How about just plain old virtual terminals? I can launch a new one in less than 0.01 seconds, can switch between them using short cuts (alt-F?), has absolutely no bloat (comes with the kernel), can have high resolution, can cut and paste between terminals with a mouse, and can have as many as I want/need. And it's blindingly fast on my 486DX-66.
Re:Very informative article, glad to have read it
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Please mod parent up Funny! It's hillarious!
Re:this is killing Linux, OSD in general
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Not True. It's Linux kernel that's under scruteny here, not the entire OSS movement. Ok, so your "CIO" can't tell the difference between his an*s and a whole in the ground, but that doesn't mean he's right. In fact, all of BSD's are *Completely* immune from the bullying from SCO, because when BSD settled with USL/Novell in the 90's, they agreed that all of "Unix" code be removed from BSD, and further that BSD and its derivatives are immune from all IP claims by Novell and its subsequent owners/licensees. So, even if some ill-informed judge rules in favor of SCO, one can substitute a BSD kernel in place of linux kernel and continue using your software. (ala NetBSD/Debian).
>We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
Sounds like a bully saying "I'm going to keep beating you up for money." Well, bullying only works if you can throw a punch. I think today SCO lost both arms.
Ok, I'm not trolling. Hear me out:
SCO is claming Linux contains AT&T code. GNU/linux always claimed that they never had AT&T code, and thus not liable. But it has to go through the courts to be proved (taking time and money), which is what SCO is counting on. Meanwhile, FreeBSD has already gone through this process in the early ninety's, the outcome of which is that *all* AT&T code was removed from BSD (resulting in BSD-lite), and that noone could sue anyone using this code. Long live free software.
From the recent OSnews interview http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3415&page= 8 In any event, those files with USL copyrights on them have specific permission to be distributed by the Regents of the University of California to settle thse lawsuits, with an additional agreement that Novel (and its successors) would not sue anybody using systems on 4.4lite.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, GPG doesn't use IDEA because it requires a hefty license for commercial use. So if you want to be compatible with existing PGP infrastructure, you need to have either a command line PGP or a commercial clone.
A lot of comments point to the free GPG program. The problem is not that GPG doesn't already have all the functionality of PGP--it does. But what it can't do is be a drop in replacements for PGP-- in terms of command syntax and output file format.
Verizon's Express Network and SprintPCS's Vision Network are both cdma2000-1xRTT. It supports up to 144kbps, but realistically you get 64kbps--pretty much dial up speed. No, it's not the older CDMA network either, as the older IS-95 had speeds only up to 19kbps.
Express/Vision is technically a 2.5G, but they're marketed as "next generation 3G", because of the way GSM/GPRS is being touted as "next generation 3G migration path", even though they only support 64kbps data, too. This is a classic case of the marketing department getting ahead of themselves.
To be a true 3G provider (according to IMT-2000/UMTS) it has to exceed 380kbps in a wide area deployment (ie, miles away from the tower), which is achieved by Ev-DO (2Mbps), and Ev-DV (5Mbps) on the Qualcomm side, and EDGE (380kbps) and W-CDMA (supposedly 8Mbps, but current implementations have been topping out at about 90Kbps, to the disappointment of many) on the GSM side.
Like I said in a separate post, things will really heat up in about 2 years, when companies will try to provide 2Mbps over your cell phone.
>In the US you have Qualcomm's CDMA 2000 system which will evolve into the W-CDMA [3gpp.org] standard
CDMA2000 is already a UMTS standard, along side W-CDMA. CDMA2000 will not "evolve into" W-CDMA because CDMA2000 is designed to be backward compatible with all the past CDMA standards as well as future ones (IS/95;CDMAOne,1xRTT, and EV-DV), where as W-CDMA is a migration path for GSM. CDMA2000 uses 1.25MHz spectrum block per carrier, CDMA2000-3x uses 3.75MHZ per carrier. W-CDMA uses 5MHz carrier, which is not backward compatible with any of the existing standards.
It is easier for GSM providers to break away from existing standards, because migration to W-CDMA from GSM is a "clean slate" situation for them. For the current CDMA providers however, it would be more advantageous for them to maintain backward compatibility (read: existing user handsets) while providing 3G high-bandwidth services--which makes CDMA2000 variants as their only viable option. They will definately not "evolve into" W-CDMA.
