No, they would have to bring along ALL the technology to make the technology to keep the chip running....in your example, their own chip-making methods.
Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li
on
Intel using FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Pehaps the issue has been fixed. I have no idea, I don't track GNOME, I only am reporting what was mentioned, and others agreed.
GNOME isn't the only example...there exists software that is licensed for no cost ONLY on Linux. Its now working state doesn't change that it WAS written as a Linux only App, nor does it change the linux only software licences. The point *I* was making is some people work to licence software/make software for Linux only. And that policy helps OpenSource exactly HOW?
(Oh, and GNOME runs on 3.3 BSD...exists as a pre-compiled package GNOME 1.0.0.)
Re:Let's have more integration between *BSD and Li
on
Intel using FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2
>It's important to make sure the Unix market doesn't get fragmented. Linux and *BSD developers should co-operate to ensure that they implement common features in a standard way.
At the N(BSD BOF)YC (thats BSD birds of a feather at the bazaar in NYC) GNOME was singled out as an example of code that is written with Linux in mind, and not code portability. GNOME is (alledgedly, *I* don't know personally) riddled with Linux-specific assumptions. Even though the code SHOULD be able to work on any X/Unix box, the authors have chosen to make moving the code off of Linux painful.
Add to this, people who push GNU/Linux say LINUX when they should be saying OpenSource or OpenSource OSes only help fuel the belief there is a rift, as opposed to the offending party being just clueless/un-educated. Cluelessness/lack of education is cureable, OS zelotry is not cureable with modern medical technology. This story on Linuxtoday shows a reporter corrected in a case of using the term Linux when the term OpenSource was a better fit.
It boils down to, do you want a rising tide to float ALL boats, or are you only giving a damn about your linux or BSD digny?
"Can BSD run this or that?" The BSDs have support for GNU/Linux binaries. If the program doesn't require a special version of GNU/Linux, or exists as source, it can be made to run on BSD. FreeBSD has some 2,500 different applications. Goto ftp.freebsd.org and look in the packages/INDEX or ports/INDEX and see if your favorite app is listed. If not, port it! (If its hard to port, as the authors to write portable UNIX code, not code for Linux boxes. A foot to the groin, or sticks to the head may help the developers realize that OpenSource is about more than Linux)
"Does BSD preform better than Linux?" BSD can run Linux binaries. Various studies done via various methods show BSD having a 20% better preformance under high load. If you arn't using your machine alot, you won't notice a difference. If you really care, benchmark it and pick what works for you. Most people have spare CPU cycles, so speed ratings are rather silly.
"Why should I use BSD over Linux?" If you are in the business of producing software, or producing embedded 'things' (set-top boxes, routers, cameras, controllers, etc la) the BSD licence is simple and easy to understand. The GPL is written to help foster the goal of source code release. If you have no desire to release your code, a BSD licenced base does not have the GPL source code release issues. As a user, BSD can run BSD *AND* Linux shrink-wrapped binaries, whereas Linux can not run BSD. Therefore BSD has a wider base of possible software that can run on it.
As for a 100 year up-time.. As your tempature rises (every 10 degrees increases the reaction rate 2x times), and we approach.1 micron widths, (18 atoms wide!) you have faster migration of the chip chemistry out of where you want, to where you don't want. Even with old TTL, the projected life is 50 years. The newer chips will have less life. (I don't remember the projected life of the newest.18 micron chips)
You will need to patent what you consider a "unique" idea. It provides protection from your commerical competition from filing against you.
A patent costs (low end) $4000. Lawyers run $125 and up an hour. How many hours to just FILE a protest to a patent? (hint $4000 is cheap protection.)
From a business standpoint, it is cheaper to file and have the patent office throw it out/get it accepted, than it is to get sued when someone ELSE files and gets accepted your idea.
