With 8 meg ROM and 2 meg RAM, how can you add your own 'stuff' to the box, other than data.
If they want to support the Open Source market, they have to have something to sync *TO*. And, at this time there are MANY different things to sync to.
One thing that has NOT been pressed is the GPL in the embedded market. Here is an example of an embedded GPL box where no source has been released. To date, no action on getting the source.
It would be nice to think the GPL/Linux will protect developers who choose to develop for Unix-based PDA's, but without access to source, you run the risk of being Steve'd...just like the Newton developers did.
From this site there is this def.
A type of non-volatile memory composed of a thin layer of material that can be easily magnetized
in only one direction. When a magnetic field is applied to circular area of this substance that is not magnetized in the same direction, the area is reduced to a smaller circle, or bubble.
It was once widely believed that bubble memory would become one of the leading memory technologies, but these promises have not been fulfilled. Other non-volatile memory types, such as EEPROM, are both faster and less expensive than bubble memory.
A better link has actual tech trawings and data sheets.
And the final link for today tells of 128K and 512K devices in 1981! (Hint: that was alot of memory!)
>If you put your thesis under an explicit license like the GPL, it could be free for disemmination, but protected from being sold.
Bullshit.
Pure and simple.
There is NOTHING stopping me from taking a GPL program and selling it for $100,000. The people BUYING it then have the right to ask me for the source code. I then turn it over. If I cna convince someone to pay $100,000 for something that is already out there via FTP, I'll look into selling ice cubes to eskmos.
The buyers could re-compile that, and sell my GPL program for $50,000 $5,000 or free.
The *EFFECT* may be there is no $ value, because the GPLed code will eventually end up for free download.
Just because you may be in the habit of not paying for access to GPL code, it does not mean that there is 'protection from being sold'
For a 'protection from being sold' licence, see the DIKU licence. (this was used VS TSR years ago)
Dragon Systems demonstrates PDA speech recognition technology on Digital Equipment Corporation's StrongARM Processor in the Apple Newton MessagePad 2000.
Amazing how you still can't get a unit to replace a Newton 2[01]00 messagepad (just yet) Someone needs to have one done by 2010, whent he messagepad has a date problem.
And I'm all for the right to take the spammers to court.
And I'm all for suing this patent holder anytime I get mail using this patent.
The *BEST* way to fight spam is to take spammers to small claims court. For every spam, a small claims action. At 10,000+ actions, the incentive to spam for business gain goes away.
On a Mac OS X server (the shipping version) uname returns rhapsody.
Now, the developers release 2 (DR2) of X86 Rhapsody did exist, and you could take the method detailed on the FreeBSD e-mail list for 'getting Solaris X86 binaries to run on FreeBSD' would work with the Rhapsody binaries I tried it on.
I would not be at all shocked that Apple is paying people in the company to keep a version of Mac OS X running on X86 hardware.
Jobs wants to have a big stick to beat up his vendors. Jobs seems to like beating up on vendors. He's on record having told Motorola "It will be great in 2 years when we arn't using your hardware". And look at how Jobs is kicking around ATI. Then Apple was 1st formed, he kicked one PCB maker around for $25,000.
(Given ATI's treatment, would YOU want to rely on Apple for your business?)
>How can companies like Sega be convinced that products that don't make them money anymore should be made GPL?
Vectrex make a gaming unit and ROM. They released their ROMS under their own licence. A licence that promoted the exchange of the ROM without cost.
Gaming companies Intellectual Property is the code that plays the game. Some of that code stiill has neat tricks, programming tricks that give them an edge in the market.
The proposal of GPLing the code takes something that is costing them nothing and generating no income to costing the company in the future. Exactly *WHY* would any company sign up for that?
Ask them to make the old ROM images as part of a MAME package you can buy.
Or, if the preservation of these old games matters that much to you, start a company that licences the ROMS to all who want to buy it. All Sega has to do is take your check, and you have to worry about the piracy, etc la.
As I understand the situation, M$ has 'undocumented' calls that are considered 'well known'. Because these 'well known' calles are 'undocumented', M$ *CAN* change them at will, and has done this. It has not been proven that M$ makes these changes as the result of sloppy coding, mindless design changes, or a deliberate plan to break other companies software.
It is alledged that Lotus 123 and RealPlayer/Quicktime had the API change "between releases". Or the quote about a MS-DOS version was "it don't ship 'till 123 don't run". Few seemed to be willing to suspend disbelieve that Micro$oft is willing to change parts of the API to break other people's code. This is a/. link about this very idea...that M$ is willing to break their own API to break others code.
