I'm sure most coders don't contibute to OSS projects because their code quality is n't good enough. OSS does n't work because of numbers it works because you can get at the source.
If you go to the opencores website there is code for all sorts of things, PCI bus interface, DDR SDRAM, video controllers etc. Alot of stuff these days is done on FPGA's and it's not expensive like it used to be. Granted you wont be producing any high end processors but the majority of problems dont need them. If you're starting something and need some working code to customize and contibute back too it's great.
The people who did the special effects for blade runner played him the begining sequence when it was done and he said it was just how he imagined the future when he wrote do andriods dream of electric sheep so atleast they got one thing right.
It seems to me that Wi-fi is appearing in places where you would expect bluetooth to be, granted it is not as fast as 802.11b but I cant help but get the feeling that with low-range/low-power chipsets arriving all the time 802.11b could kill bluetooth.
I think the reason things are turning round is that this whole SCO debacle has let Linux/OSS detractors to come out of the woodwork and a "Linux bashing bandwagon" began in the media. What has changed is that now things have got serious with Subpoenas they realize their posturing has consequences (other than inflating SCOs' share price) and hence the abrupt U-turns.
Not a lawyer etc, but if SCO claimed to own the complete file then the copyright owners could just take SCO to court and apply for an injuction to stop them claiming so until the court case. Of course this all requires money which little guy kernel developer (tm) does n't have.
However, SCO are basically saying that these files contain lines that infringe in some way because IBM released some kind of "secrets" or copied code or whatever your imagination can come up with. IBM does n't know what SCO is going on about and asks them to give an exact list of what their complaint is; SCO replies "you know what infringes, you have to give us a list" and we go round in circles.
It's not a strict copyright case as such but because the complaint is n't with the copyright owner(s) directly they can play this game kind of like a procedural loophole.
I suspect most of those matches are due to the files doing some kind of SMP locking. I seem to remember that there is some kind of LOCK(x) macro used thoughout the kernel so doing a grep instantly gets you 1/5 of the kernel files.
Your points are all correct however you have to also remember that it costs alot (in time & money) to develop libraries and a developement platform. For Microsoft it made sense to use as much as they had over from the PC, they were banking on being #1. Porting and developing for a new processor/archicture would have probably meant they would delivery way too late.
As long as it works and there are no issues like Y2K why would you get rid of something that works? It's not like new machines wont run COBOL programs.
I'm well aware that Bluetooth is radio and IrDA is infrared, that was n't my point. My point is that it was the new feature that many people dont use or don't use to the full.
Bluetooth is much more complicated than IrDA to implement, you can implement IrDA as easily as hooking up a transceiver to an 8-bit micrcontroller the same however could not be said of Bluetooth.
There was a company (cant remember who) that made a PCMCIA based GSM phone a while back. We're only now getting to the point where you can integrate the phone onto one chip, I think sometime next year TI are planning to release a complete system on a chip with something 30 external passive components that should enable someone to fit in a Compact flash form factor.
Well I would n't say every single mobile device is Bluetooth enabled. One million units per week is n't even that large a number considering, around 450 million mobile phones will be sold this year. So if all of that one million are phones, that's just over 11% of phones have bluetooth.
The reason some phones don't have IrDA is because Bluetooth is the new IrDA, i.e. not a "killer" feature (at the moment) but useful if you need it. Where Bluetooth and IrDA differ is Bluetooth is much more complicated and expensive to implement compared to IrDA which has not helped its adoption.
It probably is. Other than an extreme gambler who in their right mind would invest $50 million in a company that is in the mist of a massive legal wrangle with IBM? This is n't the dot com era and $50 million is still a significant amount of money unless you're someone like erm, Microsoft maybe? Unfortunately like the article states the likelyhood of finding out who is behind the investment is practically non existant.
One of the problems with bluetooth is that it's so complicated to implement. If you download the spec it's massive, just looking at the contents gives you a headache. This complexity also makes it expensive.
The problem is when you combine this with "Trusted" computing. What chance do you think this loader (that needs to run at Ring 0) will have of getting a Microsoft digital signature?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure most coders don't contibute to OSS projects because their code quality is n't good enough. OSS does n't work because of numbers it works because you can get at the source.
If you go to the opencores website there is code for all sorts of things, PCI bus interface, DDR SDRAM, video controllers etc. Alot of stuff these days is done on FPGA's and it's not expensive like it used to be. Granted you wont be producing any high end processors but the majority of problems dont need them. If you're starting something and need some working code to customize and contibute back too it's great.
If they could reduce the range/power requirements of Wifi how about MP3 players where you can share your files?
How about Wifi enabled billboards that transmit a sample of the song? Or entering a clubs or other places for that matter.
