont do.
lol. Ok, if they're all screwing and having a blast while I continue to do the programming and design, well.. more power to em. :) So far I've been tryng to learn CGI (Perl & C++ varients), and UNIX shell scripting, though there'll be some extra bits here and there that have no clue how to do, yet. Gotta sketch out the whole design as OOP, see where everything links together, do as much as I can and hope to get the rest done when possible. hmm.. if they wanna do the web page where the user inputs the data...
The guys I know will help out, hopefully a significant amount. At least I expect it. Dunno about the gals.. which kinda sucks. (no pun intended)
You got in with okay grades for CS?
:-) Just go for a masters afterwards...
I was a bit disapointed when they waitlisted me. But now when I think about it, I can just go here at IIT, which I like quite a lot (enough that I was debating the two initially), and then go to CMU for graduate work. IIT being #11, giving me merit-based money, has an agressive CS/engineering department (compared to friends colleges, etc), and is pretty nice to stay at. CMU for $120k/4years, or IIT for $46k/5years for CS, CPE (computer engineering), and working on a minor over the summers (gonna be painful).. that's a good trade.
My parents went to stanford for grad. and personally its not my type of place, and MIT just never interested me. Likely a lot of people feel the same way. I dunno.. for me CMU always sounded good since freshman year...
At my college, Illinois Tech, there's a bunch. My TAs were female, my core has an ok number (maybe 10%, though), and in every CS class I've taken I always see a few. Not that its 50-50 or anything, but they are there. Actually, a requirement for any major is to take a CS class. Most take the standard first year basics, but in some departments they take fortran (ie chem) or basic (architecture), though not from the CS department.
On a core project I'm doing, there are two females in the 6 member group. Ok, to be quite honest they've been a pain to work with because they just don't care, but they'll have to as they are CS majors. But, the other guys haven't lifted a finger either (I've started programming as designing), though they're quite happy to think and ponder over the project with me. The two TAs though were sharp and extremely useful. I was actually thinking the mixture would go up, but maybe there's just to many guys jumping in. After all, CS is starting to look like a libral arts major...
Actually, no. There not similar. He reminds me of Bill Jolitz, who created 386BSD. Still, that's a bit far stretched. He replaced the AT&T code from Net/2 to create an OS, and then seemed to lose interest. One hypothesis for this is that the lawsuit was raging and if he kept active, he could have been sued. So, he declined to keep the project going, which was why a patch kit was created. The only member of that group I know of is JKH, although probably some other big names were there two. From 386BSD came NetBSD, and a few months later FreeBSD.
386BSD is no where to be found, nor is Bill and his wife. I'd be interested in knowing whatever happened to him. However, Linus is no way near Tesla, as he had only ego driving him, which he has stated before. Other big names have agreed, and said fame among hackers is why they do any of it.
As netscape just crashed upon doing preview of a real reply, I'll just do a quick summery.
1. Never attacked Katz, just said it was bound to happen and the government has done something similar for years.
2. As I said, my brother had his own machine, for essays, games (Qbert, zork, etc), etc.
3. The computers were largly used for work. He used MathCad, and AutoCAD significantly, as well as PcTex (similar to PCDOS's edit, but Tex) along with other tools I forget. He also had Windows and Geoworks (the latter favored), and drive sizes were 40mb, and 210mb, respectively.
4. Internet use was only true between after the divorce, where he did not have an ISP since things were quite messy. Considering how young the 'net was at this time, and how little the Lab's service was used, don't get mad.
5. The people who did exploit the computers were the 'security' and some network 'professionals.' They have lied under oath concerning logs and audits about computer usage, and only after the nuclear tech-China issue, even bothered to put up a firewall. The 2 day 'employee training period' after it, merely told them to install a licensed copy of NAV. My father only replaced the HP workstation after it was hacked to death, along with half of the computers there. And, to make matters worse, when one of them was fired, she refused to return expenisive computer parts (ie, network tape backup device) because she was using them for her own personal business.
Its not like the Labs are perfect. Heck, a major person in charge of the Laser department was fired because he lied about having a Ph.D. He also did very little other than waste money, while making over $200k (the scientists make max of around $100k), and giving himself countless 'awards' for excellence. Oh yeah, me popping in the Pirates floppy or using Reader Rabit on the 287 was such a horrible thing.
Well, Ford's giving a computer out is nice I'm sure, and expected from the sub-$1000 boom, but I know the government Labs, or at least LLNL, has been loaning out computers/equipment for home use for ages. My father, in the 80s to early 90s, used to just loan out all of our computers (except my brothers TRS80/Tandy1000) from the lab, which included a full 287 and 486DX-50.
