than CRT's. Kuhn's attack works by rapidly sampling the light intensity as the electron gun whizzes around the CRT screen. With LCD's, the light comes from a constantly-on fluorescent tube and there's not the same type of scanning; the LCD itself reacts much more slowly than a CRT does. The optical emanations just don't have as much bandwidth and can't carry all that info. Of course you still might leak screen contents thru RF emissions from the video card, but that's the usual TEMPEST that we already know about. (Note: this info is from Kuhn's paper).
Public domain means if someone else has a copy, they can reproduce it without paying you or getting your permission. It doesn't mean you have to give them a copy. I have some old books on my shelf (19th century novels) but I won't even tell you their titles. That doesn't mean they're somehow not in the public domain.
Before someone jumps on me I'll add that there's an exception for unpublished works, that basically says if you find Grandpa's unpublished manuscript from 1910 in the attic, you can copyright and publish it despite its age. However, that's simply matter of how the law works, not anybody's inherent right one way or the other.
Here's a paper
by the amazing Markus Kuhn (who has done many other brilliant security hacks besides this) showing how CRT display contents can be reconstructed from the light given off by the screen, even when the light is reflected diffusely off a wall. It makes me glad I use an LCD monitor.
That's why I assigned copyright to the FSF, which has more resources than I do to prosecute infringers, plus they have good legal representation already--good enough that they haven't yet had to sue anyone. They've gone after numerous infringers over the years, and been able to convince each one to comply with the GPL rather than get sued. But someday they'll have to sue. At that point, one hopes the statutory damage awards will cover the legal fees and pay for some good new software development as well.
Mainly though, I object to the claim that Free software authors have less to lose than software companies. They lose something different, but I don't consider it "less". To consider it "less" means worshipping dollars over everything else.
They may not be doing it for the income
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
As a GPL code author I've given up a ton of potential income to spend time writing GPL'd code and contribute to a free codebase. The reward I got was not financial but I valued it just as much--in fact I valued it more, since I chose it in preference to the income. If someone rips off the GPL'd code I wrote, they take that away from me, so it's ridiculous to say I haven't lost anything just because there was no actual cash involved.
Ripping off GPL'd code is a copyright infringement just like ripping off Microsoft code. I assigned my copyrights to the FSF and I will vigorously assist the FSF in any way necessary in prosecuting GPL infringers of stuff I wrote.
Keep in mind that if someone willfully infringes a copyright, they can be liable not only for actual damages (the amount of income they cost the copyright owner) but also for statutory damages of up to $100,000 per infringement (i.e. they can have to pay $100K per infringement even if they didn't actually cost the owner anything). So don't do it.
Source code = preferred form for modification
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The GPL explicitly defines source code as the preferred form of a program for modifying it.
To find out whether the gobbletygook you distribute is source code or not is simple: if you normally add features to the program by editing the gobbletygook, it's source. If you instead edit the stuff that you compiled to gobbletygook and then recompile it, then
the stuff you distributed isn't source and it's a clear-cut GPL violation.
I haven't measured battery life. I don't know of a way to turn speedstep on and off under linux. When I ran windows, I set everything to the slowest speed to make the fan run less (the noise bugs me).
First of all, deleting a spam message takes much more than 1/2 second if you count starting up the mailer every time you see the "you have mail" message and it turns out to be newly arrived spam.
Second, if you get 10/day, you actually don't have much of a spam problem compared to usenet regulars etc. I get hundreds of pieces of spam per day which is less than a lot of other people get. I manage to filter about 75% of it but the rest still takes much more than 30 minutes/year to deal with.
Third, even if it's just 30 minutes a year, which 30 minutes is it? A pinprick to the butt is much less annoying than one to the eyeball. An incoming email is an interruption almost like a phone call, breaking your train of thought and interfering with your work. A 5-second interruption several times a day is much worse than, say, no spam at all during the entire year except you're required to spend 2 hours on April 15 (tax day) looking at spam.
My filters get rid of lots of spam but occasionally catch a legitimate message, so once a week or so I spend a few minutes looking over the filtered messages. Batching them like that reduces the spam annoyance factor a lot, but it destroys the immediacy of the legitimate email.
The reason yahoo is on spam lists isn't unknown--it's obvious. Insane amounts of spam comes from yahoo addresses and has no signs of slowing. The obvious solution for you is get an address from a more responsible provider.
