"This might be beneficial to the consumer! Has it come to this, that the FCC is floundering so badly as to do something that might actually be good for the consumer?"
No kidding. At first, I was going to write this effort off after reading the Slashdot summary. The FCC has done everything in their power to pay back all of the campaign contributions made by the Phone companies, at the expense of the consumer.
The reason why these changes are being proposed is that the Justice department "had some concerns" about the monopoly effects of these proposed mergers. Ahem. This is the same Justice department which deliberately let Microsoft off the hook with its monopoly. So pardon my extreme doubt that anything would happen here to benefit the consumer.
So at first glance, it would seem that this is all fluff, and the Bush administration would be able to hand the TelCo's a major deal.
But, from the fine article:
"The FCC's two Democrats -- Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein -- may extract significant concessions in approving the deals since Mr. Martin needs at least one of them to vote in favor."
This is due to a vacany on the board. Plus, one of the current Republicans on the board is leaving at the end of the year; so there's a big impetus to get this wrapped up by December.
Also, the push for this isn't coming out of concern for the consumer; but by lobbying from other big companies, like Quest.
So maybe there's a chance we'll see this unbundling. I'll believe it when I see it. But if it happened, it might actually create much more competition in certain areas, and speed the adoption of VOIP.
And some quotes:
"market rose from 1.5 percent in 2000 to 1.7 in 2001,"
"IDC expects that Linux will become the No. 2 desktop OS in the next year or two, surpassing the Mac OS, and will continue to hold this rank for the remainder of the company's five-year forecast."
So, that's where your 1% number comes from - 2001. If you've got other links,
please post them.
"You are, deliberately ?, refering to a time frame over a decade earlier than what I was referring to. "
The discussion was about the effects of gcc on BSD and Linux, which occured in
1990/1991; but really didn't start becoming popular until 1995/1996.
If you're now referring to 1995-2005, then yes, I'd agree that lots of newcomers
joined in. It's even worse today, when lots of unskilled people are calling
themselves kernel hackers.
"My basis was that around 1990, give or take a couple of years, I was downloading compiler source code from BBS' I found indirectly though Dr Dobb's journal, the C User's Journal, or Byte Magazine."
It is, of course, hard to assess this without a copy. It could be anything.
Most likely, it was a 16-bit version for DOS, if it existed. In any case,
it clearly never went anywhere. Perhaps it was unusable for anything other
than "Hello World"?
There's a large difference between a 16-bit compiler on DOS, and a
native compiler for a 32-bit *nix O.S..
"Actually around 1990 I was writing a 32-bit x86 multithreaded kernel for
hosting telecommunications applications on custom designed hardware."
That's nice. Get a few comlete *nix ports done to a new CPU and we'll talk.
Porting a full-fledged *nix distribution and getting it ready is a completely
different matter.
There's far more to getting a multiuser desktop or server O.S. out than just
doing the kernel.
"You grossly exaggerate the effort required to have used one of those in the
early days of Linux when it was leaving Minix."
Not at all. Engineers are horribly optimistic people, and you seem to be
one of them. My assessment is spot-on. This is simply how things work.
I've only seen the exact same things happen with the schedules I've stated at
a half a dozen different companies. And I've seen the same thing from friends
at other companies doing similar work.
It basically boils down to the same sets of problems. The only
question is how efficiently it's done, and to what level of quality you
want to establish. Yes, you can ship what one company would call an alpha
release as FCS. It still takes a couple years with a reasonably sized team
of people to get everything in shape.
"...how long will it last? Any bets that Microsoft will be there, trying to get this reversed?"
Sure. I'll take that bet, IF I can bet on Microsoft being there to get this reversed. I'd even bet on Microsoft being successful, by giving the State a huge discount on their Office products, along with intense bribes (excuse me, lobbying) to the local politicians.
You know, the Standard Operating Procedure these days.
Followed by a huge Press Release saying that the State is dropping OSS in favor of Microsoft. Which in turn will alert even more states that they can get MS software for a huge discount just by issuing a Press Release.
Now, if the State was REALLY smart, they'd include a clause that any Word documents which couldn't be read via the current Word technology 5-10 years in the future would require Microsoft to pay a fine of, say, $100 per document. To cover the States' cost in converting it so that it could be read again.
"You are ignoring the majority who were indifferent and could take or leave the GPL."
No, actually, in the early days, the majority actually did care about the GPL.
It started with RMS, and propagated from there. If you have specific numbers
here, please post them.
"Actually your premise that Linux was "ahead" is mistaken."
Please reread my statement. I said that BSD was ahead. It was much farther ahead. Furthermore,
John Gilmore and Bill Jolitz were recruiting for kernel hackers in 1989 for BSD on the x86.
John Gilmore and RMS were recruiting for kernel hackers for a GNU O.S. in 1990.
Re: IDC/IDT. From my recollection of the article, it was about dead even at 4%,
with Linux predicted to move to 6% next year.
"... We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems."
Thank you for finally posting the source. I can see now why you are confused.
Notice carefully the words here. It does NOT say "Free C compilers on extant..."
That's because there were none.
The main C compiler which existed on the 386 for Unix System V was from AT&T.
