"must pay an undisclosed sum to developers Erick Andersen and Rob Landley."
Now this pisses me off. Anderson you AIN'T GOT FULL COPYRIGHT OF BUSYBOX. I handled it for 2 years prior to you and Perens wrote the original. (And might I add I warned you about improperly changing copyright notices back then.)
Did you even bother to contact Perens on this?
If you sued to get them to abide by the GPL, that's one thing. But a personal payout without consideration for the other developers involved? Hell no...
"So there will always be spam." The translation is "Thus Always to Spammers" which of course means "Spammers will always get what they deserve" or more loosely "Death to Spammers".
Of course they didn't make it quite as good as I had it laid out.
XML? I considered it and it's a bad idea. Too much work for machines OR humans to parse. They missed the boat on that. It also doesn't look quite as robust as my design either.Then again they're only a multi billion dollar company. What do you expect?
Maybe in another 15 years I'll actually get to see an OS something like what I was building in 2000. : P
I developed an distributed advanced firewalling intrusion detection appliance, with realtime event alerting, tied to a monitored service that provided a (server side) web based report generation engine.
This commercial product was developed in August 2001, and the specific event related ip info/trace type features that exactly match this patent (minus the 'map' image) were implemented into the report generator no later then the 2nd week of January 2002, immediately put into production for all current customers to access, and specifically demonstrated to a potential customer withing days. This falls before the February 8, 2002 application date of this patent.
Anyone looking to make a formal challenge to this patent contact me. dcinege ****AT*** psychosis dot com
Perl's syntax screams out "Kill me now, kill me quickly" I use Python now
Re:Evil is in the watchers, not the watching
on
Watching You
·
· Score: 1
Video tape or data records of police/official misconduct ensure that abuse is not tolerated.
Q: Government, by definition, holds a monopoly on the use of force. How does the transparancy of their actions, limit their actions, when they hold that monopoly?
Lets say you are driving down the road and you come up to a toll booth. The sign says: $0.25 toll charge for cars. So you hand the toll collector a quarter. Upon doing so the collector says, "I need another $0.10." and you reply "But the sign says the toll is only $0.25.", and she replies "Yes the Toll is only $0.25, but the toll booth agency wants more money. So we'll be taking an extra $0.10". Shocked you say "But you can't do that. The legislators decide how much the toll will be." The collector grins "That they do...but the toll agency decided it wants more." and grinning wider "I'm not opening the gate until you pay."
Only congress (legislative branch) can legally create and levy a tax. No other part of government can. The FCC just decided to decree the collection of this bullshit. MaBell won't argue. Refuse to pay and your lines get cut off.
Has no one had any success fighting this in court yet???
It's a shame php ever came to be, instead of someone developing a cleaner way to utilize the devine snake directly in HTML.
Now I see people writing stand alone
apps in php. God show mercy. PHP has an atrocious syntax similar to Perl and it was a step backwards, not forwards, the progression of mainstream language usage. : P
In your init.d rc and rcS scripts add something like this to the start up execution case block:
[SK][0-9][0-9]+*) # Background
$debug "$@" &;;
(Debian shown) and then rename start links S+[name].
The + will now denoted that that the process will be backgrounded at execution and will parallel your boot. You still need to make sure that dependancies are run first.
Of course whether you do this or use gmake this is still 20 year old mickey mouse bullshit, and the entire sysvinit system ought to be scraped!
def ShamelessBegging ():
Somebody give me money so I can write a modern core unix userland already!
The subject as I submitted it was:
Amphibious RVing for the Masses (of Yuppies)
Michael chopped it...
Re:I had a feeliing it would get posted to slashdo
on
Linux Router Project Dead
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Dave,
>I am a project member of LEAF and feel somewhat compelled to reply to your >comments if you feel inclined to take the time to read them.
I'm the guy that wrote LRP from scratch and I need to respond to this bullshit.
> LEAF and the literly dozens of other off shoots used the LRP os as their >base and then added enhancements mostly via the way of application specific >extenstions. I've yet to see any major revamping of the OS itself by anyone >else...only upgrades to newer componets. (kernel, busybox, etc...)
>While this is true to some extent, much work has gone on beyond your base as >well as Matthew Grant's work.