Now, Amazon didn't need to beat B&N over the head with the patent, but it is a business weapon they can use to hobble B&N, and they have used it. Do not believe for a moment, if B&N had this patent, they would have not done the same to Amazon. Or Apple to anyone selling/offering web-sales software (buy webobjects, get one-click shopping). Same for Microsoft. Or IBM.
The problem here is the patent office. They issued a patent for something very questionable. If YOU want to work on getting this patent thrown out, you need to: 1) find out if B&N or someone is protesting this patent. 2) Help that entity that is protesting the patent. Supply prior art, if you have it.
>although they did hire some Unix-hating DEC engineeers to design NT
How about the LEAD VMS engineer, Dave Cutler. And Dave is on record as stating: "NT is the chance to do VMS right" VMS was his baby. And it SYS$LIVES on in parts of the NT design.
Dave now says: "I'm vested." (shorthand for I don't care what happens. I have money.)
Somehow, hiring the lead VMS engineer sounds alot more important than "some Unix-hating DEC engineers", now doesn't it?
Links about it: Link 1 The name as an initals thing. Link 2Dave saying the guts of NT is VMS-like. A whole thread here. Link 3How about a os/2 link?
>It would be easier to port from BSD/Solaris to GNU/Linux, but they'd still be hot water
And why would they want to do this?
Using BSD/Solaris: "We are using what we have already. It was part of the purchase."
Going to GNU/Linux would offer a 'validation' to GNU/Linux, not to mention run the risk of having to give out the hotmail source code (that GPL thing).
If they are going to move, it will be to MS products. Remember: They "Eat their own dog food". Moving to anything BUT Micro$oft products would be an admission that they can't make their own tools scale to do the job.
Other "features" of BSDers: 1) They don't use the term Linux when they mean OpenSource OS. (The Linux camp is heavy into this idea...OpenSource==Linux.) 2) They don't really give a damn if Apple, Microsoft, Linux, or whomever uses thier code. Its a complement that you want to borrow their code. 3) Promotion of OpenSource means *ALL* of it, be it BSDed, GPLed, or whatever the OpenSource licence. The rising tide floats all boats..... 4) Know its a multi-vendor world and work to live in it accordingly. 5) Don't see big companies as the enemy, but rather as someone else who will use the code. And, if they are lucky, the bug fixes will come back, if not...oh well. Hence, the BSD crowd tends to be less upset when a company charges money for the code/improvements to the code.
Microsoft will be more than happy to take code from BSD. And, if they are going to produce an environment that can run Linux software, it will be some form of add-on module to NT. They won't throw away all of the work they did on VMS^H^H^HNT.
Now, its very interesting the one thing that made RMS's underwear tighten was clause #3. But go look at the BSD licence here. As you will note at the bottom
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety.
RMS gets his wish and *STILL* has his undies in a bunch...because its not GPL.
Instead of following in RMS's path, why not take learn some tolerance for the licencing views of others. The rising tide of OpenSource Code raises *ALL* boats. Your time would ALL be better spent if, instead of running about drilling holes in other boats, you worked on making the boat you happen to sail on BETTER.
Besides if you want to drill holes in boats, might I suggest you point out this licencing clause taken from 1197 part No X03-52207 (f) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft and its suppliers from and against any claims of lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of your Application.
Yuppers. Point out that if you use Micro$oft products as the base for your products, and you get sued, even if it WAS Micro$oft's fault, you have to defend them in court. Doing that should work to re-direct your licence flaming tendancies in a more constructive manner.
This technology will be used by people for sex, vanity, and athletes in training? And these markets will make them money by the boatload.
Athletes - using this device for that 'workout without a workout'. Vanity - look at how many buy steroids/the charles atlas muscle-training program. Now his dynamic resistance program will actually work..with the stimulation. And the link in case the biggest market interests you. Such machines are allready used for muscle excersize.
*clap* *clap* It seems that finally a Judge believes in Personal Responsibility.