This was resold by many different vendors, but it was the same; essentially
unchanged. All of these, in fact, actually came from Intel; most of the binaries
were unchanged.
This is because when AT&T first announced System V back in 1983
(down at the WCCF in Anaheim, IIRC), they also started their "microports" program. Whereby they contracted with each micro CPU
manufacturer to port System V to a reference platform for their CPU.
A small company called Microport took this and ported it to the 286 PC and 386 PC
back in the mid 80's, and started selling it in competition with SCO. Later,
other vendors took the stock Intel binaries and started selling these as well.
But they were all the same AT&T Compiler. The only other compilers for System V
on the 386 were from Green Hills, and possibly MKS (though the latter had a
small presence, if any).
These were the ONLY C compilers around for 386 Unix. It is also unlikely that
someone else developed a free C compiler, as it would have cost them somewhere
between $700-$1500 just to get an O.S. and development system just to put on
their PC. This is why BSD shipped with gcc originally.
In fact, the ONLY reason gcc was on the 386 was because Microport explicitly
GAVE a complete development system to Richard Stallman's folks FOR FREE, when
they requested it. And they requested it so that they could put gcc on the x86.
So, in summary, it is not only unlikely that there was another free compiler
around; but even if there was, no one knew about it.
"As do I, as a student, a hobbyist, and a professional."
You have clearly never, ever put UNIX, Linux or BSD on a new CPU from scratch.
If you had, you'd know that it takes a LOT of work; especially with the C compiler.
If you're lucky, you can hire one really smart person, and he can get it in
reasonable shape for a first cut on it out within a year. Far more often, people hire
between 2-5 people to do this. That's using an existing C compiler - not doing
one from scratch.
After the first cut of the compiler, you then go and try compiling the libraries,
utilities and the kernel. This usually takes about another year to get it to FCS; depending
on how many people are involved. It's an iterative process, as you're discovering
bugs in the source code of the libraries and stuff, as well as bugs in the
compiler.
The point here is that without GCC, the development of a free compiler would've
set back the efforts of a free O.S. by about 3-5 years at least. That's assuming you've got some people working part time on this, and they are reasonably competant. And they are dedicated enough to actually do this for so long. There's a quite real probability that it might even take longer, given how things work in the Open
"Sorry, you are still making the same naive mistake of assuming that all Linux contributors gave a rat's ass about the GPL and its politics."
Not at all. My point was the people who did care about the GPL were able to
accomplish far more than those in the BSD camp, even when the latter had
a significant head start. This is due to the nature of the GPL, and is why
GPL'd software can play a more powerful part than any other license.
"You are mistaken, and I had already provided you with an example. Apple's Mac OS X and it's FreeBSD internals, it outnumbers Linux by far."
Mmmm. The studies I've seen put it about even, with Linux overtaking
the Mac by about 2% next year. This was from an IDT study last year, IIRC.
The embedded marketplace is an even better example, where Linux has
come from almost nowhere to being the market leader in the past 5 year, over VxWorks and
all forms of Windows, according to a report published on linuxdevices.com
in the past few months.
"My argument is simply if not Linux, then something else would have filled the void, BSD most likely."
Yes, but the point is it would have taken many years in order to do come close; and wouldn't have filled the void by today.
Especially since there was no free x86 C compiler like you claimed.
Making things up does not strengthen your argument, nor does it make you
look like you are an a position to actually understand the matter enough
to have an informed opinion, I'm sorry to say.
Feel free to try to correct this matter by providing some actual facts.
Thanks.
I, on the otherhand, DO know what I'm talking about. I remember the time
period quite well. And it's quite clear to me that the widespread adoption
of Linux would have been slowed significantly without the FSF. Nor would
BSD have filled the void to point where Linux is today. And there's also
a very high probability that Software Patents would've passed in Europe by now,
without people having the galvanizing effect that has come out from the
FSF's efforts.
You're welcome to disagree. But frankly, an opinion made up of from
fantansy just doesn't cut it. Sorry to be so harsh, but you have proven
that you just don't know what you're talking about.
"What a pathetic misrepresentation you attempt, "
Finally, let me respond to this. I interpreted your remarks differently than
what you apparently intended. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
I accept your clarification, and withdraw my comment.
If you had simply said, "no (unfounded) viral license fears", then that would
have been more clear. My apologies if you took offense due to this
misunderstanding, but a better phrasing of your words would've been more
helpful.
I think you have your facts wrong. We're talking about the start of Linux and BSD for the x86. This would be in 1990, not 1995.
As far as Posix goes, only the specification was available. I'm not aware of any free implementations prior to when it was done for Linux. If you know of any, could you please post a link? Thanks.
Barring that then, there was that tiny detail of coding which remained. And that's what remained to getting things out the door.
Yes, these things could've been done later. The point is that they didn't have to be, thanks to the efforts of the FSF.
"Odd that a Linux fan would seem to dismiss a student's project as something not worthy of consideration.;-)"
Please don't attribute statements to me that I haven't made. I never
dismissed anything. I simply stated that there might have been something
around. I'm not aware of any. So exactly what compilers are you referring to,
or are you just making this stuff up? A link to the proof of its existance
would also be appreciated. Thanks.