An example of a project where people took a known API and cloned it is OpenSTEP.
(digging about in back of brain, and odds are people who KNOW the histry far better will correct my preceptions)
It was a small group of people, who turned out to be dedicated. My inital reaction was "Oh look, another well-meaning project" And it seemed to me, the project didn't go anywhere. But lo and behold, they got the code to where it was almost useful to others, and these others used the code and submitted changes. And then the new code became useful to others and on and on.
Stumbling blocks: 1) Lack of full disclosure of the Windows API. 2) Microsoft has the ability to change its API at will. They have MANY more programmers than this project will to totally re-write code if they choose to.
I'm betting the project will end up like the 'lets clone the newton API" projects. If no one sits down and keeps turning out code/results, the project will go no where.
>If one where building commercial software for FreeBSD, which version should be supported ?
With a BSD licence, you don't even NEED to 'support BSD', you could take 2.2.8, 3.5.1, 4.X, or even 5.x and slap your own label on it. And tell the customers that 'we offically support our version of the OS that shipped on the CD.'
You can even lock up the whole app and box if you'd like. BSD is *almost* a gift, with the only gift software being Public Domain.
Another option in the 'one binary fits all' goal is to make a linux-centric binary and be sure it runs on the BSD compatiblily mode.
>A product build on 3.5, would it run on 4.1 ?
It should. There is an option to run 1.X and 2.x binaries on 3.X. 3.X compatibiliy at this time should cover most people. A 2.X version would cover the people who say 'if it ain't broke, don't pgrade it', or want to keep the 1000+ days of uptime going.
>It's hard to find info about this on the web www.freebsd.org
> And even then you are forbidden to reveal the numbers.
The parent post reminds me of Joe Macarthy and his 'list of communists'. He had this list, and it showed how all these EVIL things existed, but no one can see the list.
>Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on.
And here all this time *I* thought the "Linux community" (whatever that is) was taking code that was unix-portable and getting people to refer to it as 'linux software'.
>When is *BSD going to get as easy to install as Linux?
I keep asking the same question about Linux. Linux is just a kernel. It doesn't DO much.
Any only some of the Linux distros sport the features that FreeBSD has had for YEARS.
FTP install-> Insert a boot floppy and FTP the rest over from a server
The way ports/packages work. On RedHat, if I type in rpm --install package, if it needs additional packages it tells me that they are needed and stops running. Whereas FreeBSD goes out and gets them, downloads and installs them.
CVSUP upgrades. To upgrade the system make update then make world.
>but last I heard about *BSD you set up, get dumped to a command line, and then have to manually set up X. Yuck
Funny. Last time I did an install, it asked me what graphics environment I wanted. I picked windowmaker and then all I had to do was run the normal X11 setup. If command lines are that repulsive to you, then exactly *WHY* are you even involved in installing *ANY* OSes? Should you not just buy a box pre-loaded?
27 A conforming Linux Development Platform must contain the following packages: 28 29 * Linux kernel 2.2.x (x >= 14, use latest if possible) 30 ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.2/
And that is all very nice and sweet, but why exclude the Linux compatiblity modes of SCO/BSD/Solaris? BSD/SCO/Solaris have all worked hard to provide compatiblitly with this "standard" http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html
Why are these "linux initatives" (redhatisnotlinux.org is an example) exclusionary of GPL/anything not linux? What is wrong with trying to support EVERYONE who is willing to provide 'linux elf' support?
You keep installing Linux. They provide a GREAT source of security consulting work when they get root-kitted.
And the hours to re-install linux is a great make-work program! The make just works on BSD. You go into/usr/src and type make update and then make world.
And, once one is configured, you can expect 800+ days of up-time...if that is what you look for in a box. (the 800+ days of uptime handled e-mail for 20,000+ users.)
If you had problems, perhaps it is you and not BSD.
Re:ORBS is a net.terrorist!
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>You are not telling me that some small probes from ORBS are worse than a spammer sending hundreds, maybe thousands of messages through your hosts, are you?
No, what I said is this:
A spammer sends one, sometimes 2 probe attacks looking for an open relay. When they don't find it, they go away. ORBS sends 10+ probe attacks. And, then they re-test (according to their web page)
So ORBS attacks 5-10X more than a spammer, AND they don't go away bored.
From where I sit, they are WORSE than the spammer.
>>1) They do not have proof of spamming from a host >They don't need to have any. They are not accusing you of spamming. They are probing your system because somebody asked them to do so.
