So if I have a crappy transmitter and I tell it to broadcast at a certain frequency, there will be a certain tolerance there
Yes, you're right. But it's not a function of a `crappy transmitter'... it's called `bandwidth' -- and while you may have heard the term before, *this* is where it originated.
A radio signal, unless it's a pure sine wave, uses a certain amount of bandwidth. Double the amount of data pushed through, and you double the bandwidth used, all other things being equal.
For example, my R/C plane uses 72.450 mhz, and the bandwidth used is 20 khz, so 72.441 mhz -> 72.459 mhz are what's in use. Well, that's what's allocated anyways -- the radio should use a little less. The transmitter should not transmit signifigant amounts of power outside of that range, and the receiver should ignore any signals outside of that range.
(For comparison, morse code can use less than one khz of bandwidth. FM voice transmissions (such as used by police radios) take up 3-6 khz. SSB and FM use less, but the sound quality is less too. More bandwidth = more quality, though certain modulation types work better with little bandwidth. I don't know how much bandwith a commercial FM radio station (88-108 mhz) uses, but it's probably more like 100 khz (after all, it's music.)
If you start reducing the bandwidth used, you lose data. If it's an AM signal, you'll start losing the higher frequencies. I'd have to think about what it would do to other modulation types...
The real problem here is that the FCC has done some really wonky allocations of bandwidth. For example, the 72.450 mhz frequency I mentioned earlier -- the 72 mhz band is for R/C planes, but it's also shared with pagers. So 72.450 mhz is channel 33 for planes, but 72.460 mhz is probably used by a pager company. If they put their tower near our R/C field, and I fly my plane over near that end, and a page goes out... their signal can overpower my wimpy little 1 watt transmitter, and guess what happens to the plane? (Actually, 1 watt isn't that wimpy -- R/C plane transmitters have a range of about 1.5 miles. But the pager tower may use something like 750 watts...)
In any event, that exact same problem has happened in the 800 mhz band -- 801.4 mhz may be allocated to a police band, but 801.5 mhz may be used by a cell phone tower...
On the one hand, you jumped to assumptions.
...
and please read more carefully.
Who's jumping to conclusions? I never said he said `free'. But this is/., and more people than just the original `anonymous reader' read these responses, and many/. readers prefer not to pay for software -- some out of principle, some because they prefer the free alternatives, and some because they prefer the local warez site.
Also, he says `I do a lot of database work' not `I'm a well-paid database wonk' -- for all you know, he does all his database work in MySQL or Postgress, and he does it for the local charity. Being that this is/., I know that many people will be interested in knowing the cost of whatever solution I propose, since it will be a large factor in their decision.
Like it or not, fat32 is the only option that works on all the OSs in question and doesn't cost extra money.
Your other options include Paragon's Mount Everything and their Ext2fs Everywhere (which is really just a subset of `Mount Everything'.) These programs let you mount ext2/ext3 under Windows, or let you mount NTFS under Linux (I don't know how good that is -- I know that Linux has some NTFS support itself, but know it's not very mature.)
If that's not clear enough -- if you want to spend some money, spend it with Paragon and you can use ext3 or NTFS. If not, stick with fat32.
So now if I pay shipping on that... would you send it my way?
You're the second person to suggest that...
It's just an Indigo (one, not a ^2). It's one of the better ones, an R4000 model, but it's still slow slow slow by today's standard. It also requires a proprietary keyboard and mouse.
If you really want an SGI, check Ebay. There's quite a few of them there.
You really want an Indigo^2 or later version (like the Octanes), rather than an Indigo 1. The Indigo 2's are faster, have 12 SIMM slots, and take standard PS/2 keyboards and mice. The Indy's are like the Indigo^2's, but slower, have different expansion slots and only have 8 SIMM slots. You will need a special VGA cable, but once you have that, they'll work with standard PC monitors.
Looks like there's lots of Indigo^2s on Ebay for less than $100 -- for example, the SGI Indigo 2 R10K 200 mhz Solid Impact 256 MB for $59 (buy it now at $89.) Get lots of memory now if you can (they max out at 384MB, I think) -- 32 MB parity SIMMs are hard to find.
And even so, a p3/600 with a GF2 card will blow these things away in every way. The R10k CPUs are fast at floating point, but they are still slower than modern PCs.
The Octanes are a good deal faster, but they'll cost a lot more.
