and yes IBM did release, either knowingly or not, SYS V code into the OSS realm without permission.
I'm not trying to start a flame war but can you be specific? The only AIX source code from IBM I've ever seen was for OS/2 (Aix 'like' utilities called ps, grep, ls, etc). JFS is not UNIX, it was released under OS/2 first. I informed my boss that this lawsuit probably won't impact our Linux development. Do you know something that is not listed in the court papers? How did IBM violate SCO's IP?
From an interview with Linus here: http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-0 5_Story 01.html MozillaQuest Magazine: Did the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and groups lack the technological capability of producing an enterprise level Linux without being bailed-out by IBM as SCO-Caldera claims?
Linus Torvalds: "Bailed-out by IBM"? Hardly. Oh, IBM has certainly been very helpful, and I like the IBM engineers I work with, but Linux was running on 16-cpu Sun sparc computers long before IBM really got into it.
Everything in SCO's court filing is speculative (IANAL). This would be like Microsoft filing a lawsuit against Xerox because they helped Apple dilute the market for windows licenses.
The other box is a P166 set up as a security camera server. Its been upgraded to 2.4.20. for better bttv support. It manages around 14 days between reboots.
Strange. The only problem we have had with the 2.4.x kernel is an iomem conflict between certain device subsystems (hard reset). Once configured properly everything just runs.
You need to investigate this further. Are you getting weird log messages? How about a missing/older library dependency?
After all, that's the strategy they pursued and accomplished against Microsoft with DRDOS. SCO was purchased by Caldera in September of 2000. The settlement with Microsoft was completed in January of 2000. Caldera alone was responsible for the DR DOS/Microsoft lawsuit, not SCO.
The reason it worked with Microsoft is because MS knew they had a severe image problem that could hurt them badly in court. It appears you haven't read up on this case. What public information available on this trial shows that Microsoft did everything they could to prevent this from going to court. The settlement had everything to do with guilt, not image. Google for "Caldera vs Microsoft".
The sum 1 billion probably tips off the strategy they have. Start off high, wrangle in the courts a little bit, then settle for some lesser amount that IBM might be willing to pay "to be done with it". I agree, they are looking for a quick settlement.
If there is any "methodology" at all to doing this profiling there is a danger that you would just probe the system till you discover the "right" person to send through. I agree even more.
The correct way to implement this is to not do it.
Police our borders and inbound flights. Police the people who want VISA's to learn at our schools. Police our borders better. Nothing within CAPII prevents 9/11 (or 11/9 to our european friends).
- I have a beard. - I am mistakenly listed as a vegitarian on BA. - I carry lots of hardware when I travel. - I am a smart ass towards people who ask stupid questions (most security/airline employees).
But seriously, I have already written to the congressmen and senators I helped put in office. If they vote for this they will no longer receive a vote from me.
Yup but the US insists on imposing tariffs to protect its own interests while demanding that we drop ours. That is the price of doing business with the US. Australia is just about to enter into negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement and one of the points is the US demand that we drop our local content rules for television so as to allow more American television onto our screens. What tariffs on what products? Maybe our business news is slow but I haven't heard of any. If we did enact tariffs on a product it is to save our workers manufacturing the same product. I would think Austrialia does the same thing.
As to the Philipines they weren't declared free until 1946. Tell me something, does America still hold onto Samoa, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay? Formerly independant nations or parts of independant nations that are now part of the US. All became territory after the war with Spain. We didn't invade them, Spain did. They are free to leave at any time. None seem to mind being receipients of our tax money.
Ummm how about the Philipines, various pacific islands and South American nations Again, the spoils of war with Spain in the late 1890's. Are they free now?
Not to mention cultural imperialism which has a far greater reach than the military might. Nobody in America forced our products or culture on you. If you don't like WalMart or McDonalds then don't purchase these products. Somebody liked them and thats why they are there.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has a history of extending its sphere of influence, often to the detriment of those who come under it. Again, statements with no proof or facts. We extended our power over Germany and Japan and thats why they have to agree with us on all US issues. We are soon to influence Afganistan politics. If you don't like us because we are capitalist then say so. Do you know that your local McDonalds is owned by someone in your country? It's called a Franchise. Does your country ship products to the US? Do you know that if you make a good product it will sell in the US? You need to look again at the "Free Market" economy.