Fair use is extremely nebulous as endless litigation
with the "Church" of $cientology and other miscreants from both ends of the disputes has shown.
There is a multi-pronged definition of fair use involving not just transformativity, but the effect on market value of the work, the amount of the work copied, and whether the work was published or unpublished, and still, at the end of the day, fair use decisions by judges are quite subjective. Barrie's assertion that transformative use is automatically fair use is ridiculous. Claiming that something is fair use doesn't mean that it is fair use.
IANAL, and I have no idea whether turnitin.com's use of the student papers it collects is transformative, but it doesn't matter. From what I understand, turnitin.com is copying the student papers in entirety and storing them in a database.
Further, these papers are generally unpublished. So two of the four prongs (fraction of work copied is 100%, and material is unpublished) weigh against turnitin.com. Effect on market value is totally unpredictable--if my paper contains original research then disclosing its contents to a third party (say because it contained a properly-cited quotation that matched a similar quotation in someone else's paper and the match was flagged as possible plagiarism) could result in destroying a news scoop. So they could get clobbered on a third prong as well, depending on the situation.
I'm generally on the GPL-supporter, relax-restrictive-IP-law side
of things but turnitin.com reminds me too much of a police state. I would not give them permission to copy and store my papers and I would not expect them to be able to successfully defend a fair use claim when they do such massive appropriation of other people's work.
I also don't see how turnitin.com can work without requiring students to submit all their papers electronically rather than on dead tree pulp, but I've been out of school for a few years and don't know whether that's normal practice these days.
RMS already made up a song about it
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
RMS made up a song years ago, in anticipation of this processor's release:
If I had a hammer, I'd throw it in the morning, I'd throw it in the evening, All over this land;
I'd throw it at Loki, I'd throw it at Fen-rir, I'd throw it at the war between The Gods and the Giants, All-ll over this land...
--RMS
There may be another verse or two but I've forgotten. Anyway the headline made me think of this. I always remember these words to the song instead of the regular ones.
Are generally intended for wireless communications, for example half-rate GSM at 6.5 kbps, and federal CELP 1015 at 4.8 kbps used in military radios. It's also used for some international phone circuits, hence the crappy audio you get if you call Romania or someplace like that. They're generally too computationally expensive to use for ordinary domestic phone calls. It's cheaper to just burn 64kbps (PCM) or (sometimes) 32 kbps ADPCM of bandwidth. On the domestic fiber networks, the raw bandwidth is still cheap.
New compression schemes are a dime a dozen. I don't know much about music compression, but for voice compression, 4.8 kbps has been a free federal standard for around 10 years (CELP 1016). There's a 2.4 kbps standard (MELP) that's proprietary. The KT
4.0 kbps coder might beat CELP, but it's not a breakthrough compared to other proprietary codecs. It's only a breakthrough compared to free codecs, so it's only interesting if it's also free.
is 1-888-221-1161. I called it to get a minor problem straightened out a few weeks ago. Nobody answered on the first ring, but I was only on hold for a minute or so and the person I spoke to actually seemed to know what they were doing.
Despite that I'm determined not to give Paypal my primary checking account number or let significant sized balances sit in my Paypal account for long periods. Right now I buy more stuff on Ebay than I sell, so I can spend Paypal balances to other Ebay sellers instead of moving them to a checking account. If I start selling more, I'll set up a special checking account just to receive Paypal transfers, and empty it out regularly.
and giving them the same rights and freedoms as human beings was a mistake made by the government in 1886 in a Supreme Court decision called Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. Had that mistake not been made, we would have a totally different society today. For more info, check
adbusters
article on "The Corporate I".
Libertarianism talks about the rights and freedoms of humans. Nothing about it says that abstract constructs like corporations should get the same rights. Wanting to curb corporate power is entirely consistent with libertarianism, as far as I can tell.
It describes recommended practices for dealing with discovery of security vulnerabilities. It uses standard IETF terminology ("x SHOULD y, z MUST w")
to describes actions that should be taken by five entities:
Vendor: the producer of software in which vulnerabilities are discovered (e.g. Microsoft)
Reporter: someone who finds a security hole (typically someone in the "security community")
Coordinator: someone who mediates between Reporters and Vendors
Customer: end-user of vendor products
Security Community: the usual researchers, sysadmins, etc. who are trying to improve overall information technology security (it doesn't say whose security).