"Replace "many developers" with "some developers" and the latter half of your statement becomes realistic."
Well then, these "some developers" sure seem to have done even far more
than anyone could possibly have imagined! The amount of their contributions
are truly greater than people tend to believe! The amount of what they can
accomplish is indeed impressive!
So then, how does this compare to what's been happening with the "some developers"
doing BSD development? Or is that "many" over there?:)
"Linux beat FreeBSD to the "stable enough" point, that's all."
Yes, and they also started AFTER the BSD folks. You are aware that the
BSD folks were recruiting kernel developers for the x86 before Richard
started recruiting developers to help Linus? That was also before Linus
put out his own call for help. To say nothing of all the other utilities
and libraries that BSD had ahead of Linux.
"A free Unix would have happened one way or the other,"
On that we're agreed. Where we disagree is whether BSD today would be as
advanced as Linux is now, assuming Linux was delayed by, oh, say 5 years.
Given that the BSD license allows leaching, to the hinderance its being
able to support the latest technology, it is truly a great assertion so say
that BSD would be so advanced. Far more likely is that someone else would've
completed a GPL-based kernel, and people would've jumped ship from BSD to
Linux once again.
"Irrelevant. "
It's completely relevant. It's a superb example of the problems with your
claims. There are also lots of other examples of GPL'd code winning out
in the marketplace, over completely free, or even closed commercial software.
Just look at the software world around you.
But you dismiss these real life examples simply because they don't fit your "BSD License is better" worldview.
This pesky thing called "reality" appears to be getting in the way.
But real examples are quite relevant, I have found. Your experience seems
to be different?
"The point still stands that if there never was a gcc there still would have been a free x86 PC unix."
We're agreed that there would be a free x86 *nix. The only question is when.
Even assuming that BSD came out several years ahead of a different version of
Linux, it's quite a claim to maintain that it would've become anywhere near
as relevant as Linux is today. Far more likely, from what I have seen myself,
is that more people would've cut over to Windows.
The constant theme here is that the ability to license software doesn't
quite have the same ring as "Freedom", which is one of the central tenets
of the GPL.
In the meantime, the issues of DRM and Software Patents would likely have
been already shoved down everyone's throughts by now, as there would've been
been a much smaller community of people who were really aware of the issues,
and which offered a viable alternative.
"That's a load of speculative crap."
Ahem. Your entire defense of the camp which has basically lost out on the
marketplace is not based on anything else. One of the few definitive claims
you've made is that a free x86 compiler existed. Most everything else has
been pure speculation.
Sure it's speculative. So are nearly all of your points. But I refrain
from lowering the standards of the discussion, and leave that to you.
My original point still stands. We should be appreciative of the work which
RMS and the FSF have done. Even if the B
"gcc was *not* the only free compiler for x86. All that gcc brought to the table was support for non-x86 architectures."
There might well have been other "free" (as in beer) compilers around. I wouldn't discount the existance of some student class projects' compiler. But your entire argument seems to center around the fact that the GPL is "irrelevant", when it is the sole reason why many developers perfer to work on GPL'd code.
Basically, many developers like to know that we'll be able to use our own code again, if we create or enhance something.
Or, to put it bluntly, which of these "free" compilers back then are still around and doing anything useful? I'm not aware of any.
"[The GPL] is largely irrelevant. If Linux did not fill the void of inexpensive/free desktop unix something else would have."
I'll have to respectfully disagree here about the GPL being irrelevant. The GPL is a key reason why so many people have put their efforts into the Linux kernel and user-level code, and not spend their efforts with BSD.
And, quite frankly, your example of BSD is a poor choice. BSD might have filled a small subset of Linux's current share; but I think it's quite clear that Microsoft would be even more firmly entrenched today without Linux. *nix users were indeed suffering in the mid 90s, as Windows worked its way throughout the Academic and Corporate world, before Linux really took off - contrary to your claim. I can remember several *nix people complaining about it, until I showed them Linux.
Please keep in mind that there's a difference between *nix users and kernel hackers.
The situation would only be much worse today, as none of the current technology would be nearly as advanced as it is currently.
"Are you sure about that? Let me ask you this - why?"
Because 100% of the C/C++ programs are built with gcc, including the MIT/KDE software. People are forgetting that the FSF not only contributed the standard utilities and libraries, but ALSO gcc.
Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
The most common ones then came from either SCO or ATT.
The widespread adoption of Linux would've been slowed significantly if people had to fork over $500 for a development kit, and probably another $200-500 for a commercial OS, just so they could run Linux.
This is why we're indebted to the FSF for their efforts. And they are right to insist upon credit for themselves. Without the FSF, Linux wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is today. Giving the FSF due recognition seems quite appropriate; and frankly, I just don't see people giving the FSF the respect it deserves (witness your comments), let alone due credit.
And don't forget that it was RMS himself who encouraged Linus to adopt the GPL for his kernel. Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
I think the key point here is that the Casino market will be forced into two camps. Those who do such policing intelligently, and those who don't. The former will retain those who really want to play poker against other people. The bots will be driven to easier targets (out of economic necessity, if nothing else).