I am not your enemy. Just a voice for logic and common sense.
GW Bush unilaterally appoints the US as the world's international police force Nobody seems to mind when we help out thier cause. But when it comes to "our" soverign state we are just a bunch of bullies.
Then, in the name of the "war against terrorism", the government usurps the very constitutional rights of its own citizens to legal representation and the presumption of inocence. No where in the article did it mention terrorism. What constitutional right do I have that allows me to sell other peoples property without payment? The owner pleaded guilty, what are you defending? No one has taken away any of my constitutional rights. If I don't like the way my congressman/senator votes, then he/she won't be in office the next term (from my vote) reguardless of how much money he/she has.
And now it seems that the US government is set on forcing its own laws upon all citizens of the world. The last time I was in Germany, France, and England, the laws were different for pretty much everything. I was in all three countries last year.
It strikes me that the American people need to wake up and realize that those in power are starting to run amok and need to be reigned in -- for the benefit of *everybody* on the planet. How would your country react if it was attacked on it's own soil? Would the citizens demand of the powers in office for revenge? Would you care if your Mother/Father/Sister/Son/Daughter died? Would your country try to prevent future attacks. What would you do if your country found out another country aided or supported those attacks?
The USA is a great nation and I have lots of really nice American friends -- but hasn't anyone over there noticed that there's a bunch of crazies driving your wagon?
No, we don't have any more crazies than the rest of the elected officials in the world. Are they stupid, maybe. Can they be taught, yes. And yes we like you too. There is 280 million people here to make friends with.
Name one country that has ever been threatened by imperialism from the United States? Spoils of war with western europe back in the 1890's does not meet the criteria.
You can accuse of us of "capitalism" though. How about a "capitalism simulation software" where 3rd world nations can train to block walmarts and McDonalds from entering thier sphere of influence?
If someone can boot from a configuration other than the default OS, they have free reign
I've seen one PC based O/S do this correctly. OS/2. Don't laugh, but I learned the hard way one weekend at a finacial services firm. It seems the OS/2 HPFS386 (comes with OS/2 server) driver uses a combination ACL+Hardware code to encrypt the drive. We were upgrading an old server to a new one and just moved the data drive over to the new box. Nada, zilch, nothing. The computer saw the drive but none of the contents. It didn't matter what we did, (rescue disk, etc.) we couldn't see the file system.
To make a long story short (what was supposed to take two hours took eight), we had to put the drive back into the original box and run a special administrators tool (separate locked away disk) to remove the ACL's from the file system. Only then could we move the drive to the new server and re-apply the ACL's. Not a fun weekend.
Why do we need to explain anything to you. Can't you look up the information yourself and make an informed opinion? Anyway, disseminate this article for starters:
I'm sorry, I should have posted this link. http://www.iar.unlp.edu.ar/~fede/revistas/l j/Magaz ines/LJ9/0036.html
Excerpt from an interview with Linus.
LJ: I heard there were two efforts going on for Linux being ported to the PowerPC and the Mac, and that one effort was put on hold because of lack of information from Apple. Do you think the effort is stalled, or do you know if there is still real progress being made?
Linus: I have no idea on the PowerPC port. I have only seen the occasional reports (the latest one indeed saying that they had no knowledge about the IO interfaces). Apple isn't known for disclosing technical information and IBM doesn't seem to have any PowerPC machine out yet (except for the RT which doesn't follow PReP). I don't know what will happen with the PowerPC (with regard to Linux or anything else for that matter). I saw a report about IBM now also considering the Pentium again.
LJ: What is PReP or a PReP machine?
