Wish I had googled before posting, but here's the dirt:
http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html.. maybe IBM refined the process later, but it looks like SMP is in the Linux kernel as a *direct* result of Caldera's actions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Caldera (SCO) donate an SMP motherboard to Alan Cox a few years back, for the expressed purposed of developing an SMP Linux kernel? Eeeh?
QNX is the OS that got me into operating systems. Their message passing system was the first real "ah HAH!" I ever had, regarding OS design. The micro-kernel architecture was the second.
Well, I think I'm clear now. Thanks for the interesting discussion!
What would you recommend for further reading on the subject? Any particular web sites on the subject? Books? Have you considered writing an essay on the subject?
This is a very interesting train of thought, as I happen to be in the business of software and other such intellectual outpourings.:)
Very interesting. Let me see if I can clarify this in my head:
As a copyright holder, I sell you a copy of one of my works. As such, I certainly don't own what I've sold you -- that's quite obvious, by definition. However, the original work is still my property, and the right to use that property is defined by me. I think we can agree on this?
What I don't understand is how a copyright is not property. I'm not talking about copyrighted material -- I'm talking about the copyright itself. I can sell a copyright to another party. I can license a copyright. I can give away the copyright. It can also be taken away from me by a court of law. For all intensive purposes, I own a copyright -- how isn't it my property?
I wasn't referring to copies in my original posts, just the ownership of the original work (and that recognizing ownership in a consistent way is a Good Thing). The problem seems to be in the discussion of what it actually means to own something, and what rights an owner has... eh?
You know, I agree with most of the things you're saying about how software rights should be governed, and you're right -- I wasn't making any arguments regarding specific implimentations.
However, patents and copyrights are most certainly property. Not only does a patent assign property rights, but the patent itself (the document) is also a legal property. Ditto for copyrights. And trade secrets. And trade marks.
Sure thing. If you dilute the value of their holdings.. well.. it speaks for itself... but I think you might find yourself on the bad end of a lawsuit if you succeed.:)
Microsoft only has a handful of products that make money directly through sales to their customers. Windows. Office. Some of their games.
Most of Microsoft's money comes from their ability to control their markets. For example, Hotmail. It's free, right?
For you, perhaps. However, when you use Hotmail, you're one of *tens of millions* of people around the world who use it. The amount of money generated by selling demographics, advertising, and "partner services" through Hotmail is staggering.
X-Box. Loosing money? Now, sure. But suddenly Microsoft controls a considerable segment of the video game market, and when a company develops a game, they have to consider Microsoft as an option. It will make heaps of money, if they can stay on top of their game (so to speak).
Business is complex. Don't think, for an instant, that any of the free services you receive are purely the product of altruism. It may be free to you, but somewhere, someone's coughing up $10 million dollars for a five year advertising or services contract.
The EU really does need a universal intellectual property regulation system. In order for businesses to operate efficiently in Europe, there really needs to be a common court where intellectual property issues can be addressed.
In theory, patents are needed to protect those who can't compete financially with larger, more capable corporations. A patent is the intellectual stick you can use to beat off unfair business competition in a market place. In theory, of course.
In practice, it's a little different. I'm sure we're all aware of the potential for abuse with poorly designed IP regulations (the Stallman/Hill article does a good job outlining some of those issues).
What we needed are universal IP regulations designed to protect the the individual who doesn't have the financial resources to fend of giants like Microsoft or IBM, AND a much narrower definition of what can be patented in software.
Heh, I see your point. But releasing a browser for free on the Mac platform has no real benefit for Microsoft, because they can't control the operating environment. If they were free to tinker with Finder and what-not, I'm sure they'd be pushing the latest and greatest...
Jimmy Grewal, the lead developer for Mac IE, is leaving Microsoft. He's an interesting guy, and a real Mac fan. Even his web site is running on an OS X server.
His blog is pretty interesting, if you're into such things.
