The BOIS being used is a leaked copy from the XBox Devkit.
That wasn't mentioned in the previous comment, it obviously changes the situation. Now that it is a copy of some software which you haven't legally purchased, I believe it is indeed a copyright infringement.
as the cd-rom drive used 40%-60% cpu when reading / seeking. With SMP you had another cpu to do your stuff, while the OS did it's stuff on another (not true of course, but close).
This really indicates poorly designed hardware missing interrupts and/or DMA. Surely SMP will help here, but an extra CPU is a high price to pay compensating for the few bucks saved by using poorly designed components for the rest of the system.
I think HT will also help. As long as the busy CPU is busywaiting, the clever driver/OS designer could even make use of the pause instruction to reduce this virtual CPUs resource usage and thus speeding up the other virtual CPU. This means that on HT the resources wasted on busywaiting can less than on SMP.
So it'd be a simple case of copyright infringement.
But every user already has legally purcased said software. So it might not be illegal. In the country where I live, some modifications of copyrighted software is legal.
There's still the problem of authentication however.
That is indeed very true. But unconditional confidentiality cannot be done with a key smaller than the message. Unconditional autencity is different, that can be done with a key smaller than the message. This is very important because without unconditional autencity quantum cryptography is not secure.
When transmitting a message you can include a key for the next session, so you don't have to use the signature key more than once.
I thought a Guru was what happened to my Amiga when I tried to hack it's kernel.
Yes, in early AmigaOS versions like 1.3. But not in 3.0, I just verified instead we now get a boring "software failure". Reminds me that I have heard rumors of an upcoming AmigaOS 4.0 to replace AmigaOS 3.9. Too bad I have no computer that will run it.
I guess he means that the robot has a full 3 degrees of freedom
That doesn't sound like very much to me. It should have 6 degrees of freedom to move in 3 dimensions and turn in 3 dimensions. Maybe that is actually what he means when saying 3 dimensions.
There can be only four primary partitions on one hard drive, or three primary partitions and one extended partition. It's a BIOS restriction and there is only one (messy) way around it.
That is simply not true. The BIOS does not even know the concept of partitions. There is nothing in the BIOS mandating a particular partition format, neither that harddisks should be partitioned and floppydisks should not.
With a minor change of the OS you could use the raw harddisk as a single medium and have 10 primary partitions on your floppydisks.
But the required change of the OS is the real problem. You simply need a partition table format supported by all your OSes. And a lot of the OSes only supports the original format with four primary partitions one of which can optionally be split into a number of logical partitions. On my Linux only system I seriously consider switching to another partition format to overcome this limit, but for a multiboot it is not an option.
The article has a pointer to a way to overcome this limit, the trick is to use a completely different partition table format elsewhere on the disk, and generate the partition table in the MBR on every boot with only partitions needed for the particular OS. If done right you can even make some of the OSes use the new partition table format natively. So you could in theory let your Linux systems access all the partitions without even reading the table in the MBR. I don't know if that works with this partition manager, but it would be possible.
Well I cleaned my CPU fan etc with my vacuum cleaner.
I have tried that too. 1-2 years after I bought my computer the CPU fan started getting very very noisy. I tried cleaning it with a vacuum cleaner. It did get cleaner, and it was still spinning. But the noise remained. After trying this three times I realized that something more drastic had to be done. At last I looked at this small label on the back of the fan: "Low noise long lifetime" it said, Yeah right I thought. I tried lifting off the one side of the label and gave the bearing a little oil. Since then it has been working better than ever before.
If that is possible, the next logical step I see is self building chips. I have for a long time had a weird idea, I know most people will say it is physically impossible, and they are probably right. But if my idea turns out to be possible it is really going to make a fantastic chip. Imagine a chip that could build a copy of itself, just not the same size but rather smaller in area. If the chip could encapsulate a smaller copy into itself we could start having fun. If the chip could make two smaller copies of itself it, and the childs can keep up with the same principle it would be ready for business. I call this fractal computing. Imagine if it was possible on every layer to increase the speed by just a few %.
So if GNU re-created all the standard Unix utilities, why is it not called Unix/GNU or BSD/GNU?
You already stated the answer before asking the question. The GNU project has reimplemented the entire system, there is no part of Unix left in the GNU system.
Linux OTOH is not a reimplementation of the entire system. Linux is merely the kernel. If you take a GNU/Linux system and remove all the GNU parts and have only Linux left, everything you will get is:
Kernel panic: No init found.
We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.
I got that one too. But yahoo did offer me some gay movies instead. Somehow that is just not the same.