If *YOU* don't like a site or find something offensive, then sue the human who MADE the post/site. If you can't get modivated enough to sue, then stop whining.
In the computer/telephone market worldwide (the last time I looked) IBM and Fujitsu compete for the top spots in telephony (IBM ROLM) and computers.
Fujitsu is trying to make sure its 'lotus notes-esque' runs on almost everywhere. Good for them, but will they go ALL the way and be sure the code will run on ANY machine that can run Linux Binaries?
For the average/. user, the software they are offering doesn't seem to bring much to the table. There already is email, calandar, documentation storage methods, and discussion forums (news...etc)
If Fujitsu or IBM want to make a splash in open source, they should support telephony under Open Sourced Unixes. There is a market void in this catagory, just waiting for someone to fill it with some quality software/hardware.
Even if it is not useful software for 'most of us', the more software that can run in a Linux Binary executable format, the more ALL the machines that can run Linux binaries benefit.
It is FAR eaiser to flame and complain than to actually think and create constructive critiques of someone elses work.
The rash of 1st post BS (like on this article) is an example.
Or Mr. Barr's letter to mindcraft is another example.
And, given the paranoia of US Citizens, how many are REALLY going to pick up the phone and call the FBI asking 'hey hows it going', when documentation exists of what happens to citizens who decide NOT to play by government rules. Phil Zimmerman(PGP fame) and the old editor of PHRACK who was suied by AT&T over 911 documents come to mind.
Given there is already a 'working proof of concept' at http://www.calcaria.net/ for what you want to do, a NetBSD/Linux CE project, and a few others I don't know about, your time would be better spent thinking small apps.
NO ONE TO DATE (pubically) is thinking about the address books, e-mail, calander, find, word processor, spreadsheet, web browser, encryption, sync utility (My little 4 meg of DRAM handheld has all of these features...+TCP/IP and 20 megs of FLASH storage for data...and plays quicktime-esque video with sound) to big brother (Desktop, not Big Brother) versions of the same utilites. Oh, and a TCP/IP (or serial/IR) based link to the handheld from the desktop so from your main machine keyboard/screen is an extension of the handheld world.
Think of the poor 16 megs of handheld DRAM, and the lack of a hard drive. Then, think of the gnome or KDE app you use as a address book/email. Can you shoe-horn your favorite apps into 16 meg, with no hard drive? (Like that PostgreSQL backend for the app....exactly HOW are you going to get that on your handheld?)
(If I could find the link, I'd post it for the 'replace X on handhelds with this graphics model' effort.)
And, without a set of apps, no one is going to use ANY OpenSource kernel on a handheld. Because its the app space that makes the kernel useful.
And I see no evidence of any of the 'productivity apps' I listed above thinking about what needs to be done to have small memory footprint, remote-linking, or much else that is important for the handheld market.
If you are looking for a project, why not spend time thinking or talking to the designers of the productivity apps to start thinking and designing for small-space apps, and linking to small memory space apps.
This sounds like a typical knee-jerk reaction so the elected officials can say they are doing something. And, realistically, the effort isn't going to do a whole lot. If a big rock hits anywhere, the whole planet is screwed. There have been 5 mass extictions, why can't there be a 6th?
We see some meteors, hey lets form a body to find some that might hit us. (Ok so you are tracking them, now what you going to do?!?!? Go up there and ask it to swerve and hit the IRA?)
Here in the USA, someone shoots up a postoffice and so now it's illegal to have a gun in a postoffice. Nevermind that its illegal to shoot people, to hide a gun, to discharge a firearm in city limits, etc *WE* (the elected officials) have done something.
But being time is relative, predetermined to what?
A lawyer could argue that it is 'predetermined time frame' that after getting the new packet, work is started.
And another lawyer could argue that SETI is done for personal reasons, and try to invoke the 'built for personal use' clause.
(being a realist, Intel won't bother with SETI/Distributed.net/etc. They want things that generate cash, and therefore SETI etc la don't matter.)