Linus: PReP stands for "PowerPC Reference Platform"--essentially a unified external interface to the PowerPC chip, defining the external bus and the BIOS interface. It's an IBM standard, but even IBM doesn't have any machines out there that follow that standard yet. IBM does have machines with the PowerPC chipset, but those are in their RT line of Unix computers, and have their own bus architecture around the chip (essentially the same one that the POWER series of processors had which were the predecessors of the PowerPC chip).
LJ: Because you know the kernel better than anyone else, how do you feel about the port? Do you think it will be an easy port? Do you think it will run as well on a PowerPC as on the Intel architecture?
Linus: Oh, the PowerPC chip itself shouldn't be the problem. The memory management of the chip is rather strange (and ugly, imho), but that can be considered an extended TLB and the PowerPC port could well use the same memory management architectures, etc., as the current i386 version. The port should obviously run quite quickly on the chip.
The surrounding hardware (and thus the device drivers) will prove to be more problematic unless something comes up (e.g., IBM finally releases a PReP machine and actually gives enough technical documentation on it).
LJ: What is TLB?
Linus: TLB: Translation Lookaside Buffer. It's essentially a small cache inside the processor that caches the page tables, so that the processor doesn't need to look up the virtual-physical mapping in the page tables each time it does a memory access.
The i386 has a TLB with 18 entries (don't quote me on that, but it's something of that order), that it uses to cache the 2-level page tables that define the virtual-memory layout. When a TLB cache miss occurs, the i386 will then (in hardware) look up the virtual mapping in the page tables, and fill in the TLB.
The PowerPC uses a slightly different approach--it won't do a page table lookup when it misses its TLB. Instead, it will look up a new TLB entry from a hash table that has been filled in by the operating system. The operating system can use whatever page table it wants to generate that hash table.
As a final example, let's take the Alpha: it has only a TLB and does any TLB miss lookup in software (the PAL-code). So you can chose your own way of implementing the page tables. (You could do a hash-table plus a physical page table like the PowerPC, or you could go to the page tables directly, like the i386.)
You've obviously never done any instruction decoding Oh, yes I have. My favorite tool at the moment happens to be the watcom dis-assembler and gdb.
Binary rewriting is much easier on any of the RISC architectures. Yes it is.
And x86 is just _so_ fugly. What else could one call "real" mode? Or "virtual wire" mode? Or segmented paging? It's how I make my living.I don't enjoy it, it's just how I earn my paycheck.
If you ever wrote an x86 assembler or disassembler, you would know exactly what Linus was talking about.
Umm, no I don't understand. Linus has never been good at translating his native language into english. Nothing against Linus here.
Yes, I have coded assembler for x86. I started coding assembler for the C6502 in 1981. My first Intel chip started out being the 8086 in 1987. I've written TSR DOS code, and Windows/Linux drivers over the years. I have M68k print drivers with my name on them (proprietary embedded system).
Are we getting into the RISC/CISC wars again?
Explain to me why the "Baroque" is overly complicated? Yes, it seems to me that the x86 instruction set has some overhead. Less than the 68k chip. Is that what Linus meant?
Enjoy,
Bill Gates on lack of response towards Linux
on
Microsoft At Middle Age
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Several posters have been complaining about Bill's lack of Windows response towards Linux. Here is your answer, but don't flame me, flame the proof or logic.
It's not that Bill Gates doesn't care about linux, he just doesn't know how to compete with it. If you read his biography you will find he is one of the most competitive people alive. He loves to win, sometimes at any cost. It's just a challenge to him.
Bill is confused about linux. He can't compete on price. He definitely cannot compete with the model (open source). Linux scales better than windows from small embedded computers up to the big iron. He can't use his past exclusive contracts with the computer makers to stop the linux distribution channel (like he did with OS/2, Dr DOS, GEOS, etc.). KDE/GNOME/OpenOffice will soon be a transparent replacement for Explorer and MS Office.
I think we have already seen Bill's decision regarding linux (right or wrong). Lock the customer into using windows until Microsoft finds another revenue stream to replace it. Passport,.Net, DRM, and Office 11 are all designed to keep you within Windows.