The first thing I notice is that while there are several places where it says the vendor MUST do this or that (e.g. the vendor MUST respond to vulnerability reports within 7 days), and several things the reporter SHOULD do (the reporter SHOULD provide Vendor with all known details of the issue), there's nothing the reporter MUST do. So it's not an attempt to impose mandatory policies on reporters through a standards process.
The recommendations make a reasonable attempt to protect vendors and customers (i.e. it doesn't go for the zealous instant-full-disclosure approach) without allowing reports to go ignored for too long. It basically says the vendor should get 7 days to initially respond to the report, then 30 days to fix the problem, and then can request a 30 day grace period to get the fix out to customers before the reporter releases details to the public . If the reporter goes along with this, the vendor must credit the reporter in its own public announcement of the fix.
It's kind of weird, seeing an internet draft using protocol-like terminology to describe how people and companies (rather than computers) are supposed to interact with one another. I hope this isn't supposed to be an RFC, or else that this kind of thing is normal for the IETF (I haven't read that many IETF docs). I've never seen a thing like this and it seems to turn the IETF into an even more political body than it already is. I thought the IETF was supposed to make recommendations about bits and packets, not people and companies.
Anyway, I can take issue with some of the points in the document, but at first glance there's nothing in it that I'd call outrageous. It seems like a genuine effort to find a good intermediate policy between instant full disclosure (and instant widespread exploits) and leaving stuff secret forever (letting exploits spread without the public knowing). Whether that policy is the optimal one is of course a matter of opinion and reasonable people can differ on it.
The document's authors came from several different camps (two names I recognize are
Bruce Schneier's co-author Adam Shostack (presumably on the full disclosure side), and
Microsoft's Scott Culp representing the Evil Empire) and it looks like they managed to arrive at a consensus. I guess that's a good sign and I hope Bruce and/or Adam will publish their own opinions of the draft soon.
If yes, then every time you stick in a disk, the server can log the query that identifies what disks you're listening to. If there's also identifying info sent (a cookie or XP registration code, or even just your IP address that the FBI or Church of Scientology could later use to identify you through your ISP), that's pretty invasive. Even if your IP address is dynamic, your ISP may be able to identify you given the timestamp from the log, by keeping records of what addresses were assigned to who when.
even though the Star Trek (tm) franchise has been trying for years to trademark Kirk(tm), Spock(tm), etc.
Are you really saying Shakespeare should have been allowed to trademark the characters of Romeo and Juliet, so that after his play's copyright expired, people could print their own copies but couldn't write any new plays using the characters?
If I initiate an email conversation with a human being, I prefer to give an address that will keep working. So I use persistent addresses that I cycle about once a year. I'm careful not to use them on mailing lists or netnews. They still get a little spam, but it's not that bad.
Filtering on sender address is rude too. I wouldn't want to assign unique addresses to senders. People send from too many different addresses. If I email someone's personal account and they try to use my return address to email me from their work account, I don't want to bounce their mail.
I think if I quit publishing non-munged email addresses in my news posts and junkfile the incoming mail to the addresses I post news from, that should get rid of most of my spam.
I do use unique addresses for websites and mailing lists, and haven't had too bad spam problems with them. However, there are some times when I want to publish an address (netnews), and sometimes when I want persistent addresses (if I initiate an email contact with someone, I want to use an address that will still work if they dig out the message to contact me later). Netnews attracts spam very fast, but the other kind of address also eventually gets onto some spam lists.
Anyway, these schemes aren't ineffectual; I'm just saying from experience that they don't work out as well as you might at first expect, and there are some unintended consequences.
I've been doing something like that for a while (periodically changing addresses for news posts). The trouble is that every address you use gets on spam lists and gets spammed forever. By having 100's of addresses, you get 100's of times more spam than you otherwise would. Even if you can filter it on arrival so you don't have to see it, it's still clogging your bandwidth and you can always filter a legitimate email.
I don't generate unique reply addresses per news post, but change addresses a few times a year. I have a bunch of old addresses that mostly get spam, so my filters dump incoming mail to them into a mailbox file that I look in every now and then. That's much less annoying than seeing the spam as it arrives, but still, it's better to keep the volume down.
