I'm a kernel developer at a company that licenses embedded software to a few companies in EU member states Luxembourg and Ireland. I have extensive source code knowledge of [the discontinued as of Nov. 2003] specialized SCO Compact UnixWare 1.7 (CUW) and the 2.4 version of the Linux kernel.
In March of 2002, my company shifted three-fourths of our CUW Systems Team (kern-devs) -- which had been untouched, platform-wise, the previous two years -- onto a parallel development path with Linux 2.4.18.
This bold (in my opinion) decision was made despite Wind River International, the dominate embedded software technologist, matter-of-factly asserting at the time that they view Linux as inferior to their preferred platform, VxWorks, and would never include Linux in their product line. (They eventually changed their minds.)
Four months later, on July 19, 2002, my company, in consultation with our customers, announced that we were ending all new development for CUW, were placing it into maintenance mode, and were solely developing for Linux. On a personal level, myself and most of my team were ecstatic about the new direction the company was taking.
As we are all so evidently aware, the SCO Group began its grandiloquent and legal smear campaign against Linux in February, and March of 2003. Well almost four months ago, I was assigned the somewhat informal task of determining the validity of the SCO claims of ownership to Linux. Despite the seemingly preposterous evidence offered thus far by SCO, I'm saddened to reveal that they may have a solid case for copyright infringement in the 2.4 Linux kernel.
There are three code pieces that appear to be copied verbatim. The first is forty-two lines of packet handling code. Following the ip_vs_state_table variable is where most of the infringement takes place. Only the state transition handling seems to be original. The second is sixteen lines of VM allocation code. Five lines after CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM, and eleven lines after VMALLOC_VMADDR. And the last is seven lines after SELFPOWER, USB specific power management code.
It's possible, some would say probable, that this is actually code that SCO copied from Linux. Not the inverse. I'm not knowledgeable enough of the history to determine that, but it definitely needs to be looked into. Nevertheless, it's still accurate to state that the vast majority of the Linux kernel code is original. And that's really the only fact that matters to the nontechnical mass media.
It's time that this FUD campaign come to an end. I own a small business that deploys five Red Hat AS boxes. SCO has already sent my legal department (2 lawyers) three letters (threats) regarding our "illegal use of the Linux operating system [sic]".
Like most users of Linux, we are at the point where we are not going to stand still while SCO trashes the entire Free Software movement. I have already authorized a payment of $10,000 to the FSF, and a payment of $5,000 to the Red Hat Open Source Now fund. If you want to do all you can during this waiting period before the trial, I would urge you to sign this petition that signifies the unity of the Free and Open source communities against SCO's outlandish claims.
I can neither speak nor read German. However, I can make sound judgments based on detailed pictures. I know a great deal about computer cooling systems. The detailed pictures are provided, so I will share my opinion.
The surface area of the pipe is significantly diminished compared to other similarly designed systems. This leads me to believe that there will be much more "air heat". Fortunately, this shouldn't affect the circuitry.
Another difference I picked up on immediately is the use of motor oil as the cooling fluid. This will mean that the entire chassis will be at least 5 pounds heavier. Not a big concern for most.
The final aspect I will comment on is the use of "induction through aerodynamics". I will only say that you better have your air conditioner blowing toward the computer, or better yet, a small fan.
Preliminarily, I give it a B-. I do hold out hope that it is better than the pictures show it to be.
This is a perfect example of why we need DRM, and specifically MS's palladium implementation of it for Windows (where the biggest problem is). There's really only a very small chance that it could be detrimental to the Free Software movement.
For example, if I were to to write a virus that called one of the myriad of registry functions in Windows, my virus would have to be registered for authentication with MS beforehand. It is highly unlikely that MS's inspectors would not notice the harmful intent of my code.
Although there is a lot of fear about DRM in the Free & Open source communities, there need not be in reality. This is for two reasons. First, it would not be difficult to craft an open source DRM specification and submit it to the W3C. This means it will not be patentable. And second, with the registration mechanism handled through the W3C, developers would only have to submit their code for DRM authentication for a small fee of 1000-2000 dollars. This could easily cover the W3C's administrative costs, and would be economically viable for open source developers.