Matt Grant was LRP's first 'problem child'. Matt wanted to radically alter the networking scripts. I said it was too complex for the base. Please put them in a package. Matt proceeded to release his own version of LRP. Again, LRP with some networking scripts.
Matt had NO PART in writing LRP. Matt did little to nothing it even support his own releases. This began to happen in very late 1999 when i was in the middle of relocating, and my mistake was to be passive about it instead of putting his ass in line. It caused a great deal of confusion in the project.
Of no surprise to me, Matt basically vanished, and I was left with the mess of 'supporting' his releases.
>Many of us made use of the LRP site's resources though you rarely (if ever) >showed any indication of using any of our work or including any other >developers in your personal work (which was "LRP" itself).
Now this is a crock of fucking shit. I spent phone time with at least 3 different 'leaf' people in late 2000/early 2001. None of them followed through on any promise of work they commited too me. (Exception: Charles S. did split up POSIXness into module parts as I asked...but again further things never progressed.) The only thing anybody ever did fully and did really well was Ray handling bounces on the mailing list.
I couldn't reject anything because NOTHING WAS EVER SENT.
It should also be noted the 'leaf' people didn't know LRP from a hole in the wall until cira 2000, ~4 years into the project.
> There is little to none of your code in David Douthitt's "Oxygen" project > that has been reworked to necessitate only the kernel patches.
Let's reword this "All your code has been removed...except what was needed to make it run" The entire lay out of the OS is of course still LRP
>The kernel patches do not work with a 2.4.x kernel and any variants using > these newer kernels have written their own patches."
More FUD. Patches for 2.4.16, 2.4.20, and 2.5.45 are @ http://ftp.psychosis.com/linux/initrd-dyn/kerne lpa tches/
The claim leaf rewrote the dynamic initial ramdisk scheme from scratch is more crap.
>True to an extent, this package format is little more than a.tgz archive and >work has and is being done to replace this format. 'apkg' has been available
Again based on eveything I did, and it is not what you would call a robust packaging system either.
>Which is the foundation of the LEAF project (found in the FAQ section). >Rather LEAF is a project that promotes somewhat similar variants or OS's >under an unbrella that encourages every release to do their own thing w/o >needing to be constrined to approval by a single person such as LRP was.
Let's remove the spin from that: Their are 5 people all putting out their own varient of LRP with varing coherency and compatiblity between them all. That is exactly what I tried to prevent with LRP: fragmentation and over specialization of the core OS.
>Many of our variants do still use a some of your base, but this is at a >dead-end as far to the degree we could extend it and we are moving on as >future development demands and this comment will not be true in any degree >with near future releases.
Re:I had a feeliing it would get posted to slashdo
on
Linux Router Project Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
LEAF and the literly dozens of other off shoots used the LRP os as their base and then added enhancements mostly via the way of application specific extenstions. I've yet to see any major revamping of the OS itself by anyone else...only upgrades to newer componets. (kernel, busybox, etc...)
My discontent with all of them is LRP had a modular packaging system, and instead of re-releasing the the whole works with a specialized purpose, they could have released *packages*! This would have greatly help the progress of LRP itself.
You will notice there is no 'LEAF OS'. There are like 5 sub-versions on a LEAF site based on the original LRP OS.
For the most part they did the equivelent of re-releasing Debian instead of creating a '.deb'. Saying LEAF or any of the other direivatives continued the work of LRP is like saying, Tivo continued the work of Redhat. Their goals were very specific, LEAF in particular, to maintain a firewall on a floppy. LRP, name aside (it WAS to be renamed), had the goal of becoming a next generation, general purpose OS, with a highly refined and embedalbe micro core.
Dave
I had a feeliing it would get posted to slashdot..
on
Linux Router Project Dead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
...and it was actually my greatest hesitation to updating the site instead of just dropping it off the face of the earth.
I guess every dreg and their ugly mother will crawl out of the wood work to find fault with something I did now. Have fun wasting your key strokes.
But I felt I owed a 'what happened' to the people out there that loved LRP for all it really was: Compact, Efficient, Powerful, and most of all a Unique Operating System.
But just 3 hours after I finalized the last update?? Jeez...I guess people are just dying to find anything to submit. It's always interesting when your apache processes jump from 5 to 152...
No, more like I have a clue what I'm doing and he doesn't.