I think I'll completely stop putting replyable email addresses on news posts. I'll just have a URL for my web site where people can leave me messages through a CGI. That lets me make another political statement too, since my web site runs SSL so any incoming messages I get from the CGI will be encrypted while in transit. We tell people to use ssh instead of telnet--we should also try to avoid sending email in the clear without a reason.
IANAL and may be talking out of my ass, but I thought there was some principle of law that said perpetual contracts weren't valid, and in particular (at least by custom) no legal agreement could be enforced more than 21 years after the death of the last living person named in it. That leads to an estate planning device called a "dynasty trust", used by zillionaires to direct disposal of their assets as far into the future as possible, by specifically naming infants in their will. Assuming some of the infants live to age 80 or so, the dynasty trust stays in operation for about 100 years. Apparently the original Rockefeller and Dupont dynasty trusts ran out in the last couple of decades, though the family members who controlled the assets had by then set up new trusts.
Anyway, if that 21-year-principle is valid, maybe the same limit can be argued for copyright terms.
The part about discouraging workshop photographs in order to not leak info to the competition is weird. What modern high tech processes are there to protect, if you're trying to do something the same way it was done 100 years ago? I'd have thought most of the interest in a project like this was in being as open and historically accurate as possible.
is that they have no audio input port except for the microphone. You can't plug your radio receiver audio into it without hacking up the unit somehow, or using some kind of port expander sleeve. Other than that it's a good idea. You might have better luck with the Sharp Zaurus, or if you're really industrious the Agenda handheld PC if you can still find one. Those closed out incredibly cheap.
Sorry I forgot to think of this when posting about the Ipaq 3135 a minute ago.
The iPaq 3135 is pretty much the same machine as the 3600 except it has a crappy monochrome display instead of the 3600's fantastic TFT color display. But it's a LOT cheaper. If you just want to use it for audio and don't care about nice graphics, it's a reasonable choice. Note that the regular familiar distribution WON'T run on it directly, because the video driver is incompatible. You have to compile a special kernel for it. There's some info on how to do that in the handhelds.org wiki. It looks like sort of a nuisance but not that big a deal. Maybe they'll fix the Familiar distribution sooner or later to support the 31xx, or maybe they've done it already.
Me, I have a 3135 and was going to run Linux on it but the battery crapped out and I got interested in the Sharp Zaurus which comes preconfigured with Linux. So I think I'll get the battery replaced (it better be covered by the warranty) and then I'll unload the 3135 and buy a Sharp.
Slashdot Mirror
than CRT's. Kuhn's attack works by rapidly sampling the light intensity as the electron gun whizzes around the CRT screen. With LCD's, the light comes from a constantly-on fluorescent tube and there's not the same type of scanning; the LCD itself reacts much more slowly than a CRT does. The optical emanations just don't have as much bandwidth and can't carry all that info. Of course you still might leak screen contents thru RF emissions from the video card, but that's the usual TEMPEST that we already know about. (Note: this info is from Kuhn's paper).
Before someone jumps on me I'll add that there's an exception for unpublished works, that basically says if you find Grandpa's unpublished manuscript from 1910 in the attic, you can copyright and publish it despite its age. However, that's simply matter of how the law works, not anybody's inherent right one way or the other.
Here's a paper by the amazing Markus Kuhn (who has done many other brilliant security hacks besides this) showing how CRT display contents can be reconstructed from the light given off by the screen, even when the light is reflected diffusely off a wall. It makes me glad I use an LCD monitor.
Mainly though, I object to the claim that Free software authors have less to lose than software companies. They lose something different, but I don't consider it "less". To consider it "less" means worshipping dollars over everything else.
Ripping off GPL'd code is a copyright infringement just like ripping off Microsoft code. I assigned my copyrights to the FSF and I will vigorously assist the FSF in any way necessary in prosecuting GPL infringers of stuff I wrote.
Keep in mind that if someone willfully infringes a copyright, they can be liable not only for actual damages (the amount of income they cost the copyright owner) but also for statutory damages of up to $100,000 per infringement (i.e. they can have to pay $100K per infringement even if they didn't actually cost the owner anything). So don't do it.
To find out whether the gobbletygook you distribute is source code or not is simple: if you normally add features to the program by editing the gobbletygook, it's source. If you instead edit the stuff that you compiled to gobbletygook and then recompile it, then the stuff you distributed isn't source and it's a clear-cut GPL violation.
