... and those primitive people living in India will never be able to write code.
Look at supercondutors - the tech darling of the 80s - kids in junior school cook up superconductors these days. Once the principles are uncovered and made known it becomes a lot simpler for Joe Average to do just about anything. Thinking that only a superpower can recreate technologies of fifty years ago is just blind arrogance.
Attempting to apply logic to politicians is, in itself, illogical.
The purpose behind the control of information is not to limit the information itself, but to provide Stupid Voter the warm fuzzies that the government is doing everything it can to protect him from commies/terrorists/etc.
MS is about power-tripping. Linux development works because it is **not** about power tripping but about technical collaboration. Trying to take on the methods without the underlying ethos is as effective as praying without faith.
"... most people..." be careful, your tastes are not likely not typical of the planet at large.
eg. In some countries, cell phone coverage is way cheaper (and more reliable) than land line, so having a feature phone is a more convenient way to get info than a dial-up+PC.
You probably can't demand source for anything much more than the kernel. Likely there isn't much in the kernel that isn't already in ARM linux (ie. linux2.4.x + rmkx). The cell handling code etc etc is quite likely not in the kernel and not subject to GPL.
A lot depends what role the XScale is playing. The XScale does not have onboard SRAM and isn't good at doing low power (standby) stuff, like the OMAPs etc do. I have not looked at the details but I suspect that some other CPU is doing the cellphone handling and the XScale only wakes up during a call/active use.
A faster CPU does not have to mean (significantly) more power consumption. When there is nothing to process, the CPU sleeps, therefore typically the 400MHz CPU will just end up sleeping more, but will be there to kick in for more CPU intensive tasks.
It is because trade secrets are weak of themselves that they get special treatment in the courts. It is relatively common for trade secrets to get this kind of treatment (eg. if Coke was litigating against Brand X, they'd be allowed to keep their recipe secret).
However, in this case the technical trade secrets are already in the public domain (that's SCOs whole case - that their trade secrets have been made public - so it seems strange to keep these details closed. In effect the only secret is which files they are laying claim to.
The use of a jury freaks me a bit. It is quite likely that building a Commie Leftie image for open source will contribute to swaying the jurors.
For my sins I sometimes write drivers etc for WindowsCE boxes. Since WindowsCE isn't that robust I've often resorted to replacing sections with more robust code. When I've had to contact MS to get an explanation on how one of their closed functions work I typically first have a barrage of "but you should be using our one". THis invariably adds a few days to the support call.
The tone of these concersations suggests that the MS folks seem upset that you're not using their offering. In the end this leads to vanilla software. eg. consider in Windows land you have two file systems: FAT and NTFS. Under Linux there are over 40 file systems available. I bet Hans Reisser (spelling) doesn't throw a fit every time someone chooses to use ext3.
IMHO, the WinCE drivers etc are pretty expensive CPU wise. They're a complete suck to develop for too. I can do a build (1 source file changed)+tftpboot of a Linux image on ARM in 15 seconds. At present it takes me about 10-15 minutes on WinCE mainly due to rally broken build tools. Of course this does not really matter to the user.
I'm not sure about this device, but quite a few CPUs have basic dsp capability which can be of significant benefit for MP3 etc. Having worked on a few WinCE and Linux projects at the OS level, I'd say WinCE isn't as efficient as Linux in raw kernel terms. The WinCE GUI side is reasonably fast though, so long as you don't use MFC. I have never used a Zarius so can't make any comparisons.
It would be nice to think that at some stage we'll see a trend back towards lighter-weight software. There might seem little point (with Moore's Law bringing us faster CPUs etc), but lighterweight software means we can do the same thing with smaller CPUs, less power etc (eg. maybe a 200MHz ARM using 500mW rather than a 3GHz Pentium using ???W).
Tron is not an OS, but a specification (like POSIX is not an OS, but a specification). Tron is normally used for embedded applications. This device should have two benefits: expanding the use of Tron into a new area and also drawing on Tron expertise.
I've heard there's a tTRON wrapper for eCOS, but have not checked this out personally.
A 400MHz CPU can achieve a lot if not loaded with a fat-ass OS. One of the slickest machines I've ever seen was a RiscOS box running on a 200MHz ARM.
This would hardly be likely to impact their stock. Currently anyone doing any research into SCOX would know their IP claims are BS. The stock pumping is based on the hope of finding stupid greedy people, not rational people.
The record is qualified as being a National record. I guess when someone turns up an alternative National Record, it will become a state record or area code record or whatever.