The Data Only (DO) version the article talks about needs its own carrier freq, so the providers must set aside valuable spectrum for data only services (read: expensive). Since none of them can seem to spare the money or the bandwidth at this point, I don't think anyone is eager to implement it, even though the equipment already exists to deploy it.
What will be interesting will be the DV (Data-Voice) standard, which can carry both data (up to 5Mbps) and voice at the same time in the same spectrum used by current 1xRTT and Ev-DO channel. I believe SprintPCS has already decided to skip over DO and go straight to DV, sometime around 2005 when the base station equipment and handsets will become available. It might even happen sooner, if Qualcomm feels pressure from GSM/EDGE/WCDMA camp.
One of the nice thing about CDMA in general is that you can be moving at high way speeds and maintain a constant connection through what's called a "soft handoff", where you receive data from both towers as you transition from one to the other. There are sprint users who's actually surfs the web while in moving at highway speeds (as the pasenger, of course:)
Moore's law is finally coming to an end. Seriously, continous and rapid advance of processing power is the one thing that's holding back affordable universal and pervasive computing in schools. These cash strapped schools cannot afford to replace text books every two years, let alone computers that cost hundreds more. Things are better now because relatively useful computers can be had for very cheaply, compared to just a few years ago, but scrapping Moore's law altogether is even better. Steve Wazniak also agrees
Introduce artificial "typo's" so that simply OCR-ing and compiling wouldn't work, but they can get an idea how the program is working. Print it out. Copyright the thing and put in a NDA form plus put it in the contract (like others have suggested).
Besides some small (and not so small) technical differences, the most significant divergence between BSD and Linux is the license model (and the underlying philosophy). Linux is a GPL kernel, with GNU tools providing rest of the system (thus GNU/Linux). The GPL license has a clause that says if one wants to distribute a modified version of a GPL'ed software, one must also include the modified source code. BSD however says you can do whatever you want with the program and its code, including selling your modified version without source code. All you have to do is include the BSD/UC Berkeley copyright notice. If you ever read the MS Windows copyrigth page, it includes the BSD Copyright. Yes, MS Windows has some BSD code.
A lot of other Open Source software are BSD styled. Others are GPL.
It's a matter of which philosophy you subscribe to.
As I recall, Europe has quality of service laws that say something like "one should be able to complete a call 95% of the time", using a cell phone. This puts a lot of pressure on European wireless companies to provide good service. The US does not have similar laws regarding wireless service. US do however have similar laws for landlines, thus giving good landline service.
Eventually US will get similar laws, but not before wireless shakeout we are going through has ended. (I bet as soon as FCC lifts the spectrum caps on cellar carriers, companies will be merging left and right, quality and capacity problems will be reduced, and high speed data will become cheaper.)
Microsoft asked Linus Torvalds, the developer of the Linux, to change his license to something similar to Microsoft's. They claim that Linus is practicing unfair business practices by giving away his code for free, undercutting them by hundreds of dollars.
In another news, Bill Gates was found laughing hystarically at the news report that Taiwan wanted Microsoft to open its source code.
Taiwan is not China. Taiwan was formed when the demcratic government was ran off by the communists in the mainland. Taiwan is also capitalist.
Taiwan faces constant military threat from China for its liberal policies, and also for calling itself indepedent from the communist Chinese, whereas the communist China considers Taiwan a subjugate state. Every time Taiwan elects new leaders, China threatens to "take back" the island by force.
To include "ADV" in the e-mali headings. In Korean, it translates into ±í, which you can just filter for. From the bottom of the article, the subject lines #40, 51, 34 all have those.
This question actually comes up every once in a while. The answer from the developers is that AT&T Unix (and therefore BSD) was always 32-bits. Thus the first PC port of BSD was on a 386 (in protected mode). It would be almost impossible to re-write the kernel to 16-bits, unless they were re-writing the OS from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
How about just plain old virtual terminals? I can launch a new one in less than 0.01 seconds, can switch between them using short cuts (alt-F?), has absolutely no bloat (comes with the kernel), can have high resolution, can cut and paste between terminals with a mouse, and can have as many as I want/need. And it's blindingly fast on my 486DX-66.