My out-of-date review is here.
Second, if you get 10/day, you actually don't have much of a spam problem compared to usenet regulars etc. I get hundreds of pieces of spam per day which is less than a lot of other people get. I manage to filter about 75% of it but the rest still takes much more than 30 minutes/year to deal with.
Third, even if it's just 30 minutes a year, which 30 minutes is it? A pinprick to the butt is much less annoying than one to the eyeball. An incoming email is an interruption almost like a phone call, breaking your train of thought and interfering with your work. A 5-second interruption several times a day is much worse than, say, no spam at all during the entire year except you're required to spend 2 hours on April 15 (tax day) looking at spam.
My filters get rid of lots of spam but occasionally catch a legitimate message, so once a week or so I spend a few minutes looking over the filtered messages. Batching them like that reduces the spam annoyance factor a lot, but it destroys the immediacy of the legitimate email.
The reason yahoo is on spam lists isn't unknown--it's obvious. Insane amounts of spam comes from yahoo addresses and has no signs of slowing. The obvious solution for you is get an address from a more responsible provider.
IANAL, and I have no idea whether turnitin.com's use of the student papers it collects is transformative, but it doesn't matter. From what I understand, turnitin.com is copying the student papers in entirety and storing them in a database. Further, these papers are generally unpublished. So two of the four prongs (fraction of work copied is 100%, and material is unpublished) weigh against turnitin.com. Effect on market value is totally unpredictable--if my paper contains original research then disclosing its contents to a third party (say because it contained a properly-cited quotation that matched a similar quotation in someone else's paper and the match was flagged as possible plagiarism) could result in destroying a news scoop. So they could get clobbered on a third prong as well, depending on the situation.
I'm generally on the GPL-supporter, relax-restrictive-IP-law side of things but turnitin.com reminds me too much of a police state. I would not give them permission to copy and store my papers and I would not expect them to be able to successfully defend a fair use claim when they do such massive appropriation of other people's work.
I also don't see how turnitin.com can work without requiring students to submit all their papers electronically rather than on dead tree pulp, but I've been out of school for a few years and don't know whether that's normal practice these days.
RMS made up a song years ago, in anticipation of this processor's release:
If I had a hammer,
I'd throw it in the morning,
I'd throw it in the evening,
All over this land;
I'd throw it at Loki,
I'd throw it at Fen-rir,
I'd throw it at the war between
The Gods and the Giants,
All-ll over this land...
--RMS
There may be another verse or two but I've forgotten. Anyway the headline made me think of this. I always remember these words to the song instead of the regular ones.
Are generally intended for wireless communications, for example half-rate GSM at 6.5 kbps, and federal CELP 1015 at 4.8 kbps used in military radios. It's also used for some international phone circuits, hence the crappy audio you get if you call Romania or someplace like that. They're generally too computationally expensive to use for ordinary domestic phone calls. It's cheaper to just burn 64kbps (PCM) or (sometimes) 32 kbps ADPCM of bandwidth. On the domestic fiber networks, the raw bandwidth is still cheap.
New compression schemes are a dime a dozen. I don't know much about music compression, but for voice compression, 4.8 kbps has been a free federal standard for around 10 years (CELP 1016). There's a 2.4 kbps standard (MELP) that's proprietary. The KT 4.0 kbps coder might beat CELP, but it's not a breakthrough compared to other proprietary codecs. It's only a breakthrough compared to free codecs, so it's only interesting if it's also free.
Despite that I'm determined not to give Paypal my primary checking account number or let significant sized balances sit in my Paypal account for long periods. Right now I buy more stuff on Ebay than I sell, so I can spend Paypal balances to other Ebay sellers instead of moving them to a checking account. If I start selling more, I'll set up a special checking account just to receive Paypal transfers, and empty it out regularly.
Libertarianism talks about the rights and freedoms of humans. Nothing about it says that abstract constructs like corporations should get the same rights. Wanting to curb corporate power is entirely consistent with libertarianism, as far as I can tell.
- Vendor: the producer of software in which vulnerabilities are discovered (e.g. Microsoft)
- Reporter: someone who finds a security hole (typically someone in the "security community")
- Coordinator: someone who mediates between Reporters and Vendors
- Customer: end-user of vendor products
- Security Community: the usual researchers, sysadmins, etc. who are trying to improve overall information technology security (it doesn't say whose security).
