Pardon my lack of knowledge, but aren't MMUs important in Unix? I mean, don't MMUs keep things like fandango on core from occuring? If they're there for a reason, are there any major disadvantages to having an MMU-less operating system? I has always just assumed that pocket-sized OSes (QNX, PalmOS, WinCE) were simply written with a lack-of-MMU in mind, thus preventing the problem. I'm really kind of interested in this, and it doesn't seem to be covered in their FAQ. Anyone have any info?
Ross
Mosix... Free... GPL... Pleasure overload...
on
Mosix now GPLed
·
· Score: 2
All I can say is WOO HOO! This is great news. I've read about Mosix a little bit, and if it works as well as it was described, this is fantastic news.
And to top it all off, GPL. IMHO, this is the perfect license for this product, since there is so much potential for growth. Imagine a best-of-breed scalable redundant clustering solution. If we're not there with Mosix today (although I've heard some nice stuff about it, for sure) we're bound to be there soon. This is the first big sign I've seen that the tides are turning.
I'm gonna cover the walls, ceiling, and floor in a room and make a quasi-holodeck
Maybe, if you have horrible depth perception, and a debilitating nervous disorder. I suppose it would work if the holodeck simulations were always like "we're driving in a car" or "we're watching TV". Nar, we can't have holodecks until we have replicators, and we can't have that until they invent Hisenberg compinsators, and we can't have that until... oh wait nevermind, we can't have that. Oh well, a boy can dream.
Of all the solutions I've read, this one really seems like the fairest - instead of trying to cripple Microsoft or hurt them in an effort to make things fair, RMS is simply proposing that the playing field be leveled so that the quality of the final product is the only determining factor towards purchase. I've always liked how RMS has been one of the most level-headed and rational in this debate - see Is Microsoft the Great Satan?, even if he does view Bill Gates personally as a jerk. It seems like a much better way to get what you want, than say, posting a doctored-up image on your website portraying Bill Gates as Hitler, and Windows users as Nazis. (ahem)
I was going to give this smart-ass reply about how I hate how online versions of magazines always try to bypass "problems" with the HTML spec and instead use " "s to indent paragraphs, but nevermind, that would be mean.
Heh - in the Linus profile, they quoted him as having "A 386 PC with a 266-MHz processor"
I'm not so sure it's a good sign when writers for A FREAKING COMPUTER INDUSTRY TRADE MAGAZINE don't know the difference between 386DX2-66 and a 386DX-266, let alone the fact that such a device sounds rather implausable after Linus informs them that "It was top-of-the-line eight years ago." This just further confirms my theory that nobody employed for a computer industry trade mag has actually ever used a computer. Think about it - it explains a whole lot.
However, [Steve] Ballmer said the company was coming to realize that giving source code to users creates a "certain level of comfort" for many of them. --IDG.Net article 'Microsoft open to open source for Windows?'
At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because they seek to be ``more acceptable to business.'' Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This is why non-free software such as Qt, and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
Let's hope that those using the term ``open source'' will indeed draw more users into our community; but if they do, the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, ``It's free software and it gives you freedom!''--more and louder than ever before. --Richard Stallman
This is a dangerous time for our community. Microsoft is going to try to blur the line between what's good for them and what's good for us. In fact, I believe that this is Open Source's main pitfall - it implies that allowing people to look at the source will expand profits by making the software better, and people happier. This kind of makes sense for a company who *needs* open development to stay alive (like Netscape), but this is not the case for Microsoft. All the wishing in the world won't take away the fact that Microsoft is not genuinely interested in improving their product in any meaningful way. They are interested in making money - an improved software package would be merely a pleasant side effect. By making their product Open Source, they are interested in making those who are intolerant of Microsoft change their minds and at the very least stop working against them. They are interested in sucking mindshare and synergy away from us. That is all. There is a reason why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world - it's because he is a cutthroat businessman. If we forget that, even for an instant, we are doomed.