I really don't think it makes sense to ship mine -- I was thinking of donating it to Goodwill here in town. They already have several of the other SGIs we used to have (I used to administer the 4D/240 in their museum, for example) so they can probably find a home for this one too. If you want one, you can find a much better on on Ebay for not much more.
the NetApp guy claims in the article that $15k is about a quarter what the guy would have paid for a new one through them
That's *not* what the article said. What it said is this --
"$15,000 is still a good deal," counters Frank Sowin, senior director of service marketing for NetApp of Sunnyvale, Calif., noting that the original price of the storage server was more than four times that.
`Original price'... I haven't priced these thingsl lately, but I suspect that they depreciate quickly just like all computer items. The new models may still cost $60k -- but they're probably much faster and have much more storage.
I've got an SGI in the garage I bought for $40. Original price on that model was more like $6000. If SGI told me that I had to pay $1250 to relicense Irix for it, and tried to convince me that this was a bargain (after all, it's 75% off!), do you think I'd agree? Do you think I'd pay it?
(Actually, I haven't touched the box in a year. I need to just get rid of it.)
Re:Moderated Funny? This is informative!
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
Heck, a 12v battery is made out of a bunch of 1.5v cells anyway.
Actually, lead-acid cells are nominally 2 volts rather than 1.5 volts:)
One interesting thing about the DAT tax is this --
The law does have one benefit to the consumer. It explicitly makes it legal (or more precisely, non-actionable) for you to copy audio works for your own use ( section 1008). That's right, it is now perfectly legitimate for you to borrow the latest Madonna album from a friend and make yourself a copy, despite the copyright. Pretty neat, huh?
In any event, the DAT tax only applies to audio media, not data media (Audio CD-Rs, which are needed for stereo component writers, have a bit set that say they're audio CD-Rs and cost much more. Of course, most people just use data CD-Rs in their computer anyways.)
Often when I see people buying Audio CD-Rs in the store, I ask them if they're going to burn it on a computer or a stereo component. In every case, they've said `computer'.
Now, I've heard that companies that make analog media, like cassette and VHS tapes, pay a certain amount to the recording and movie industries -- sort of a `hush' money -- but it's not something that has been codified into law like the DAT tax.
the CPU is not a signifigant bottleneck in modern systems.
Are you on crack? Even today, the CPU speed is a signifigant bottleneck for many operations.
Now, the cpu speed has increased by a larger factor than memory speed and disk speed over the last few years, but it's still quite a large bottleneck in many operations, including the ones tested in this (admitedly lacking) test.
Even the speed of a kernel compile, which is often given as a classic `disk I/O bound' process, is extremely CPU bound. How do I know? Running `top' on an idle box shows 0% cpu utilization. Once I start the compile, it goes to well over 90% cpu utilization and stays there until the compilation is done. (just to be complete, I'm testing this on a dual p3 700 box with SCSI disks, doing a `make -j2'. But even my 2ghz Athlon computer with IDE disks works similarly.)
Perhaps I'll do some tests with adjusting the CPU multiplier on a given box, see how that affects compilation times. That would be an excellent test...
Hmm, I'll have to get back to you... I should have an answer by 2012.
Actually, if they were storing md5sum, header information etc. into a database as the items came in (which is exactly what the NSA would do if they were tracking Usenet like this), this sort of request could be satisfied with simple SQL in a few seconds. The database wouldn't even be that big (not compared to some corporate databases out there.) But the actual images/movies/warez/etc., that's another matter.
I'm not saying it's not possible to have this much data archived somewhere. I just don't think anybody has done it -- it's just not that useful. 106 TB/year, mostly porn and warez. And if they do have it, they're not likely to share it to you.
Of course, the guy who originally asked about this probably doesn't need all the binary data.
Maybe because he's not a gamer and doesn't spend a few hours a week perusing on-line reviews or looking at what the local EB is selling?
And I don't watch professional wrestling, but if a professional wrestler appeared on the scene with my name, I suspect I'd hear about it -- finding it on google, see it on TNN accidently, or a friend would mention it. Same goes for race car drivers (there's already one with my last name! bastard!), astronauts and porn stars.
In any event the massive number of binary posts (porn, movies, warez, etc) on usenet in the past few years would make the "full" archive of the past few years number in the tens of thousands of CD's. A "full" usenet feed passed up the bandwidth of a T1 about 1998 IIRC.