Your computer and the O/S may be a commodity, your data isn't. Your pictures, spreadsheets, logs, documents, Music, etc. needs to belong to Microsoft and they know this.
The read from theinquirer.net is all wrong. The slashdot story line is also wrong. It does not state at all what it implies. Here is the link to what Linus actually wrote:
Now, I agree with Linus on the PPC MMU issue. Can anyone tell me what he means by "baroque instruction encoding"? I have been doing x86 and 68k assembler for a long time, I have never heard of this.
It's not that he doesn't care about linux, he just doesn't know how to compete with it. If you read his biography you will find he is one of the most competitive people alive. He loves to win, sometimes at any cost.
Bill is confused about linux. He can't compete on price. He definitely cannot compete with the model (open source). Linux scales better than windows from small embedded computers up to big iron. He can't use his past exclusive contracts with the computer makers to stop the linux distribution channel (like he did with OS/2, Dr DOS, etc.).
I think we have already seen Bill's decision regarding linux (right or wrong). Lock the customer into using windows until Microsoft finds another revenue stream to replace it. The computer and the O/S may be a commodity, your data isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
and yes IBM did release, either knowingly or not, SYS V code into the OSS realm without permission.
I'm not trying to start a flame war but can you be specific? The only AIX source code from IBM I've ever seen was for OS/2 (Aix 'like' utilities called ps, grep, ls, etc). JFS is not UNIX, it was released under OS/2 first.
I informed my boss that this lawsuit probably won't impact our Linux development. Do you know something that is not listed in the court papers? How did IBM violate SCO's IP?
Thanks.
FYI, here is the public download:
n ux /index.html
http://www.suse.com/us/private/download/suse_li
I don't mind paying for YAsT, it's much better at detecting hardware than RedHat's installation tool IMHO.
Enjoy,
From an interview with Linus here:0 5_Story 01.html
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-
MozillaQuest Magazine: Did the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and groups lack the technological capability of producing an enterprise level Linux without being bailed-out by IBM as SCO-Caldera claims?
Linus Torvalds: "Bailed-out by IBM"? Hardly. Oh, IBM has certainly been very helpful, and I like the IBM engineers I work with, but Linux was running on 16-cpu Sun sparc computers long before IBM really got into it.
Everything in SCO's court filing is speculative (IANAL).
This would be like Microsoft filing a lawsuit against Xerox because they helped Apple dilute the market for windows licenses.
Sorry. End rant, gulp beer.
Enjoy,
The other box is a P166 set up as a security camera server. Its been upgraded to 2.4.20. for better bttv support. It manages around 14 days between reboots.
Strange. The only problem we have had with the 2.4.x kernel is an iomem conflict between certain device subsystems (hard reset). Once configured properly everything just runs.
You need to investigate this further. Are you getting weird log messages? How about a missing/older library dependency?
Just trying to help, enjoy.
After all, that's the strategy they pursued and accomplished against Microsoft with DRDOS.
SCO was purchased by Caldera in September of 2000. The settlement with Microsoft was completed in January of 2000. Caldera alone was responsible for the DR DOS/Microsoft lawsuit, not SCO.
The reason it worked with Microsoft is because MS knew they had a severe image problem that could hurt them badly in court.
It appears you haven't read up on this case. What public information available on this trial shows that Microsoft did everything they could to prevent this from going to court. The settlement had everything to do with guilt, not image. Google for "Caldera vs Microsoft".
The sum 1 billion probably tips off the strategy they have. Start off high, wrangle in the courts a little bit, then settle for some lesser amount that IBM might be willing to pay "to be done with it".
I agree, they are looking for a quick settlement.
Enjoy,
Excellent read. I didn't know VisiCorp did anything besides VisiCalc.
Moderators, mod parent up as +5 Informative.
Enjoy,
From any article on CAPI (I & II),
The system, ordered by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, will gather much more information on passengers.
There you go. Write your senator/congressman.
Enjoy,
I should not feed the AC's. This poster is a moron. Since when did the USSR allow any free inbound and outbound information? Never.