RMS isn't an idiot, he's seen this scenario coming from a mile away. I sincerely hope that recent events are making it more apparent that, for all the downsides there are to Free Software, it at least provides a good method to keep Microsoft, and others like them, from subverting everything we've worked for.
Hate to say it, but Bruce Perens is looking more and more correct with his hardline "Free Software" only stance.
Well, duh. RMS has been telling us this from day one. Algor (or is that spelled "All Gore") and Microsoft have, in less than 48 hours, done more dillute Open Source's meaning than years of infighting could have ever managed. If things like this don't convince people that pure Free Software is the best way to protect ideas such as freedom and community, what will?
This brings up an interesting point: has anybody given any thought to a Slashdot telnettable Tradewars/BRE/SRE door BBS? I mean, right now, the web interface fulfills everything else that a BBS would provide - forums, appropriate files, realtime chat; except doors. When I used to frequent #slashdot, nostalga of door games was a frequent topic. Jeez, I'd even be willing to set it up, given bandwidth and a little spare time. I for one, enjoy an occasional game of TW2002. I'll bet a lot of you do too.
Wow, this is just great - Salon and Slashdot are my primary sources for news, other than second-hand from family and co-workers. Now, both are better than ever, content-wise, and run on Linux kerneled systems to boot. Woohoo! Kudos to both CmdrTaco and Salon.
I think by calling RMS a crackpot or a crazy only serves to demean our community as a whole.
Right on. If there is anybody the Free Software community, or society as a whole should be paying more attention to, it's RMS. This recent bashing makes me think people are forgetting what this whole big thing is all about, and how much non-free solutions hurt people.
It's simply due to short-term thinking, a problem that is affecting not only Free Software, but everywhere in society. Everybody wants what suits them best, right now, everybody and everything else be damned. Selfish, is what I call it.
I dunno, this whole "Mozilla" thing they keep talking about in the article sounds a little suspicious. I mean, c'mon, just look at the date. I'm serious. Inspect the date with all of your might. Datey datey look look. I'm not kidding when I urge you to observe the date.
>> If it's allposts, cool, if it's still "0", you're censoring.
>>Most people do not change their default preferences. You know that.
Bah. Maybe a few days ago you would have been right, but now with the preferences bar that sits on the very top of every comments page, your point is moot. It doesn't matter what the default is, since it's not only obvious of how to change the comment threshold, it's inviting. Curious people want to fiddle with the options bar at the top of the page. I don't even need to touch my preferences page since the bar allows me to change everything important. The new system encourages learning more about customization of Slashdot. Besides, people passing through either don't need to be exposed to "First Post" crap, do they? No. Be rational. The only people concerned about the "openness" of the "Open Source Community" are hardened Slashdotters anyway - and they (should) know how to use the preferences bar.
So you propose that we should all be mavericks and world-beaters because that's just so much cooler, right?
No, I didn't say that. Working together as a team to change the world for everyone is pretty damn cool. What isn't cool is the eventual disintegration of society and the environment because of an overpopulated world of generation after generation of complacent do-nothing family-havers. It would take so little to change the world, but we don't, simply because we tend to gravitate towards what comes naturally to us. Like childrearing.
It's quite easy to sit in the belltower picking people off with your rifle, isn't it? Certainly not as hard as finding someone who understands you and who you understand.
Woah, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Actually, I'm not saying that at all. As you've pointed out, coupling and having children is the natural thing for humans to do, right? The easiest thing. Going against that in pursuit of something bigger than all of us is what's harder.
As far as the relevance of this thread, I would say it is quite minimal.
Actually, I disagree. I would say this topic is the most important one that faces humanity right now. It's the lack of thinking about this kind of stuff that's causing problems. I wouldn't mind so much about people having kids if they just sat down and thought about the ramifications beforehand.
I was only trying to illustrate a possible alternate and less noble explanation of RMS' insistence on being recognized as a prophet.