NOBODY has a full archive of the posts made to alt.binaries.* -- I doubt that even the NSA has that much storage to spare for it.
I believe that a full feed is around 300 GB per day now, with 99+% of that being alt.binaries.*.
Also, it isn't really gameable, because there are no pre-set scenarios
Just being able to fly around with no set goals can be a fun game.
or even an instruction manual (the 15 or so html pages on the CD don't really count).
Most people don't read the instructions that come with games anyways:)
It's not sold as a game either.
It used to be.
Definitely not a game.
Yet it has been seen on the shelves at the local computer store -- in the games section (Not lately though -- they seem to only selling it directly now.)
Lots of other people seem to think it's a game.
Google certainly finds a lot of stuff about it on game sites.
What I think *really* happened is that X-Plane was first marketed just like any other flight simulator -- yes, die-hard pilots will buy it, but the bulk of their sales will be made to those looking for another game to play. And it was even priced accordingly, around $30-$50 if I recall correctly.
But it couldn't compete with MSFS, so they decided to stop calling it a game, and decided instead to concentrate on realism and to mark it as a `serious simulation'. And it seems to have developed a cult following -- so it sounds like this approach has worked.
Alot of other flight sims are games, X-Plane is not.
Game vs. Simulator. The line is very vague.
You may not have noticed this, but X-Plane is sold as a game. It's in the game section. When you ask for a list of games, there it is. People may use it as a serious training aid, but for every person who does that, there's probably several who use it as a `game'.
I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic
Perhaps, if you're doing something `wierd'. But 99% of the time, you're not likely to notice anything `wrong' with MSFS's flight model. And the other 1%, either the difference will be very small, or it's some 3D (stalled wing, but massive amounts of power that make it work anyways) maneuver.
There could have been several resolutions to this case, but SCO has essentially blockaded all avenues of compromise.
Of course they have. Compromise does not make them money.
I could see them saying that the kernel hackers can't recode the kernel because they have seen SCO's version and will obviously infringe on it.
Unfortunately, the SCO board of director's primary responsibility is to the stock holders, not to the *nix community and not to anybody else. The company doesn't appear to be making any money selling their products, so perhaps they can make some by extorting it from Linux users.
If they told people where the `infringing' code was, it would be removed and they'd lose any possible case that they have. They know this, so that's why they won't tell anybody.
... that the FSB *can* tap messages in realtime, encryption or not.
But they do this sort of thing (publically turn off encryption) from time to time to make people *think* that they can't, so that people will be more free to discuss incriminating things on their cell phones at other times when the encryption is on.
These aren't the only crackpots out there working on flying saucers.
Here is another guy who thinks that his patented propulsion method will let you fly to the moon. Basically it's a totally closed box where spinning disks generate lift. He seems to think that he doesn't need to push on anything to produce lift. Oh, and by the way... last I heard,
he's still looking for investors!.
I'd consider fair use of an image to be when you can not enjoy all of the image in all of it's glory.
I'd tend to agree with you.
It's an interesting analogy to apply to mp3s, however. mp3s are inferior replications of their source data, so obviously they cannot be enjoyed `in all their glory'. Of course, 128 kbit/s gets you most of their glory, and so I'm sure the courts would consider that good enough.
After all, that's half the purpose of getting a DVR in the first place, isn't it?
Not quite half. 30% maybe.
However, as a previous poster suggested, some commercials I find myself watching again. And like him, commercials with a pretty girl or for a cool looking movie often get watched again by me.
Still, I appreciate being able to fast forward through commercials, even if I don't actually do it. If Tivo ever changes things so I cannot (either because somebody pays them to do so, or some (stupid) law requires it), I'll probably switch to a computer recording things rather than my Tivo.
I wonder if it would be possible for a future aircraft to stay up most of the time by just gliding...
The problem with this idea is that thermals are powered by the sun. Once the sun goes down, the thermals do too. You might have some thermal activity due to a large concrete item that retains heat well (I bring this up because I was slope/thermal flying an R/C plane over Mansfield dam today) but even so it wouldn't last all night.
That, and thermals do go up high, but not up to 100,000 feet. And a plane that stays at 1000 feet isn't nearly as useful as one that stays at 100,000 feet.
Slope soaring would make more sense, as if you're in a coastal area is usually always windy and the wind direction is pretty well known, but this would require an appropriate slope and it's hard to gain signifigant altitude unless you have a full mountain for your slope.
