It will only be able to categorically state the nature of the chip for AMD K6-3 chips and above (presumably Athlon) since it's only these chips which have embedded CPUID - There's no way of knowing with the older chips, as far as I know..
There's an AMD equivalent to the CPU identification application - it's actually better than the Intel one because it does Intel as well as AMD chips, in a lot more detail as I recall.
The downside is that I believe it is Win32 only.. but then isn't the Intel one? There is some source code made available.
Look here - this may require you to enter your email address as registration.
Doesn't anyone here have a problem with the growing number of different Linux distributions out there..? Sure, competition is all well and good up to a point, but wildly diverging Linux distributions could put a lot of new people off due to the complexity of choosing a vendor.
One thing FreeBSD has always had going for it in my opinion is the unified distribution (this is not meant to be flamebait - just my opinion)
Do we really need yet another big player in the Linux distro world?
Unfortunately this is too simplistic a view - what incentive does anyone to make these databases if there are no laws protecting them?
It is obvious that a compiler of a database of poison remedies shouldn't own copyright on those remedies. However, that compiler may have spent years verifying each antidote and making sure the information is up to date. That is worth paying for, and if someone else comes along and steals the information the compiler would be rightly pee'd off.
So the database has a value all of it's own, independent of the information it indexes, and in my view there should be some controls on this. It is a lot easier to copy an existing database than to compile one, so compilation should be worth more.
As to how this can be regulated, that's where we run into problems. As has already been pointed out - how many records can someone else use at once before infringing copyright on the database? How do you assert that the database is original work?
I don't have an answer, except to say that the answer is probably different for different databases and any cath-all law would not be a good idea as it would almost certainly get it wrong.
Certainly what needs to be borne in mind is the idea of "authoritative" information - if you can truly say that you've checked the contents of your database for truth and relevance then surely you should have more rights over it than someone who has simply compiled a whole slew of random, useless information?
Slashdot Mirror
It will only be able to categorically state the nature of the chip for AMD K6-3 chips and above (presumably Athlon) since it's only these chips which have embedded CPUID - There's no way of knowing with the older chips, as far as I know..
Q.
There's an AMD equivalent to the CPU identification application - it's actually better than the Intel one because it does Intel as well as AMD chips, in a lot more detail as I recall.
The downside is that I believe it is Win32 only.. but then isn't the Intel one? There is some source code made available.
Look here - this may require you to enter your email address as registration.
Q.
Doesn't anyone here have a problem with the growing number of different Linux distributions out there..? Sure, competition is all well and good up to a point, but wildly diverging Linux distributions could put a lot of new people off due to the complexity of choosing a vendor.
One thing FreeBSD has always had going for it in my opinion is the unified distribution (this is not meant to be flamebait - just my opinion)
Do we really need yet another big player in the Linux distro world?
Q.
Unfortunately this is too simplistic a view - what incentive does anyone to make these databases if there are no laws protecting them?
It is obvious that a compiler of a database of poison remedies shouldn't own copyright on those remedies. However, that compiler may have spent years verifying each antidote and making sure the information is up to date. That is worth paying for, and if someone else comes along and steals the information the compiler would be rightly pee'd off.
So the database has a value all of it's own, independent of the information it indexes, and in my view there should be some controls on this. It is a lot easier to copy an existing database than to compile one, so compilation should be worth more.
As to how this can be regulated, that's where we run into problems. As has already been pointed out - how many records can someone else use at once before infringing copyright on the database? How do you assert that the database is original work?
I don't have an answer, except to say that the answer is probably different for different databases and any cath-all law would not be a good idea as it would almost certainly get it wrong.
Certainly what needs to be borne in mind is the idea of "authoritative" information - if you can truly say that you've checked the contents of your database for truth and relevance then surely you should have more rights over it than someone who has simply compiled a whole slew of random, useless information?
Q.