I don't know if it's the media or the spammers, but I always get the same vibe from these kind of articles. First, it's about the lackey, then the convoluted drama, and lastly the ambiguous moral outcome.
Lets get real about two things. First, it's not illegal to send unsolicited emails. Second, it's not illegal to use passive defensive measures to block said spam.
After that, it's all up to the investigators. Aggressive anti-spam activists should be locked up. They do more harm than good. I worked briefly as a spammer, but then lost my income as a result of an anti-spam hacker with a chip on his shoulder. Lets just say that it's not a pleasant experience. There's no use for vigilantes on the internet.
The one thing I've never understood is the relationship between OpenDarwin and the distribution concerns. Although GNU-Darwin maintains its own fork of Darwin, it mostly functions as a distribution the way Fink does. Meaning, it is a solid addition to OS X and not its replacement. However, only Fink seems to be traveling in the same direction as OpenDarwin, as far as strategic interests are concerned.
GNU-Darwin almost seems to be hindering the entire Mac OSS unix community. It's only logical that the community should be centered around the PPC. Especially now that the G5 is on its way. This is where OpenDarwin and Fink are pouring all of their porting energy into. GNU-Darwin on the other hand has strangely abandoned the PPC in favor of x86 compatible chips. I believe the spokesman "proclus" said that they had to refuse to work with Apple over some free software issues.
This almost surreal splintering can do nothing but harm the overall effort of ported OSS software for the Mac. If we can't agree that the PPC is the heart of the Mac, than what can we agree on?
I work for a medium sized (137 employees) company that processes customer data for many retail outlets, as well as a multi-national bank. We were one of the first companies to drop our entire line of Windows servers (workstations unchanged) for a Red Hat Linux solution in the summer of 2000. Porting our internal applications was a real pain, but the significantly increased uptime and greater ease of administration made up for all initial shortcomings.
Fast forward to end of 2002, and we had become disgusted with Red Hat's road map for its' Advanced Server license. It seemed as though we had lost all of the benefits of the GPL.
There was no way we were going back to M$, but there was a movement from higher up top to change distributions. To make a long story short, we passed on SuSe and chose the often corporately overlooked Gentoo.
The benefits of this move are stunning. We have been able to hire 16 additional employees to handle our own fork of Portage, and 22 additional employees to provide support. Not only to we do a "ghost compile" for each box (many different Pentium and Athlon systems), we also take a minimalist approach. The combination of those two choices have enabled us to increase performance per box to something like 26% faster on average.
With the obvious help of the Gentoo open source community, we have created a low cost, self-sustained IT department that can function well into the next decade. Thanks Gentoo!
I won't let my kids watch movies, and I certainly don't watch them either. TV's one thing (Discovery channel, etc.) but I'd rather they read information and learn via the Internet or books than stare at some drug-using immoral Hollywood "stars" as they stumble through their lines on screen while we pay $9 for a ticket and $5 for a Coke and $6 for popcorn.
Spend time outside or something. There's so much more to life, and the Universe, than movies.
I blame Slashdot, I blame ThinkGeek, and I blame everyone and anyone who's ever dramatized actors or rockstars or athletes.
What ever happened to using one's brain? Society is heading down the tubes. Where are family values? Where are the American jobs?
Moore's Law states that processor speed will increase ten-fold every 18 months. This is dependent more on economics (demand) than on science. Most technologists doubt Moore's Law will hold forever. However, it has held true for the past 34 years.
Perhaps with the inevitable introduction of the quantum computer in the near future, we will see the significance of Moore's Law. Image the possibility of an one terra-flop quantum computer doubling to two terra-flops within 18 months. The thought of such a situation arising is incredibly exciting.
This is the operating system most of the computers in the world use? It's truly telling mostly about the economic system that drives this world we live in. I am absolutely convinced that the U.N. should mandate the outlaw of software patents, multi-national corporations, and proprietary software.
