That was true, also about how hard they were to plug into the drive, I quickly learned to plug them into the drive and snake the ribbon cable through while putting in the drive. Then it was simple to plug the cable to the board.
Conficker messes with DNS not HTTP, assuming they did not want to DDoS themselves they would have to now build in an HTTP proxy (to pass three requests on and 404 the rest) and a firewall to not let anything out to those IPs other than TCP port 80, good luck with that.
They did call a quorum, at the beginning of bringing it to the floor, with 500+ members present, almost 41 hours before the vote, then they were told the vote would be first thing next week, so almost everyone went home. Sadly in France there is no easy way for a member to force a quorum call at a later point. This was an abuse of the rules.
Not only does it miss some biggies (oh like VMS) but it is rife with errors. For example right away it says:
"Two of our early favorite programs -- WordStar and dBase -- were developed for CP/M; thanks to the operating system, they could run unaltered on 8080-, 8088- and 8086-based computers."
The 8080 (and Z80) opcodes are very different than those of the 8086 and 8088. First CP/M was made for the 8080, then it worked on the largely compatible Z80 and 8085. Then a port was made to the 8088 and 8086, CP/M-86. Programs were said to be source compatible, but back then large chunks of programs were written in assembly, so they would need to be rewritten. Also CP/M did little to abstract the peculiarities of the console and printers used in different systems so there was in fact lots of different code for that as well. Moreover some programs were written that took advantage of Z80 features, I think dBase was in fact one of those.
My aunt, uncle, two cousins, and their children live in Germany. I now live in the US. Here is the difference as I see it. In the US the requirements for a police officer are often little more than a high school education. The bulk of the young officers are the bullies from that period. They mellow as they age. In Germany they are more stringent in requirements. On the other hand in Germany there is significantly more nepotism in hiring, where people that know the right people end-up being hired over those that are more highly qualified. In the US if you want to be a police officer, find a rural county and it is very simple to become a deputy.
The SUSD board are unpaid, it will not end their careers. They are business people and former educators. The assistant principal at the time is still working as the assistant principal. My guess is the community is so small the circle of administrators and business leaders is so tight knit that they simply do not care.
Here is the thing, six years later the same assistant principal continues to be employed at the same school at the same position. Look-up SMS online, he's on the principals page. greatschools.net has three parent ratings averaging 4/5 stars with nothing about this. My guess is that the community does not know about it or forgot. Reading the second page of the article was gut wrenching with respects to the effects on the girl.
I first went to a high school with 800+ students in my class, then after a move went to one with 80. The large one had problems with drugs and gangs, the small one not. Heck I was there when students started a fire in one wing and another time when a student was chased down by police when carrying a gun. The admins of the small school were abhorent while the large school largely let students be as long as they were in the right place at the right time. The ones from the small school used the specter of drugs, gangs, and guns to get away with stupid policies.
SMS is a similar school, my guess is that the same sort of bs goes on there. It is never helped when the admins and business leaders in the community are the same circle of scum, it is likely the case here as well. To them protecting one of their own makes perfect sense regardless of how much money and court time it wastes. They do not see that they are making themselves look like imbeciles.
Is that the assistant principal at the time who ordered the strip searches of both children is still employed as the assistant principal of Safford Middle School. This is the directory of information for him at the bottom of this page:
Wilson, Kerry, Mr. Assistant Principal Room: SMS_Office Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4706 E-Mail: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
Here is what I fail to understand: This monster and idiot did not have enough judgement to realize this was sexual harassment of minor, child abuse, and a violation of unreasonable search and seizure and yet to this day he is still allowed to work with children? At the same job! I mean if I had cost my employer so much money in legal matters alone I would have been immediately sh*tcanned and anyone that called for references would have been told that they would not hire me again given the choice.