... so it's not a perfect solution, but how do those numbers stack up vs. other fuel sources? For example, if our current carbon economy produces more ozone depeleting than a hydrogen economy... well, hey, I'll take the hydrogen.
Numbers are irrelevent without relative comparisons.
Useful top end?
on
150 Mbit/s DSL.
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, it's great that it can pull down 150Mb/s... but you've gotta have an empty OC3 to feed it. And if you've got an OC3, might as well kick out the extra cash to run in the extra 300 meters.
Pure and simple, really. I'm not talking about the current entrenched corporate infrastructure, I'm talking about good ol' entrepreneurship.
Given the inherant nature of an ad hoc network with an ungoverned populace, you will end up with an unreliable and unstable communication system.
Eventually, someone will stick their neck out, shell out the bucks for some heavy duty long distance repeaters, and figure out how to charge people per packet passed. Those who want, and can afford the service, will buy in. Viola. Suddenly, we're back in the land of ISPs and major carriers.
However, I don't think the idea should be dismissed -- there is definitely room for decentralized, public wireless networks (emphasis on the public). I think it's important for developing economies and impoverished metropolitan areas to have free access to the Internet, for the sake of information, education, and community.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AMD signed an agreement to develop these sorts of things with IBM. If that's the case, I wonder if these techniques will translate over to PowerPC processors...
Here's a small article describing their relationship.
How frickin' hard is it to make money in their line of business? You're providing something that almost every business and individual in the western hemisphere wants... how can you blow that kind of opportunity?
I suspect this has more to do with shitty management and "expand at any cost" business practices than a failure of the actual market.
Gas taxes are already closely tied to how much people drive, and how much wear their vehicles exert on the road -- bigger vehicles require more gas, and they happen to cause more wear and tear on the infrastructure.
There's a huge number of out-of-state vehicles in Oregon (predominantly because Portland is located right next to the Washington border) -- would they be required to have tracking computers as well? They have to buy gas, so gas stations can't require tracking computers...
The millions of dollars spent maintaining and developing this program would probably be better spent, say, repaving roads.
I took notes with old fashioned paper and pencil. I recorded my lectures on minidisc. I wrote my papers on an iBook.
All things considered, a computer is necessary. One could use one of the provided computer labs, however, the convenience and freedom of having your own computer (particularly with a scientific course of study) is extremely advantageous.
I choose an iBook because laptops are frickin' convenient (writing your papers in the library, and being able to take your laptop to study sessions is very handy), and because I've had good experiences with Mac hardware. I've studied in three different countries, all of which have Apple support, and all of which honor Apple warranties. iBooks are also reasonably durable, and they're great to self-decorate.:)
The minidisc recorder was also a good choice -- tape is nice, but with a single minidisk you can store a week's worth of lectures and tutorials for one class (w/ MDLP), and set break points for important information. Small. Convenient. Efficient. Not too terribly expensive.
I've never had success with note taking on a laptop, so I had good ol' paper and pencil. I can type faster than I can write, for sure, but when the professor starts drawing diagrams...
All things considered, I spent under $2000 on my setup, and it worked great... and I'm stil using my laptop and minidisc recorder after several years, so I think I'm getting my money's worth.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the development of the tablet-based platform. It's everything in one -- computer, audio recorder, and note pad. I'd like to see them a bit less expensive, and a bit more rugged before I'd recommend 'em to anyone.
So, my home town had an advertising company that had a virtual monopoly on bill boards. It was kind of irritating. Billboard space was very expensive, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for small companies to advertise their services... and now a brief tangent..
The broadcast industry derives their money from advertising. Their goal is not to provide good programming.. their goal is to attract the maximum number of eyeballs to their advertising spots. It's all about the advertising. Now, what happens when people loose interest in your single TV channel in a market? You have two options: roll the dice and try to develop a popular TV show, OR, buy another channel, also flooded with crap, but guaranteeing a sharp increase the number of eyes who are looking at your channels. Suddenly, your advertising space becomes much more attractive.