:-)
:-)
Back in about '93 he tried to return some of the parts, which they then accused him of stealing. Of course, it was simply that they depreciated it to zero, deleted the records, etc. So now.. he doesn't take out hardware, but does have 3 PCs for work in his office.
And for the 'net.. you simply called them. A machine would pick up, take your ID, call back from the records, take a passcode, and log you ont a VAX/VMS system. From there, rlogin to your own machine (an HP Unix workstation), and off you go. Yeah, secure, and just like now, your employer would watch everything you do. So, no difference except they provided the firewall, and paid the telephone charges. Oh... the days of the 300 baud modem.
The question is about who own's your code. Stop saying someone is stealing the code when it was freely given to them. The BSD encourages massive code reuse, which means the programmer, corperate or not, wont have to re-implement the world all over again. That's how technology progresses, everything builds upon everything else.
The idea behind BSD is to help the community, for the comman person, the programmer, the corperation, and the user. It works, as helping one in turn helps the rest. If I gave you a lemonade, or a coke, told you it was absolutely yours to use, sell, give, etc. Even had a contract between us, and then after you drank it accused you of stealing, who would you think was nuts?
The GPL believes that no one should own the code, yet their advocates are afraid of someone stealing it, or even NON-GPL code. BSD believes in helping further technical advancement, and thus allows for reuse and splinters. In the end, splinters are a BOON, because (especially with open source) the best one comes out on top, or is applied in very new directions. If not the best standard is derived and pushed by a huge company, killing the smaller, the larger must still compete because no one will follow it if there are absolutely no benefits. And, would these features even come about if it wasn't for the free code? If they would have, obviously at a later date. The problem?
wtf are you talking about? Nik is well known as a FreeBSD project member. He never, ever, ever claimed otherwise. He has a right to have multiple addresses, so that he can organize better. /. stuff goes to his slashdot account, whereas BSD project talks go to his freebsd acount, and personal life of "I want to get away from all the cool hackers and all the whinners" goes to his personal account. If you wish uptodate BSD informaton, look at DDNs, where Nik gets much of the stories from. He has a life beyound slashdot, which is unique among the crowd working there.
So don't make things up. If you want to say 'hey Nik is a member of FreeBSD' then a lot of people here will respong with 'Ya, aint it great!'
oh and hey.. you've already posted this message before on other BSD threads that got on the cover page. Give it a rest.
I'd have actually been impressed if China used their own design, but since it just an old proven Russian design, tweaked by chinese scientists (maybe the computers don't use vacume tubes.. :-) Nasa's been screwing up and lying[1], Russia does less.. so maybe this is good news. But of course.. the only reason so far for politions to be behind these is for prestige (ie US catching up), or drooling over what war power it could bring. The latter is more plausable for the main reason behind China's aggressiveness.
[1] Nasa scientists did not get th conversion wrong, but rather to save costs the navigation system was coded, but not tested. A small error brought it off course, which the scientists saw and asked for permission to fix. As the navigation system said things were ok, it was denied. Of course, by the time the truth came out, people weren't interested anymore
"I'm pretty sure that I will do everything to avoid the media in the future"
but, in the LinuxWorld article, at the end, you say...
"ABC News is coming tomorrow, and I was supposed to demonstrate DVD playback under Linux. So I'm going to call some people now and try to get hold of a computer with a DVD-ROM and get Linux installed on it."
Again, why should anyone care what happens to you, when the origional release was for windows, for pirating, and had nothing to do with breaking a legal "monopoly".
From first CNN article, one of many of such claims...
"I made this program to be able to view DVD on my Linux," claims Johansen. "This way, the film industry no longer has a monopoly making DVD players."
From a later LinuxWorld arti cle (on CNN)...
"the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part."
and, where you clarify your involvement...
"Actually, I was only linking [to the source code] and they wanted me to remove the link -- which I did, so that I could think it over. And then the link appeared again on my Website at the end of the week. "
Never heard about that. Why'd he lose it?
There's a good how-to on this, but its not current. Its for the 2.x series, though it likely transfers up to the 3.x and 4.x with minor changes. You should read the how-to, and the handbook. If your still confused or unsure, shoot a quick query over to freebsd-questions@freebsd.org. I trust you can find the handbook yourself. Here's the URL for the how-to. (yeah, I'm lazy)
/ make-world/make-world.html
http://www.nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk/FreeBSD
PS. Nik, any thoughts of including any updates? I think I remember on a list you saying you didn't want to bring it all the way up, as to keep it usuable for the 2.x series, but how about a section for 3.x and 4.x? Or is it still the same?