Here is the contact info for the principal:
SMS Principal Contact 612 W. 11th Street Safford, AZ 85546 Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4701 Fax: 928-348-7041 cEmery@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
Here is the contact info for the super intendant:
Dr. Mark R. Tregaskes 734 W. 11th St. Safford, AZ 85546 Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7203 Fax: 928-348-7001
Mr. Mike DeLaO, Governing Board President Mrs. Julie Cluff, Governing Board Member Mrs. Diane Junion, Governing Board Member Dr. Richard Lines, Governing Board Member Mr. David Player, Governing Board Member
Board News Contact 734 W. 11th St. Safford, AZ 85546 Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7701 Fax: 928-348-7001 gcurtis@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
I think those of us that are more sensible should write some civil but clear letters to help them see how miserably poor judgement certain employees of theirs have.
PJ, I tried very hard to not make my statements about Danese an attack on her. There is emotion here on my side even so many years later so it is difficult. What I saw from the floor surrounded by the other engineers did not match her statements. Her statements on two occasions have caused me to have to defend myself as an advocate of FOSS at where I worked later and that was not a pleasant situation to be in for me when I was then only saying a) that is not true and b) no I will not say more. I saw here the FUD still flying and I decided it had been enough years and it was time to give my perspective on what happened. If I had been completely a jerk I could have devolved into a personal attack with pointless second hand stuff, but I did not.
You had the perspective of what certain people told you. I have the perspective of what I saw. People could have not told you the truth or what they had themselves heard but not known first hand. On the other hand I certainly do not have the full picture either. Possibly there was some engineer that was deemed very valuable that was against the GPL that I do not know about. But as I wrote in a reply, I recall a discussion that took place amongst about a dozen of us (which first started between two) about whether Sun should do a license incompatible with the GPL solely for that reason. Soon we had reached consensus that this was ridiculous. I even know of engineers that were advocates of the GPL as the best for Sun as it guaranteed Sun could use whatever was modified by others.
What happened from my perspective is that Sun lawyers and people at the VP level were concerned about patents and contracts with others. Then when people started combing through the source looking for trouble it was seen that there were many files that would be problematic. So the license needed to protect Sun regarding the contracts and patents and it needed to be something that only applied per file, that would allow almost everything to be released under open solaris. Those two concerns are really what shaped the CDDL, and that was from input of the lawyers from the meetings themselves.
Danese was pushing the GPL, but people at the VP level and above decided that there was no time to wait that long for GPLv3 which some hoped would address the first issues. The amount of work that would be needed to make replacements for the troublesome files was unacceptable also. There was a great concern that if delays occurred the balance would tip and the VPs against open souring would win out and there would be no open source solaris at all. In fact this coupled with layoffs is what sadly killed another open source project during a similar time frame. Open solaris started in late 1999 where three engineers began to convince one particular VP about the value of open sourcing ON. There was resistance by other VPs but in end it went forward for various reasons. Then around 2001-2002 semi-regular meetings began and people were tasked to work on this pretty much exclusively. If you came into this around the time of the CDDL, then that was very late into the process. I think many people take for granted just what and enormous undertaking this whole process was.
In any case Danese's statements were lies from my point of view, and very hurtful. Certainly I know of no engineer, especially me, that was against the GPL because they felt that they did not want their work released under the GPL. That is what Danese's comments characterized us as. The other thing that bothers me is that there is FUD still being spread that the CDDL was made with the primary purpose to be incompatible with the GPL. The people that spread this use that talk by Danese as their sole evidence. I felt I needed to offer a counterargument.
I'm really walking a fine line here. I need to express that everything I state and stated is my personal opinion. Also Sun was my first real job after college and I owe everything I learned about being a good programmer thanks to the fantastic engineers I worked with. Working with them taught me everything, nothing I learned in college was right. I entered Sun as not very good at my job and left finally trained for success. It was a fabulous place with even better people and I owe the fact that I am a decent coder now to those few valuable enjoyable years as Sun.
You only looked at one aspect of what I described. I may be revealing more than I should. The fact is that 2001 one very key engineer brought-up a question. It was in fact should Sun release solaris under a license specifically incompatible with the GPL to protect Sun. The consensus was reached that Sun should not in a day or so. So you see right then and there the anti GPL as the prime reason is debunked. In fact there was a number of people that felt that the GPL was best (others liked more MIT or BSD likes) because it guaranteed Sun could use what was distributed by others. Unfortunately the lawyers then brought-up all the patent and contracts crap-ola when open sourcing solaris became a formal process with semi-regular meetings. At that point some people were tasked with combing through ON to decide what could be released and what needed changes. That involved the person in the post you responded to that I wrote before. This was a huge task. During that work the per file aspect of a potential license became a clear requirement.