Once a company has a monopoly in a closed market (such as broadcast television -- the FCC isn't allocating any more frequencies for that), they no longer have any incentive to produce good programming if they're making enough money from their advertisements.... so, back to our billboards...
Clear Channel bought our local monopolistic billboard company, almost as soon as the state (or city, I forget) rubberstamped an approval on their monopoly, and the city no longer lets people build more billboards within the city limits. Another closed market.
Clear Channel now owns a significant percentage of our local radio stations, the majority of our billboards, our major ticket sales systems, and several other major media holdings.
They have no reason to keep prices down, because there are enough big companies and non-profits (read: write offs) here to keep them going strong as they increase their prices due to the recession and/or inflation.
They have no reason to improve their programming.
And now, the chairman of ClearChannel, makes this response to the further deregulation of the broadcast industry:
"Clear Channel is deeply dissapointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile."
Heh, I used the method you described - minidisc and mic. I thought it was fantastic. Allowed me to focus on "big ideas" behind the lecture, not just trying to keep up with the nitty gritty details.
Of course, if the point is to be cheap, you can get a portable tape recorder designed specifically for for this purpose for about $20.
Maybe I didn't speak directly to the point, but I'm primarily interested in integration. I had notes, plus recordings to tote around, plus a computer in my dorm room. It would be nice to do it all in a handy little box.
Slashdot Mirror
... my post was addressing the export violations sited in the article, not the alleged contract violation.
To be concise: IBM did not put into the Linux kernel, and SCO knows it, because they furnished the development platform that put SMP in the kernel.
Wish I had googled before posting, but here's the dirt:
.. maybe IBM refined the process later, but it looks like SMP is in the Linux kernel as a *direct* result of Caldera's actions.
http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Caldera (SCO) donate an SMP motherboard to Alan Cox a few years back, for the expressed purposed of developing an SMP Linux kernel? Eeeh?
QNX is the OS that got me into operating systems. Their message passing system was the first real "ah HAH!" I ever had, regarding OS design. The micro-kernel architecture was the second.
.. but my heart belongs to QNX. :)
I love Linux
Well, I think I'm clear now. Thanks for the interesting discussion!
:)
What would you recommend for further reading on the subject? Any particular web sites on the subject? Books? Have you considered writing an essay on the subject?
This is a very interesting train of thought, as I happen to be in the business of software and other such intellectual outpourings.
Cheers!
Very interesting. Let me see if I can clarify this in my head:
... eh?
As a copyright holder, I sell you a copy of one of my works. As such, I certainly don't own what I've sold you -- that's quite obvious, by definition. However, the original work is still my property, and the right to use that property is defined by me. I think we can agree on this?
What I don't understand is how a copyright is not property. I'm not talking about copyrighted material -- I'm talking about the copyright itself. I can sell a copyright to another party. I can license a copyright. I can give away the copyright. It can also be taken away from me by a court of law. For all intensive purposes, I own a copyright -- how isn't it my property?
I wasn't referring to copies in my original posts, just the ownership of the original work (and that recognizing ownership in a consistent way is a Good Thing). The problem seems to be in the discussion of what it actually means to own something, and what rights an owner has
You know, I agree with most of the things you're saying about how software rights should be governed, and you're right -- I wasn't making any arguments regarding specific implimentations.
...
However, patents and copyrights are most certainly property. Not only does a patent assign property rights, but the patent itself (the document) is also a legal property. Ditto for copyrights. And trade secrets. And trade marks.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point
Sure thing. If you dilute the value of their holdings .. well .. it speaks for itself ... but I think you might find yourself on the bad end of a lawsuit if you succeed. :)
Microsoft only has a handful of products that make money directly through sales to their customers. Windows. Office. Some of their games.
Most of Microsoft's money comes from their ability to control their markets. For example, Hotmail. It's free, right?