You mean besides the fact that he's living proof that if you put idealism before nature, one person can defeat even the largest problems? If everyone did as much with their life as RMS has, there would be no problems on earth. We would be living in a perfect society. It's because of complacency and fear that we live in the world we do now.
/me kicks self for responding to trollbait, but...
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe you. You are perhaps the most un-idealistic individual I have ever had the misfortune of replying to. The fact that you have replied like 5 or 6 times to this article makes me realize what your trouble is. You're afraid:
I think he will likely find himself very lonely, some day.
Talk about projecting your own personal terrors onto others. Sacrificing one's life for a greater cause is a risky business. Raising a family is a difficult, but safe one. Overcoming human needs and desires for a greater purpose is one of the most admirable traits that one can have. If everyone said "Why change things when I can raise a family - that's just as gratifying," things can and will never change. If you have children simply so that they can have children and so on, what's the point? To make great sacrifices to advance what is right should not be mocked. The fact that you are so adamant about something that doesn't even affect your life (I mean, it's none of your business if RMS dies lonely, and it's not as if there need to be more advocation of childrearing over idealism, it happens enough) makes me think that you're trying to prove to yourself that your life isn't a waste. Well, it will be if you don't start facing facts, and stop being so egocentric. It's attitudes like yours that will keep me from ever living in a utopian society, and that gets me pissed, more than anything else.
There is still no decent linux MS Proxy clients, so the only app on my linux box that can get out onto the net is netscape. But that's ok.. there's alot of Win32 apps that fail to get out of the proxy even with the proxy client.
I think the reason there isn't a decent MS Proxy client for Linux is because any decent firewall/socks proxy combo should be able do all the stuff MS Proxy requires a client for. Of course, that's kind of a moot point, 'cause like you pointed out, MS Proxy client for Win32 doesn't work half the time, anyhoo.
It's basically the "main" machine in a WinNT domain - it holds the master password records, decides which Backup Domain Controllers log people on to the network, plus a whole lot of obscure/undocumented stuff, unfortunately. I dunno if you're familiar with the NT domain model, but basically, you need at least a PDC and optionally some BDCs to keep the behind-the-scenes domain stuff going if you're operating in a NT corperate-style domain. Samba has always had the ability to work outside that model, but then you can't do automatic integrated authentication when connecting to shares, etc.
Of course, I can see why MS would want to keep it secret - in their twisted little minds, each SMB connection requires s a User License who (if you're doing per-seat licensing) costs money. Just for the SMB connection, can you believe that?
Despite the flak I get from unix hardcores, I still like the NT domain model *in concept* - it's just another example of good idea, bad implementation.
I think it's ideal that IBM is moving towards Linux support. So far, I've installed Linux on a couple IBM boxen, and I've had to do virtually no configuration to get them to work out of the box. On my Thinkpad, I installed RedHat, and I didn't have to configure a thing. Sound, PCMCIA, IBM PCMCIA NIC+modem, video; all were detected and ran perfectly "out of the box." And servicing IBM desktop and server machines is easy too. Screwless cases, wide spaces inside, etc. make it a breeze to do hardware upgrades. It's just robust. I guess it just comes from using good, solid standard parts. Hell, my IBM XT keyboard from 15 years ago still works perfectly.
I'm glad to see Levy's keeping up to date with the current events within the Linux community. I hope he's planning a sequel to "Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution," since that book ends sadly with RMS's seemingly bleak future for free software back in the day. It's a great book, and I think a book about the roots of the Free Software movement written in 1983 was well ahead of its time. He must be elated that the "synergy amongst nerds" that he describes in his book ended up causing the Free Software revolution, and that now the ideals of sharing and goodwill are relevant in the computer industry once again. I know I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon my lack of knowledge, but aren't MMUs important in Unix? I mean, don't MMUs keep things like fandango on core from occuring? If they're there for a reason, are there any major disadvantages to having an MMU-less operating system? I has always just assumed that pocket-sized OSes (QNX, PalmOS, WinCE) were simply written with a lack-of-MMU in mind, thus preventing the problem. I'm really kind of interested in this, and it doesn't seem to be covered in their FAQ. Anyone have any info?