After 10 years of pretty much mass use of BBS'es and Internet systems you'd think spelling flames would have died out by now. Between the spam and dregs like this AC the net got killed. Thank you AOL.
Aside from being a whiny prick that tried to cause trouble for competing fibre channel product vendors on Ebay, Sanden Fuess's products are designed so far out of spec it's sad. They may be cute as a hand assembled hacker novelty, but I'd never put them into any type of production environment.
General rule: If it doesn't AC decouple and doesn't actively terminate, or it does not use 0603 or *smaller* surface mount components, don't buy it. And, if it doesn't use shielded cables, laugh at the vendor! If any of the above are missing you will have retiming issues causing intermittent failures.
I designed the Cinonic FC2's. Alass the market for 'mid-range' FC has all but died, so we never re-uped our stock when we ran low a few months ago. : (
1X == 150KB/s. This means '52X' is 7800KB/s or 7.61MB/s. A 700MB disc / 7.6MB/s == 92 seconds. Guess what...150 seconds (2.5minutes) is 63% MORE time, that this '52X' drive actually takes to make a 700MB disc.
If this thing CAN ever hit a 52X speed, it would be only on the outer most edge of the disc, where throughput is fastest. Otherwise it's average nominal speed is 32X, or LESS for images smaller than a full 700MB. On my brandy new '48X' drive, I've yet to see it break 35X at it's peak speed.
Fixating time aside, these drives consistantly under perform their ratings. Smudging the number is one thing, but a 30%+ differences are ridiculous.
and those dregs from Staten Island are the only ones that say 'Joisey'. Nobody *from* Jersey calls it that. (Though you can find NYC migrants that will) I wasted 20 years of my life in the shit hole. I know. Christ, you'd think wide spread viewing of the the Sopranos would have killed this misconception by now.
Slashdot Mirror
"must pay an undisclosed sum to developers Erick Andersen and Rob Landley."
Now this pisses me off. Anderson you AIN'T GOT FULL COPYRIGHT OF BUSYBOX. I handled it for 2 years prior to you and Perens wrote the original. (And might I add I warned you about improperly changing copyright notices back then.)
Did you even bother to contact Perens on this?
If you sued to get them to abide by the GPL, that's one thing. But a personal payout without consideration for the other developers involved? Hell no...
My code hath bore it's fruit. It's purpose shall now be known!!
Muha Muha MUAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!!!!
"So there will always be spam."
The translation is "Thus Always to Spammers" which of course means "Spammers will always get what they deserve" or more loosely "Death to Spammers".
Sic semper spammeris!
One of my finer sigs... and no atribution... JEEZ!
Of course they didn't make it quite as good as I had it laid out.
XML? I considered it and it's a bad idea. Too much work for machines OR humans to parse. They missed the boat on that. It also doesn't look quite as robust as my design either.Then again they're only a multi billion dollar company. What do you expect?
Maybe in another 15 years I'll actually get to see an OS something like what I was building in 2000. : P
I developed an distributed advanced firewalling intrusion detection appliance, with realtime event alerting, tied to a monitored service that provided a (server side) web based report generation engine.
This commercial product was developed in August 2001, and the specific event related ip info/trace type features that exactly match this patent (minus the 'map' image) were implemented into the report generator no later then the 2nd week of January 2002, immediately put into production for all current customers to access, and specifically demonstrated to a potential customer withing days. This falls before the February 8, 2002 application date of this patent.
Anyone looking to make a formal challenge to this patent contact me. dcinege ****AT*** psychosis dot com
This is a better ending:
Perl's syntax screams out
"Kill me now, kill me quickly"
Use Python instead
Perl's syntax screams out
"Kill me now, kill me quickly"
I use Python now
Video tape or data records of police/official misconduct ensure that abuse is not tolerated.
Q: Government, by definition, holds a monopoly on the use of force. How does the transparancy of their actions, limit their actions, when they hold that monopoly?
A: It's doesn't.
PATRIOT Act is the law,...
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
There is no duty to obey an unconstutional law, nor are you bound to wait for a court to declare it so, as "Ignorance of the law is no defense."