The one's who retain real players will still get the cash, and can sustain their Casinos. I don't see how the poorly run Casinos can survive though.
"...which can be beat by having a human 'babysit' the bots. He sees a 'challenge', HE responds."
Not really. If he's babysitting multiple bots, there are challenges out there which easily trip this up. It's a little hard to deal with responding to two challenges at once for example.
Of course, just forcing a human to be a part of the scheme is already an automatic victory for the Casino; in that you've raised the stakes for the botters.
I honestly don't see what the problem is here. This is simply a technology-vs-technology situation, and the Casinos always have the upper hand.
Just put in a challenge-response mechanism which stays one step ahead of the bots. When a bot is detected, skew the results against them, in favor of the humans. Eventually the bot accounts will go broke.
This basically ends up encouraging the bot accounts to go elsewhere, while retaining and attracting players who don't want to play against bots.
Ultimately, it ends up rewarding the Casino's which can stay on the technology edge, while forcing the other ones to be primarily attractive to bots. Those will undoubtedly end up going broke.
The only real problem that I see here is one of lazyness on the part of the Casino operators.
How long do you think that will last, though? I can see a really strong motivation for squeezing out the most performance here. It would certainly be a great marketing statement, and I wouldn't be surprised if such an effort was part of the deal to get Apple to switch over to Intel.
The last I had heard, you had moved over to Apple yourself, so I'd be especially interested in your opinion here.
They also must have gotten lucky with the CPU. Back before Intel started adding their stupid locks to limit overclocking, it was painfully obvious that the production run played a factor. And even within the production run, there were always CPU's within any given batch that were better than others.
The last set of great overclocked CPU's were the Celeron 300's. Many of those went to 450-500 MHz with no problem. A very few could be made to hit 600 MHz, though it is questionable on how reliable they were at that point. Certainly reliable enough to calculate the value of PI quickly; but you wouldn't want one for reliable web server.
Granted, some of the one's which could do 450-500 MHz were made for that speed, and then sold as 300's. But certainly not all of them.
The bottom line is that cherry-picking your CPU's helps lead to a better chance of success with overclocking.
"They have proven time and time again that they don't have competition as they already charge astronomical rates for the lines."
No kidding. If you remember the past, it becomes apparent that this is nothing more than an attempt to return to their previous behaviour of trying to limit people's speed, so they can charge exhorbitant rates for the least amount of service that they can provide.
Sadly, people seem to have forgotten that the TelCos have fought broadband tooth and nail for YEARS. Anyone who was around in the 1990's might dimly be aware of it. The TelCos explicitly hindered the rollout of ANYTHING which was high-speed, as that would jeopardize their T1 profits.
Anyone remember ISDN? That was their supposeded version of "high-speed". I'm sorry, but 128 Kbps ain't it. And they'd love to go back there, if they could. Don't forget, DSL was a 1980's technology, which only really made it out to the public after Congress opened things up in 1996.
What would instead really open things up again is if people could buy naked copper lines, and run what they wanted to over them. But, by law, you can't.
Perhaps the easiest way to by-pass this would be to simply use a VM emulator like Xine or VMware; and just simply add in the appropriate code to mimic what the hardware chip is doing.
It's difficult to see a way to restrict this approach; but perhaps I'm missing something.
Here are some of Pamela's words which are worth repeating:
"And now we know Novell is a hero in this saga, and I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute, even though I already have it. I hope you do too, even if you don't need it."
While I have my own other favorite distro, I think her example is a good one; and I for one intend on purchasing a copy as well.
No, you are very much mistaken. He did indeed get funding. But he declined to accept the onerous terms which came with the funding.
"A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures that the two called "highly suspicious."
You also missed the main point of the article (or perhaps chose to overlook it); which was about the methonds which the cell phone industry attempts to sway the results of the research.
Personally, I consider cherry-picking facts and evidence to suit one's preconceived notions, or one's money-making agenda, to be dishonest.
I take it then that you didn't read the article. One key point was how industry attempts to sway the results from the research.
"They are the ones who are potentially looking at huge liability if they produce a product with a hazard that could have been avoided if they'd done adequate research."
Does any big business really care about liability? It seems like everything takes a back seat compared to bonuses for the top executives. Second to that is money coming in to the company. Liability seems to be way down on the list. If it's really an issue, companies can always dissolve the liability through bankruptcy.
The truly bizarre thing to me is that courts still award executives their bonues even if they brought the company into bankruptcy. Supposedly because its too hard to find someone else to replace them.
So my point isn't that liability is as much of a motivator as are profits, from what I've seen.
I think the greatest fraud here are your own statements. It is really completely irresponsible of you to categorize all the research which has gone into this field as fraud.
I suppose that the peer review which goes on in science means nothing. I also suppose that publishing so that people can reproduce your results also means nothing. Most scientists believe that is what makes the scientific process so valuable. But according to your arguments, it's irrelevant, and just results in fraud.
Either the scientific process and community are in gross error with how they do things, or there's something wrong with your hand waving calculations and arguments.
Personally, I'll place my bets on the scientific community. And it's clear that you're just trolling.