Ross
All I can say is WOO HOO! This is great news. I've read about Mosix a little bit, and if it works as well as it was described, this is fantastic news.
And to top it all off, GPL. IMHO, this is the perfect license for this product, since there is so much potential for growth. Imagine a best-of-breed scalable redundant clustering solution. If we're not there with Mosix today (although I've heard some nice stuff about it, for sure) we're bound to be there soon. This is the first big sign I've seen that the tides are turning.
Victory is near, I can smell it.
I'm gonna cover the walls, ceiling, and floor in a room and make a quasi-holodeck
Maybe, if you have horrible depth perception, and a debilitating nervous disorder. I suppose it would work if the holodeck simulations were always like "we're driving in a car" or "we're watching TV". Nar, we can't have holodecks until we have replicators, and we can't have that until they invent Hisenberg compinsators, and we can't have that until... oh wait nevermind, we can't have that. Oh well, a boy can dream.
Of all the solutions I've read, this one really seems like the fairest - instead of trying to cripple Microsoft or hurt them in an effort to make things fair, RMS is simply proposing that the playing field be leveled so that the quality of the final product is the only determining factor towards purchase. I've always liked how RMS has been one of the most level-headed and rational in this debate - see Is Microsoft the Great Satan?, even if he does view Bill Gates personally as a jerk. It seems like a much better way to get what you want, than say, posting a doctored-up image on your website portraying Bill Gates as Hitler, and Windows users as Nazis. (ahem)
I was going to give this smart-ass reply about how I hate how online versions of magazines always try to bypass "problems" with the HTML spec and instead use " "s to indent paragraphs, but nevermind, that would be mean.
Heh - in the Linus profile, they quoted him as having "A 386 PC with a 266-MHz processor"
I'm not so sure it's a good sign when writers for A FREAKING COMPUTER INDUSTRY TRADE MAGAZINE don't know the difference between 386DX2-66 and a 386DX-266, let alone the fact that such a device sounds rather implausable after Linus informs them that "It was top-of-the-line eight years ago." This just further confirms my theory that nobody employed for a computer industry trade mag has actually ever used a computer. Think about it - it explains a whole lot.
--IDG.Net article 'Microsoft open to open source for Windows?'
At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because they seek to be ``more acceptable to business.'' Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This is why non-free software such as Qt, and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
Let's hope that those using the term ``open source'' will indeed draw more users into our community; but if they do, the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, ``It's free software and it gives you freedom!''--more and louder than ever before.
--Richard Stallman
This is a dangerous time for our community. Microsoft is going to try to blur the line between what's good for them and what's good for us. In fact, I believe that this is Open Source's main pitfall - it implies that allowing people to look at the source will expand profits by making the software better, and people happier. This kind of makes sense for a company who *needs* open development to stay alive (like Netscape), but this is not the case for Microsoft. All the wishing in the world won't take away the fact that Microsoft is not genuinely interested in improving their product in any meaningful way. They are interested in making money - an improved software package would be merely a pleasant side effect. By making their product Open Source, they are interested in making those who are intolerant of Microsoft change their minds and at the very least stop working against them. They are interested in sucking mindshare and synergy away from us. That is all. There is a reason why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world - it's because he is a cutthroat businessman. If we forget that, even for an instant, we are doomed.
RMS isn't an idiot, he's seen this scenario coming from a mile away. I sincerely hope that recent events are making it more apparent that, for all the downsides there are to Free Software, it at least provides a good method to keep Microsoft, and others like them, from subverting everything we've worked for.
Hate to say it, but Bruce Perens is looking more and more correct with his hardline "Free Software" only stance.