How charming. They do the work of looking for open relays *FOR* the spammers!
ORBS is a net.terrorist!
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>No, but with a crow-bar you can break my doors/windows, you can't do that with a dumb e-mail probe.
If it is a 'dumb' probe, why are they doing it?
>What you are describing is much more aggressive than what ORBS are doing.
Gee, and what about Mr. Seebs http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/07/19/141 238&cid=111 message. Looks like that crowbar ORBS swings *DOES* break someones windows. And, they just keep breaking his windows.
>If I use the result of the portscan to break into your system, now that is an attack. And posting the IP of a portscaned system for spammers to use looks like collusion WITH the spammers. No need for spammers to do the scanning work.
>Granted, this may have been an error on their part, Error? No, its part of the way ORBS does business. That is how terrorists and thugs work.
>In fact you worsened the situation and caused your system to be flagged as 'unprobeable' My host is flagged as 'last tested ok' and 'queued for re-testing'.
ORBS created the 'situation' by *NOT* being reasonable. 1) They do not have proof of spamming from a host 2) They do not provide this proof when asked 3) They do not ASK a sysadmin if they wish to be tested If they had proof, were willing to provide proof, and ASKED before launching their probe attack, an attack that is FAR worse than any one spammers probe attack, then ORBS would not be the net.terrorists that they are!
But, please, feel free to read up on ORBS and why they are net.terrorists on the NANOG list.
Slashdot Mirror
With 8 meg ROM and 2 meg RAM, how can you add your own 'stuff' to the box, other than data.
If they want to support the Open Source market, they have to have something to sync *TO*. And, at this time there are MANY different things to sync to.
One thing that has NOT been pressed is the GPL in the embedded market. Here is an example of an embedded GPL box where no source has been released. To date, no action on getting the source.
It would be nice to think the GPL/Linux will protect developers who choose to develop for Unix-based PDA's, but without access to source, you run the risk of being Steve'd...just like the Newton developers did.
This was AFTER it got done doing whatever it is Dr. Watson does.
The process was gone,and so was 64 meg of memory.
After a crash, Dr. Watson runs and never releases memory.
64 meg GONE, and the only way to reclaim it is to reboot.
With 1 Gig of memory, you don't HAVE to worry about memory leaks.
Bubble Memory.
From this site there is this def. A type of non-volatile memory composed of a thin layer of material that can be easily magnetized in only one direction. When a magnetic field is applied to circular area of this substance that is not magnetized in the same direction, the area is reduced to a smaller circle, or bubble.
It was once widely believed that bubble memory would become one of the leading memory technologies, but these promises have not been fulfilled. Other non-volatile memory types, such as EEPROM, are both faster and less expensive than bubble memory.
A better link has actual tech trawings and data sheets.
And the final link for today tells of 128K and 512K devices in 1981! (Hint: that was alot of memory!)
Think about it....when Novell shed itself of Unix rights, they kept access to the patents/IP on a favorable rate.
Part of the driving reason for Caldera to buy parts of SCO....access to a cheaper IP licence for Unix.
And, with the right IP mix, either/both vendors can force other vendors to pay for a licence - aka push up the costs for the other vendors.
>If you put your thesis under an explicit license like the GPL, it could be free for disemmination, but protected from being sold.
Bullshit.
Pure and simple.
There is NOTHING stopping me from taking a GPL program and selling it for $100,000. The people BUYING it then have the right to ask me for the source code. I then turn it over. If I cna convince someone to pay $100,000 for something that is already out there via FTP, I'll look into selling ice cubes to eskmos.
The buyers could re-compile that, and sell my GPL program for $50,000 $5,000 or free.
The *EFFECT* may be there is no $ value, because the GPLed code will eventually end up for free download.
Just because you may be in the habit of not paying for access to GPL code, it does not mean that there is 'protection from being sold'
For a 'protection from being sold' licence, see the DIKU licence. (this was used VS TSR years ago)
>Looks like some big names are getting interested in putting Linux on the desktop.
And all this time, I thought GNOME was about Open Source, able to run on any platform one wants to port it to.
When Apple ships all the Macs with Mac OS X, that will give the unix gaming market a shot in the arm.
>Other hardware vendors, if they choose Linux, will have the same luxury, and no royalties (that will save 5-10% now, and a greater percentage later).
And if you pick BSD, you don't have to release your source code, unless you really WANT to.
Thus, companies can protect their IP as expressed as source code, if they feel that is the best for them, and yet they can support OpenSource.
It was done. In early 1997.