At the same time Danese (if what she said can be trusted) or someone she asked contacted someone high up in FSF (no not Stallman) and some effort was made to get GPL to address the patent garbage. People with business sense soon realized that there was no way that this would be done in time. The lawyers were squirmy at if a new bullet proof GPL could even be created. Sun was a potential huge target for lawsuits after all. So out of this the CDDL was born. The faq I previously linked to gives the same information in a responsible way.
Danese's comments were untrue and hurtful to Sun and its employees. They have been used as evidence by GPL zealots at spreading this FUD for years now. My guess as to the reason she made those comments was that she was upset about the GPL not working out. In the times I saw her she thought very highly of herself and her point of view. Again that is all my opinion.
Finally before all of this a person that was at that point a VP at Sun was convinced of the value of open sourcing solaris for the future of Sun by a handful of engineers. He worked very hard to convince the other people at high levels. That had more to do with open solaris than anything else in the end. There were no fear of Linux sentiments at that point early on, dot com was still doing great at that point, it was more of a Sun needs to do what IBM and RedHat are argument.
You do not see people commenting on this publicly from inside Sun because that is not the right thing to do. I hope what I have written here does not cause me grief in the future but I think it is important to get my opinion of what happened out there because over the years there have been less scrupulous people making damaging comments.
It was an ex Sun employee who said that. Many Sun employees that know that was not the truth. My guess is that she said it because she was upset that the GPL she was championing was not used but instead the CDDL was created. There are very many practical reasons that the CDDL was created and that Sun could not wait around for GPLv3 while hoping it would meet the requirements eventually:
I worked down the hall from an engineer very much involved in the whole open sourcing of Solaris at the time. The people that knew about this back then would agree that he was the principle engineer working on this, so much so that he had hardly any time for putbacks, so I got to see a lot of what was happening.
I really can't think of any engineer on that floor or the one below nor anyone I knew from England or LA that was opposed to the GPL because they did not want their work released under that license. That is the view that Danese expressed, and I believe she was incorrect. In fact she sullied the reputation of the whole lot of us when she made that talk and upset me and other people I am sure. Rather there were a portion of the engineers that felt that releasing under the GPL would be bad for Sun since Linux could take parts of Solaris and then destroy Sun. In any case it was not the engineers that made the decisions about the CDDL and not for those reasons (Sun could do whatever it wanted with the code its employees wrote), rather it was a committee with involvement from many other groups as well including many lawyers and most of everyone VP level and up with roots in the ON tree.
I knew about Danese when there and she came across as a zealot. She lost the argument for GPL and since then has behaved like a diva about that. Cooler heads prevailed. There were practical reasons that the GPL or LGPL was not appropriate and GPLv3 would not be ready for years. One big reason was the patent clusterf*ck and the other was that people at Sun wanted anyone else to be able to use open source solaris code in any way they liked as long as it was open source as well. That created the CDDL which was a file based license. It allowed you to mix in whatever other files you wanted and just those files that were CDDL to begin with remained so. There was no is it linked, statically linked, how much of the.h files are used, do you needed anything under a different license to build it, etc. That is the real reason that the CDDL was created. It is not the fault of Sun and certainly not the fine engineers that the GPL is incompatible with that.
Sure some people that were afraid of Sun collapsing if Linux could just take the good parts of Solaris wholesale and were worried about the future of the company because of that breathed a sigh of relief, but it was not because of them or that worry that the CDDL was created. The fact remains that if people high enough were not convinced that open souring at all was a risk to Sun's future, there would be no open solaris period.
That is my opinion and point of view of what took place. An official explanation of the CDDL is here:
It goes into details about the whys of CDDL and the why nots of other licenses. It is a fair explanation. So the point to take home is that there are those that think being incompatible with the GPL was the prime reason for the CDDL, other people think that is not the case and there were other prime reasons. The people that make the anti GPL argument are all big GPL proponents though. Also truthfully there were some people relieved when open solaris was not under the GPL, but for the simple reason that they were worried about the future of the company, not that they did not want the work that they had done released under the GPL. SUNW (back then) had gone from $110+ to less than $30 per share in that period afterall, people were twitchy. I can tell you that it was a great feeling personally when I knew other people could see and use the code that I had written.