You could probably keep a plane up indefinately over a constant source of massive heat like a nuclear power plant or volcano, but that wouldn't be very useful.
I believe that the world record duration for a R/C glider is 30 hours or so -- I don't know the specifics, but I'll bet this was on a slope. After 30 hours, he probably either got tired or his receiver battery died:)
With those goals, I'm glad it's dead. I happen to like sh, init, and non-restrictive package management.
Agreed. I was about to post the same thing, but since you've already done so, I'll just say <AOL>me too</AOL>.
He seems to think that everybody wants a new shell, a new scripting language, etc. -- does *anybody* (at least anybody in the group that currently uses Linux and/or the LRP stuff) really want this? If a new shell/scripting language comes out and it's great and wonderful and all, I'll take a look at it... but I'm certainly not screaming for it now.
`A new (universal) packaging scheme (would retrofit other OSes)'... how would it refit other OSs? There's already so many competing packaging schemes out there, what makes him think we need another? What would his offer that others don't? (beyond being `universal', I guess, whatever that means.)
People have looked at *nix, Windows and other OSes and used what they learned to make new OSes. Some have succeeded and become popular (MacOS, OS/2 for a while, sort of) and others have not (BeOS, though it's not quite dead and it's reasons for failure were more political/financial than anything else.)
Personally, I *like* *nix, and I like bash/ash/sh, and I don't want another packaging system to deal with. Anything that's Linux based, but does away with all of these things I like about *nix systems, is going to have a hard time convincing me that I want it.
It sounds like he's trying to make a product to compete with dedicated routers, something like Cisco's IOS. Great, another totally different OS to learn.
The name of this operating system and it's specifications, shall still remain UNRELEASED.
Translation: you freeloaders haven't paid me enough, so I'm not giving you any more free software.
Translation Translation: Screw you guys, I'm going home.
They did more than put out signs. They provided drinks for everybody -- even the protesters. That's relatively cheap -- but extremely classy.
They went out and picketed with them. They posed for pictures. They came out and `shared laughs'.
The posters themselves were a little unclassy (but still funny.) But they made up for it in the other things they did.
Especially where they started in on the Iraq and France bashing by association.
They made a joke. That's more than they've done up to this part.
(And I'll bet the SCO lawyers have a field day with this, and the people who did it get yelled at big time. After all, I doubt those signs were approved by legal (even though they were ready beforehand?)...)
Slashdot Mirror
A radio signal, unless it's a pure sine wave, uses a certain amount of bandwidth. Double the amount of data pushed through, and you double the bandwidth used, all other things being equal.
For example, my R/C plane uses 72.450 mhz, and the bandwidth used is 20 khz, so 72.441 mhz -> 72.459 mhz are what's in use. Well, that's what's allocated anyways -- the radio should use a little less. The transmitter should not transmit signifigant amounts of power outside of that range, and the receiver should ignore any signals outside of that range.
(For comparison, morse code can use less than one khz of bandwidth. FM voice transmissions (such as used by police radios) take up 3-6 khz. SSB and FM use less, but the sound quality is less too. More bandwidth = more quality, though certain modulation types work better with little bandwidth. I don't know how much bandwith a commercial FM radio station (88-108 mhz) uses, but it's probably more like 100 khz (after all, it's music.)
If you start reducing the bandwidth used, you lose data. If it's an AM signal, you'll start losing the higher frequencies. I'd have to think about what it would do to other modulation types ...
The real problem here is that the FCC has done some really wonky allocations of bandwidth. For example, the 72.450 mhz frequency I mentioned earlier -- the 72 mhz band is for R/C planes, but it's also shared with pagers. So 72.450 mhz is channel 33 for planes, but 72.460 mhz is probably used by a pager company. If they put their tower near our R/C field, and I fly my plane over near that end, and a page goes out ... their signal can overpower my wimpy little 1 watt transmitter, and guess what happens to the plane? (Actually, 1 watt isn't that wimpy -- R/C plane transmitters have a range of about 1.5 miles. But the pager tower may use something like 750 watts ...)
In any event, that exact same problem has happened in the 800 mhz band -- 801.4 mhz may be allocated to a police band, but 801.5 mhz may be used by a cell phone tower ...
Also, he says `I do a lot of database work' not `I'm a well-paid database wonk' -- for all you know, he does all his database work in MySQL or Postgress, and he does it for the local charity. Being that this is /., I know that many people will be interested in knowing the cost of whatever solution I propose, since it will be a large factor in their decision.