This would certainly eliminate the deplorable labor conditions in the third world, as well as fix the awful problem of homogenous computer environments (i.e. M$ dominated networks).
It's probably just that some executives need a little extra cash to spend on this upcoming winter vacation season. I see nothing nefarious about people wanting to take their money out of the stock market in this down economy. Not only is it proper, it's prudent.
Gentoo already provides this service and much more. I have used the the ports collection (Portage) to download the source of each and every package that is on this new LANSL LiveCD.
Why would I want to use an unoptimized version of each of these security tools when I could speed up their operation by at least 10%?
It just makes imminently more sense to only have source on your CD. What's the use of binary packaged security tools that could have buffer overflow vulnerabilities of their own, that I could not first examine before using.
What is the purpose of IBM responding to such clear taunting by Darl McBird? It's better to own the courtroom than the public arena of FUD exchange.
I propose that IBM just drop its' countersuit in favor of backing the effort that Red Hat is making with its' suit. This is one of the few areas where IBM should learn from M$. Just stay in the background, secretly directing your pro-Linux policy (as opposed to M$'s anti-linux agenda).
Mr. Ian Clarke is truly a genius in his field of distributed systems. Is there much room for criticism of some actions he has taken though? I think so.
All products must reach a critical mass at some point. Otherwise, quality products will go into oblivion, e.g. BeOS. The fundamental flaw with Mr Clarke's work is that it was motivated by a desire to make digital viewing of child pornography undetectable by law enforcement. These kind of products will never reach a critical mass, and in turn never flourish in the mainstream market.
Not to take the metaphor too far but,
on
Linux Hits the Road
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Linux is the road. It is the road connecting to an intersection, a "T" intersection. Linux either stops its' phenomenal growth all at once, putters out after lawsuits, or grows to 25% of the world market share.
I tend to view Linux's future in binary terms. It is either 0 (a failure) or 1 (a success). I think the failure will come if Linus ever adopts ReiserFS code in the kernel. The success will most likely come if the FSF updates the GPL to include a section where corporations can patent GPL'ed software. Patenting is what sparks innovation. We have a lot in OSS right now, but we'll have more if companies like Red Hat can patent large portions of their distribution.
It's difficult to admit, but this is the same kind of wishful thinking that went on during the Linux market hype days of the late nineties.
It's just illogical to do this kind of statistical analysis with the "true believers" in an already infinitesimal portion of the market.
That's not to say that new, admittedly odd, paradigms cannot develop with new technology. This is less transportation and communication though, and more to doodoo with economics. That is why this seems incredibly far-fetched IMHO.
There's two problems I see with the authors math. First it doesn't measure real real-world conditions. Don't get me wrong, office connectivity is valid. But where's the growth? It's in ISP implementations. Big cities are specifically making use of it. Needless to say there are a plethora of different sized buildings in those areas.
Second, algorithms are an important part of CS, but geez, I have yet to see where fluid conditions have been calculated with necessary precision with just a monolithic algorithm. These measures should have been "componetized" and solved with more refined equations.
I think whenever you read analysis or someones take on an issue, you have to boil down their argument to their emotional state. It's difficult with words alone, but it can be done.
The submitter noted the authors optimism. I felt something different. I sensed that he masked the anxiety he felt about Linux's fate, and projected an air of cautious optimism.
Not that logic is something we humans have a great abbundance of, but to my mind, logic dictates a great role in the thought process when speculation is involved. Afterall, it will be almost a year before this reaches trial.
There are two problems I see with his essay. First, he denies that the FSF is capable of handling questions about the GPL. The FSF is the heart and soul of the GPL. I couldn't disagree with him more. And second, he makes it sound as if Redhat is better than Gentoo. I don't buy that. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.
I just ordered a new iPod. I wonder if I should cancel my order.
I don't mean to warrant a "flamebait" score attribute, but this is why slashdot "editors" receive so much disdain. I doubt there is any reader who cares the least bit about your or Rob's or Michael's opinion. You guys always seem to shove it down our throats though.