.com/main/docs/about/milestone.html
Dragon Systems demonstrates PDA speech recognition technology on Digital Equipment Corporation's StrongARM Processor in the Apple Newton MessagePad 2000.
http://www.dragonsystems
Amazing how you still can't get a unit to replace a Newton 2[01]00 messagepad (just yet) Someone needs to have one done by 2010, whent he messagepad has a date problem.
And I'm all for the right to take the spammers to court.
And I'm all for suing this patent holder anytime I get mail using this patent.
The *BEST* way to fight spam is to take spammers to small claims court. For every spam, a small claims action. At 10,000+ actions, the incentive to spam for business gain goes away.
Then we'll just see political based spam.
On a Mac OS X server (the shipping version) uname returns rhapsody.
Now, the developers release 2 (DR2) of X86 Rhapsody did exist, and you could take the method detailed on the FreeBSD e-mail list for 'getting Solaris X86 binaries to run on FreeBSD' would work with the Rhapsody binaries I tried it on.
I would not be at all shocked that Apple is paying people in the company to keep a version of Mac OS X running on X86 hardware.
Jobs wants to have a big stick to beat up his vendors. Jobs seems to like beating up on vendors. He's on record having told Motorola "It will be great in 2 years when we arn't using your hardware". And look at how Jobs is kicking around ATI. Then Apple was 1st formed, he kicked one PCB maker around for $25,000.
(Given ATI's treatment, would YOU want to rely on Apple for your business?)
A funny look at Jobs in 1997.
>The Data Link is Windows only, and in the two years I have been using NT4 and W2K, my rig has been rock stable
You have not read the licence. The watch is only licenced for use with Win 3.1, WfW, and Windows 95.
>How can companies like Sega be convinced that products that don't make them money anymore should be made GPL?
Vectrex make a gaming unit and ROM. They released their ROMS under their own licence. A licence that promoted the exchange of the ROM without cost.
Gaming companies Intellectual Property is the code that plays the game. Some of that code stiill has neat tricks, programming tricks that give them an edge in the market.
The proposal of GPLing the code takes something that is costing them nothing and generating no income to costing the company in the future. Exactly *WHY* would any company sign up for that?
Ask them to make the old ROM images as part of a MAME package you can buy.
Or, if the preservation of these old games matters that much to you, start a company that licences the ROMS to all who want to buy it. All Sega has to do is take your check, and you have to worry about the piracy, etc la.
As I understand the situation, M$ has 'undocumented' calls that are considered 'well known'. Because these 'well known' calles are 'undocumented', M$ *CAN* change them at will, and has done this. It has not been proven that M$ makes these changes as the result of sloppy coding, mindless design changes, or a deliberate plan to break other companies software.
/. link about this very idea...that M$ is willing to break their own API to break others code.
It is alledged that Lotus 123 and RealPlayer/Quicktime had the API change "between releases". Or the quote about a MS-DOS version was "it don't ship 'till 123 don't run". Few seemed to be willing to suspend disbelieve that Micro$oft is willing to change parts of the API to break other people's code.
This is a
An example of a project where people took a known API and cloned it is OpenSTEP.
(digging about in back of brain, and odds are people who KNOW the histry far better will correct my preceptions)
It was a small group of people, who turned out to be dedicated. My inital reaction was "Oh look, another well-meaning project" And it seemed to me, the project didn't go anywhere. But lo and behold, they got the code to where it was almost useful to others, and these others used the code and submitted changes. And then the new code became useful to others and on and on.
Stumbling blocks:
1) Lack of full disclosure of the Windows API.
2) Microsoft has the ability to change its API at will. They have MANY more programmers than this project will to totally re-write code if they choose to.
I'm betting the project will end up like the 'lets clone the newton API" projects. If no one sits down and keeps turning out code/results, the project will go no where.
>If one where building commercial software for FreeBSD, which version should be supported ?
With a BSD licence, you don't even NEED to 'support BSD', you could take 2.2.8, 3.5.1, 4.X, or even 5.x and slap your own label on it. And tell the customers that 'we offically support our version of the OS that shipped on the CD.'
You can even lock up the whole app and box if you'd like. BSD is *almost* a gift, with the only gift software being Public Domain.
Another option in the 'one binary fits all' goal is to make a linux-centric binary and be sure it runs on the BSD compatiblily mode.
>A product build on 3.5, would it run on 4.1 ?
It should. There is an option to run 1.X and 2.x binaries on 3.X. 3.X compatibiliy at this time should cover most people. A 2.X version would cover the people who say 'if it ain't broke, don't pgrade it', or want to keep the 1000+ days of uptime going.