"The product was originally sold in assembled form for $1,195. A kit version would appear few months later, at $995. It could be ordered with a white, green, or amber tube background colour."
For those of you too young to remember, twas this baby which gave rise to the infamous cursors package in UNIX, as well as vi. It's why
vi uses the "k", "j", "l", "h" keys to move around, as those keys had arrows on them in the appropriate direction.
There's a very easy way to show how easy it is to shoot down this proposal by a person who clearly doesn't have the thought processes to reason out what he's saying.
Simply implement the law. Then forge an attack which traces back to John Tierney.
Simply put, this proposal won't get rid of the problem. Instead, it will merely elevate hacking to new heights.
Sadly, I'm sure there are some so-caled hackers who would love to see this implemented so that it could be abused.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. At first, I was going to write this effort off after reading the Slashdot summary. The FCC has done everything in their power to pay back all of the campaign contributions made by the Phone companies, at the expense of the consumer.
The reason why these changes are being proposed is that the Justice department "had some concerns" about the monopoly effects of these proposed mergers. Ahem. This is the same Justice department which deliberately let Microsoft off the hook with its monopoly. So pardon my extreme doubt that anything would happen here to benefit the consumer.
So at first glance, it would seem that this is all fluff, and the Bush administration would be able to hand the TelCo's a major deal.
But, from the fine article:
"The FCC's two Democrats -- Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein -- may extract significant concessions in approving the deals since Mr. Martin needs at least one of them to vote in favor."
This is due to a vacany on the board. Plus, one of the current Republicans on the board is leaving at the end of the year; so there's a big impetus to get this wrapped up by December.
Also, the push for this isn't coming out of concern for the consumer; but by lobbying from other big companies, like Quest.
So maybe there's a chance we'll see this unbundling. I'll believe it when I see it. But if it happened, it might actually create much more competition in certain areas, and speed the adoption of VOIP.
Spare me the theoretical ponderings. Here's a link:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-979064.html
And some quotes: "market rose from 1.5 percent in 2000 to 1.7 in 2001,"
"IDC expects that Linux will become the No. 2 desktop OS in the next year or two, surpassing the Mac OS, and will continue to hold this rank for the remainder of the company's five-year forecast."
So, that's where your 1% number comes from - 2001. If you've got other links, please post them.
"You are, deliberately ?, refering to a time frame over a decade earlier than what I was referring to. "
The discussion was about the effects of gcc on BSD and Linux, which occured in 1990/1991; but really didn't start becoming popular until 1995/1996.
If you're now referring to 1995-2005, then yes, I'd agree that lots of newcomers joined in. It's even worse today, when lots of unskilled people are calling themselves kernel hackers.
"My basis was that around 1990, give or take a couple of years, I was downloading compiler source code from BBS' I found indirectly though Dr Dobb's journal, the C User's Journal, or Byte Magazine."
It is, of course, hard to assess this without a copy. It could be anything. Most likely, it was a 16-bit version for DOS, if it existed. In any case, it clearly never went anywhere. Perhaps it was unusable for anything other than "Hello World"?
There's a large difference between a 16-bit compiler on DOS, and a native compiler for a 32-bit *nix O.S..
"Actually around 1990 I was writing a 32-bit x86 multithreaded kernel for hosting telecommunications applications on custom designed hardware."
That's nice. Get a few comlete *nix ports done to a new CPU and we'll talk. Porting a full-fledged *nix distribution and getting it ready is a completely different matter.
There's far more to getting a multiuser desktop or server O.S. out than just doing the kernel.
"You grossly exaggerate the effort required to have used one of those in the early days of Linux when it was leaving Minix."
Not at all. Engineers are horribly optimistic people, and you seem to be one of them. My assessment is spot-on. This is simply how things work.
I've only seen the exact same things happen with the schedules I've stated at a half a dozen different companies. And I've seen the same thing from friends at other companies doing similar work.
It basically boils down to the same sets of problems. The only question is how efficiently it's done, and to what level of quality you want to establish. Yes, you can ship what one company would call an alpha release as FCS. It still takes a couple years with a reasonably sized team of people to get everything in shape.
Sure. I'll take that bet, IF I can bet on Microsoft being there to get this reversed. I'd even bet on Microsoft being successful, by giving the State a huge discount on their Office products, along with intense bribes (excuse me, lobbying) to the local politicians.
You know, the Standard Operating Procedure these days.
Followed by a huge Press Release saying that the State is dropping OSS in favor of Microsoft. Which in turn will alert even more states that they can get MS software for a huge discount just by issuing a Press Release.
Now, if the State was REALLY smart, they'd include a clause that any Word documents which couldn't be read via the current Word technology 5-10 years in the future would require Microsoft to pay a fine of, say, $100 per document. To cover the States' cost in converting it so that it could be read again.
No, actually, in the early days, the majority actually did care about the GPL. It started with RMS, and propagated from there. If you have specific numbers here, please post them.
"Actually your premise that Linux was "ahead" is mistaken."
Please reread my statement. I said that BSD was ahead. It was much farther ahead. Furthermore, John Gilmore and Bill Jolitz were recruiting for kernel hackers in 1989 for BSD on the x86. John Gilmore and RMS were recruiting for kernel hackers for a GNU O.S. in 1990.