"IIRC, during the x86's long development (or mutation), Intel added some features because they could, and because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Some of those features were never much used, or turned out to be not such a good idea, or were rendered mostly irrelevant by design changes in the next generation."
See the bound instruction. The only reason I know about it is because I jumped to it once after some stack corruption. That was definitely a pie in the sky instruction created by the computer scientists instead of the engineers.
Are yo kidding? Years ago the last time I had cable AMC just appeared. It played older great movies. Movies that were next to impossible to find at video rental places and libraries. Now it looks to be mostly TV shows, ones that you can very easily find on NetFlix, libraries, and if you don't care to wait torrent sites. AMC is in decline.
You can use them together. I made DVD menus once by having ffmpeg output PPM to stdout, then a little perl and IM played with the images, and then I piped that back into another ffmpeg process. There was a little patch I had to make back then to ffmpeg but it worked great. This is how I got moving images into a static background in the menus before there was any other way to do it with free software. You could also export to bunch of numbered png or ppm files if you liked back then with no patches. At this point ffmpeg does have some better but still limited support for this sort of thing so you can edit the images while encoding.
I had been Windows free since 1996 (Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris only), but recently I got a used XP machine because my kids were having trouble keeping-up in school with the computer stuff because they did not have the same programs at home. Well the XP machine was just too slow, so I bought a new Vista machine (I also have FreeBSD on it for me).
Wow that sounded like an alcoholic rationalizing falling off the wagon...
What is a good alternative to Acrobat for Windows? Preview.app is fine on the Mac and xpdf works great on everything else I have ever used. I don't want to try all the Windows options, maybe someone already has and can offer the suggestion of a good one for Windows?
rename(2) is not guaranteed to be atomic. There are now some patches that get ext4 to perform what most people expect #2 to do. I got bitten by #2 not working correctly on MacOS X some time back, I just googled and found this:
Ever since that time I have been using fsync in my code when I needed it. You just get into a world of hurt when you expect #2 to work right under every OS and fs and set of mount options because it doesn't.
MS is lucky, they have all the source to Silverlight,.Net, and all the related stuff. Since.Net is a JIT VM, porting it to a PPC mac would entail basically all the same amount of work needed to write a compiler, linker, and run time library, ouch, doubly ouch for a dying platform. This is the reason incidentally that MS did not support PPC Macs, there were plenty of PPC G4 and G5 systems with enough MIPS and FLOPS that VC-1 would be no problem even for 720P and very high bitrates.
MS is not using the whole Silverlight stack on the xbox 360. It is mostly a typical compiled application with only what is necessary to decode VC-1 plus to do some HTTP.
I've been using webkit nightly for a while now, but SFX IS much faster than safari3 was the last time I used it. It's about 12 times faster on sunspider:
"In particular, the version of V8 used here is the bleeding-edge branch, which is a bit faster than the version that shipped with Chrome." "As you can see, SquirrelFish Extreme is 36% faster than V8"
Slashdot Mirror
That was true, also about how hard they were to plug into the drive, I quickly learned to plug them into the drive and snake the ribbon cable through while putting in the drive. Then it was simple to plug the cable to the board.
The rumor I heard is that he suffered a debilitating stroke instead of dead. Our rumors are both based on what wonks dreamed-up, so who knows.
Conficker messes with DNS not HTTP, assuming they did not want to DDoS themselves they would have to now build in an HTTP proxy (to pass three requests on and 404 the rest) and a firewall to not let anything out to those IPs other than TCP port 80, good luck with that.
They did call a quorum, at the beginning of bringing it to the floor, with 500+ members present, almost 41 hours before the vote, then they were told the vote would be first thing next week, so almost everyone went home. Sadly in France there is no easy way for a member to force a quorum call at a later point. This was an abuse of the rules.