The biggest of the BSD news services is Daily.Daemonnews.org. Over the last year its been pretty efficent at posting stories. Slashdot's coverage is moderate, but Nick isn't trying to "compete."
Also, slashdot quickly created a side-bar box for DDNs. If you have an account, just add it.
It looks like on DDN's forums, someone linked to both of them.. I think. I'm still downloading, to see. Oddly, my ethernet speeds seem to be tapping out at 6kb/s.. (a server I'm d/ling from now, at 6kbps, was in the 40s yesterday)
r y_id=515
http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?sto
It was. I noticed that mistake too. Considering this is slashdot, where they can't even be grammically correct, let alone be factual, what do you expect?
I believe they also said the 500mhz P3 was equivelent to their 700mhz processor, not 667mhz. Of course the P3 mobiles are considerably slower than desktop versions, but still fast. I hope that now since they have the hard part dealt with, they can work on desktop/server chips, as they can move from a simplistic internal to a complex one, though without all the problems everyone else has. Considering they have experienced Sun and Motorola engineers, it should be easy enough...
My only wonder is why people were so ignorant to why they won't publish the internal instructions. Heck, when writing object classes, the point is that implementation can be changed whenever, but the user can still make the same calls, and recieve the same result. Performance can be improved, features added, and bug squished. Just the programmer writing with that object doesn't need to know. If they tied themselves down, they'd be in the trap their breaking the microproccessor out of...
nope... just the file. Give me an email address or the like. Its very.. uhh.. cultish.
/. logged me in! And I was getting annoyed that it was to dumb to read its cookie...
whoohoo..
Generally BSD used UFS, but free varients are now incorperating SoftUpdates into the filesystem. I've been told that for the most part, UFS is slightly slower than ext2, but safer. The main reason is because ext2 doesn't sync as often, though both can be tweaked either for the speed or for the safety. Softupdates will do the same as a JFS for Linux, so both systems can have safe and speedy filesystems.
I haven't seen to much of an explanation of softupdates, only on McKusick's page.
I believe Intel always said they'd implement copper in 2001 - 2003, and weren't to big on it. That was back when IBM announcned it, and also when AMD licensed it from Motorola.
I know the settlement was because Intel stole, and at times hinted at it, DEC's technology. I always wondered what DEC got out of it, since Intel got the right to use Alpha technology and bought the fab. I think one bit of the deal was they had to produce some Alpha chips too, though.
(ugh.. always forget to turn on no bonus..)
Well, lets see. Athlon has a nicer bus because they licensed it from Digital. How long were they on the socket-7 system? Intel converted over, and now will go to a 200, from the current 133mhz bus. Since Intel is just a tad behind, but AMD's Athlon is still quite new, its not something to get crazy about. The 66mhz bus was a real pain when overloaded, and so I doubt a 200 will be to stuffed by most of us. Still, don't believe AMD's bus is better by AMD's engineers, its because of DEC's, who already had EV7 designed and ready to be implemented when the licensed EV6 (whether they did, I don't know).
:).
Both Intel and AMD have talked or showed them off with cooling, never showing without. IBM has had the PowerPC at 1ghz for a long time, in lab, just like the rest of the industry. I'd be surprised if any of them were still needing to test 1ghz with massive cooling...
Whether AMD has 1.2ghz chips cranking out, I'd be surprised. AMD has said before it could be at 900mhz right now, but why rush when you can *squeeze* the market? Intel did that, and AMD is just playing the same mhz game with us. Oh yeah, I love AMD, they play the same game as everyone else. When your small, you fight the bigger capitalist by creating better products and overshadowing them. You win. AMD believes they won, maybe they have, but they wont be saints, or demons (or daemons
Superior performance is due to superior design, one thatcame out 3 years after Intel's. The P4, whatever it will be called, has been in the works for 3-4 years. AMD spent 1.5 years on the K7. Now, whether the P4 is any good (considering Intel spent all its engineering time on the Mercury.. ehh, name before "Merced" on Intel's media-news page), I don't know. I'd be more than happy to see an amazing deign come out again to rock the market. If Intel blows the P4, its in serious trouble.