Enjoy
This is so stupid.
Agreed.
If there is any "methodology" at all to doing this profiling there is a danger that you would just probe the system till you discover the "right" person to send through.
I agree even more.
The correct way to implement this is to not do it.
Police our borders and inbound flights. Police the people who want VISA's to learn at our schools. Police our borders better. Nothing within CAPII prevents 9/11 (or 11/9 to our european friends).
Enjoy,
- I have a beard.
- I am mistakenly listed as a vegitarian on BA.
- I carry lots of hardware when I travel.
- I am a smart ass towards people who ask stupid questions (most security/airline employees).
But seriously, I have already written to the congressmen and senators I helped put in office. If they vote for this they will no longer receive a vote from me.
Enjoy,
Yup but the US insists on imposing tariffs to protect its own interests while demanding that we drop ours. That is the price of doing business with the US. Australia is just about to enter into negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement and one of the points is the US demand that we drop our local content rules for television so as to allow more American television onto our screens.
What tariffs on what products? Maybe our business news is slow but I haven't heard of any. If we did enact tariffs on a product it is to save our workers manufacturing the same product. I would think Austrialia does the same thing.
As to the Philipines they weren't declared free until 1946. Tell me something, does America still hold onto Samoa, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay? Formerly independant nations or parts of independant nations that are now part of the US. All became territory after the war with Spain. We didn't invade them, Spain did. They are free to leave at any time. None seem to mind being receipients of our tax money.
Enjoy,
Ummm how about the Philipines, various pacific islands and South American nations
Again, the spoils of war with Spain in the late 1890's. Are they free now?
Not to mention cultural imperialism which has a far greater reach than the military might.
Nobody in America forced our products or culture on you. If you don't like WalMart or McDonalds then don't purchase these products. Somebody liked them and thats why they are there.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has a history of extending its sphere of influence, often to the detriment of those who come under it.
Again, statements with no proof or facts. We extended our power over Germany and Japan and thats why they have to agree with us on all US issues. We are soon to influence Afganistan politics. If you don't like us because we are capitalist then say so. Do you know that your local McDonalds is owned by someone in your country? It's called a Franchise. Does your country ship products to the US? Do you know that if you make a good product it will sell in the US? You need to look again at the "Free Market" economy.
I am not your enemy. Just a voice for logic and common sense.
Enjoy,
(Sigh)
GW Bush unilaterally appoints the US as the world's international police force
Nobody seems to mind when we help out thier cause. But when it comes to "our" soverign state we are just a bunch of bullies.
Then, in the name of the "war against terrorism", the government usurps the very constitutional rights of its own citizens to legal representation and the presumption of inocence.
No where in the article did it mention terrorism. What constitutional right do I have that allows me to sell other peoples property without payment? The owner pleaded guilty, what are you defending?
No one has taken away any of my constitutional rights. If I don't like the way my congressman/senator votes, then he/she won't be in office the next term (from my vote) reguardless of how much money he/she has.
And now it seems that the US government is set on forcing its own laws upon all citizens of the world.
The last time I was in Germany, France, and England, the laws were different for pretty much everything. I was in all three countries last year.
It strikes me that the American people need to wake up and realize that those in power are starting to run amok and need to be reigned in -- for the benefit of *everybody* on the planet.
How would your country react if it was attacked on it's own soil? Would the citizens demand of the powers in office for revenge? Would you care if your Mother/Father/Sister/Son/Daughter died? Would your country try to prevent future attacks. What would you do if your country found out another country aided or supported those attacks?
The USA is a great nation and I have lots of really nice American friends -- but hasn't anyone over there noticed that there's a bunch of crazies driving your wagon?
No, we don't have any more crazies than the rest of the elected officials in the world. Are they stupid, maybe. Can they be taught, yes.
And yes we like you too. There is 280 million people here to make friends with.
Enjoy,
I'm not trying to start a flame war but,
The aim was to reduce the treat of imperilism
Name one country that has ever been threatened by imperialism from the United States? Spoils of war with western europe back in the 1890's does not meet the criteria.