I even doubt they will get a $ on this patent....instead it will be part of the 'trade' when companies swap patents. (thus erecting barriers for entry for any new company. Helps keep your competitors known and limited. It would be a bad thing to have a new gal come in upset the way business has always been done.) If it never costs you, you have no reason to challenge it.
As for prior art I submit CRON and tape backup scripts I've seen in the past on UseNet.
At the 1999 embedded trade show, the keynote speaker pointed out that PC sales vs embedded sales was at a ratio of 2:1. By 2003, he said the ratio will be 1:3.
With embedded applications like speech recg., TCP/IP and other technologies, the embedded world is growing up to 32 bits fast. (for some reason a z80 or 8051 doesn't do TCP/IP well
Intel's move is them making sure they have IP cores (Intellectual property) that can be used in the embedded market. The high profit is in PCs, the volume is in embedded. So they'll sell 'em to PC vendors (try to starve AMD/VIA on the low end), then sell em 'forever' to the embedded world.
I don't see where there is an advantage for anyone, save some rabbid GPLers that want to run the kernel from BSD.
It *IS* market differentation for Debian, and that is what the 107+ GNU/Linux compaines are all about. So they are going to try a different thing.
1) Between GNU/Linux and *BSD, if one group comes up with a feature, or a better way of doing something, the code is either moved directly, or the idea is re-implemented under the correct license. 2) Most of the user-level code doesn't care about the kernel being BSD or GPL. So, unless it's commerical software using a group of tools, the tools on *BSD are on GNU/Linux, and GNU/Linux tools are on *BSD. 3) *BSD has the ability to run most GNU/Linux binaries. So, being *BSD lets you allready run GNU/Linux stuff.
Given these 3 things, I don't see a win for customers. (Unless, of course, the BSD kernel is more stable/better written than the GNU/Linux kernel. But such talk is considered a TROLL on/.)
As for the argument that *bsd is dying...Sorry to say this, but there is a whole group of people who think OpenSource is doomed, that GNU/Linux is dead on the vine, etc. Ask Micro$oft. Judge Jackson thinks that OpenSource is not relavant. The people at BSD/OS mock 'the part time OpenSource' world. Such people claiming *BSD is dying are no better than the blind Amiga or Macintosh advocates. They want to push down other OSes to make thier own OS look better.
Re:Then take the code WAS Re:BSD vs. GPL license.
on
Corel Dropping WINE?
·
· Score: 1
>Me GPL-ing WINE does not prevent the abuse of freedom I was talking about
Huh?
1) You GPLing WINE stops YOUR whining. Because now the 'the code' is 'free'....just like YOU wanted. 2) The code is 'free' now. The 'freedom' is of the USER to choose what and how they want to use it. 3) Why don't you have ANY respect for the authors and the people who work on the code? They opted for a BSD licence.
>A theoretical Leach Corporation *yawn* 1) If you havn't figured it out yet, big corporations take what they want. If they what what you have done, they will take it. 2) Back to repect...the authors have decided that ANYONE is free to use their code ANY DAMN WAY THEY SEE FIT. So if some 'big corporate leach' (as you seem to want to call them) wants to use their work, the authors of the code have decided that this is cool.
Again, go GPL the code and 'save the world', at least in your head. Your whining about WINE will then stop, as you have what you want. If you are unwilling to go GPL it, then what right do you have to whine about WINE?
Slashdot Mirror
No, they would have to bring along ALL the technology to make the technology to keep the chip running....in your example, their own chip-making methods.
Pehaps the issue has been fixed. I have no idea, I don't track GNOME, I only am reporting what was mentioned, and others agreed.
GNOME isn't the only example...there exists software that is licensed for no cost ONLY on Linux. Its now working state doesn't change that it WAS written as a Linux only App, nor does it change the linux only software licences. The point *I* was making is some people work to licence software/make software for Linux only. And that policy helps OpenSource exactly HOW?