Yeah I know you're going to shout bluetooth, but it would be too slow at the time being.
At least in the UK it is n't, you could always register as a charitable organisation.
The people who did the special effects for blade runner played him the begining sequence when it was done and he said it was just how he imagined the future when he wrote do andriods dream of electric sheep so atleast they got one thing right.
That's why I said low-power/low-range, you already have chipsets that can limit their range to as low as 1m and use lower data rates.
It seems to me that Wi-fi is appearing in places where you would expect bluetooth to be, granted it is not as fast as 802.11b but I cant help but get the feeling that with low-range/low-power chipsets arriving all the time 802.11b could kill bluetooth.
I think the reason things are turning round is that this whole SCO debacle has let Linux/OSS detractors to come out of the woodwork and a "Linux bashing bandwagon" began in the media. What has changed is that now things have got serious with Subpoenas they realize their posturing has consequences (other than inflating SCOs' share price) and hence the abrupt U-turns.
That would truely be funny, using the DMCA to stop you from transfering pictures that you have taken and hence own the copyright to.
Not a lawyer etc, but if SCO claimed to own the complete file then the copyright owners could just take SCO to court and apply for an injuction to stop them claiming so until the court case. Of course this all requires money which little guy kernel developer (tm) does n't have.
However, SCO are basically saying that these files contain lines that infringe in some way because IBM released some kind of "secrets" or copied code or whatever your imagination can come up with. IBM does n't know what SCO is going on about and asks them to give an exact list of what their complaint is; SCO replies "you know what infringes, you have to give us a list" and we go round in circles.
It's not a strict copyright case as such but because the complaint is n't with the copyright owner(s) directly they can play this game kind of like a procedural loophole.
Is there something in the US legal system that actively prevents SCO from claiming every single file in the kernel as their own?
Yeap it's called Copyright.
I suspect most of those matches are due to the files doing some kind of SMP locking. I seem to remember that there is some kind of LOCK(x) macro used thoughout the kernel so doing a grep instantly gets you 1/5 of the kernel files.
Your points are all correct however you have to also remember that it costs alot (in time & money) to develop libraries and a developement platform. For Microsoft it made sense to use as much as they had over from the PC, they were banking on being #1. Porting and developing for a new processor/archicture would have probably meant they would delivery way too late.
As long as it works and there are no issues like Y2K why would you get rid of something that works? It's not like new machines wont run COBOL programs.
The reason only x86 was done was because the other platforms already had low power chips, especially motorola and no one needs a low power alpha.
I'm well aware that Bluetooth is radio and IrDA is infrared, that was n't my point. My point is that it was the new feature that many people dont use or don't use to the full.
Bluetooth is much more complicated than IrDA to implement, you can implement IrDA as easily as hooking up a transceiver to an 8-bit micrcontroller the same however could not be said of Bluetooth.
There was a company (cant remember who) that made a PCMCIA based GSM phone a while back. We're only now getting to the point where you can integrate the phone onto one chip, I think sometime next year TI are planning to release a complete system on a chip with something 30 external passive components that should enable someone to fit in a Compact flash form factor.
Well I would n't say every single mobile device is Bluetooth enabled. One million units per week is n't even that large a number considering, around 450 million mobile phones will be sold this year. So if all of that one million are phones, that's just over 11% of phones have bluetooth.
The reason some phones don't have IrDA is because Bluetooth is the new IrDA, i.e. not a "killer" feature (at the moment) but useful if you need it. Where Bluetooth and IrDA differ is Bluetooth is much more complicated and expensive to implement compared to IrDA which has not helped its adoption.
Nope, the traces are copper instead of aluminium here is an IBM article from 2000. Unless "wiring" and "traces" no longer mean the same thing.
You are thinking of the Copper traces instead of Aluminium, the transistors remained Silicon. Here they are talking about metal transistors.
I dont see any mention of the type of metal that would be most suitable. I'm sure all metals are n't created equal.
Damn, replied to wrong post, my bad.
They are n't going to do that, but a hell of a lot of DJ Wannabes' would and that's a much larger market than professional DJ's.
It probably is. Other than an extreme gambler who in their right mind would invest $50 million in a company that is in the mist of a massive legal wrangle with IBM? This is n't the dot com era and $50 million is still a significant amount of money unless you're someone like erm, Microsoft maybe? Unfortunately like the article states the likelyhood of finding out who is behind the investment is practically non existant.
One of the problems with bluetooth is that it's so complicated to implement. If you download the spec it's massive, just looking at the contents gives you a headache. This complexity also makes it expensive.
The problem is when you combine this with "Trusted" computing. What chance do you think this loader (that needs to run at Ring 0) will have of getting a Microsoft digital signature?