Not only does it miss some biggies (oh like VMS) but it is rife with errors. For example right away it says:
"Two of our early favorite programs -- WordStar and dBase -- were developed for CP/M; thanks to the operating system, they could run unaltered on 8080-, 8088- and 8086-based computers."
The 8080 (and Z80) opcodes are very different than those of the 8086 and 8088. First CP/M was made for the 8080, then it worked on the largely compatible Z80 and 8085. Then a port was made to the 8088 and 8086, CP/M-86. Programs were said to be source compatible, but back then large chunks of programs were written in assembly, so they would need to be rewritten. Also CP/M did little to abstract the peculiarities of the console and printers used in different systems so there was in fact lots of different code for that as well. Moreover some programs were written that took advantage of Z80 features, I think dBase was in fact one of those.
You're creepy.
My aunt, uncle, two cousins, and their children live in Germany. I now live in the US. Here is the difference as I see it. In the US the requirements for a police officer are often little more than a high school education. The bulk of the young officers are the bullies from that period. They mellow as they age. In Germany they are more stringent in requirements. On the other hand in Germany there is significantly more nepotism in hiring, where people that know the right people end-up being hired over those that are more highly qualified. In the US if you want to be a police officer, find a rural county and it is very simple to become a deputy.
The SUSD board are unpaid, it will not end their careers. They are business people and former educators. The assistant principal at the time is still working as the assistant principal. My guess is the community is so small the circle of administrators and business leaders is so tight knit that they simply do not care.
Here is the thing, six years later the same assistant principal continues to be employed at the same school at the same position. Look-up SMS online, he's on the principals page. greatschools.net has three parent ratings averaging 4/5 stars with nothing about this. My guess is that the community does not know about it or forgot. Reading the second page of the article was gut wrenching with respects to the effects on the girl.
I first went to a high school with 800+ students in my class, then after a move went to one with 80. The large one had problems with drugs and gangs, the small one not. Heck I was there when students started a fire in one wing and another time when a student was chased down by police when carrying a gun. The admins of the small school were abhorent while the large school largely let students be as long as they were in the right place at the right time. The ones from the small school used the specter of drugs, gangs, and guns to get away with stupid policies.
SMS is a similar school, my guess is that the same sort of bs goes on there. It is never helped when the admins and business leaders in the community are the same circle of scum, it is likely the case here as well. To them protecting one of their own makes perfect sense regardless of how much money and court time it wastes. They do not see that they are making themselves look like imbeciles.
Is that the assistant principal at the time who ordered the strip searches of both children is still employed as the assistant principal of Safford Middle School. This is the directory of information for him at the bottom of this page:
http://www.saffordusd.k12.az.us/exec/eSiteAddress.asp?set_site_to=sms&division=Site:+Principal&group_is=&group_id=
Wilson, Kerry, Mr.
Assistant Principal
Room: SMS_Office
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4706
E-Mail: KWilson@saffordusd.k12.az.us
Here is what I fail to understand: This monster and idiot did not have enough judgement to realize this was sexual harassment of minor, child abuse, and a violation of unreasonable search and seizure and yet to this day he is still allowed to work with children? At the same job! I mean if I had cost my employer so much money in legal matters alone I would have been immediately sh*tcanned and anyone that called for references would have been told that they would not hire me again given the choice.
Here is the contact info for the principal:
SMS Principal Contact
612 W. 11th Street
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7040 ext. 4701
Fax: 928-348-7041
cEmery@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
Here is the contact info for the super intendant:
Dr. Mark R. Tregaskes
734 W. 11th St.
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7203
Fax: 928-348-7001
Here are the school board members:
http://www.saffordusd.k12.az.us/exec/eHome.asp?set_site_to=RAC&division=RAC:+Board+News&group_is=
Mr. Mike DeLaO, Governing Board President
Mrs. Julie Cluff, Governing Board Member
Mrs. Diane Junion, Governing Board Member
Dr. Richard Lines, Governing Board Member
Mr. David Player, Governing Board Member
Board News Contact
734 W. 11th St.
Safford, AZ 85546
Phone: 928-348-7000 ext. 7701
Fax: 928-348-7001
gcurtis@SaffordUSD.k12.az.us
City of Safford
http://www.cityofsafford.us/?q=taxonomy/term/2
717 W Main Street
P.O. Box 272
Safford, Az 85548
Phone:(928) 348-3100
info@ci.safford.az.us
I think those of us that are more sensible should write some civil but clear letters to help them see how miserably poor judgement certain employees of theirs have.