(Oh, and GNOME runs on 3.3 BSD...exists as a pre-compiled package GNOME 1.0.0.)
At the N(BSD BOF)YC (thats BSD birds of a feather at the bazaar in NYC) GNOME was singled out as an example of code that is written with Linux in mind, and not code portability. GNOME is (alledgedly, *I* don't know personally) riddled with Linux-specific assumptions. Even though the code SHOULD be able to work on any X/Unix box, the authors have chosen to make moving the code off of Linux painful.
Add to this, people who push GNU/Linux say LINUX when they should be saying OpenSource or OpenSource OSes only help fuel the belief there is a rift, as opposed to the offending party being just clueless/un-educated. Cluelessness/lack of education is cureable, OS zelotry is not cureable with modern medical technology. This story on Linuxtoday shows a reporter corrected in a case of using the term Linux when the term OpenSource was a better fit.
It boils down to, do you want a rising tide to float ALL boats, or are you only giving a damn about your linux or BSD digny?
Having spent 3 days in NYC answering questions...
.1 micron widths, (18 atoms wide!) you have faster migration of the chip chemistry out of where you want, to where you don't want. Even with old TTL, the projected life is 50 years. The newer chips will have less life. (I don't remember the projected life of the newest .18 micron chips)
"Can BSD run this or that?"
The BSDs have support for GNU/Linux binaries. If the program doesn't require a special version of GNU/Linux, or exists as source, it can be made to run on BSD. FreeBSD has some 2,500 different applications. Goto ftp.freebsd.org and look in the packages/INDEX or ports/INDEX and see if your favorite app is listed. If not, port it! (If its hard to port, as the authors to write portable UNIX code, not code for Linux boxes. A foot to the groin, or sticks to the head may help the developers realize that OpenSource is about more than Linux)
"Does BSD preform better than Linux?"
BSD can run Linux binaries. Various studies done via various methods show BSD having a 20% better preformance under high load. If you arn't using your machine alot, you won't notice a difference. If you really care, benchmark it and pick what works for you. Most people have spare CPU cycles, so speed ratings are rather silly.
"Why should I use BSD over Linux?"
If you are in the business of producing software, or producing embedded 'things' (set-top boxes, routers, cameras, controllers, etc la) the BSD licence is simple and easy to understand. The GPL is written to help foster the goal of source code release. If you have no desire to release your code, a BSD licenced base does not have the GPL source code release issues. As a user, BSD can run BSD *AND* Linux shrink-wrapped binaries, whereas Linux can not run BSD. Therefore BSD has a wider base of possible software that can run on it.
As for a 100 year up-time..
As your tempature rises (every 10 degrees increases the reaction rate 2x times), and we approach
>B&N is just as bad, in their own special way.
Ohhhh. Tell us, tell us!
You will need to patent what you consider a "unique" idea. It provides protection from your commerical competition from filing against you.
A patent costs (low end) $4000.
Lawyers run $125 and up an hour.
How many hours to just FILE a protest to a patent? (hint $4000 is cheap protection.)
From a business standpoint, it is cheaper to file and have the patent office throw it out/get it accepted, than it is to get sued when someone ELSE files and gets accepted your idea.
Now, Amazon didn't need to beat B&N over the head with the patent, but it is a business weapon they can use to hobble B&N, and they have used it. Do not believe for a moment, if B&N had this patent, they would have not done the same to Amazon. Or Apple to anyone selling/offering web-sales software (buy webobjects, get one-click shopping). Same for Microsoft. Or IBM.
The problem here is the patent office. They issued a patent for something very questionable. If YOU want to work on getting this patent thrown out, you need to:
1) find out if B&N or someone is protesting this patent.
2) Help that entity that is protesting the patent. Supply prior art, if you have it.
How about the LEAD VMS engineer, Dave Cutler. And Dave is on record as stating: "NT is the chance to do VMS right" VMS was his baby. And it SYS$LIVES on in parts of the NT design.