Re: IDC/IDT. From my recollection of the article, it was about dead even at 4%, with Linux predicted to move to 6% next year.
"... We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems."
Thank you for finally posting the source. I can see now why you are confused. Notice carefully the words here. It does NOT say "Free C compilers on extant ..."
That's because there were none.
The main C compiler which existed on the 386 for Unix System V was from AT&T. This was resold by many different vendors, but it was the same; essentially unchanged. All of these, in fact, actually came from Intel; most of the binaries were unchanged.
This is because when AT&T first announced System V back in 1983 (down at the WCCF in Anaheim, IIRC), they also started their "microports" program. Whereby they contracted with each micro CPU manufacturer to port System V to a reference platform for their CPU.
A small company called Microport took this and ported it to the 286 PC and 386 PC back in the mid 80's, and started selling it in competition with SCO. Later, other vendors took the stock Intel binaries and started selling these as well.
But they were all the same AT&T Compiler. The only other compilers for System V on the 386 were from Green Hills, and possibly MKS (though the latter had a small presence, if any).
These were the ONLY C compilers around for 386 Unix. It is also unlikely that someone else developed a free C compiler, as it would have cost them somewhere between $700-$1500 just to get an O.S. and development system just to put on their PC. This is why BSD shipped with gcc originally.
In fact, the ONLY reason gcc was on the 386 was because Microport explicitly GAVE a complete development system to Richard Stallman's folks FOR FREE, when they requested it. And they requested it so that they could put gcc on the x86.
So, in summary, it is not only unlikely that there was another free compiler around; but even if there was, no one knew about it.
"As do I, as a student, a hobbyist, and a professional."
You have clearly never, ever put UNIX, Linux or BSD on a new CPU from scratch. If you had, you'd know that it takes a LOT of work; especially with the C compiler. If you're lucky, you can hire one really smart person, and he can get it in reasonable shape for a first cut on it out within a year. Far more often, people hire between 2-5 people to do this. That's using an existing C compiler - not doing one from scratch.
After the first cut of the compiler, you then go and try compiling the libraries, utilities and the kernel. This usually takes about another year to get it to FCS; depending on how many people are involved. It's an iterative process, as you're discovering bugs in the source code of the libraries and stuff, as well as bugs in the compiler.
The point here is that without GCC, the development of a free compiler would've set back the efforts of a free O.S. by about 3-5 years at least. That's assuming you've got some people working part time on this, and they are reasonably competant. And they are dedicated enough to actually do this for so long. There's a quite real probability that it might even take longer, given how things work in the Open
Not at all. My point was the people who did care about the GPL were able to accomplish far more than those in the BSD camp, even when the latter had a significant head start. This is due to the nature of the GPL, and is why GPL'd software can play a more powerful part than any other license.
"You are mistaken, and I had already provided you with an example. Apple's Mac OS X and it's FreeBSD internals, it outnumbers Linux by far."
Mmmm. The studies I've seen put it about even, with Linux overtaking the Mac by about 2% next year. This was from an IDT study last year, IIRC.
The embedded marketplace is an even better example, where Linux has come from almost nowhere to being the market leader in the past 5 year, over VxWorks and all forms of Windows, according to a report published on linuxdevices.com in the past few months.
"My argument is simply if not Linux, then something else would have filled the void, BSD most likely."
Yes, but the point is it would have taken many years in order to do come close; and wouldn't have filled the void by today. Especially since there was no free x86 C compiler like you claimed. Making things up does not strengthen your argument, nor does it make you look like you are an a position to actually understand the matter enough to have an informed opinion, I'm sorry to say.
Feel free to try to correct this matter by providing some actual facts. Thanks.
I, on the otherhand, DO know what I'm talking about. I remember the time period quite well. And it's quite clear to me that the widespread adoption of Linux would have been slowed significantly without the FSF. Nor would BSD have filled the void to point where Linux is today. And there's also a very high probability that Software Patents would've passed in Europe by now, without people having the galvanizing effect that has come out from the FSF's efforts.
You're welcome to disagree. But frankly, an opinion made up of from fantansy just doesn't cut it. Sorry to be so harsh, but you have proven that you just don't know what you're talking about.
"What a pathetic misrepresentation you attempt, "
Finally, let me respond to this. I interpreted your remarks differently than what you apparently intended. Thank you for clarifying your statement. I accept your clarification, and withdraw my comment.
If you had simply said, "no (unfounded) viral license fears", then that would have been more clear. My apologies if you took offense due to this misunderstanding, but a better phrasing of your words would've been more helpful.
Not exactly. Let me repeat my statement:
"we're indebted to the FSF for their efforts. And they are right to insist upon credit for themselves."
People seem rather quick to diss RMS, all the while they are coasting off of his original efforts.
I think RMS is quite right to insist upon credit for the FSF in playing a key role in getting the entire O.S. to where it is today.
The trademark issue is different. I would hate to see Microsoft own that trademark, regardless of whether or not it was "relevant".
As far as Posix goes, only the specification was available. I'm not aware of any free implementations prior to when it was done for Linux. If you know of any, could you please post a link? Thanks.