Lets say you are driving down the road and you come up to a toll booth. The sign says: $0.25 toll charge for cars. So you hand the toll collector a quarter. Upon doing so the collector says, "I need another $0.10." and you reply "But the sign says the toll is only $0.25.", and she replies "Yes the Toll is only $0.25, but the toll booth agency wants more money. So we'll be taking an extra $0.10". Shocked you say "But you can't do that. The legislators decide how much the toll will be." The collector grins "That they do...but the toll agency decided it wants more." and grinning wider "I'm not opening the gate until you pay."
Only congress (legislative branch) can legally create and levy a tax. No other part of government can. The FCC just decided to decree the collection of this bullshit. MaBell won't argue. Refuse to pay and your lines get cut off.
Has no one had any success fighting this in court yet???
Go Python! Death to PHP!
Fuckin' A.
It's a shame php ever came to be, instead of someone developing a cleaner way to utilize the devine snake directly in HTML.
Now I see people writing stand alone apps in php. God show mercy. PHP has an atrocious syntax similar to Perl and it was a step backwards, not forwards, the progression of mainstream language usage. : P
In your init.d rc and rcS scripts add something like this to the start up execution case block:
;;
[SK][0-9][0-9]+*) # Background
$debug "$@" &
(Debian shown) and then rename start links S+[name].
The + will now denoted that that the process will be backgrounded at execution and will parallel your boot. You still need to make sure that dependancies are run first.
Of course whether you do this or use gmake this is still 20 year old mickey mouse bullshit, and the entire sysvinit system ought to be scraped!
def ShamelessBegging ():
Somebody give me money so I can write a modern core unix userland already!
Dave
You need Crossover office: http://codeweavers.com
(Dumb ass troll)
There is no privileged act in operating a car, YOUR PROPERTY, on the PUBLIC right of way....
The subject as I submitted it was:
Amphibious RVing for the Masses (of Yuppies)
Michael chopped it...
Dave,
.tgz archive and >work has and is being done to replace this format. 'apkg' has been available
>I am a project member of LEAF and feel somewhat compelled to reply to your >comments if you feel inclined to take the time to read them.
I'm the guy that wrote LRP from scratch and I need to respond to this bullshit.
> LEAF and the literly dozens of other off shoots used the LRP os as their >base and then added enhancements mostly via the way of application specific >extenstions. I've yet to see any major revamping of the OS itself by anyone >else...only upgrades to newer componets. (kernel, busybox, etc...)
>While this is true to some extent, much work has gone on beyond your base as >well as Matthew Grant's work.
Matt Grant was LRP's first 'problem child'. Matt wanted to radically alter the networking scripts. I said it was too complex for the base. Please put them in a package. Matt proceeded to release his own version of LRP.
Again, LRP with some networking scripts.
Matt had NO PART in writing LRP. Matt did little to nothing it even support his own releases. This began to happen in very late 1999 when i was in the middle of relocating, and my mistake was to be passive about it instead of putting his ass in line. It caused a great deal of confusion in the project.
Of no surprise to me, Matt basically vanished, and I was left with the mess
of 'supporting' his releases.
>Many of us made use of the LRP site's resources though you rarely (if ever) >showed any indication of using any of our work or including any other >developers in your personal work (which was "LRP" itself).
Now this is a crock of fucking shit. I spent phone time with at least 3 different 'leaf' people in late 2000/early 2001. None of them followed through on any promise of work they commited too me. (Exception: Charles S. did split up POSIXness into module parts as I asked...but again further things never progressed.) The only thing anybody ever did fully and did really well was Ray handling bounces on the mailing list.
I couldn't reject anything because NOTHING WAS EVER SENT.
It should also be noted the 'leaf' people didn't know LRP from a hole in the
wall until cira 2000, ~4 years into the project.
> There is little to none of your code in David Douthitt's "Oxygen" project
> that has been reworked to necessitate only the kernel patches.
Let's reword this
"All your code has been removed...except what was needed to make it run"
The entire lay out of the OS is of course still LRP
>The kernel patches do not work with a 2.4.x kernel and any variants using
> these newer kernels have written their own patches."
More FUD. Patches for 2.4.16, 2.4.20, and 2.5.45 are @
http://ftp.psychosis.com/linux/initrd-dyn/kerne lpa tches/
The claim leaf rewrote the dynamic initial ramdisk scheme from
scratch is more crap.