Please mod parent up Funny! It's hillarious!
Not True. It's Linux kernel that's under scruteny here, not the entire OSS movement. Ok, so your "CIO" can't tell the difference between his an*s and a whole in the ground, but that doesn't mean he's right.
In fact, all of BSD's are *Completely* immune from the bullying from SCO, because when BSD settled with USL/Novell in the 90's, they agreed that all of "Unix" code be removed from BSD, and further that BSD and its derivatives are immune from all IP claims by Novell and its subsequent owners/licensees.
So, even if some ill-informed judge rules in favor of SCO, one can substitute a BSD kernel in place of linux kernel and continue using your software. (ala NetBSD/Debian).
How the hell did he become a CIO? Sheesh....
Try Samsung drives. They have 3 year warrenty's as well, and they hold up very well in reliability too. See here: http://www.redhill.net.au/d-rel.html
>We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation .
Sounds like a bully saying "I'm going to keep beating you up for money." Well, bullying only works if you can throw a punch. I think today SCO lost both arms.
Ok, I'm not trolling. Hear me out:
= 8
SCO is claming Linux contains AT&T code. GNU/linux always claimed that they never had AT&T code, and thus not liable. But it has to go through the courts to be proved (taking time and money), which is what SCO is counting on. Meanwhile, FreeBSD has already gone through this process in the early ninety's, the outcome of which is that *all* AT&T code was removed from BSD (resulting in BSD-lite), and that noone could sue anyone using this code. Long live free software.
From the recent OSnews interview http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3415&page
In any event, those files with USL copyrights on them have specific permission to be distributed by the Regents of the University of California to settle thse lawsuits, with an additional agreement that Novel (and its successors) would not sue anybody using systems on 4.4lite.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, GPG doesn't use IDEA because it requires a hefty license for commercial use. So if you want to be compatible with existing PGP infrastructure, you need to have either a command line PGP or a commercial clone.
A lot of comments point to the free GPG program. The problem is not that GPG doesn't already have all the functionality of PGP--it does. But what it can't do is be a drop in replacements for PGP-- in terms of command syntax and output file format.
The "anticipated release of FreeBSD 5.0"???
:)
Didn't ComdrTaco post the article "FreeBSD 5.0 Available"????
Finally, CmdrTaco dupes himself
Verizon's Express Network and SprintPCS's Vision Network are both cdma2000-1xRTT. It supports up to 144kbps, but realistically you get 64kbps--pretty much dial up speed. No, it's not the older CDMA network either, as the older IS-95 had speeds only up to 19kbps.
Express/Vision is technically a 2.5G, but they're marketed as "next generation 3G", because of the way GSM/GPRS is being touted as "next generation 3G migration path", even though they only support 64kbps data, too. This is a classic case of the marketing department getting ahead of themselves.
To be a true 3G provider (according to IMT-2000/UMTS) it has to exceed 380kbps in a wide area deployment (ie, miles away from the tower), which is achieved by Ev-DO (2Mbps), and Ev-DV (5Mbps) on the Qualcomm side, and EDGE (380kbps) and W-CDMA (supposedly 8Mbps, but current implementations have been topping out at about 90Kbps, to the disappointment of many) on the GSM side.
Like I said in a separate post, things will really heat up in about 2 years, when companies will try to provide 2Mbps over your cell phone.
>In the US you have Qualcomm's CDMA 2000 system which will evolve into the W-CDMA [3gpp.org] standard
CDMA2000 is already a UMTS standard, along side W-CDMA. CDMA2000 will not "evolve into" W-CDMA because CDMA2000 is designed to be backward compatible with all the past CDMA standards as well as future ones (IS/95;CDMAOne,1xRTT, and EV-DV), where as W-CDMA is a migration path for GSM. CDMA2000 uses 1.25MHz spectrum block per carrier, CDMA2000-3x uses 3.75MHZ per carrier. W-CDMA uses 5MHz carrier, which is not backward compatible with any of the existing standards.
It is easier for GSM providers to break away from existing standards, because migration to W-CDMA from GSM is a "clean slate" situation for them. For the current CDMA providers however, it would be more advantageous for them to maintain backward compatibility (read: existing user handsets) while providing 3G high-bandwidth services--which makes CDMA2000 variants as their only viable option. They will definately not "evolve into" W-CDMA.