Barring that then, there was that tiny detail of coding which remained. And that's what remained to getting things out the door.
Yes, these things could've been done later. The point is that they didn't have to be, thanks to the efforts of the FSF.
Please don't attribute statements to me that I haven't made. I never dismissed anything. I simply stated that there might have been something around. I'm not aware of any. So exactly what compilers are you referring to, or are you just making this stuff up? A link to the proof of its existance would also be appreciated. Thanks.
"Replace "many developers" with "some developers" and the latter half of your statement becomes realistic."
Well then, these "some developers" sure seem to have done even far more than anyone could possibly have imagined! The amount of their contributions are truly greater than people tend to believe! The amount of what they can accomplish is indeed impressive!
So then, how does this compare to what's been happening with the "some developers" doing BSD development? Or is that "many" over there? :)
"Linux beat FreeBSD to the "stable enough" point, that's all."
Yes, and they also started AFTER the BSD folks. You are aware that the BSD folks were recruiting kernel developers for the x86 before Richard started recruiting developers to help Linus? That was also before Linus put out his own call for help. To say nothing of all the other utilities and libraries that BSD had ahead of Linux.
"A free Unix would have happened one way or the other,"
On that we're agreed. Where we disagree is whether BSD today would be as advanced as Linux is now, assuming Linux was delayed by, oh, say 5 years.
Given that the BSD license allows leaching, to the hinderance its being able to support the latest technology, it is truly a great assertion so say that BSD would be so advanced. Far more likely is that someone else would've completed a GPL-based kernel, and people would've jumped ship from BSD to Linux once again.
"Irrelevant. "
It's completely relevant. It's a superb example of the problems with your claims. There are also lots of other examples of GPL'd code winning out in the marketplace, over completely free, or even closed commercial software. Just look at the software world around you.
But you dismiss these real life examples simply because they don't fit your "BSD License is better" worldview.
This pesky thing called "reality" appears to be getting in the way. But real examples are quite relevant, I have found. Your experience seems to be different?
"The point still stands that if there never was a gcc there still would have been a free x86 PC unix."
We're agreed that there would be a free x86 *nix. The only question is when.
Even assuming that BSD came out several years ahead of a different version of Linux, it's quite a claim to maintain that it would've become anywhere near as relevant as Linux is today. Far more likely, from what I have seen myself, is that more people would've cut over to Windows.
The constant theme here is that the ability to license software doesn't quite have the same ring as "Freedom", which is one of the central tenets of the GPL.
In the meantime, the issues of DRM and Software Patents would likely have been already shoved down everyone's throughts by now, as there would've been been a much smaller community of people who were really aware of the issues, and which offered a viable alternative.
"That's a load of speculative crap."
Ahem. Your entire defense of the camp which has basically lost out on the marketplace is not based on anything else. One of the few definitive claims you've made is that a free x86 compiler existed. Most everything else has been pure speculation.
Sure it's speculative. So are nearly all of your points. But I refrain from lowering the standards of the discussion, and leave that to you.
My original point still stands. We should be appreciative of the work which RMS and the FSF have done. Even if the B
There might well have been other "free" (as in beer) compilers around. I wouldn't discount the existance of some student class projects' compiler. But your entire argument seems to center around the fact that the GPL is "irrelevant", when it is the sole reason why many developers perfer to work on GPL'd code.
Basically, many developers like to know that we'll be able to use our own code again, if we create or enhance something.
Or, to put it bluntly, which of these "free" compilers back then are still around and doing anything useful? I'm not aware of any.
"[The GPL] is largely irrelevant. If Linux did not fill the void of inexpensive/free desktop unix something else would have."
I'll have to respectfully disagree here about the GPL being irrelevant. The GPL is a key reason why so many people have put their efforts into the Linux kernel and user-level code, and not spend their efforts with BSD.
And, quite frankly, your example of BSD is a poor choice. BSD might have filled a small subset of Linux's current share; but I think it's quite clear that Microsoft would be even more firmly entrenched today without Linux. *nix users were indeed suffering in the mid 90s, as Windows worked its way throughout the Academic and Corporate world, before Linux really took off - contrary to your claim. I can remember several *nix people complaining about it, until I showed them Linux.
Please keep in mind that there's a difference between *nix users and kernel hackers.
The situation would only be much worse today, as none of the current technology would be nearly as advanced as it is currently.
Because 100% of the C/C++ programs are built with gcc, including the MIT/KDE software. People are forgetting that the FSF not only contributed the standard utilities and libraries, but ALSO gcc.
Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
The most common ones then came from either SCO or ATT.
The widespread adoption of Linux would've been slowed significantly if people had to fork over $500 for a development kit, and probably another $200-500 for a commercial OS, just so they could run Linux.
This is why we're indebted to the FSF for their efforts. And they are right to insist upon credit for themselves. Without the FSF, Linux wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is today. Giving the FSF due recognition seems quite appropriate; and frankly, I just don't see people giving the FSF the respect it deserves (witness your comments), let alone due credit.
And don't forget that it was RMS himself who encouraged Linus to adopt the GPL for his kernel. Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
I think the key point here is that the Casino market will be forced into two camps. Those who do such policing intelligently, and those who don't. The former will retain those who really want to play poker against other people. The bots will be driven to easier targets (out of economic necessity, if nothing else).