Even the use of a high gain antenna is amplification in a way (ie. effective radiated power (ERP) is increased). Dunno about the states, but the ERP is often limited in many countries.
Given the timing issues in 802.11b one wonders how effective the link was (ie. what throughput they got).
It is interesteing how we hear so much that USA is technically superior than xxx because of capitalism and competition, yet with outsourcing we see the logical endpoint of this competition.
Management trends attempt to drive the craftsmanship out of any effort; the knowledge goes into the system and the workers are just commodity fleshbots. Make the widget easy to make and send it to some place that pays two grains of rice a day.
This attitude is rife in American corporate culture. I'm forty, I cut code and am good at it. However, some people think I lack ambition because I don't wish to become a manager. I'd make a fair to middling manager, but I'm far more valuable in a technical role.
An alternative to this is to take the view that the best people are craftsmen/artisans. It is my (relatively uneducated) understanding that in European countries, the artisan is appreciated more than in the USA. The guy who has spent his life lovingly working with a lathe can tell you all its good and bad points, make the thing sing and dance. Similarly, I think there should be codesmiths: people that really know how to cut code and are valued.
A few years ago programmers were in short supply and you could get a good job (ie big bucks)if you could find the power switch on a PC. Probably a lot of people became programmers yet were not up to the task. The craft of coding became devalued because so many arbitrary skills were thrown into the "coding" bucket though they require different skill sets and levels of understanding (eg. someone building a web page is an HTML coder, vs say someone writing complex OS stuff in assembler). Times have got tighter and, perhaps for the better in the long run, there is a squeeze. Probably mostly bad programmers will get cut, but of course some good ones will be too.
While you're seen as an expense rather than a value adder, you're in a dangerous situation. Perception is important, not the reality. The manager likes to think that good stuff happens because of him, not because some programmer did a brilliant job. Unless the management can see, and are prepared to acknowledge, your added value they just see you as being a cost item and the way to manage cost is to reduce it. If you're perceived to be generic then don't be suprised if the manager picks their programmers from the "two for a buck" bargain bin.
Why should computer security thought of any differently fromn physical security (eg. locking up buildings)? All physical locks have flaaws/workarounds etc. However, if someone breaks into a building they are seen to be evil. In cyberspace such crimes are viewed as being clever. People who violate any computers (whether or not they are fully patched etc) should be treated as criminals.
There are numerous responses to what I said here. It sounds to me like there's a bigger question:
Has the FCC outlived its role?
If you go trawl the www you'll probably find that the FCC was set up to ensure that telecommunications got rolled out effectively across the USA. I doubt the original intention was to control telecoms for the benefit of the telcos.
Maybe, in this age of more-or-less global and ubiquitous telecoms, the FCC has completed its role and is no longer relevant.
I think you will find that any call that terminates in the USA is subject to the FCC's control. Therefore any of those global voip calls terminating in USA is likely to be of interest to them. Maybe before long answering an unlicensed (unauthorised) VoIP call could be a felony.
What you can guarantee is that given the money involved and the telcos' lobbying/bribery powers they won't just roll over and die.
Remember kids, be nice to AT&T, they invented Unix (then sold/gave) it to SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see the stock graph for SCOX when that happens.
Look at supercondutors - the tech darling of the 80s - kids in junior school cook up superconductors these days. Once the principles are uncovered and made known it becomes a lot simpler for Joe Average to do just about anything. Thinking that only a superpower can recreate technologies of fifty years ago is just blind arrogance.
The purpose behind the control of information is not to limit the information itself, but to provide Stupid Voter the warm fuzzies that the government is doing everything it can to protect him from commies/terrorists/etc.
MS is about power-tripping. Linux development works because it is **not** about power tripping but about technical collaboration. Trying to take on the methods without the underlying ethos is as effective as praying without faith.
... or HURD.... in a few decades time :-). Linux just outstrips OpenBSD for support and ease of integration (at least on ARM processors anyway).
eg. In some countries, cell phone coverage is way cheaper (and more reliable) than land line, so having a feature phone is a more convenient way to get info than a dial-up+PC.
You probably can't demand source for anything much more than the kernel. Likely there isn't much in the kernel that isn't already in ARM linux (ie. linux2.4.x + rmkx). The cell handling code etc etc is quite likely not in the kernel and not subject to GPL.
A faster CPU does not have to mean (significantly) more power consumption. When there is nothing to process, the CPU sleeps, therefore typically the 400MHz CPU will just end up sleeping more, but will be there to kick in for more CPU intensive tasks.
However, in this case the technical trade secrets are already in the public domain (that's SCOs whole case - that their trade secrets have been made public - so it seems strange to keep these details closed. In effect the only secret is which files they are laying claim to.