PJ, I tried very hard to not make my statements about Danese an attack on her. There is emotion here on my side even so many years later so it is difficult. What I saw from the floor surrounded by the other engineers did not match her statements. Her statements on two occasions have caused me to have to defend myself as an advocate of FOSS at where I worked later and that was not a pleasant situation to be in for me when I was then only saying a) that is not true and b) no I will not say more. I saw here the FUD still flying and I decided it had been enough years and it was time to give my perspective on what happened. If I had been completely a jerk I could have devolved into a personal attack with pointless second hand stuff, but I did not.
You had the perspective of what certain people told you. I have the perspective of what I saw. People could have not told you the truth or what they had themselves heard but not known first hand. On the other hand I certainly do not have the full picture either. Possibly there was some engineer that was deemed very valuable that was against the GPL that I do not know about. But as I wrote in a reply, I recall a discussion that took place amongst about a dozen of us (which first started between two) about whether Sun should do a license incompatible with the GPL solely for that reason. Soon we had reached consensus that this was ridiculous. I even know of engineers that were advocates of the GPL as the best for Sun as it guaranteed Sun could use whatever was modified by others.
What happened from my perspective is that Sun lawyers and people at the VP level were concerned about patents and contracts with others. Then when people started combing through the source looking for trouble it was seen that there were many files that would be problematic. So the license needed to protect Sun regarding the contracts and patents and it needed to be something that only applied per file, that would allow almost everything to be released under open solaris. Those two concerns are really what shaped the CDDL, and that was from input of the lawyers from the meetings themselves.
Danese was pushing the GPL, but people at the VP level and above decided that there was no time to wait that long for GPLv3 which some hoped would address the first issues. The amount of work that would be needed to make replacements for the troublesome files was unacceptable also. There was a great concern that if delays occurred the balance would tip and the VPs against open souring would win out and there would be no open source solaris at all. In fact this coupled with layoffs is what sadly killed another open source project during a similar time frame. Open solaris started in late 1999 where three engineers began to convince one particular VP about the value of open sourcing ON. There was resistance by other VPs but in end it went forward for various reasons. Then around 2001-2002 semi-regular meetings began and people were tasked to work on this pretty much exclusively. If you came into this around the time of the CDDL, then that was very late into the process. I think many people take for granted just what and enormous undertaking this whole process was.
In any case Danese's statements were lies from my point of view, and very hurtful. Certainly I know of no engineer, especially me, that was against the GPL because they felt that they did not want their work released under the GPL. That is what Danese's comments characterized us as. The other thing that bothers me is that there is FUD still being spread that the CDDL was made with the primary purpose to be incompatible with the GPL. The people that spread this use that talk by Danese as their sole evidence. I felt I needed to offer a counterargument.
I'm really walking a fine line here. I need to express that everything I state and stated is my personal opinion. Also Sun was my first real job after college and I owe everything I learned about being a good programmer thanks to the fantastic engineers I worked with. Working with them taught me everything, nothing I learned in college was right. I entered Sun as not very good at my job and left finally trained for success. It was a fabulous place with even better people and I owe the fact that I am a decent coder now to those few valuable enjoyable years as Sun.
You only looked at one aspect of what I described. I may be revealing more than I should. The fact is that 2001 one very key engineer brought-up a question. It was in fact should Sun release solaris under a license specifically incompatible with the GPL to protect Sun. The consensus was reached that Sun should not in a day or so. So you see right then and there the anti GPL as the prime reason is debunked. In fact there was a number of people that felt that the GPL was best (others liked more MIT or BSD likes) because it guaranteed Sun could use what was distributed by others. Unfortunately the lawyers then brought-up all the patent and contracts crap-ola when open sourcing solaris became a formal process with semi-regular meetings. At that point some people were tasked with combing through ON to decide what could be released and what needed changes. That involved the person in the post you responded to that I wrote before. This was a huge task. During that work the per file aspect of a potential license became a clear requirement.