Dave now says: "I'm vested." (shorthand for I don't care what happens. I have money.)
Somehow, hiring the lead VMS engineer sounds alot more important than "some Unix-hating DEC engineers", now doesn't it?
Links about it:
Link 1 The name as an initals thing.
Link 2Dave saying the guts of NT is VMS-like. A whole thread here.
Link 3How about a os/2 link?
>It would be easier to port from BSD/Solaris to GNU/Linux, but they'd still be hot water
And why would they want to do this?
Using BSD/Solaris:
"We are using what we have already. It was part of the purchase."
Going to GNU/Linux would offer a 'validation' to GNU/Linux, not to mention run the risk of having to give out the hotmail source code (that GPL thing).
If they are going to move, it will be to MS products. Remember: They "Eat their own dog food". Moving to anything BUT Micro$oft products would be an admission that they can't make their own tools scale to do the job.
Other "features" of BSDers:
1) They don't use the term Linux when they mean OpenSource OS. (The Linux camp is heavy into this idea...OpenSource==Linux.)
2) They don't really give a damn if Apple, Microsoft, Linux, or whomever uses thier code. Its a complement that you want to borrow their code.
3) Promotion of OpenSource means *ALL* of it, be it BSDed, GPLed, or whatever the OpenSource licence. The rising tide floats all boats.....
4) Know its a multi-vendor world and work to live in it accordingly.
5) Don't see big companies as the enemy, but rather as someone else who will use the code. And, if they are lucky, the bug fixes will come back, if not...oh well. Hence, the BSD crowd tends to be less upset when a company charges money for the code/improvements to the code.
Microsoft will be more than happy to take code from BSD. And, if they are going to produce an environment that can run Linux software, it will be some form of add-on module to NT. They won't throw away all of the work they did on VMS^H^H^HNT.
Now, its very interesting the one thing that made RMS's underwear tighten was clause #3.
But go look at the BSD licence here. As you will note at the bottom
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety.
RMS gets his wish and *STILL* has his undies in a bunch...because its not GPL.
Instead of following in RMS's path, why not take learn some tolerance for the licencing views of others. The rising tide of OpenSource Code raises *ALL* boats. Your time would ALL be better spent if, instead of running about drilling holes in other boats, you worked on making the boat you happen to sail on BETTER.
Besides if you want to drill holes in boats, might I suggest you point out this licencing clause taken from 1197 part No X03-52207 (f) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft and its suppliers from and against any claims of lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of your Application.
Yuppers. Point out that if you use Micro$oft products as the base for your products, and you get sued, even if it WAS Micro$oft's fault, you have to defend them in court. Doing that should work to re-direct your licence flaming tendancies in a more constructive manner.
Athletes - using this device for that 'workout without a workout'.
Vanity - look at how many buy steroids/the charles atlas muscle-training program. Now his dynamic resistance program will actually work..with the stimulation.
And the link in case the biggest market interests you. Such machines are allready used for muscle excersize.
*clap* *clap*
It seems that finally a Judge believes in Personal Responsibility.
If *YOU* don't like a site or find something offensive, then sue the human who MADE the post/site. If you can't get modivated enough to sue, then stop whining.
The real reason is he claimed to be
^ r1gh1 h^c|3r dudz
>Nathan Mhyrvold is supposedly their resident genius who is supposed to do nothing but think about the future of the technology.
Except that Nathan is one of the MANY people who have left/taken a long leave from Microsoft.
His leaving was hadly mentioned by anyone....which is shocking, IMNSHO
In the computer/telephone market worldwide (the last time I looked) IBM and Fujitsu compete for the top spots in telephony (IBM ROLM) and computers.
/. user, the software they are offering doesn't seem to bring much to the table. There already is email, calandar, documentation storage methods, and discussion forums (news...etc)
Fujitsu is trying to make sure its 'lotus notes-esque' runs on almost everywhere. Good for them, but will they go ALL the way and be sure the code will run on ANY machine that can run Linux Binaries?