The Data Only (DO) version the article talks about needs its own carrier freq, so the providers must set aside valuable spectrum for data only services (read: expensive). Since none of them can seem to spare the money or the bandwidth at this point, I don't think anyone is eager to implement it, even though the equipment already exists to deploy it.
:)
What will be interesting will be the DV (Data-Voice) standard, which can carry both data (up to 5Mbps) and voice at the same time in the same spectrum used by current 1xRTT and Ev-DO channel. I believe SprintPCS has already decided to skip over DO and go straight to DV, sometime around 2005 when the base station equipment and handsets will become available. It might even happen sooner, if Qualcomm feels pressure from GSM/EDGE/WCDMA camp.
Let the wireless web wars begin
One of the nice thing about CDMA in general is that you can be moving at high way speeds and maintain a constant connection through what's called a "soft handoff", where you receive data from both towers as you transition from one to the other. There are sprint users who's actually surfs the web while in moving at highway speeds (as the pasenger, of course :)
Moore's law is finally coming to an end. Seriously, continous and rapid advance of processing power is the one thing that's holding back affordable universal and pervasive computing in schools. These cash strapped schools cannot afford to replace text books every two years, let alone computers that cost hundreds more. Things are better now because relatively useful computers can be had for very cheaply, compared to just a few years ago, but scrapping Moore's law altogether is even better. Steve Wazniak also agrees
I did this *BUT* unfortunately with cheap porous rock.
Data was unreadable after 5 years out in the weather.
Always use quality granite!!!!
Introduce artificial "typo's" so that simply OCR-ing and compiling wouldn't work, but they can get an idea how the program is working. Print it out. Copyright the thing and put in a NDA form plus put it in the contract (like others have suggested).
Besides some small (and not so small) technical differences, the most significant divergence between BSD and Linux is the license model (and the underlying philosophy). Linux is a GPL kernel, with GNU tools providing rest of the system (thus GNU/Linux). The GPL license has a clause that says if one wants to distribute a modified version of a GPL'ed software, one must also include the modified source code. BSD however says you can do whatever you want with the program and its code, including selling your modified version without source code. All you have to do is include the BSD/UC Berkeley copyright notice. If you ever read the MS Windows copyrigth page, it includes the BSD Copyright. Yes, MS Windows has some BSD code.
A lot of other Open Source software are BSD styled. Others are GPL.
It's a matter of which philosophy you subscribe to.
Any one have any info on this?
As I recall, Europe has quality of service laws that say something like "one should be able to complete a call 95% of the time", using a cell phone. This puts a lot of pressure on European wireless companies to provide good service.
The US does not have similar laws regarding wireless service. US do however have similar laws for landlines, thus giving good landline service.
Eventually US will get similar laws, but not before wireless shakeout we are going through has ended. (I bet as soon as FCC lifts the spectrum caps on cellar carriers, companies will be merging left and right, quality and capacity problems will be reduced, and high speed data will become cheaper.)
Microsoft asked Linus Torvalds, the developer of the Linux, to change his license to something similar to Microsoft's. They claim that Linus is practicing unfair business practices by giving away his code for free, undercutting them by hundreds of dollars.
In another news, Bill Gates was found laughing hystarically at the news report that Taiwan wanted Microsoft to open its source code.
Taiwan is not China. Taiwan was formed when the demcratic government was ran off by the communists in the mainland. Taiwan is also capitalist. Taiwan faces constant military threat from China for its liberal policies, and also for calling itself indepedent from the communist Chinese, whereas the communist China considers Taiwan a subjugate state. Every time Taiwan elects new leaders, China threatens to "take back" the island by force.
To include "ADV" in the e-mali headings.
In Korean, it translates into ±í, which you can just filter for. From the bottom of the article, the subject lines #40, 51, 34 all have those.
Too bad US doesn't have similar laws
I mean, he carrys a change of clothes on him at all times.
Resistance is Futile.
This question actually comes up every once in a while. The answer from the developers is that AT&T Unix (and therefore BSD) was always 32-bits. Thus the first PC port of BSD was on a 386 (in protected mode). It would be almost impossible to re-write the kernel to 16-bits, unless they were re-writing the OS from scratch.