Obviously this will leave some to wonder if they should now wait to get an iPod or canceling an existing order. Yet, the smart aleck way in which you phrase your "wonder" is just apalling. No more biased "editorializing" please...
Although this type of article is a daily (ah!) attraction at osnews, I still think this one has some merit. The key points are very valid.
A verbose filesystem for the user (through symlinks or other masked methods).
One GUI to pour all your resources into.
One or two applications of the same type (to limit bloat, confusion for newbs, and the "too many CDs" problem).
I think he was pretty reasonable overall. The only really questionable item was how he wanted to deal with dependency problems. He wanted to put every known library known to man in the distro. apparently. Not a good solution IMHO.
I think it has to be said that slashdot book reviews, much of the time, are just reviews of the table of contents.
This is not the case with this particular review. Both good and bad aspects were covered. As well as a conclusion that compares this book with others of the same ilk.
Also, it's very interesting that OS X gets so much attention from the publishing industry. Coincidence? I think not.
I would only caution that there seems to be a double standard here.
If I wanted to install Windows on a box with Linux already on it, would it recognize and then resize an ext3 partition? No. Linux is able to do a damn good job at that with even the quite sophisticated, closed source NTFS filesystem.
The simple fact is that Linux has a great disadvantage when dealing with the huge volume of hardware that is out there. The blame for that disadvantage is squarely on the shoulders of hardware manufacturers though.
Is there really any doubt that the free (both ways) Linux operating system would not be making greater strides than it already is if the playing field was level?
Slashdot Mirror
In March of 2002, my company shifted three-fourths of our CUW Systems Team (kern-devs) -- which had been untouched, platform-wise, the previous two years -- onto a parallel development path with Linux 2.4.18.
This bold (in my opinion) decision was made despite Wind River International, the dominate embedded software technologist, matter-of-factly asserting at the time that they view Linux as inferior to their preferred platform, VxWorks, and would never include Linux in their product line. (They eventually changed their minds.)
Four months later, on July 19, 2002, my company, in consultation with our customers, announced that we were ending all new development for CUW, were placing it into maintenance mode, and were solely developing for Linux. On a personal level, myself and most of my team were ecstatic about the new direction the company was taking.
As we are all so evidently aware, the SCO Group began its grandiloquent and legal smear campaign against Linux in February, and March of 2003. Well almost four months ago, I was assigned the somewhat informal task of determining the validity of the SCO claims of ownership to Linux. Despite the seemingly preposterous evidence offered thus far by SCO, I'm saddened to reveal that they may have a solid case for copyright infringement in the 2.4 Linux kernel.
There are three code pieces that appear to be copied verbatim. The first is forty-two lines of packet handling code. Following the ip_vs_state_table variable is where most of the infringement takes place. Only the state transition handling seems to be original. The second is sixteen lines of VM allocation code. Five lines after CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM, and eleven lines after VMALLOC_VMADDR. And the last is seven lines after SELFPOWER, USB specific power management code.
It's possible, some would say probable, that this is actually code that SCO copied from Linux. Not the inverse. I'm not knowledgeable enough of the history to determine that, but it definitely needs to be looked into. Nevertheless, it's still accurate to state that the vast majority of the Linux kernel code is original. And that's really the only fact that matters to the nontechnical mass media.
Like most users of Linux, we are at the point where we are not going to stand still while SCO trashes the entire Free Software movement. I have already authorized a payment of $10,000 to the FSF, and a payment of $5,000 to the Red Hat Open Source Now fund. If you want to do all you can during this waiting period before the trial, I would urge you to sign this petition that signifies the unity of the Free and Open source communities against SCO's outlandish claims.
The surface area of the pipe is significantly diminished compared to other similarly designed systems. This leads me to believe that there will be much more "air heat". Fortunately, this shouldn't affect the circuitry.
Another difference I picked up on immediately is the use of motor oil as the cooling fluid. This will mean that the entire chassis will be at least 5 pounds heavier. Not a big concern for most.