At the same time Danese (if what she said can be trusted) or someone she asked contacted someone high up in FSF (no not Stallman) and some effort was made to get GPL to address the patent garbage. People with business sense soon realized that there was no way that this would be done in time. The lawyers were squirmy at if a new bullet proof GPL could even be created. Sun was a potential huge target for lawsuits after all. So out of this the CDDL was born. The faq I previously linked to gives the same information in a responsible way.
Danese's comments were untrue and hurtful to Sun and its employees. They have been used as evidence by GPL zealots at spreading this FUD for years now. My guess as to the reason she made those comments was that she was upset about the GPL not working out. In the times I saw her she thought very highly of herself and her point of view. Again that is all my opinion.
Finally before all of this a person that was at that point a VP at Sun was convinced of the value of open sourcing solaris for the future of Sun by a handful of engineers. He worked very hard to convince the other people at high levels. That had more to do with open solaris than anything else in the end. There were no fear of Linux sentiments at that point early on, dot com was still doing great at that point, it was more of a Sun needs to do what IBM and RedHat are argument.
You do not see people commenting on this publicly from inside Sun because that is not the right thing to do. I hope what I have written here does not cause me grief in the future but I think it is important to get my opinion of what happened out there because over the years there have been less scrupulous people making damaging comments.
It was an ex Sun employee who said that. Many Sun employees that know that was not the truth. My guess is that she said it because she was upset that the GPL she was championing was not used but instead the CDDL was created. There are very many practical reasons that the CDDL was created and that Sun could not wait around for GPLv3 while hoping it would meet the requirements eventually:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/
It was hurtful, that is evidenced by the fact that people believe the FUD more than two years later.
That is the opinion of Danese Cooper. See this for the opinion of one of the engineers:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55013#55008
I worked down the hall from an engineer very much involved in the whole open sourcing of Solaris at the time. The people that knew about this back then would agree that he was the principle engineer working on this, so much so that he had hardly any time for putbacks, so I got to see a lot of what was happening.
I really can't think of any engineer on that floor or the one below nor anyone I knew from England or LA that was opposed to the GPL because they did not want their work released under that license. That is the view that Danese expressed, and I believe she was incorrect. In fact she sullied the reputation of the whole lot of us when she made that talk and upset me and other people I am sure. Rather there were a portion of the engineers that felt that releasing under the GPL would be bad for Sun since Linux could take parts of Solaris and then destroy Sun. In any case it was not the engineers that made the decisions about the CDDL and not for those reasons (Sun could do whatever it wanted with the code its employees wrote), rather it was a committee with involvement from many other groups as well including many lawyers and most of everyone VP level and up with roots in the ON tree.
I knew about Danese when there and she came across as a zealot. She lost the argument for GPL and since then has behaved like a diva about that. Cooler heads prevailed. There were practical reasons that the GPL or LGPL was not appropriate and GPLv3 would not be ready for years. One big reason was the patent clusterf*ck and the other was that people at Sun wanted anyone else to be able to use open source solaris code in any way they liked as long as it was open source as well. That created the CDDL which was a file based license. It allowed you to mix in whatever other files you wanted and just those files that were CDDL to begin with remained so. There was no is it linked, statically linked, how much of the .h files are used, do you needed anything under a different license to build it, etc. That is the real reason that the CDDL was created. It is not the fault of Sun and certainly not the fine engineers that the GPL is incompatible with that.
Sure some people that were afraid of Sun collapsing if Linux could just take the good parts of Solaris wholesale and were worried about the future of the company because of that breathed a sigh of relief, but it was not because of them or that worry that the CDDL was created. The fact remains that if people high enough were not convinced that open souring at all was a risk to Sun's future, there would be no open solaris period.
