we decided to do CSC right after it was announced, As a "quickie" contest to give d.net a nice short term objective, We would like to continue doing short ( 3 month) projects to allow for some variety and to appeal to differnt folks. we don't need money, as d,net will get at most 2000euros ( unless d.net is picked at the charity, in which case the d.net get 6000 and the #2 charity gets 2000). As you can see at http://www.distributed.net/legal/ledger.html we are not hurting at all for money.
Next up is OGR ( optimal Golumb Rulers) and ECC ( elliptic curve Crypto), and we are looking at a couple of other projects including working with GIMPS
Because a copyright is on the "expression" of an idea, while a patent on on the idea itself. You can copyright code, but not the algorythm contained therein. I would consider the format an idea and not an expression ( IANAL) and would expect that would prevent the copyright from being usefull.
You could copyright a.h header file that defines the structure and names of the parts, but anyone reverse engineering the structure could use their own names and header file without infringing
you are basically correct, the contest projects are not OSS, becuase of the problems of "hacked" clients. As far as we ( distributed.net) know no one has solved the problem of having a OSS client and proving the data returned is 1. correct , 2. done by the exact OSS code, and 3 the results are not used bypassing the group effort.
there has been a bunch of discussion in sci.crypt for the last week from the seti@home group about the same problem
GCC 2.95 is what was to become EGCS 1.2. The old gcc leading from gcc 2.8.1 was scrapped and replaced by the work from the egcs group , who are now the maintainers of "gcc".
I expect over the next few months we will see gcc 2,95.x and then 2.96 which should include the new ia32 backend code.
I doubt much more from pgcc will make it into gcc as the pgcc hacks break the compiler for non-x86 CPUs
The problem with copper and silver in ICs is electromigration ( the metel diffuses into the silicon after a while and screws up the chip). The big breakthru recently was a new non-silicon insulating layer that can seperate the copper from the rest of the chip.
Re:AMD going under would be the end of Intel
on
Intel Undercuts AMD
·
· Score: 1
Something everyone seems to forget is Intel makes the Compaq/DEC Alpha chips. Intel bought the old DEC Chip Fab and now makes the Alphas as well as making the ARM chip.
Intel is also in the midst of building one of ( if not THE) first chip fabs that will use 300mm ( 12in) wafers - and produce chips down to.13u. the fab will cost billions , but will allow Intel to lower the per chip cost.
I expect AMD will have real problems trying to match Intel for yield and overall chip cost
Much of the code from pgcc is already integrated into EGCS , but some of the code is not mergable as it breaks EGCS for all non-x86 processors. Pgcc is derived from a demo compiler hack Intel did a number of years ago - and they did not care if the hack broke the compiler on non-x86 platforms.
Intel did the same thing in their i960 toolchain - started with the gnutoolset and hacked a non-portable version for the i960 out of it
this is a real problem that we at distributed.net have been looking at for a long time. As have many other groups. The basic problem is one of proof - can you prove that results returned were actually done and the the result returned was the result of that work.
The specific problem we are looking at in the distributed.net code is : given a block of data (keyblock) we need to prove that someone actually tested all the keys in that block and is returning the result of those tests. things to be proofed against - if the client is OSS : rewriting the test loop to skip over most of the testing ( so you can get an excessive rate and cheat in stats), returning a "no find" result on a success and claiming the prize yourself,
I know both NWA and Opinicus. The rehost from Vax/VMS to Linux makes sense to me, actually the OS is not real critical as a Sim tends to use almost NO OS features in operation. Flight Sims run a realtime dispatcher on top of whatever OS they boot from, and newer Sims are distributed computing systems with the host OS doing little during operation. just for reference the new A320 and 777 Sims from Thomson use 15-25 Motorola VME CPU cards spread in cages both on the Sim and in the computer room, and one of those runs Mot SYSV unix and talks to the "host" Sun workstation , the rest all run a custom RTOS.
dave
So can linux 2.2 compile with egcs now?
on
egcs to become gcc
·
· Score: 1
egcs and linux 2 have a love hate relationship - linux uses a fair number of inline asms and pushs the limits of what is documented as legal asm's , egcs has been tightening the rules for asms because they were allowing code that ran out of registers. So egcs would start marking linux code as being illegal and then linus and the ecgs folks had to deal with how to fix the problem , sometimes the compiler was changed, sometimes the linux code got changed.