And I 100% agree. However, you said the reverse, or my understanding was of the reverse, that BSDs tried to monopolize to a single OS, where Linux did not. Here, you failed to say whether that was a correctly understanding, or not, though said the "one world" mentality was a major thorn in Linux's success.. which would imply that your origional post was either incorrect or badly phrased.
Explain. Linux advocates are often critisized for their "one OS, one world - but my OS" mentality. The GPL helps them, because fragmentation, while plausable, is difficult. With Linux's "culture" very quick to attack anything people assume the majority may be queasy about, its rather the other way around. The BSDL has created fragmentation, or rather helped competing product development time through their code, which improves the entire community. Windows uses BSD code, most UNIX OSes use BSD code, etc. You even say "*BSD" meaning all bsds. There is no single free BSD OS that has become popular while the rest perish, where as with the GPL only Linux is noticed, others fall through the cracks.
So I'd say if you want a single OS, Linux is it. Its multi-platform, advocates pressure venders to ensure their product (OS, hardware, etc) is compatable, etc. Linux tries to be everything to everyone.. OSes like Windows, MacOS, BeOS, BSDs, etc. generally first try to be the best for one, and keep the rest satisfied.
I don't know what type of thugs you think BSD supporters are, but no one is, or will, try to get you. No one is or will try to force you to believe some political idea, that BSD is superior, or demean you for disagreeing. You were only moderated down for coming into our community and making broad hateful remarks. If your searching for a cultish society where your brainwashed with propiganda, those exist, just the BSD community isn't one.
Now if you have a constructive critisism, such as in what way FreeBSD is "weak," surely someone more knowledgable will either correct you, or agree there's a problem. But you don't want to do that, judging from you posts and user history, so until you do, please just go away, be quiet, or post non-flamitory remarks.
Umm... you entirely neglect his point. I can only assume your just brainwashed into not seeing it, or knowingly neglecting it.
1. Very few customers demand "free software," the majority, individuals and organizations, demand open source software. Especially the type that allows them to manipulate it (I'm using the definition of open source as in open, not as in OSI's version, which the GPL still fails at). Customers wish to see the code, so that if the provider stops producing the product, or if the product is doing an extremely important task (think military projects, especially where safety comes in), they can go over it. Asking for free software is asking for software which cannot be charged for, and must be open source. Sure, people always want to get everything for nothing, but they wont demand it. Otherwise, we would have free food, free housing, free transportation. None of that has been demanded by the majority of the U.S. citizens, or even by the world.
2. Companies provide a product so they can be successful. If you look at companies in the "free software" world, they do not create more than a fraction of the product, and most of the time just manipulate slightly what already existed. They provide easy access, marketing channels, and some support. Oh, and even a pretty box (not always) if your lucky. For the rest of the world, customers demand software that fits a need, and it is highly desireable, though not always demanded, it is open source. Companies will create software to meet this demand and charge for it. If its open source, they may be selling the righ to use their code except in a competing product, i.e. internally. All parties are satisfied.
3. Developers working for the companies must be payed. I'm sorry, but this is not a Marxian society where individual is rewarded for their product, rather than selling a commodity called work. Here, we must sell. "Free software" demands that the worker's commodity be free - not as in "freedom" but as in it can't be charged for. The worker sells his commodity, the means he and his family survives on, for nothing. If he continues to do this, he will starve. The only solution that has been found is to work for a company that sells support, so that if customers have a problem they will pay for the programmer's commodity, paying for him to tackle a task, not for the code itself.
Your last lines are utter nonsense. You demand free software (and claim everyone else does too), which means you will accept nothing other than free software. When you demand free software, as in the broad way you have said it, you are demanding everything be free software. You cannot turn around and say you will write propietary software and tell us you should be paid for it. I must sell my commodity for nothing to please people, but all of a sudden when its your commodity you want us to pay?
Developers create free software most of the time on their own time. Not on the company's time. That is fine, not with the FSF, but fine with most sane people. Personally if I'm going to sell my commodity for nadda, than I'm going to make it free, as in freedom. I'd use the BSDL or the like (ie, Apache's tweak), because my commodity is already gone. The GPL asks me, and demands others, to give away my commodity and force the rest of the world to do the same. I'd rather not be under a tolitarium society where it is not the people that demand it, but a legal body. The GPL is far from freedom, as you put it in an earlier post.
As a matter of fact, with the customers demanding free software, the people can be wrong. The majority is often wrong, swayed by sweet talk or lies, or whatever. I believe under Napolean III, he gave the people of France the vote of whether to have the right to vote. They voted their rights away.