Re:X is the problem with desktop UN*X. Get over it
on
More Switching Stories
·
· Score: 2
what about a solution like tightvnc
VNC can be good for some purposes, but it is not a replacement for X. It is actually kind of like X just backwards. (With X it is the programs with windows to display that are the clients connecting to the server. With VNC it is the "screen" wanting to display an image that is the client connecting to the computer with an image.)
One of the drawbacks of VNC is the fact that you don't get access to the single windows of remote applications, your only choice is the entire screen including windowmanager and a set of windows. Another problem is the performance that in my experience is not nearly as good as X.
Xvnc and vncclients for X proves that the two can work together and can do so quite well. But they don't do the same thing.
Finally on the tightvnc webpage I don't see a server for Mac OS X. Is it even possible to implement a VNC server within the Mac OS X design? I don't know, so somebody please enlighten me on this. If the answer is no I simply take that as just another proof that the X design simply is better.
Now don't point me to the Java version, because that is only a client. You can make a VNC client for most graphical systems just like you can implement some kind of X server for most graphical systems. What is interesting is to implement a VNC server that will work together with all graphical programs for Mac OS X, or to have all graphical programs use the X protocol. This is the two options that will allow programs running on Mac OS X to be used remote.
If I am ever going to see Microsoft code it is certainly not going to be because I have signed a contract with Microsoft. I'm certainly not going to sign any contract selling my soul to Microsoft.
Selling my soul to Microsoft might be the only way I could ever get to see their code. In that case I'm never going to see their code.
There is a login dialog / option to automatically log in.
Ah thanks, I don't know all the details of Mac OS X. This feature could (and should) have been implemented exactly the same on top of X.
.
If everyone else has to add something to get better performance, doesn't this tell you something?
Yes, it does tell me something: "X is designed to be extensible". Some of the extensions are standardized among multiple different X server implementations. A lot of the speed improvement extensions will only work locally. Across a network X already does very well, there is little that could be done to improve speed any more.
Re:X is the problem with desktop UN*X. Get over it
on
More Switching Stories
·
· Score: 2
It's pronounced "OS Ten" not "OS Ecks"
I often read about it but rarely hear anybody talk about it, so the pronunciation doesn't make any change to me. And the few times I have had heard people talk about it, they did not pronounce it OS 10.
The lack of X is why I like using the newest MacOS.
I couldn't disagree more. I find X one of the major strengths of Linux and Unix systems. I don't spend a day without running remote applications with their display on my local computer. And I do so between three different architectures.
An implementation of X doesn't have to take all the bad parts from existing implementations. A major reason I would very much have liked to see Mac OS X with X was that I believed Apple would be able to combine the best parts of X with the best parts of their own design. I don't opponent against Aqua, I just think it should have been implemented on top of X. I would still have found it a good choice even if they had chosen to ship Mac OS X with Aqua as the only windowmanager. To the end user, the interface should have looked exactly the same. But a few additional features would exist:
You could run remote applications between a Macintosh and another Macintosh or other Unix system.
You could connect an X terminal to your Macintosh.
You could install your own windowmanager if you prefer that over Aqua.
For the most users, there's a nice easy to use, intuitive GUI.
If they had done this GUI on top of an X windows system even I would seriously consider switching to Mac. Of course they could have extended this with features to achieve better performance, just like everybody else does. It should come with the option to either present a login dialog, or just automatically log into a fixed nonroot account.
I see the irony: The major lack in OS X is actually X.
I remember in highschool on most of our DOS based computers some joker had changed the prompt. Not as sophisticated as yours though, he had just replaced the prompt with a lot of nasty words. Since I didn't find that funny, and I actually would like to use the computers, I did a minor trick to the setup. At the end of AUTOEXEC.BAT I would call another.BAT file instead of the menu. The other.BAT file did three things:
Set the prompt the way I liked it.
Load a 16byte TSR program to disable the beeps.
Run the menu as usual.
The joker never found out where I had put the new prompt. Of course I was a little worried that some teacher would find out I had messed with the configuration. Even more worried I got when a teacher one day asked if I was the one who had installed the TSR program. Turned out he just wanted to ask for permission to use it on his own computer as well. *Phew*.
What did I miss? The kernel runs in kernel space, the game runs in user space. How can the game tell the difference between a signed and an unsigned kernel?
Commercials is not the only possible way to pay for the TV shows. In Denmark we have to buy a license if we want to own a television. But with our new government that might change. (So much for the commercial free TV.)
No it doesn't. But the GPL says that anybody who has bought the binaries has the right to get the source and is allowed to put it all on a website for free download if they want. You just have to find that website.
Slashdot Mirror
The BOIS being used is a leaked copy from the XBox Devkit.