Well, duh. RMS has been telling us this from day one. Algor (or is that spelled "All Gore") and Microsoft have, in less than 48 hours, done more dillute Open Source's meaning than years of infighting could have ever managed. If things like this don't convince people that pure Free Software is the best way to protect ideas such as freedom and community, what will?
I played a lot of Tradewars 2002, can ya tell
This brings up an interesting point: has anybody given any thought to a Slashdot telnettable Tradewars/BRE/SRE door BBS? I mean, right now, the web interface fulfills everything else that a BBS would provide - forums, appropriate files, realtime chat; except doors. When I used to frequent #slashdot, nostalga of door games was a frequent topic. Jeez, I'd even be willing to set it up, given bandwidth and a little spare time. I for one, enjoy an occasional game of TW2002. I'll bet a lot of you do too.
Wow, this is just great - Salon and Slashdot are my primary sources for news, other than second-hand from family and co-workers. Now, both are better than ever, content-wise, and run on Linux kerneled systems to boot. Woohoo! Kudos to both CmdrTaco and Salon.
I think by calling RMS a crackpot or a crazy only serves to demean our community as a whole.
Right on. If there is anybody the Free Software community, or society as a whole should be paying more attention to, it's RMS. This recent bashing makes me think people are forgetting what this whole big thing is all about, and how much non-free solutions hurt people.
It's simply due to short-term thinking, a problem that is affecting not only Free Software, but everywhere in society. Everybody wants what suits them best, right now, everybody and everything else be damned. Selfish, is what I call it.
I dunno, this whole "Mozilla" thing they keep talking about in the article sounds a little suspicious. I mean, c'mon, just look at the date. I'm serious. Inspect the date with all of your might. Datey datey look look. I'm not kidding when I urge you to observe the date.
:-)
You can teach an old dog new tricks, but you can't teach Madonna to act :-]
>> If it's allposts, cool, if it's still "0", you're censoring.
>>Most people do not change their default preferences. You know that.
Bah. Maybe a few days ago you would have been right, but now with the preferences bar that sits on the very top of every comments page, your point is moot. It doesn't matter what the default is, since it's not only obvious of how to change the comment threshold, it's inviting. Curious people want to fiddle with the options bar at the top of the page. I don't even need to touch my preferences page since the bar allows me to change everything important. The new system encourages learning more about customization of Slashdot. Besides, people passing through either don't need to be exposed to "First Post" crap, do they? No. Be rational. The only people concerned about the "openness" of the "Open Source Community" are hardened Slashdotters anyway - and they (should) know how to use the preferences bar.
fin.
Dude... It's still this century.
So you propose that we should all be mavericks and world-beaters because that's just so much cooler, right?
No, I didn't say that. Working together as a team to change the world for everyone is pretty damn cool. What isn't cool is the eventual disintegration of society and the environment because of an overpopulated world of generation after generation of complacent do-nothing family-havers. It would take so little to change the world, but we don't, simply because we tend to gravitate towards what comes naturally to us. Like childrearing.
It's quite easy to sit in the belltower picking people off with your rifle, isn't it? Certainly not as hard as finding someone who understands you and who you understand.
Woah, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Actually, I'm not saying that at all. As you've pointed out, coupling and having children is the natural thing for humans to do, right? The easiest thing. Going against that in pursuit of something bigger than all of us is what's harder.
As far as the relevance of this thread, I would say it is quite minimal.
Actually, I disagree. I would say this topic is the most important one that faces humanity right now. It's the lack of thinking about this kind of stuff that's causing problems. I wouldn't mind so much about people having kids if they just sat down and thought about the ramifications beforehand.
I was only trying to illustrate a possible alternate and less noble explanation of RMS' insistence on being recognized as a prophet.
You mean besides the fact that he's living proof that if you put idealism before nature, one person can defeat even the largest problems? If everyone did as much with their life as RMS has, there would be no problems on earth. We would be living in a perfect society. It's because of complacency and fear that we live in the world we do now.