For you, perhaps. However, when you use Hotmail, you're one of *tens of millions* of people around the world who use it. The amount of money generated by selling demographics, advertising, and "partner services" through Hotmail is staggering.
X-Box. Loosing money? Now, sure. But suddenly Microsoft controls a considerable segment of the video game market, and when a company develops a game, they have to consider Microsoft as an option. It will make heaps of money, if they can stay on top of their game (so to speak).
Business is complex. Don't think, for an instant, that any of the free services you receive are purely the product of altruism. It may be free to you, but somewhere, someone's coughing up $10 million dollars for a five year advertising or services contract.
The EU really does need a universal intellectual property regulation system. In order for businesses to operate efficiently in Europe, there really needs to be a common court where intellectual property issues can be addressed.
In theory, patents are needed to protect those who can't compete financially with larger, more capable corporations. A patent is the intellectual stick you can use to beat off unfair business competition in a market place. In theory, of course.
In practice, it's a little different. I'm sure we're all aware of the potential for abuse with poorly designed IP regulations (the Stallman/Hill article does a good job outlining some of those issues).
What we needed are universal IP regulations designed to protect the the individual who doesn't have the financial resources to fend of giants like Microsoft or IBM, AND a much narrower definition of what can be patented in software.
Heh, I see your point. But releasing a browser for free on the Mac platform has no real benefit for Microsoft, because they can't control the operating environment. If they were free to tinker with Finder and what-not, I'm sure they'd be pushing the latest and greatest ...
Integrate. Assimilate. Control. Profit. Easy!
Jimmy Grewal, the lead developer for Mac IE, is leaving Microsoft. He's an interesting guy, and a real Mac fan. Even his web site is running on an OS X server.
His blog is pretty interesting, if you're into such things.
http://www.jimmygrewal.com/
.. anything that doesn't make them money. Remember, they're ruthless business people, not ruthless idiots.
(even though it can be hard to tell the difference)
... so it's not a perfect solution, but how do those numbers stack up vs. other fuel sources? For example, if our current carbon economy produces more ozone depeleting than a hydrogen economy ... well, hey, I'll take the hydrogen.
Numbers are irrelevent without relative comparisons.
Well, it's great that it can pull down 150Mb/s ... but you've gotta have an empty OC3 to feed it. And if you've got an OC3, might as well kick out the extra cash to run in the extra 300 meters.
The 4km @ 4Mb/s is pretty nice, though.
Pure and simple, really. I'm not talking about the current entrenched corporate infrastructure, I'm talking about good ol' entrepreneurship.
Given the inherant nature of an ad hoc network with an ungoverned populace, you will end up with an unreliable and unstable communication system.
Eventually, someone will stick their neck out, shell out the bucks for some heavy duty long distance repeaters, and figure out how to charge people per packet passed. Those who want, and can afford the service, will buy in. Viola. Suddenly, we're back in the land of ISPs and major carriers.
However, I don't think the idea should be dismissed -- there is definitely room for decentralized, public wireless networks (emphasis on the public). I think it's important for developing economies and impoverished metropolitan areas to have free access to the Internet, for the sake of information, education, and community.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AMD signed an agreement to develop these sorts of things with IBM. If that's the case, I wonder if these techniques will translate over to PowerPC processors ...
Here's a small article describing their relationship.
How frickin' hard is it to make money in their line of business? You're providing something that almost every business and individual in the western hemisphere wants ... how can you blow that kind of opportunity?
I suspect this has more to do with shitty management and "expand at any cost" business practices than a failure of the actual market.
Gas taxes are already closely tied to how much people drive, and how much wear their vehicles exert on the road -- bigger vehicles require more gas, and they happen to cause more wear and tear on the infrastructure.
...
There's a huge number of out-of-state vehicles in Oregon (predominantly because Portland is located right next to the Washington border) -- would they be required to have tracking computers as well? They have to buy gas, so gas stations can't require tracking computers
The millions of dollars spent maintaining and developing this program would probably be better spent, say, repaving roads.