No problem.Your other options include Paragon's Mount Everything and their Ext2fs Everywhere (which is really just a subset of `Mount Everything'.) These programs let you mount ext2/ext3 under Windows, or let you mount NTFS under Linux (I don't know how good that is -- I know that Linux has some NTFS support itself, but know it's not very mature.)
If that's not clear enough -- if you want to spend some money, spend it with Paragon and you can use ext3 or NTFS. If not, stick with fat32.
And it already has Irix on it (5.3, which I don't even think is supported anymore.)
The other guy who replied to your comments really needs to get modded up ... he hit the nail on the head :)
It's just an Indigo (one, not a ^2). It's one of the better ones, an R4000 model, but it's still slow slow slow by today's standard. It also requires a proprietary keyboard and mouse.
If you really want an SGI, check Ebay. There's quite a few of them there.
You really want an Indigo^2 or later version (like the Octanes), rather than an Indigo 1. The Indigo 2's are faster, have 12 SIMM slots, and take standard PS/2 keyboards and mice. The Indy's are like the Indigo^2's, but slower, have different expansion slots and only have 8 SIMM slots. You will need a special VGA cable, but once you have that, they'll work with standard PC monitors.
Looks like there's lots of Indigo^2s on Ebay for less than $100 -- for example, the SGI Indigo 2 R10K 200 mhz Solid Impact 256 MB for $59 (buy it now at $89.) Get lots of memory now if you can (they max out at 384MB, I think) -- 32 MB parity SIMMs are hard to find.
And even so, a p3/600 with a GF2 card will blow these things away in every way. The R10k CPUs are fast at floating point, but they are still slower than modern PCs.
The Octanes are a good deal faster, but they'll cost a lot more.
I really don't think it makes sense to ship mine -- I was thinking of donating it to Goodwill here in town. They already have several of the other SGIs we used to have (I used to administer the 4D/240 in their museum, for example) so they can probably find a home for this one too. If you want one, you can find a much better on on Ebay for not much more.
I've got an SGI in the garage I bought for $40. Original price on that model was more like $6000. If SGI told me that I had to pay $1250 to relicense Irix for it, and tried to convince me that this was a bargain (after all, it's 75% off!), do you think I'd agree? Do you think I'd pay it?
(Actually, I haven't touched the box in a year. I need to just get rid of it.)
It's called The DAT Tax.
One interesting thing about the DAT tax is this --
In any event, the DAT tax only applies to audio media, not data media (Audio CD-Rs, which are needed for stereo component writers, have a bit set that say they're audio CD-Rs and cost much more. Of course, most people just use data CD-Rs in their computer anyways.)Often when I see people buying Audio CD-Rs in the store, I ask them if they're going to burn it on a computer or a stereo component. In every case, they've said `computer'.
Now, I've heard that companies that make analog media, like cassette and VHS tapes, pay a certain amount to the recording and movie industries -- sort of a `hush' money -- but it's not something that has been codified into law like the DAT tax.
Now, the cpu speed has increased by a larger factor than memory speed and disk speed over the last few years, but it's still quite a large bottleneck in many operations, including the ones tested in this (admitedly lacking) test.
Even the speed of a kernel compile, which is often given as a classic `disk I/O bound' process, is extremely CPU bound. How do I know? Running `top' on an idle box shows 0% cpu utilization. Once I start the compile, it goes to well over 90% cpu utilization and stays there until the compilation is done. (just to be complete, I'm testing this on a dual p3 700 box with SCSI disks, doing a `make -j2'. But even my 2ghz Athlon computer with IDE disks works similarly.)
Perhaps I'll do some tests with adjusting the CPU multiplier on a given box, see how that affects compilation times. That would be an excellent test ...
I'm not saying it's not possible to have this much data archived somewhere. I just don't think anybody has done it -- it's just not that useful. 106 TB/year, mostly porn and warez. And if they do have it, they're not likely to share it to you.
Of course, the guy who originally asked about this probably doesn't need all the binary data.
I believe that a full feed is around 300 GB per day now, with 99+% of that being alt.binaries.*.
Lots of other people seem to think it's a game. Google certainly finds a lot of stuff about it on game sites.