The use of a jury freaks me a bit. It is quite likely that building a Commie Leftie image for open source will contribute to swaying the jurors.
The tone of these concersations suggests that the MS folks seem upset that you're not using their offering. In the end this leads to vanilla software. eg. consider in Windows land you have two file systems: FAT and NTFS. Under Linux there are over 40 file systems available. I bet Hans Reisser (spelling) doesn't throw a fit every time someone chooses to use ext3.
IMHO, the WinCE drivers etc are pretty expensive CPU wise. They're a complete suck to develop for too. I can do a build (1 source file changed)+tftpboot of a Linux image on ARM in 15 seconds. At present it takes me about 10-15 minutes on WinCE mainly due to rally broken build tools. Of course this does not really matter to the user.
It would be nice to think that at some stage we'll see a trend back towards lighter-weight software. There might seem little point (with Moore's Law bringing us faster CPUs etc), but lighterweight software means we can do the same thing with smaller CPUs, less power etc (eg. maybe a 200MHz ARM using 500mW rather than a 3GHz Pentium using ???W).
I'd rather have double the advertising thanx!
I've heard there's a tTRON wrapper for eCOS, but have not checked this out personally.
A 400MHz CPU can achieve a lot if not loaded with a fat-ass OS. One of the slickest machines I've ever seen was a RiscOS box running on a 200MHz ARM.
I guess the inability to understand what is happening comes from firing all the technical staff and replacing them with lawyers.
This would hardly be likely to impact their stock. Currently anyone doing any research into SCOX would know their IP claims are BS. The stock pumping is based on the hope of finding stupid greedy people, not rational people.
The record is qualified as being a National record. I guess when someone turns up an alternative National Record, it will become a state record or area code record or whatever.
Given the timing issues in 802.11b one wonders how effective the link was (ie. what throughput they got).
Management trends attempt to drive the craftsmanship out of any effort; the knowledge goes into the system and the workers are just commodity fleshbots. Make the widget easy to make and send it to some place that pays two grains of rice a day.
This attitude is rife in American corporate culture. I'm forty, I cut code and am good at it. However, some people think I lack ambition because I don't wish to become a manager. I'd make a fair to middling manager, but I'm far more valuable in a technical role.
An alternative to this is to take the view that the best people are craftsmen/artisans. It is my (relatively uneducated) understanding that in European countries, the artisan is appreciated more than in the USA. The guy who has spent his life lovingly working with a lathe can tell you all its good and bad points, make the thing sing and dance. Similarly, I think there should be codesmiths: people that really know how to cut code and are valued.
A few years ago programmers were in short supply and you could get a good job (ie big bucks)if you could find the power switch on a PC. Probably a lot of people became programmers yet were not up to the task. The craft of coding became devalued because so many arbitrary skills were thrown into the "coding" bucket though they require different skill sets and levels of understanding (eg. someone building a web page is an HTML coder, vs say someone writing complex OS stuff in assembler). Times have got tighter and, perhaps for the better in the long run, there is a squeeze. Probably mostly bad programmers will get cut, but of course some good ones will be too.
While you're seen as an expense rather than a value adder, you're in a dangerous situation. Perception is important, not the reality. The manager likes to think that good stuff happens because of him, not because some programmer did a brilliant job. Unless the management can see, and are prepared to acknowledge, your added value they just see you as being a cost item and the way to manage cost is to reduce it. If you're perceived to be generic then don't be suprised if the manager picks their programmers from the "two for a buck" bargain bin.
I wonder when SCOX holders are going to figure out their stocks are based on BS.
It was a long time since I was 1/5th scale!
Why should computer security thought of any differently fromn physical security (eg. locking up buildings)? All physical locks have flaaws/workarounds etc. However, if someone breaks into a building they are seen to be evil. In cyberspace such crimes are viewed as being clever. People who violate any computers (whether or not they are fully patched etc) should be treated as criminals.
... or New Zealanders, South Africans, Russians,.... Face it, this is no longer the age of elitism.
Has the FCC outlived its role?
If you go trawl the www you'll probably find that the FCC was set up to ensure that telecommunications got rolled out effectively across the USA. I doubt the original intention was to control telecoms for the benefit of the telcos.
Maybe, in this age of more-or-less global and ubiquitous telecoms, the FCC has completed its role and is no longer relevant.
What you can guarantee is that given the money involved and the telcos' lobbying/bribery powers they won't just roll over and die.
Remember kids, be nice to AT&T, they invented Unix (then sold/gave) it to SCO.