Lets hope it's something like Big Brother, except it's entirely up to the viewers to furnish, entertain, and otherwise screw with them.
I'm voting for no doors on the bathrooms, and too many pets.
Low-k? Welcome to the ballgame. IBM rolled out low-k, SOI, and Cu three years ago ... on 0.13 micron. See here and here. So did Intel.
I took notes with old fashioned paper and pencil. I recorded my lectures on minidisc. I wrote my papers on an iBook.
:)
...
... and I'm stil using my laptop and minidisc recorder after several years, so I think I'm getting my money's worth.
All things considered, a computer is necessary. One could use one of the provided computer labs, however, the convenience and freedom of having your own computer (particularly with a scientific course of study) is extremely advantageous.
I choose an iBook because laptops are frickin' convenient (writing your papers in the library, and being able to take your laptop to study sessions is very handy), and because I've had good experiences with Mac hardware. I've studied in three different countries, all of which have Apple support, and all of which honor Apple warranties. iBooks are also reasonably durable, and they're great to self-decorate.
The minidisc recorder was also a good choice -- tape is nice, but with a single minidisk you can store a week's worth of lectures and tutorials for one class (w/ MDLP), and set break points for important information. Small. Convenient. Efficient. Not too terribly expensive.
I've never had success with note taking on a laptop, so I had good ol' paper and pencil. I can type faster than I can write, for sure, but when the professor starts drawing diagrams
All things considered, I spent under $2000 on my setup, and it worked great
Personally, I'm looking forward to the development of the tablet-based platform. It's everything in one -- computer, audio recorder, and note pad. I'd like to see them a bit less expensive, and a bit more rugged before I'd recommend 'em to anyone.
I sure hope so. Besides. I don't think WinXP fits the "lightweight OS" specification. ;)
Does anyone know what differences between WinXP and the Tablet edition? Ok, ok. I'll google.
So, my home town had an advertising company that had a virtual monopoly on bill boards. It was kind of irritating. Billboard space was very expensive, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for small companies to advertise their services. .. and now a brief tangent ..
.. their goal is to attract the maximum number of eyeballs to their advertising spots. It's all about the advertising. Now, what happens when people loose interest in your single TV channel in a market? You have two options: roll the dice and try to develop a popular TV show, OR, buy another channel, also flooded with crap, but guaranteeing a sharp increase the number of eyes who are looking at your channels. Suddenly, your advertising space becomes much more attractive.
... so, back to our billboards ...
The broadcast industry derives their money from advertising. Their goal is not to provide good programming
Once a company has a monopoly in a closed market (such as broadcast television -- the FCC isn't allocating any more frequencies for that), they no longer have any incentive to produce good programming if they're making enough money from their advertisements.
Clear Channel bought our local monopolistic billboard company, almost as soon as the state (or city, I forget) rubberstamped an approval on their monopoly, and the city no longer lets people build more billboards within the city limits. Another closed market.
Clear Channel now owns a significant percentage of our local radio stations, the majority of our billboards, our major ticket sales systems, and several other major media holdings.
They have no reason to keep prices down, because there are enough big companies and non-profits (read: write offs) here to keep them going strong as they increase their prices due to the recession and/or inflation.
They have no reason to improve their programming.
And now, the chairman of ClearChannel, makes this response to the further deregulation of the broadcast industry:
"Clear Channel is deeply dissapointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile."
(from their web site)
Wow. What can I say?
Heh, I used the method you described - minidisc and mic. I thought it was fantastic. Allowed me to focus on "big ideas" behind the lecture, not just trying to keep up with the nitty gritty details.
Of course, if the point is to be cheap, you can get a portable tape recorder designed specifically for for this purpose for about $20.
Maybe I didn't speak directly to the point, but I'm primarily interested in integration. I had notes, plus recordings to tote around, plus a computer in my dorm room. It would be nice to do it all in a handy little box.