Pgcc has another problem in that many of the Pentium optimizations in pgcc are NOT crossplatform and need to be totally rewritten to be merged into egcs - some are done , but alot remain to be rewritten
Slashdot Mirror
Yes Sybase ASE for Linux on a Linux box
we decided to do CSC right after it was announced, As a "quickie" contest to give d.net a nice short term objective, We would like to continue doing short ( 3 month) projects to allow for some variety and to appeal to differnt folks. we don't need money, as d,net will get at most 2000euros ( unless d.net is picked at the charity, in which case the d.net get 6000 and the #2 charity gets 2000). As you can see at http://www.distributed.net/legal/ledger.html we are not hurting at all for money.
Next up is OGR ( optimal Golumb Rulers) and ECC ( elliptic curve Crypto), and we are looking at a couple of other projects including working with GIMPS
Because a copyright is on the "expression" of an idea, while a patent on on the idea itself. You can copyright code, but not the algorythm contained therein. I would consider the format an idea and not an expression ( IANAL) and would expect that would prevent the copyright from being usefull.
.h header file that defines the structure and names of the parts, but anyone reverse engineering the structure could use their own names and header file without infringing
You could copyright a
dave
you are basically correct, the contest projects are not OSS, becuase of the problems of "hacked" clients. As far as we ( distributed.net) know no one has solved the problem of having a OSS client and proving the data returned is 1. correct , 2. done by the exact OSS code, and 3 the results are not used bypassing the group effort.
there has been a bunch of discussion in sci.crypt for the last week from the seti@home group about the same problem
dave
"Software Modems" as opposed to "Hardware Modems" ...
GCC 2.95 is what was to become EGCS 1.2. The old gcc leading from gcc 2.8.1 was scrapped and replaced by the work from the egcs group , who are now the maintainers of "gcc".
I expect over the next few months we will see gcc 2,95.x and then 2.96 which should include the new ia32 backend code.
I doubt much more from pgcc will make it into gcc as the pgcc hacks break the compiler for non-x86 CPUs
dave
The problem with copper and silver in ICs is electromigration ( the metel diffuses into the silicon after a while and screws up the chip). The big breakthru recently was a new non-silicon insulating layer that can seperate the copper from the rest of the chip.
Something everyone seems to forget is Intel makes
.13u. the fab will cost billions , but will allow Intel to lower the per chip cost.
the Compaq/DEC Alpha chips. Intel bought the old DEC Chip Fab and now makes the Alphas as well as making the ARM chip.
Intel is also in the midst of building one of ( if not THE) first chip fabs that will use 300mm ( 12in) wafers - and produce chips down to
I expect AMD will have real problems trying to match Intel for yield and overall chip cost
Much of the code from pgcc is already integrated into EGCS , but some of the code is not mergable as it breaks EGCS for all non-x86 processors. Pgcc is derived from a demo compiler hack Intel did a number of years ago - and they did not care if the hack broke the compiler on non-x86 platforms.
Intel did the same thing in their i960 toolchain - started with the gnutoolset and hacked a non-portable version for the i960 out of it
this is a real problem that we at distributed.net have been looking at for a long time. As have many other groups.
The basic problem is one of proof - can you prove that results returned were actually done and the the result returned was the result of that work.
The specific problem we are looking at in the distributed.net code is : given a block of data (keyblock) we need to prove that someone actually tested all the keys in that block and is returning the result of those tests. things to be proofed against - if the client is OSS : rewriting the test loop to skip over most of the testing ( so you can get an excessive rate and cheat in stats), returning a "no find" result on a success and claiming the prize yourself,
dave
I know both NWA and Opinicus. The rehost from Vax/VMS to Linux makes sense to me, actually the
OS is not real critical as a Sim tends to use almost NO OS features in operation. Flight Sims run a realtime dispatcher on top of whatever OS they boot from, and newer Sims are distributed computing systems with the host OS doing little during operation. just for reference the new A320 and 777 Sims from Thomson use 15-25 Motorola VME CPU cards spread in cages both on the Sim and in the computer room, and one of those runs Mot SYSV unix and talks to the "host" Sun workstation , the rest all run a custom RTOS.
dave
egcs and linux 2 have a love hate relationship - linux uses a fair number of inline asms and pushs the limits of what is documented as legal asm's , egcs has been tightening the rules for asms because they were allowing code that ran out of registers. So egcs would start marking linux code as being illegal and then linus and the ecgs folks had to deal with how to fix the problem , sometimes the compiler was changed, sometimes the linux code got changed.
Pgcc has another problem in that many of the Pentium optimizations in pgcc are NOT crossplatform and need to be totally rewritten to be merged into egcs - some are done , but alot remain to be rewritten
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m4