You can accuse of us of "capitalism" though. How about a "capitalism simulation software" where 3rd world nations can train to block walmarts and McDonalds from entering thier sphere of influence?
Enjoy,
If someone can boot from a configuration other than the default OS, they have free reign
I've seen one PC based O/S do this correctly. OS/2. Don't laugh, but I learned the hard way one weekend at a finacial services firm. It seems the OS/2 HPFS386 (comes with OS/2 server) driver uses a combination ACL+Hardware code to encrypt the drive. We were upgrading an old server to a new one and just moved the data drive over to the new box. Nada, zilch, nothing. The computer saw the drive but none of the contents. It didn't matter what we did, (rescue disk, etc.) we couldn't see the file system.
To make a long story short (what was supposed to take two hours took eight), we had to put the drive back into the original box and run a special administrators tool (separate locked away disk) to remove the ACL's from the file system. Only then could we move the drive to the new server and re-apply the ACL's. Not a fun weekend.
Enjoy,
Why do we need to explain anything to you. Can't you look up the information yourself and make an informed opinion? Anyway, disseminate this article for starters:
6 10 ,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,678
Also, all this week the History Channel is showing documentaries on Iraq.
Enjoy,
I'm sorry, I should have posted this link.l j/Magaz ines/LJ9/0036.html
http://www.iar.unlp.edu.ar/~fede/revistas/
Excerpt from an interview with Linus.
LJ: I heard there were two efforts going on for Linux being ported to the PowerPC and the Mac, and that one effort was put on hold because of lack of information from Apple. Do you think the effort is stalled, or do you know if there is still real progress being made?
Linus: I have no idea on the PowerPC port. I have only seen the occasional reports (the latest one indeed saying that they had no knowledge about the IO interfaces). Apple isn't known for disclosing technical information and IBM doesn't seem to have any PowerPC machine out yet (except for the RT which doesn't follow PReP). I don't know what will happen with the PowerPC (with regard to Linux or anything else for that matter). I saw a report about IBM now also considering the Pentium again.
LJ: What is PReP or a PReP machine?
Linus: PReP stands for "PowerPC Reference Platform"--essentially a unified external interface to the PowerPC chip, defining the external bus and the BIOS interface. It's an IBM standard, but even IBM doesn't have any machines out there that follow that standard yet. IBM does have machines with the PowerPC chipset, but those are in their RT line of Unix computers, and have their own bus architecture around the chip (essentially the same one that the POWER series of processors had which were the predecessors of the PowerPC chip).
LJ: Because you know the kernel better than anyone else, how do you feel about the port? Do you think it will be an easy port? Do you think it will run as well on a PowerPC as on the Intel architecture?
Linus: Oh, the PowerPC chip itself shouldn't be the problem. The memory management of the chip is rather strange (and ugly, imho), but that can be considered an extended TLB and the PowerPC port could well use the same memory management architectures, etc., as the current i386 version. The port should obviously run quite quickly on the chip.
The surrounding hardware (and thus the device drivers) will prove to be more problematic unless something comes up (e.g., IBM finally releases a PReP machine and actually gives enough technical documentation on it).
LJ: What is TLB?
Linus: TLB: Translation Lookaside Buffer. It's essentially a small cache inside the processor that caches the page tables, so that the processor doesn't need to look up the virtual-physical mapping in the page tables each time it does a memory access.
The i386 has a TLB with 18 entries (don't quote me on that, but it's something of that order), that it uses to cache the 2-level page tables that define the virtual-memory layout. When a TLB cache miss occurs, the i386 will then (in hardware) look up the virtual mapping in the page tables, and fill in the TLB.
The PowerPC uses a slightly different approach--it won't do a page table lookup when it misses its TLB. Instead, it will look up a new TLB entry from a hash table that has been filled in by the operating system. The operating system can use whatever page table it wants to generate that hash table.