That is my opinion and point of view of what took place. An official explanation of the CDDL is here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/
It goes into details about the whys of CDDL and the why nots of other licenses. It is a fair explanation. So the point to take home is that there are those that think being incompatible with the GPL was the prime reason for the CDDL, other people think that is not the case and there were other prime reasons. The people that make the anti GPL argument are all big GPL proponents though. Also truthfully there were some people relieved when open solaris was not under the GPL, but for the simple reason that they were worried about the future of the company, not that they did not want the work that they had done released under the GPL. SUNW (back then) had gone from $110+ to less than $30 per share in that period afterall, people were twitchy. I can tell you that it was a great feeling personally when I knew other people could see and use the code that I had written.
"IIRC, during the x86's long development (or mutation), Intel added some features because they could, and because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Some of those features were never much used, or turned out to be not such a good idea, or were rendered mostly irrelevant by design changes in the next generation."
See the bound instruction. The only reason I know about it is because I jumped to it once after some stack corruption. That was definitely a pie in the sky instruction created by the computer scientists instead of the engineers.
Are yo kidding? Years ago the last time I had cable AMC just appeared. It played older great movies. Movies that were next to impossible to find at video rental places and libraries. Now it looks to be mostly TV shows, ones that you can very easily find on NetFlix, libraries, and if you don't care to wait torrent sites. AMC is in decline.
You can use them together. I made DVD menus once by having ffmpeg output PPM to stdout, then a little perl and IM played with the images, and then I piped that back into another ffmpeg process. There was a little patch I had to make back then to ffmpeg but it worked great. This is how I got moving images into a static background in the menus before there was any other way to do it with free software. You could also export to bunch of numbered png or ppm files if you liked back then with no patches. At this point ffmpeg does have some better but still limited support for this sort of thing so you can edit the images while encoding.
I had been Windows free since 1996 (Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris only), but recently I got a used XP machine because my kids were having trouble keeping-up in school with the computer stuff because they did not have the same programs at home. Well the XP machine was just too slow, so I bought a new Vista machine (I also have FreeBSD on it for me).
Wow that sounded like an alcoholic rationalizing falling off the wagon...
What is a good alternative to Acrobat for Windows? Preview.app is fine on the Mac and xpdf works great on everything else I have ever used. I don't want to try all the Windows options, maybe someone already has and can offer the suggestion of a good one for Windows?
Unfortunately that is case #2 as described here:
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781/comments/54
rename(2) is not guaranteed to be atomic. There are now some patches that get ext4 to perform what most people expect #2 to do. I got bitten by #2 not working correctly on MacOS X some time back, I just googled and found this:
http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html
Ever since that time I have been using fsync in my code when I needed it. You just get into a world of hurt when you expect #2 to work right under every OS and fs and set of mount options because it doesn't.
MS is lucky, they have all the source to Silverlight, .Net, and all the related stuff. Since .Net is a JIT VM, porting it to a PPC mac would entail basically all the same amount of work needed to write a compiler, linker, and run time library, ouch, doubly ouch for a dying platform. This is the reason incidentally that MS did not support PPC Macs, there were plenty of PPC G4 and G5 systems with enough MIPS and FLOPS that VC-1 would be no problem even for 720P and very high bitrates.
MS is not using the whole Silverlight stack on the xbox 360. It is mostly a typical compiled application with only what is necessary to decode VC-1 plus to do some HTTP.
Forget about HR, they really are not on your side. Contact your state attorney general, preferably via a lawyer.
Oh that will be fun scrolling left and right to read the text when the web dev decides to use 1280px across with a small font.
And this would exercise the help system's, iTunes', and Dashboard's use of webkit how?
I've been using webkit nightly for a while now, but SFX IS much faster than safari3 was the last time I used it. It's about 12 times faster on sunspider:
http://webkit.org/blog/214/introducing-squirrelfish-extreme/
If nitro is simply SFX, then a more honest factoid would be something like typically 33% faster than ff.
If Nitro is just marketing speak for SFX (SquirrelFish Extreme) then Apple is guilty of the worst "up to" benchmark numbers crap possible:
http://summerofjsc.blogspot.com/2008/09/squirrelfish-extreme-has-landed.html
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
"In particular, the version of V8 used here is the bleeding-edge branch, which is a bit faster than the version that shipped with Chrome."
"As you can see, SquirrelFish Extreme is 36% faster than V8"