The final aspect I will comment on is the use of "induction through aerodynamics". I will only say that you better have your air conditioner blowing toward the computer, or better yet, a small fan.
Preliminarily, I give it a B-. I do hold out hope that it is better than the pictures show it to be.
For example, if I were to to write a virus that called one of the myriad of registry functions in Windows, my virus would have to be registered for authentication with MS beforehand. It is highly unlikely that MS's inspectors would not notice the harmful intent of my code.
Although there is a lot of fear about DRM in the Free & Open source communities, there need not be in reality. This is for two reasons. First, it would not be difficult to craft an open source DRM specification and submit it to the W3C. This means it will not be patentable. And second, with the registration mechanism handled through the W3C, developers would only have to submit their code for DRM authentication for a small fee of 1000-2000 dollars. This could easily cover the W3C's administrative costs, and would be economically viable for open source developers.
Just my $00.02.
Lets get real about two things. First, it's not illegal to send unsolicited emails. Second, it's not illegal to use passive defensive measures to block said spam.
After that, it's all up to the investigators. Aggressive anti-spam activists should be locked up. They do more harm than good. I worked briefly as a spammer, but then lost my income as a result of an anti-spam hacker with a chip on his shoulder. Lets just say that it's not a pleasant experience. There's no use for vigilantes on the internet.
GNU-Darwin almost seems to be hindering the entire Mac OSS unix community. It's only logical that the community should be centered around the PPC. Especially now that the G5 is on its way. This is where OpenDarwin and Fink are pouring all of their porting energy into. GNU-Darwin on the other hand has strangely abandoned the PPC in favor of x86 compatible chips. I believe the spokesman "proclus" said that they had to refuse to work with Apple over some free software issues.
This almost surreal splintering can do nothing but harm the overall effort of ported OSS software for the Mac. If we can't agree that the PPC is the heart of the Mac, than what can we agree on?
Fast forward to end of 2002, and we had become disgusted with Red Hat's road map for its' Advanced Server license. It seemed as though we had lost all of the benefits of the GPL.
There was no way we were going back to M$, but there was a movement from higher up top to change distributions. To make a long story short, we passed on SuSe and chose the often corporately overlooked Gentoo.
The benefits of this move are stunning. We have been able to hire 16 additional employees to handle our own fork of Portage, and 22 additional employees to provide support. Not only to we do a "ghost compile" for each box (many different Pentium and Athlon systems), we also take a minimalist approach. The combination of those two choices have enabled us to increase performance per box to something like 26% faster on average.
With the obvious help of the Gentoo open source community, we have created a low cost, self-sustained IT department that can function well into the next decade. Thanks Gentoo!
Spend time outside or something. There's so much more to life, and the Universe, than movies. I blame Slashdot, I blame ThinkGeek, and I blame everyone and anyone who's ever dramatized actors or rockstars or athletes. What ever happened to using one's brain? Society is heading down the tubes. Where are family values? Where are the American jobs?
Perhaps with the inevitable introduction of the quantum computer in the near future, we will see the significance of Moore's Law. Image the possibility of an one terra-flop quantum computer doubling to two terra-flops within 18 months. The thought of such a situation arising is incredibly exciting.
This would certainly eliminate the deplorable labor conditions in the third world, as well as fix the awful problem of homogenous computer environments (i.e. M$ dominated networks).
It's probably just that some executives need a little extra cash to spend on this upcoming winter vacation season. I see nothing nefarious about people wanting to take their money out of the stock market in this down economy. Not only is it proper, it's prudent.
Why would I want to use an unoptimized version of each of these security tools when I could speed up their operation by at least 10%?
It just makes imminently more sense to only have source on your CD. What's the use of binary packaged security tools that could have buffer overflow vulnerabilities of their own, that I could not first examine before using.
I propose that IBM just drop its' countersuit in favor of backing the effort that Red Hat is making with its' suit. This is one of the few areas where IBM should learn from M$. Just stay in the background, secretly directing your pro-Linux policy (as opposed to M$'s anti-linux agenda).