That wasn't mentioned in the previous comment, it obviously changes the situation. Now that it is a copy of some software which you haven't legally purchased, I believe it is indeed a copyright infringement.
as the cd-rom drive used 40%-60% cpu when reading / seeking. With SMP you had another cpu to do your stuff, while the OS did it's stuff on another (not true of course, but close).
This really indicates poorly designed hardware missing interrupts and/or DMA. Surely SMP will help here, but an extra CPU is a high price to pay compensating for the few bucks saved by using poorly designed components for the rest of the system.
I think HT will also help. As long as the busy CPU is busywaiting, the clever driver/OS designer could even make use of the pause instruction to reduce this virtual CPUs resource usage and thus speeding up the other virtual CPU. This means that on HT the resources wasted on busywaiting can less than on SMP.
So it'd be a simple case of copyright infringement.
But every user already has legally purcased said software. So it might not be illegal. In the country where I live, some modifications of copyrighted software is legal.
There's still the problem of authentication however.
That is indeed very true. But unconditional confidentiality cannot be done with a key smaller than the message. Unconditional autencity is different, that can be done with a key smaller than the message. This is very important because without unconditional autencity quantum cryptography is not secure.
When transmitting a message you can include a key for the next session, so you don't have to use the signature key more than once.
For their next trick, having pissed off Microsoft and AOL...
You forgot mentioning them pissing off the opensource community with their licensing.
I thought a Guru was what happened to my Amiga when I tried to hack it's kernel.
Yes, in early AmigaOS versions like 1.3. But not in 3.0, I just verified instead we now get a boring "software failure". Reminds me that I have heard rumors of an upcoming AmigaOS 4.0 to replace AmigaOS 3.9. Too bad I have no computer that will run it.
An "ordinary" kernel hacker is not the same as a guru.
Being the author of the scheduler makes him more than an ordinary kernel hacker.
I guess he means that the robot has a full 3 degrees of freedom
That doesn't sound like very much to me. It should have 6 degrees of freedom to move in 3 dimensions and turn in 3 dimensions. Maybe that is actually what he means when saying 3 dimensions.
There can be only four primary partitions on one hard drive, or three primary partitions and one extended partition. It's a BIOS restriction and there is only one (messy) way around it.
That is simply not true. The BIOS does not even know the concept of partitions. There is nothing in the BIOS mandating a particular partition format, neither that harddisks should be partitioned and floppydisks should not.
With a minor change of the OS you could use the raw harddisk as a single medium and have 10 primary partitions on your floppydisks.
But the required change of the OS is the real problem. You simply need a partition table format supported by all your OSes. And a lot of the OSes only supports the original format with four primary partitions one of which can optionally be split into a number of logical partitions. On my Linux only system I seriously consider switching to another partition format to overcome this limit, but for a multiboot it is not an option.
The article has a pointer to a way to overcome this limit, the trick is to use a completely different partition table format elsewhere on the disk, and generate the partition table in the MBR on every boot with only partitions needed for the particular OS. If done right you can even make some of the OSes use the new partition table format natively. So you could in theory let your Linux systems access all the partitions without even reading the table in the MBR. I don't know if that works with this partition manager, but it would be possible.
Well I cleaned my CPU fan etc with my vacuum cleaner.
I have tried that too. 1-2 years after I bought my computer the CPU fan started getting very very noisy. I tried cleaning it with a vacuum cleaner. It did get cleaner, and it was still spinning. But the noise remained. After trying this three times I realized that something more drastic had to be done. At last I looked at this small label on the back of the fan: "Low noise long lifetime" it said, Yeah right I thought. I tried lifting off the one side of the label and gave the bearing a little oil. Since then it has been working better than ever before.
Design the chips to be self-repairing.
If that is possible, the next logical step I see is self building chips. I have for a long time had a weird idea, I know most people will say it is physically impossible, and they are probably right. But if my idea turns out to be possible it is really going to make a fantastic chip. Imagine a chip that could build a copy of itself, just not the same size but rather smaller in area. If the chip could encapsulate a smaller copy into itself we could start having fun. If the chip could make two smaller copies of itself it, and the childs can keep up with the same principle it would be ready for business. I call this fractal computing. Imagine if it was possible on every layer to increase the speed by just a few %.
So if GNU re-created all the standard Unix utilities, why is it not called Unix/GNU or BSD/GNU?
You already stated the answer before asking the question. The GNU project has reimplemented the entire system, there is no part of Unix left in the GNU system.
Linux OTOH is not a reimplementation of the entire system. Linux is merely the kernel. If you take a GNU/Linux system and remove all the GNU parts and have only Linux left, everything you will get is: Kernel panic: No init found.
We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.
