It has a priority year of 1989 (France). Even for that time its a stupid patent and an obvious invention. So you've got a CD changer and people can request files from one of the CDs which is then sent to them. Amazing! Big ideas like this keep us marching forward.
This got mentioned in comp.arch and Dan Bernstein pointed out others have mentioned similar things previously. The abstract mentioned reads,
Other People's Cache - HyperAttacks with HyperThreading - Dag Arne Osvik, Norway
We have investigated the use of memory caches of modern processors as side-channels for timing attacks against software implementations of cryptographic algorithms. In particular, we have successfully performed a new kind of attack where the attacker has no privileges other than being able to run on the same processor as the victim. That is, the attacker has no access to plaintext or ciphertext, and is not allowed by the operating system to communicate with the victim. In this scenario we have recovered 45 out of 128 key bits from AES encryption of English text in just one minute on an Intel processor with HyperThreading. Moreover, with regular known plaintext attacks we have achieved full key recovery.
Not so fast bucko. Did you read the specs? Obviously not. MS have a slightly different opinion of what constitutes a "thin" client. In addition to being an RDP client these beasties run IE and a few other things. It'll probably mean a whole new slew of cross-machine attacks via the desktop.
Apple complies with the BSD license agreement, by freely distributing its improvements to the source
The BSD license has no such requirement. Whatever reason Apple has for distributing Darwin source, and there are several plausible business-related reasons, it has nothing to do with being required to do so.
I don't know if "you can" add RAM but Apple will, for a (high) price.
Check out the order options on the Apple store. No doubt as these hit the marketplace people will rip them open and add the DIMMs. A larger drive would be nice too.
Apple make a lot of money on memory upgrades. That's obvious since they spec most machines with, the totally unrealistic, 256MB.
The MiniMac's 512MB option is more reasonably priced and with that much RAM OS X is quite okay for many things. 1GB is nicer but 512MB is okay.
I've been running a Cube (500MHz G4) with that much RAM for a long time and it was
adequate. I now have a dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB RAM which is a lot more adequate:)
Still, for home user's the MiniMac looks like a winner. Other than OS X Apple need a real differentiator
and the size (or lack of it) is a big win. Lots of people don't like ugly boxes cluttering up the place
(not me, I've got a bench full of PCs [FreeBSD]). For instance I showed my mother the previous
iMac (Luxo Jr style) and even she, who is big on interior design and home building, said she'd have one
because it looked nice. And if she can accept it a lot of others would too.
Why would you merge or buy a company for something you are already good at?
To take them out of the game (although this isn't really applicable in this situation).
Re:Disappointed in Pike's flip answer to patent Q
on
Rob Pike Responds
·
· Score: 1
The patent in question was not for backing store per se despite AT&T's attempt to apply it to all such cases. Pike's invention, "layers", wasn't just saving the window state but was more about organizing a bitmap as a number of regions, each located in separate memory buffers (i.e. on- and off-screen), and providing drawing primitives that just worked regardless of where window regions were located or how many regions there were. Layers allowed programs to ignore the requirement to redraw portions of their windows as the system looked after window occlusion. Programs just see a NxM bitmap and draw on it. Layers also optimized for memory size, important given the limited amount of memory available at the time, and only moved occluded regions off-screen. The top-most, visible regions of a window did not consume off-screen memory unlike the simpler approaches used in later systems. Putting it all together is the key to the patent, as well as when it was done.
Oh, Plan 9 is also patented. Pike and Thompson. Look it up.
No it isn't. The kernel was called Mica and came from DEC. MS have already paid the fine for that one.
Re:Really? Infamous?
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This isn't the whole story wrt. VC++.Net 2003 (phew!). It still accepts many non-standard constructs (its treatment of typename appears rather odd), allows various pieces of invalid syntax, has very aggressive name resolution (namespaces, what namespaces, it'll find something) and does some things that violate the std (allowing non-const refs to temporaries for instance). This leads to all sorts of pain when trying to port code originally developed with VC++ to other compilers. It's a lot better than it used to be however and the next one will likely be closer again.
Have you looked at ICE? The developers are long time CORBA gurus who set out to fix some of CORBA's problems. It looks quite promising but then I haven't used it in anger.
Slashdot Mirror
It came from SysV.4 not BSD. SunOS = 5.x was SysV.4.
Seventy mega-litres of black ink is just showing off.
It has a priority year of 1989 (France). Even for that time its a stupid patent and an obvious invention. So you've got a CD changer and people can request files from one of the CDs which is then sent to them. Amazing! Big ideas like this keep us marching forward.
Maybe you should read some of Margo's other papers before jumping to conclusions.
I find the ACM's Computing Reviews to very useful.
Other People's Cache - HyperAttacks with HyperThreading - Dag Arne Osvik, Norway
Not so fast bucko. Did you read the specs? Obviously not. MS have a slightly different opinion of what constitutes a "thin" client. In addition to being an RDP client these beasties run IE and a few other things. It'll probably mean a whole new slew of cross-machine attacks via the desktop.
The BSD license has no such requirement. Whatever reason Apple has for distributing Darwin source, and there are several plausible business-related reasons, it has nothing to do with being required to do so.
UNIVAC was the name of the computer, not the company. Google for its history.
Um, I better go now.
As are Canon (I worked for them in R&D for ten years).
I don't know if "you can" add RAM but Apple will, for a (high) price. Check out the order options on the Apple store. No doubt as these hit the marketplace people will rip them open and add the DIMMs. A larger drive would be nice too.
The MiniMac's 512MB option is more reasonably priced and with that much RAM OS X is quite okay for many things. 1GB is nicer but 512MB is okay. I've been running a Cube (500MHz G4) with that much RAM for a long time and it was adequate. I now have a dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB RAM which is a lot more adequate :)
Still, for home user's the MiniMac looks like a winner. Other than OS X Apple need a real differentiator and the size (or lack of it) is a big win. Lots of people don't like ugly boxes cluttering up the place (not me, I've got a bench full of PCs [FreeBSD]). For instance I showed my mother the previous iMac (Luxo Jr style) and even she, who is big on interior design and home building, said she'd have one because it looked nice. And if she can accept it a lot of others would too.
To take them out of the game (although this isn't really applicable in this situation).
Oh, Plan 9 is also patented. Pike and Thompson. Look it up.
Hmmm, firewolf.... I like it. Over the last couple of months I've taken to calling the whole Mozilla soup as Thunderfox.
Let's just wait and see how long this comment lasts....
In the CS area they are certainly very active. Check it out.
Mac users ask more questions.
No it isn't. The kernel was called Mica and came from DEC. MS have already paid the fine for that one.
This isn't the whole story wrt. VC++.Net 2003 (phew!). It still accepts many non-standard constructs (its treatment of typename appears rather odd), allows various pieces of invalid syntax, has very aggressive name resolution (namespaces, what namespaces, it'll find something) and does some things that violate the std (allowing non-const refs to temporaries for instance). This leads to all sorts of pain when trying to port code originally developed with VC++ to other compilers. It's a lot better than it used to be however and the next one will likely be closer again.
Definitely. Plan 9 has wonderful ideas however it is covered by the following patent which may affect a development that uses its best ideas.
Look on the bright side. Matt's doing DBSD and we get AmigaDOS++ out of it. Go Matt!
Have you looked at ICE? The developers are long time CORBA gurus who set out to fix some of CORBA's problems. It looks quite promising but then I haven't used it in anger.