All products must reach a critical mass at some point. Otherwise, quality products will go into oblivion, e.g. BeOS. The fundamental flaw with Mr Clarke's work is that it was motivated by a desire to make digital viewing of child pornography undetectable by law enforcement. These kind of products will never reach a critical mass, and in turn never flourish in the mainstream market.
I tend to view Linux's future in binary terms. It is either 0 (a failure) or 1 (a success). I think the failure will come if Linus ever adopts ReiserFS code in the kernel. The success will most likely come if the FSF updates the GPL to include a section where corporations can patent GPL'ed software. Patenting is what sparks innovation. We have a lot in OSS right now, but we'll have more if companies like Red Hat can patent large portions of their distribution.
It's just illogical to do this kind of statistical analysis with the "true believers" in an already infinitesimal portion of the market.
That's not to say that new, admittedly odd, paradigms cannot develop with new technology. This is less transportation and communication though, and more to doodoo with economics. That is why this seems incredibly far-fetched IMHO.
There's two problems I see with the authors math. First it doesn't measure real real-world conditions. Don't get me wrong, office connectivity is valid. But where's the growth? It's in ISP implementations. Big cities are specifically making use of it. Needless to say there are a plethora of different sized buildings in those areas.
Second, algorithms are an important part of CS, but geez, I have yet to see where fluid conditions have been calculated with necessary precision with just a monolithic algorithm. These measures should have been "componetized" and solved with more refined equations.
I think whenever you read analysis or someones take on an issue, you have to boil down their argument to their emotional state. It's difficult with words alone, but it can be done.
The submitter noted the authors optimism. I felt something different. I sensed that he masked the anxiety he felt about Linux's fate, and projected an air of cautious optimism.
Not that logic is something we humans have a great abbundance of, but to my mind, logic dictates a great role in the thought process when speculation is involved. Afterall, it will be almost a year before this reaches trial.
There are two problems I see with his essay. First, he denies that the FSF is capable of handling questions about the GPL. The FSF is the heart and soul of the GPL. I couldn't disagree with him more. And second, he makes it sound as if Redhat is better than Gentoo. I don't buy that. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.
I don't mean to warrant a "flamebait" score attribute, but this is why slashdot "editors" receive so much disdain. I doubt there is any reader who cares the least bit about your or Rob's or Michael's opinion. You guys always seem to shove it down our throats though.
Obviously this will leave some to wonder if they should now wait to get an iPod or canceling an existing order. Yet, the smart aleck way in which you phrase your "wonder" is just apalling. No more biased "editorializing" please...
A verbose filesystem for the user (through symlinks or other masked methods).
One GUI to pour all your resources into.
One or two applications of the same type (to limit bloat, confusion for newbs, and the "too many CDs" problem).
I think he was pretty reasonable overall. The only really questionable item was how he wanted to deal with dependency problems. He wanted to put every known library known to man in the distro. apparently. Not a good solution IMHO.
You have to compile a DOS module into the Linux kernel. It's the 3rd or 4th link when you google for "DOS linux module".
you fag ;)
What is this supposed to mean? Open source is more compatible with communism? That sounds like a subtle insult to me.
There is absolutely nothing spectacular about corporations dealing with open source software.
This is not the case with this particular review. Both good and bad aspects were covered. As well as a conclusion that compares this book with others of the same ilk.
Also, it's very interesting that OS X gets so much attention from the publishing industry. Coincidence? I think not.
If I wanted to install Windows on a box with Linux already on it, would it recognize and then resize an ext3 partition? No. Linux is able to do a damn good job at that with even the quite sophisticated, closed source NTFS filesystem.
The simple fact is that Linux has a great disadvantage when dealing with the huge volume of hardware that is out there. The blame for that disadvantage is squarely on the shoulders of hardware manufacturers though.
Is there really any doubt that the free (both ways) Linux operating system would not be making greater strides than it already is if the playing field was level?