>True to an extent, this package format is little more than a
Again based on eveything I did, and it is not what you would call a robust packaging system either.
>Which is the foundation of the LEAF project (found in the FAQ section). >Rather LEAF is a project that promotes somewhat similar variants or OS's >under an unbrella that encourages every release to do their own thing w/o >needing to be constrined to approval by a single person such as LRP was.
Let's remove the spin from that: Their are 5 people all putting out their own varient of LRP with varing coherency and compatiblity between them all.
That is exactly what I tried to prevent with LRP: fragmentation and over specialization of the core OS.
>Many of our variants do still use a some of your base, but this is at a >dead-end as far to the degree we could extend it and we are moving on as >future development demands and this comment will not be true in any degree >with near future releases.
LEAF and the literly dozens of other off shoots used the LRP os as their base and then added enhancements mostly via the way of application specific extenstions. I've yet to see any major revamping of the OS itself by anyone else...only upgrades to newer componets. (kernel, busybox, etc...)
My discontent with all of them is LRP had a modular packaging system, and instead of re-releasing the the whole works with a specialized purpose, they could have released *packages*! This would have greatly help the progress of LRP itself.
You will notice there is no 'LEAF OS'. There are like 5 sub-versions on a LEAF site based on the original LRP OS.
For the most part they did the equivelent of re-releasing Debian instead of creating a '.deb'. Saying LEAF or any of the other direivatives continued the work of LRP is like saying, Tivo continued the work of Redhat. Their goals were very specific, LEAF in particular, to maintain a firewall on a floppy. LRP, name aside (it WAS to be renamed), had the goal of becoming a next generation, general purpose OS, with a highly refined and embedalbe micro core.
Dave
...and it was actually my greatest hesitation to updating the site instead of just dropping it off the face of the earth.
I guess every dreg and their ugly mother will crawl out of the wood work to find fault with something I did now. Have fun wasting your key strokes.
But I felt I owed a 'what happened' to the people out there that loved LRP for all it really was: Compact, Efficient, Powerful, and most of all a Unique Operating System.
But just 3 hours after I finalized the last update?? Jeez...I guess people are just dying to find anything to submit. It's always interesting when your apache processes jump from 5 to 152...
Dave
No, more like I have a clue what I'm doing and he doesn't.
After 10 years of pretty much mass use of BBS'es and Internet systems you'd think spelling flames would have died out by now. Between the spam and dregs like this AC the net got killed. Thank you AOL.
The Internet -Died 1999 - R.I.P
Aside from being a whiny prick that tried to cause trouble for competing fibre channel product vendors on Ebay, Sanden Fuess's products are designed so far out of spec it's sad. They may be cute as a hand assembled hacker novelty, but I'd never put them into any type of production environment.
General rule: If it doesn't AC decouple and doesn't actively terminate, or it does not use 0603 or *smaller* surface mount components, don't buy it. And, if it doesn't use shielded cables, laugh at the vendor! If any of the above are missing you will have retiming issues causing intermittent failures.
I designed the Cinonic FC2's. Alass the market for 'mid-range' FC has all but died, so we never re-uped our stock when we ran low a few months ago. : (
1X == 150KB/s.
This means '52X' is 7800KB/s or 7.61MB/s. A 700MB disc / 7.6MB/s == 92 seconds.
Guess what...150 seconds (2.5minutes) is 63% MORE time, that this '52X' drive actually takes to make a 700MB disc.
If this thing CAN ever hit a 52X speed, it would be only on the outer most edge of the disc, where throughput is fastest. Otherwise it's average nominal speed is 32X, or LESS for images smaller than a full 700MB. On my brandy new '48X' drive, I've yet to see it break 35X at it's peak speed.
Fixating time aside, these drives consistantly under perform their ratings. Smudging the number is one thing, but a 30%+ differences are ridiculous.
How about this one:
Write free software
????
Insure Everything
Light a Match
PROFIT!
and those dregs from Staten Island are the only ones that say 'Joisey'. Nobody *from* Jersey calls it that. (Though you can find NYC migrants that will) I wasted 20 years of my life in the shit hole. I know. Christ, you'd think wide spread viewing of the the Sopranos would have killed this misconception by now.
120GHz? Not anywhere near me, thank you. 2 and 5 GHz worry me enough as it is.