I can't believe you. You are perhaps the most un-idealistic individual I have ever had the misfortune of replying to. The fact that you have replied like 5 or 6 times to this article makes me realize what your trouble is. You're afraid:
I think he will likely find himself very lonely, some day.
Talk about projecting your own personal terrors onto others. Sacrificing one's life for a greater cause is a risky business. Raising a family is a difficult, but safe one. Overcoming human needs and desires for a greater purpose is one of the most admirable traits that one can have. If everyone said "Why change things when I can raise a family - that's just as gratifying," things can and will never change. If you have children simply so that they can have children and so on, what's the point? To make great sacrifices to advance what is right should not be mocked. The fact that you are so adamant about something that doesn't even affect your life (I mean, it's none of your business if RMS dies lonely, and it's not as if there need to be more advocation of childrearing over idealism, it happens enough) makes me think that you're trying to prove to yourself that your life isn't a waste. Well, it will be if you don't start facing facts, and stop being so egocentric. It's attitudes like yours that will keep me from ever living in a utopian society, and that gets me pissed, more than anything else.
Phew.
Lousy Kirk. In that episode, he was all: "Prime Directive? What Prime Directive?"
Okay, I admit, that was a cool episode. And, admittedly, Kirk is one damn good diplomat. I wish they were still showing old ST around here. Grrrr.
There is still no decent linux MS Proxy clients, so the only app on my linux box that can get out onto the net is netscape. But that's ok.. there's alot of Win32 apps that fail to get out of the proxy even with the proxy client.
I think the reason there isn't a decent MS Proxy client for Linux is because any decent firewall/socks proxy combo should be able do all the stuff MS Proxy requires a client for. Of course, that's kind of a moot point, 'cause like you pointed out, MS Proxy client for Win32 doesn't work half the time, anyhoo.
It's basically the "main" machine in a WinNT domain - it holds the master password records, decides which Backup Domain Controllers log people on to the network, plus a whole lot of obscure/undocumented stuff, unfortunately. I dunno if you're familiar with the NT domain model, but basically, you need at least a PDC and optionally some BDCs to keep the behind-the-scenes domain stuff going if you're operating in a NT corperate-style domain. Samba has always had the ability to work outside that model, but then you can't do automatic integrated authentication when connecting to shares, etc.
Of course, I can see why MS would want to keep it secret - in their twisted little minds, each SMB connection requires s a User License who (if you're doing per-seat licensing) costs money. Just for the SMB connection, can you believe that?
Despite the flak I get from unix hardcores, I still like the NT domain model *in concept* - it's just another example of good idea, bad implementation.
I think it's ideal that IBM is moving towards Linux support. So far, I've installed Linux on a couple IBM boxen, and I've had to do virtually no configuration to get them to work out of the box. On my Thinkpad, I installed RedHat, and I didn't have to configure a thing. Sound, PCMCIA, IBM PCMCIA NIC+modem, video; all were detected and ran perfectly "out of the box." And servicing IBM desktop and server machines is easy too. Screwless cases, wide spaces inside, etc. make it a breeze to do hardware upgrades. It's just robust. I guess it just comes from using good, solid standard parts. Hell, my IBM XT keyboard from 15 years ago still works perfectly.
Kudos IBM.
Hey - I *want* static IPs from my DSL provider. DHCP makes it so I have to use dynamic DNS services to do anything fun. Sigh.
I'm glad to see Levy's keeping up to date with the current events within the Linux community. I hope he's planning a sequel to "Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution," since that book ends sadly with RMS's seemingly bleak future for free software back in the day. It's a great book, and I think a book about the roots of the Free Software movement written in 1983 was well ahead of its time. He must be elated that the "synergy amongst nerds" that he describes in his book ended up causing the Free Software revolution, and that now the ideals of sharing and goodwill are relevant in the computer industry once again. I know I am.
So, how's the Linux install coming along, eh Jon?
;)