What I think *really* happened is that X-Plane was first marketed just like any other flight simulator -- yes, die-hard pilots will buy it, but the bulk of their sales will be made to those looking for another game to play. And it was even priced accordingly, around $30-$50 if I recall correctly.
But it couldn't compete with MSFS, so they decided to stop calling it a game, and decided instead to concentrate on realism and to mark it as a `serious simulation'. And it seems to have developed a cult following -- so it sounds like this approach has worked.
You may not have noticed this, but X-Plane is sold as a game. It's in the game section. When you ask for a list of games, there it is. People may use it as a serious training aid, but for every person who does that, there's probably several who use it as a `game'.
You say potatoe, I say potato ...
If they told people where the `infringing' code was, it would be removed and they'd lose any possible case that they have. They know this, so that's why they won't tell anybody.
And I seem to have found a web version here.
Here is more on the original version (the c64 version, but whatever works.)
And more.
I don't think you mean an original GeForce or GeForce 256 ...
Is GF1 shorthand for GeForce FX?
And here I thought my Ti 4200 was pretty good ... bah!
But they do this sort of thing (publically turn off encryption) from time to time to make people *think* that they can't, so that people will be more free to discuss incriminating things on their cell phones at other times when the encryption is on.
Just a guess.
Here is another guy who thinks that his patented propulsion method will let you fly to the moon. Basically it's a totally closed box where spinning disks generate lift. He seems to think that he doesn't need to push on anything to produce lift. Oh, and by the way ... last I heard,
he's still looking for investors!.
It's not as wacky as NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE, but it's definately out there.
It's an interesting analogy to apply to mp3s, however. mp3s are inferior replications of their source data, so obviously they cannot be enjoyed `in all their glory'. Of course, 128 kbit/s gets you most of their glory, and so I'm sure the courts would consider that good enough.
However, as a previous poster suggested, some commercials I find myself watching again. And like him, commercials with a pretty girl or for a cool looking movie often get watched again by me.
Still, I appreciate being able to fast forward through commercials, even if I don't actually do it. If Tivo ever changes things so I cannot (either because somebody pays them to do so, or some (stupid) law requires it), I'll probably switch to a computer recording things rather than my Tivo.
That, and thermals do go up high, but not up to 100,000 feet. And a plane that stays at 1000 feet isn't nearly as useful as one that stays at 100,000 feet.
Slope soaring would make more sense, as if you're in a coastal area is usually always windy and the wind direction is pretty well known, but this would require an appropriate slope and it's hard to gain signifigant altitude unless you have a full mountain for your slope.
You could probably keep a plane up indefinately over a constant source of massive heat like a nuclear power plant or volcano, but that wouldn't be very useful.
I believe that the world record duration for a R/C glider is 30 hours or so -- I don't know the specifics, but I'll bet this was on a slope. After 30 hours, he probably either got tired or his receiver battery died :)
He seems to think that everybody wants a new shell, a new scripting language, etc. -- does *anybody* (at least anybody in the group that currently uses Linux and/or the LRP stuff) really want this? If a new shell/scripting language comes out and it's great and wonderful and all, I'll take a look at it ... but I'm certainly not screaming for it now.
`A new (universal) packaging scheme (would retrofit other OSes)' ... how would it refit other OSs? There's already so many competing packaging schemes out there, what makes him think we need another? What would his offer that others don't? (beyond being `universal', I guess, whatever that means.)
People have looked at *nix, Windows and other OSes and used what they learned to make new OSes. Some have succeeded and become popular (MacOS, OS/2 for a while, sort of) and others have not (BeOS, though it's not quite dead and it's reasons for failure were more political/financial than anything else.)
Personally, I *like* *nix, and I like bash/ash/sh, and I don't want another packaging system to deal with. Anything that's Linux based, but does away with all of these things I like about *nix systems, is going to have a hard time convincing me that I want it.
It sounds like he's trying to make a product to compete with dedicated routers, something like Cisco's IOS. Great, another totally different OS to learn.
Translation: you freeloaders haven't paid me enough, so I'm not giving you any more free software.Translation Translation: Screw you guys, I'm going home.
They went out and picketed with them. They posed for pictures. They came out and `shared laughs'.
The posters themselves were a little unclassy (but still funny.) But they made up for it in the other things they did.
They made a joke. That's more than they've done up to this part.(And I'll bet the SCO lawyers have a field day with this, and the people who did it get yelled at big time. After all, I doubt those signs were approved by legal (even though they were ready beforehand?)...)