The one's who retain real players will still get the cash, and can sustain their Casinos. I don't see how the poorly run Casinos can survive though.
Not really. If he's babysitting multiple bots, there are challenges out there which easily trip this up. It's a little hard to deal with responding to two challenges at once for example.
Of course, just forcing a human to be a part of the scheme is already an automatic victory for the Casino; in that you've raised the stakes for the botters.
Just put in a challenge-response mechanism which stays one step ahead of the bots. When a bot is detected, skew the results against them, in favor of the humans. Eventually the bot accounts will go broke.
This basically ends up encouraging the bot accounts to go elsewhere, while retaining and attracting players who don't want to play against bots.
Ultimately, it ends up rewarding the Casino's which can stay on the technology edge, while forcing the other ones to be primarily attractive to bots. Those will undoubtedly end up going broke.
The only real problem that I see here is one of lazyness on the part of the Casino operators.
The last I had heard, you had moved over to Apple yourself, so I'd be especially interested in your opinion here.
The last set of great overclocked CPU's were the Celeron 300's. Many of those went to 450-500 MHz with no problem. A very few could be made to hit 600 MHz, though it is questionable on how reliable they were at that point. Certainly reliable enough to calculate the value of PI quickly; but you wouldn't want one for reliable web server.
Granted, some of the one's which could do 450-500 MHz were made for that speed, and then sold as 300's. But certainly not all of them.
The bottom line is that cherry-picking your CPU's helps lead to a better chance of success with overclocking.
No kidding. If you remember the past, it becomes apparent that this is nothing more than an attempt to return to their previous behaviour of trying to limit people's speed, so they can charge exhorbitant rates for the least amount of service that they can provide.
Sadly, people seem to have forgotten that the TelCos have fought broadband tooth and nail for YEARS. Anyone who was around in the 1990's might dimly be aware of it. The TelCos explicitly hindered the rollout of ANYTHING which was high-speed, as that would jeopardize their T1 profits.
Anyone remember ISDN? That was their supposeded version of "high-speed". I'm sorry, but 128 Kbps ain't it. And they'd love to go back there, if they could. Don't forget, DSL was a 1980's technology, which only really made it out to the public after Congress opened things up in 1996.
What would instead really open things up again is if people could buy naked copper lines, and run what they wanted to over them. But, by law, you can't.
2. You can have it done cheap.
3. You can have it fully functional
Now pick 2.
Madam, you are an optimist. I daresay most engineering projects are lucky to get one. ;)
It's difficult to see a way to restrict this approach; but perhaps I'm missing something.
"And now we know Novell is a hero in this saga, and I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute, even though I already have it. I hope you do too, even if you don't need it."
While I have my own other favorite distro, I think her example is a good one; and I for one intend on purchasing a copy as well.
No, you are very much mistaken. He did indeed get funding. But he declined to accept the onerous terms which came with the funding.
"A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures that the two called "highly suspicious."
You also missed the main point of the article (or perhaps chose to overlook it); which was about the methonds which the cell phone industry attempts to sway the results of the research.
Personally, I consider cherry-picking facts and evidence to suit one's preconceived notions, or one's money-making agenda, to be dishonest.
"They are the ones who are potentially looking at huge liability if they produce a product with a hazard that could have been avoided if they'd done adequate research."
Does any big business really care about liability? It seems like everything takes a back seat compared to bonuses for the top executives. Second to that is money coming in to the company. Liability seems to be way down on the list. If it's really an issue, companies can always dissolve the liability through bankruptcy.
The truly bizarre thing to me is that courts still award executives their bonues even if they brought the company into bankruptcy. Supposedly because its too hard to find someone else to replace them.
So my point isn't that liability is as much of a motivator as are profits, from what I've seen.
Especially given that "When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it's ... three out of every four papers shows [a biological] effect" from Cell Phone radiation.". The article is here:
w akeupcall01.html
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/
I suppose that the peer review which goes on in science means nothing. I also suppose that publishing so that people can reproduce your results also means nothing. Most scientists believe that is what makes the scientific process so valuable. But according to your arguments, it's irrelevant, and just results in fraud.
Either the scientific process and community are in gross error with how they do things, or there's something wrong with your hand waving calculations and arguments.
Personally, I'll place my bets on the scientific community. And it's clear that you're just trolling.
Really? Then how do you propose people get to google.com?
http://www.old-computers.com/history/detail.asp?n= 32&t=3
"The product was originally sold in assembled form for $1,195. A kit version would appear few months later, at $995. It could be ordered with a white, green, or amber tube background colour."
For those of you too young to remember, twas this baby which gave rise to the infamous cursors package in UNIX, as well as vi. It's why vi uses the "k", "j", "l", "h" keys to move around, as those keys had arrows on them in the appropriate direction.
Simply implement the law. Then forge an attack which traces back to John Tierney.
Simply put, this proposal won't get rid of the problem. Instead, it will merely elevate hacking to new heights.
Sadly, I'm sure there are some so-caled hackers who would love to see this implemented so that it could be abused.