For the average
If Fujitsu or IBM want to make a splash in open source, they should support telephony under Open Sourced Unixes. There is a market void in this catagory, just waiting for someone to fill it with some quality software/hardware.
Even if it is not useful software for 'most of us', the more software that can run in a Linux Binary executable format, the more ALL the machines that can run Linux binaries benefit.
It is FAR eaiser to flame and complain than to actually think and create constructive critiques of someone elses work.
The rash of 1st post BS (like on this article) is an example.
Or Mr. Barr's letter to mindcraft is another example.
And, given the paranoia of US Citizens, how many are REALLY going to pick up the phone and call the FBI asking 'hey hows it going', when documentation exists of what happens to citizens who decide NOT to play by government rules. Phil Zimmerman(PGP fame) and the old editor of PHRACK who was suied by AT&T over 911 documents come to mind.
*sigh*
Given there is already a 'working proof of concept' at http://www.calcaria.net/ for what you want to do, a NetBSD/Linux CE project, and a few others I don't know about, your time would be better spent thinking small apps.
NO ONE TO DATE (pubically) is thinking about the address books, e-mail, calander, find, word processor, spreadsheet, web browser, encryption, sync utility (My little 4 meg of DRAM handheld has all of these features...+TCP/IP and 20 megs of FLASH storage for data...and plays quicktime-esque video with sound) to big brother (Desktop, not Big Brother) versions of the same utilites. Oh, and a TCP/IP (or serial/IR) based link to the handheld from the desktop so from your main machine keyboard/screen is an extension of the handheld world.
Think of the poor 16 megs of handheld DRAM, and the lack of a hard drive. Then, think of the gnome or KDE app you use as a address book/email. Can you shoe-horn your favorite apps into 16 meg, with no hard drive? (Like that PostgreSQL backend for the app....exactly HOW are you going to get that on your handheld?)
(If I could find the link, I'd post it for the 'replace X on handhelds with this graphics model' effort.)
And, without a set of apps, no one is going to use ANY OpenSource kernel on a handheld. Because its the app space that makes the kernel useful.
And I see no evidence of any of the 'productivity apps' I listed above thinking about what needs to be done to have small memory footprint, remote-linking, or much else that is important for the handheld market.
If you are looking for a project, why not spend time thinking or talking to the designers of the productivity apps to start thinking and designing for small-space apps, and linking to small memory space apps.
This sounds like a typical knee-jerk reaction so the elected officials can say they are doing something. And, realistically, the effort isn't going to do a whole lot. If a big rock hits anywhere, the whole planet is screwed. There have been 5 mass extictions, why can't there be a 6th?
We see some meteors, hey lets form a body to find some that might hit us. (Ok so you are tracking them, now what you going to do?!?!? Go up there and ask it to swerve and hit the IRA?)
Here in the USA, someone shoots up a postoffice and so now it's illegal to have a gun in a postoffice. Nevermind that its illegal to shoot people, to hide a gun, to discharge a firearm in city limits, etc *WE* (the elected officials) have done something.
I guess we get the governments we deserve eh?
>It took ten years, however, for the PC to catch up to the Amiga completely.
Hrmmmm, I had a 286 Xenix box that could multi-task and do graphics with its CGI (computer graphics interface)
You could format a floppy AND type, just like an amiga.
And it would work in 2 megs.
QNX 2.1 would work in 1 meg, and had some kind of graphics mode. Never used the graphics mode. Oh, it would work on an 8088.
So to say the PC took 10 years to 'catch up' is not correct. Intel boxes ran fine...when you dumped CP/M, err MS-DOS. Not great, but fine.
Micro$oft wants to be the only body issuing a tax on computing.
But being time is relative, predetermined to what?