>It's hard to find info about this on the web
www.freebsd.org
> And even then you are forbidden to reveal the numbers.
The parent post reminds me of Joe Macarthy and his 'list of communists'. He had this list, and it showed how all these EVIL things existed, but no one can see the list.
Care to back up these claims with some facts?
>Oops - I must have thought otherwhise, but what I meant is that they're adopting a lot of the software the Linux community worked on.
And here all this time *I* thought the "Linux community" (whatever that is) was taking code that was unix-portable and getting people to refer to it as 'linux software'.
Thanks for setting me straight.
>When is *BSD going to get as easy to install as Linux?
I keep asking the same question about Linux.
Linux is just a kernel. It doesn't DO much.
Any only some of the Linux distros sport the features that FreeBSD has had for YEARS.
FTP install-> Insert a boot floppy and FTP the rest over from a server
The way ports/packages work. On RedHat, if I type in rpm --install package, if it needs additional packages it tells me that they are needed and stops running. Whereas FreeBSD goes out and gets them, downloads and installs them.
CVSUP upgrades. To upgrade the system make update then make world.
>but last I heard about *BSD you set up, get dumped to a command line, and then have to manually set up X. Yuck
Funny. Last time I did an install, it asked me what graphics environment I wanted. I picked windowmaker and then all I had to do was run the normal X11 setup. If command lines are that repulsive to you, then exactly *WHY* are you even involved in installing *ANY* OSes? Should you not just buy a box pre-loaded?
Seti was using postgres for data storage. 50+ terrabytes of data.
27 A conforming Linux Development Platform must contain the following packages:
28
29 * Linux kernel 2.2.x (x >= 14, use latest if possible)
30 ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.2/
And that is all very nice and sweet, but why exclude the Linux compatiblity modes of SCO/BSD/Solaris? BSD/SCO/Solaris have all worked hard to provide compatiblitly with this "standard" http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html
Why are these "linux initatives" (redhatisnotlinux.org is an example) exclusionary of GPL/anything not linux? What is wrong with trying to support EVERYONE who is willing to provide 'linux elf' support?
You keep installing Linux. They provide a GREAT source of security consulting work when they get root-kitted.
/usr/src and type make update and then make world.
And the hours to re-install linux is a great make-work program! The make just works on BSD. You go into
And, once one is configured, you can expect 800+ days of up-time...if that is what you look for in a box. (the 800+ days of uptime handled e-mail for 20,000+ users.)
If you had problems, perhaps it is you and not BSD.
>You are not telling me that some small probes from ORBS are worse than a spammer sending hundreds, maybe thousands of messages through your hosts, are you?
No, what I said is this:
A spammer sends one, sometimes 2 probe attacks looking for an open relay. When they don't find it, they go away.
ORBS sends 10+ probe attacks. And, then they re-test (according to their web page)
So ORBS attacks 5-10X more than a spammer, AND they don't go away bored.
From where I sit, they are WORSE than the spammer.
>>1) They do not have proof of spamming from a host
>They don't need to have any. They are not accusing you of spamming. They are probing your system because somebody asked them to do so.
How charming. They do the work of looking for open relays *FOR* the spammers!
>No, but with a crow-bar you can break my doors/windows, you can't do that with a dumb e-mail probe.
1 238&cid=111
If it is a 'dumb' probe, why are they doing it?
>What you are describing is much more aggressive than what ORBS are doing.
Gee, and what about Mr. Seebs
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/07/19/14
message. Looks like that crowbar ORBS swings *DOES* break someones windows. And, they just keep breaking his windows.
>If I use the result of the portscan to break into your system, now that is an attack.
And posting the IP of a portscaned system for spammers to use looks like collusion WITH the spammers. No need for spammers to do the scanning work.
>Granted, this may have been an error on their part,
Error? No, its part of the way ORBS does business. That is how terrorists and thugs work.
>In fact you worsened the situation and caused your system to be flagged as 'unprobeable'
My host is flagged as 'last tested ok' and 'queued for re-testing'.
ORBS created the 'situation' by *NOT* being reasonable.
1) They do not have proof of spamming from a host
2) They do not provide this proof when asked
3) They do not ASK a sysadmin if they wish to be tested
If they had proof, were willing to provide proof, and ASKED before launching their probe attack, an attack that is FAR worse than any one spammers probe attack, then ORBS would not be the net.terrorists that they are!
But, please, feel free to read up on ORBS and why they are net.terrorists on the NANOG list.