As a final example, let's take the Alpha: it has only a TLB and does any TLB miss lookup in software (the PAL-code). So you can chose your own way of implementing the page tables. (You could do a hash-table plus a physical page table like the PowerPC, or you could go to the page tables directly, like the i386.)
Enjoy,
Here is a note from Linus on the subject.k ernel/0302 .2/1910.html
n tral/e mbedded/mmu.htm
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/
Here is a good description of the PPC MMU:
http://www.xilinx.com/ipcenter/processor_ce
It's probably not a problem for the majority of programmers, including myself.
Enjoy,
You've obviously never done any instruction decoding
Oh, yes I have. My favorite tool at the moment happens to be the watcom dis-assembler and gdb.
Binary rewriting is much easier on any of the RISC architectures.
Yes it is.
And x86 is just _so_ fugly. What else could one call "real" mode? Or "virtual wire" mode? Or segmented paging?
It's how I make my living.I don't enjoy it, it's just how I earn my paycheck.
Torvalds is no longer to be trusted. His position as a profitmaking employee of a money-losing corporation nullifies his credibility.
You have never met or heard Linus speak have you.
Enough said.
Enjoy,
Thank You. No arguments. Isn't this what slasdot was created for?
Enjoy,
If you ever wrote an x86 assembler or disassembler, you would know exactly what Linus was talking about.
Umm, no I don't understand. Linus has never been good at translating his native language into english. Nothing against Linus here.
Yes, I have coded assembler for x86. I started coding assembler for the C6502 in 1981. My first Intel chip started out being the 8086 in 1987. I've written TSR DOS code, and Windows/Linux drivers over the years. I have M68k print drivers with my name on them (proprietary embedded system).
Are we getting into the RISC/CISC wars again?
Explain to me why the "Baroque" is overly complicated? Yes, it seems to me that the x86 instruction set has some overhead. Less than the 68k chip. Is that what Linus meant?
Enjoy,
Several posters have been complaining about Bill's lack of Windows response towards Linux. Here is your answer, but don't flame me, flame the proof or logic.
.Net, DRM, and Office 11 are all designed to keep you within Windows.
It's not that Bill Gates doesn't care about linux, he just doesn't know how to compete with it. If you read his biography you will find he is one of the most competitive people alive. He loves to win, sometimes at any cost. It's just a challenge to him.
Bill is confused about linux. He can't compete on price. He definitely cannot compete with the model (open source). Linux scales better than windows from small embedded computers up to the big iron. He can't use his past exclusive contracts with the computer makers to stop the linux distribution channel (like he did with OS/2, Dr DOS, GEOS, etc.). KDE/GNOME/OpenOffice will soon be a transparent replacement for Explorer and MS Office.
I think we have already seen Bill's decision regarding linux (right or wrong). Lock the customer into using windows until Microsoft finds another revenue stream to replace it. Passport,
Your computer and the O/S may be a commodity, your data isn't. Your pictures, spreadsheets, logs, documents, Music, etc. needs to belong to Microsoft and they know this.
Enjoy.
The read from theinquirer.net is all wrong. The slashdot story line is also wrong. It does not state at all what it implies. Here is the link to what Linus actually wrote:
3 02 .2/1909.html
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0
Now, I agree with Linus on the PPC MMU issue. Can anyone tell me what he means by "baroque instruction encoding"? I have been doing x86 and 68k assembler for a long time, I have never heard of this.
Enjoy,
It's not that he doesn't care about linux, he just doesn't know how to compete with it. If you read his biography you will find he is one of the most competitive people alive. He loves to win, sometimes at any cost.
Bill is confused about linux. He can't compete on price. He definitely cannot compete with the model (open source). Linux scales better than windows from small embedded computers up to big iron. He can't use his past exclusive contracts with the computer makers to stop the linux distribution channel (like he did with OS/2, Dr DOS, etc.).
I think we have already seen Bill's decision regarding linux (right or wrong). Lock the customer into using windows until Microsoft finds another revenue stream to replace it. The computer and the O/S may be a commodity, your data isn't.
Enjoy,