The first thing I notice is that while there are several places where it says the vendor MUST do this or that (e.g. the vendor MUST respond to vulnerability reports within 7 days), and several things the reporter SHOULD do (the reporter SHOULD provide Vendor with all known details of the issue), there's nothing the reporter MUST do. So it's not an attempt to impose mandatory policies on reporters through a standards process.The recommendations make a reasonable attempt to protect vendors and customers (i.e. it doesn't go for the zealous instant-full-disclosure approach) without allowing reports to go ignored for too long. It basically says the vendor should get 7 days to initially respond to the report, then 30 days to fix the problem, and then can request a 30 day grace period to get the fix out to customers before the reporter releases details to the public . If the reporter goes along with this, the vendor must credit the reporter in its own public announcement of the fix.
It's kind of weird, seeing an internet draft using protocol-like terminology to describe how people and companies (rather than computers) are supposed to interact with one another. I hope this isn't supposed to be an RFC, or else that this kind of thing is normal for the IETF (I haven't read that many IETF docs). I've never seen a thing like this and it seems to turn the IETF into an even more political body than it already is. I thought the IETF was supposed to make recommendations about bits and packets, not people and companies.
Anyway, I can take issue with some of the points in the document, but at first glance there's nothing in it that I'd call outrageous. It seems like a genuine effort to find a good intermediate policy between instant full disclosure (and instant widespread exploits) and leaving stuff secret forever (letting exploits spread without the public knowing). Whether that policy is the optimal one is of course a matter of opinion and reasonable people can differ on it.
The document's authors came from several different camps (two names I recognize are Bruce Schneier's co-author Adam Shostack (presumably on the full disclosure side), and Microsoft's Scott Culp representing the Evil Empire) and it looks like they managed to arrive at a consensus. I guess that's a good sign and I hope Bruce and/or Adam will publish their own opinions of the draft soon.
If yes, then every time you stick in a disk, the server can log the query that identifies what disks you're listening to. If there's also identifying info sent (a cookie or XP registration code, or even just your IP address that the FBI or Church of Scientology could later use to identify you through your ISP), that's pretty invasive. Even if your IP address is dynamic, your ISP may be able to identify you given the timestamp from the log, by keeping records of what addresses were assigned to who when.
Are you really saying Shakespeare should have been allowed to trademark the characters of Romeo and Juliet, so that after his play's copyright expired, people could print their own copies but couldn't write any new plays using the characters?
Filtering on sender address is rude too. I wouldn't want to assign unique addresses to senders. People send from too many different addresses. If I email someone's personal account and they try to use my return address to email me from their work account, I don't want to bounce their mail.
I think if I quit publishing non-munged email addresses in my news posts and junkfile the incoming mail to the addresses I post news from, that should get rid of most of my spam.
Anyway, these schemes aren't ineffectual; I'm just saying from experience that they don't work out as well as you might at first expect, and there are some unintended consequences.
I don't generate unique reply addresses per news post, but change addresses a few times a year. I have a bunch of old addresses that mostly get spam, so my filters dump incoming mail to them into a mailbox file that I look in every now and then. That's much less annoying than seeing the spam as it arrives, but still, it's better to keep the volume down.
I think I'll completely stop putting replyable email addresses on news posts. I'll just have a URL for my web site where people can leave me messages through a CGI. That lets me make another political statement too, since my web site runs SSL so any incoming messages I get from the CGI will be encrypted while in transit. We tell people to use ssh instead of telnet--we should also try to avoid sending email in the clear without a reason.
the site doesn't immediately say how to get an ID.
Anyway, if that 21-year-principle is valid, maybe the same limit can be argued for copyright terms.
The part about discouraging workshop photographs in order to not leak info to the competition is weird. What modern high tech processes are there to protect, if you're trying to do something the same way it was done 100 years ago? I'd have thought most of the interest in a project like this was in being as open and historically accurate as possible.
Sorry I forgot to think of this when posting about the Ipaq 3135 a minute ago.
Me, I have a 3135 and was going to run Linux on it but the battery crapped out and I got interested in the Sharp Zaurus which comes preconfigured with Linux. So I think I'll get the battery replaced (it better be covered by the warranty) and then I'll unload the 3135 and buy a Sharp.
Here's my review of the Ipaq 3135.