I got that one too. But yahoo did offer me some gay movies instead. Somehow that is just not the same.
what about a solution like tightvnc
VNC can be good for some purposes, but it is not a replacement for X. It is actually kind of like X just backwards. (With X it is the programs with windows to display that are the clients connecting to the server. With VNC it is the "screen" wanting to display an image that is the client connecting to the computer with an image.)
One of the drawbacks of VNC is the fact that you don't get access to the single windows of remote applications, your only choice is the entire screen including windowmanager and a set of windows. Another problem is the performance that in my experience is not nearly as good as X.
Xvnc and vncclients for X proves that the two can work together and can do so quite well. But they don't do the same thing.
Finally on the tightvnc webpage I don't see a server for Mac OS X. Is it even possible to implement a VNC server within the Mac OS X design? I don't know, so somebody please enlighten me on this. If the answer is no I simply take that as just another proof that the X design simply is better.
Now don't point me to the Java version, because that is only a client. You can make a VNC client for most graphical systems just like you can implement some kind of X server for most graphical systems. What is interesting is to implement a VNC server that will work together with all graphical programs for Mac OS X, or to have all graphical programs use the X protocol. This is the two options that will allow programs running on Mac OS X to be used remote.
If I am ever going to see Microsoft code it is certainly not going to be because I have signed a contract with Microsoft. I'm certainly not going to sign any contract selling my soul to Microsoft.
Selling my soul to Microsoft might be the only way I could ever get to see their code. In that case I'm never going to see their code.
There is a login dialog / option to automatically log in.
Ah thanks, I don't know all the details of Mac OS X. This feature could (and should) have been implemented exactly the same on top of X.
. If everyone else has to add something to get better performance, doesn't this tell you something?
Yes, it does tell me something: "X is designed to be extensible". Some of the extensions are standardized among multiple different X server implementations. A lot of the speed improvement extensions will only work locally. Across a network X already does very well, there is little that could be done to improve speed any more.
I often read about it but rarely hear anybody talk about it, so the pronunciation doesn't make any change to me. And the few times I have had heard people talk about it, they did not pronounce it OS 10.
The lack of X is why I like using the newest MacOS.
I couldn't disagree more. I find X one of the major strengths of Linux and Unix systems. I don't spend a day without running remote applications with their display on my local computer. And I do so between three different architectures.
An implementation of X doesn't have to take all the bad parts from existing implementations. A major reason I would very much have liked to see Mac OS X with X was that I believed Apple would be able to combine the best parts of X with the best parts of their own design. I don't opponent against Aqua, I just think it should have been implemented on top of X. I would still have found it a good choice even if they had chosen to ship Mac OS X with Aqua as the only windowmanager. To the end user, the interface should have looked exactly the same. But a few additional features would exist:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt
Don't forget that it has actually been implemented.
For the most users, there's a nice easy to use, intuitive GUI.
If they had done this GUI on top of an X windows system even I would seriously consider switching to Mac. Of course they could have extended this with features to achieve better performance, just like everybody else does. It should come with the option to either present a login dialog, or just automatically log into a fixed nonroot account.
I see the irony: The major lack in OS X is actually X.
Actually, he meant, out of parts taken from another subwoofer...
I see the point. But somehow I get the feeling that if you want a subwoofer, there has to be an easier way....
I remember in highschool on most of our DOS based computers some joker had changed the prompt. Not as sophisticated as yours though, he had just replaced the prompt with a lot of nasty words. Since I didn't find that funny, and I actually would like to use the computers, I did a minor trick to the setup. At the end of AUTOEXEC.BAT I would call another
- Set the prompt the way I liked it.
- Load a 16byte TSR program to disable the beeps.
- Run the menu as usual.
The joker never found out where I had put the new prompt. Of course I was a little worried that some teacher would find out I had messed with the configuration. Even more worried I got when a teacher one day asked if I was the one who had installed the TSR program. Turned out he just wanted to ask for permission to use it on his own computer as well. *Phew*.download this kernel to play $GAME!
What did I miss? The kernel runs in kernel space, the game runs in user space. How can the game tell the difference between a signed and an unsigned kernel?
How do you think that stuff get's paid for?
Commercials is not the only possible way to pay for the TV shows. In Denmark we have to buy a license if we want to own a television. But with our new government that might change. (So much for the commercial free TV.)
Doesn't this violate the GPL?
No it doesn't. But the GPL says that anybody who has bought the binaries has the right to get the source and is allowed to put it all on a website for free download if they want. You just have to find that website.
Yes, Lindows.com has always made source available to those who they distribute the bianaries to.
And now I start wondering. Why haven't any of these persons made the sources available for download on some website?