A lawyer could argue that it is 'predetermined time frame' that after getting the new packet, work is started.
And another lawyer could argue that SETI is done for personal reasons, and try to invoke the 'built for personal use' clause.
(being a realist, Intel won't bother with SETI/Distributed.net/etc. They want things that generate cash, and therefore SETI etc la don't matter.)
I even doubt they will get a $ on this patent....instead it will be part of the 'trade' when companies swap patents. (thus erecting barriers for entry for any new company. Helps keep your competitors known and limited. It would be a bad thing to have a new gal come in upset the way business has always been done.) If it never costs you, you have no reason to challenge it.
As for prior art I submit CRON and tape backup scripts I've seen in the past on UseNet.
At the 1999 embedded trade show, the keynote speaker pointed out that PC sales vs embedded sales was at a ratio of 2:1. By 2003, he said the ratio will be 1:3.
With embedded applications like speech recg., TCP/IP and other technologies, the embedded world is growing up to 32 bits fast. (for some reason a z80 or 8051 doesn't do TCP/IP well
Intel's move is them making sure they have IP cores (Intellectual property) that can be used in the embedded market. The high profit is in PCs, the volume is in embedded. So they'll sell 'em to PC vendors (try to starve AMD/VIA on the low end), then sell em 'forever' to the embedded world.
Chipzilla won't go down without a fight...
to fall?
It seems the companies who helped Microsoft to grow are doing OK.
But the companies that had competing products, like VMS or Iris who decided to partner up with Microsoft have suffered.
HP backtracked on the 'unix is dead, NT is the future' of a few years ago. (Wonder how much they lost....)
So: Who's next? (Who is left???!?!?)
I don't see where there is an advantage for anyone, save some rabbid GPLers that want to run the kernel from BSD.
/.)
It *IS* market differentation for Debian, and that is what the 107+ GNU/Linux compaines are all about. So they are going to try a different thing.
1) Between GNU/Linux and *BSD, if one group comes up with a feature, or a better way of doing something, the code is either moved directly, or the idea is re-implemented under the correct license.
2) Most of the user-level code doesn't care about the kernel being BSD or GPL. So, unless it's commerical software using a group of tools, the tools on *BSD are on GNU/Linux, and GNU/Linux tools are on *BSD.
3) *BSD has the ability to run most GNU/Linux binaries. So, being *BSD lets you allready run GNU/Linux stuff.
Given these 3 things, I don't see a win for customers. (Unless, of course, the BSD kernel is more stable/better written than the GNU/Linux kernel. But such talk is considered a TROLL on
As for the argument that *bsd is dying...Sorry to say this, but there is a whole group of people who think OpenSource is doomed, that GNU/Linux is dead on the vine, etc. Ask Micro$oft. Judge Jackson thinks that OpenSource is not relavant. The people at BSD/OS mock 'the part time OpenSource' world. Such people claiming *BSD is dying are no better than the blind Amiga or Macintosh advocates. They want to push down other OSes to make thier own OS look better.
>Me GPL-ing WINE does not prevent the abuse of freedom I was talking about
Huh?
1) You GPLing WINE stops YOUR whining. Because now the 'the code' is 'free'....just like YOU wanted.
2) The code is 'free' now. The 'freedom' is of the USER to choose what and how they want to use it.
3) Why don't you have ANY respect for the authors and the people who work on the code? They opted for a BSD licence.
>A theoretical Leach Corporation
*yawn*
1) If you havn't figured it out yet, big corporations take what they want. If they what what you have done, they will take it.
2) Back to repect...the authors have decided that ANYONE is free to use their code ANY DAMN WAY THEY SEE FIT. So if some 'big corporate leach' (as you seem to want to call them) wants to use their work, the authors of the code have decided that this is cool.
Again, go GPL the code and 'save the world', at least in your head. Your whining about WINE will then stop, as you have what you want. If you are unwilling to go GPL it, then what right do you have to whine about WINE?