Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list] -- nVidia doesn't own a lot of the IP
by Bryan Smith
From: Rui Miguel Seabra <rms(a)1407.org>
> He's not talking about patents in general but software patents.
> All software patents are bad, and virtually all software patents are
> patents on _common_ideas_
I completely disagree. There are countless, innovative software patents
in many areas -- especially 3D, semiconductor, etc... You can't start
eliminating software patents altogether without throwing away a lot of
innovation.
The problem is the "one-click" and other non-sense. Don't blame the
entire patent concept as the problem because of the stupid patents that
are granted. The US needs massive patent reform, yes, I don't disagree
with that. But do away with all software patents? Sorry, that's the
wrong move.
Companies are expending a lot of funds to research many ideas. *NOT*
Microsoft -- don't think of Microsoft when you think of software
patents. Think of companies that truly innovate. They are rare
compared to the crap that is granted, but they do exist.
Sorry, but I have to say that the community is not always entitled to
the absolutely latest innovations in many areas that are truly novel.
Thankfully we do have companies who make them available and usable by
even community software in open standard APIs. That is a very nice
touch, and should be appreciated.
> Feel free to be the first to draw the line in the sand from whereupon
> it's a common idea or not. Nobody was ever able to clearly define
> that, so what you say is very nice in principle, but unfeasible in
> practice.
The problem is the _lack_ of "peer review" in the patent system.
Regulation, legislation and laws have _never_ solved problems as good as
putting "peer experts" on the problem. That has always been the
problem, people always wanting to go to more legislation, instead of
relying on peer experts and industry-based approaches.
> But this is getting more and more off-topic.
I didn't introduce it. Some people want to introduce their political
agendas here, and I'm merely trying to show the other side. I'm sure
that's "annoying" at times, but I'm trying to let people know how to
avoid being viewed as "community radicals" by others.
If you want Linux to engage the corporate world, you have show them how
things should and should not work. Not that the entire system is wrong,
because if you take away the absolutes, it's really just skewed, and
_can_ be fixed.
I think Red Hat's new venture in getting companies to work together in a
common patent pool is the most _helpful_ and most _American_ thing I
have ever seen, and it's why I continue to believe Red Hat is the _best_
Linux company in the world. It believes strongly in community, yet
understand that community is about _choice_ -- be it an individual or
corporation.
And not some ideal of federated mandate where not everyone might agree.
Corporations and individuals who ban together in a community by choice
will topple those who abuse IP, marketshare and other, unethical
tactics. It is a far better, far safer, for more useful approach than
by federated mandate that says "we know better than you."
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith(a)ieee.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
18 years, 10 months
mtune=nocona
by kas
As I was educating myself on the intricacies of building rpms last
night,
I was just a little nonplussed to see the following scroll by, in
particular the last little bit:
CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -m64
-mtune=nocona'
Of course, on through -m64 was as expected. I'm just a bit surprised
that it didn't say mtune=k8 since it was definitely building on one ...
which begs the question ... is GCC (and hence the entire x86_64
distribution) being built this way? What are the K8 performance
implications? I've seen a few things that indicate that Nocona cores
running K8 code look pretty bad in some areas compared to optimized
code...however, I find nothing to indicate how nocona optimized code
runs on the K8.
Karen
18 years, 10 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list] -- nVidia doesn't own a lot of the IP
by Bryan Smith
Sean wrote:
> Bryan,
> It is not a political agenda or radical to have concluded that open source
> is a good thing.
Open source is a _very_good_ thing. The idea of the community bonding
together in the hope of establishing something for the good of everyone
is very noble. But there is a fine line between people or entities
_choosing_ and it being _mandated_. You have to be very cautious.
One company that will continually receive my praise is Red Hat because
it understand the value of _choosing_ to share. And they are a "do as I
do" instead of a "do as I say" type of entity. It makes it very easy to
point to Red Hat and say -- "see, there's an example!"
> Therefore, it is not radical or political to advocate for it as a preference
> over closed-source solutions.
Agreed. But some people go beyond that. They don't want to stop and
understand the other side of the coin. They think of Microsoft or the
worst example, not realizing there are very good companies in between.
They may not be open source, or only partially open source, but they are
dedicated to open standards. People will always differ, but as long as
everyone can inter-operate, that's ideal.
> Branding someone a radical just because they advocate for one solution
> over another is just plain nonsense.
No, not *1* solution, but *1* _outlaw_ of another, or federal preference
of one. It's a very fine line. Freedom has to be choice. Community
has to be choice. Again, it's a very fine line.
> Let's not worry too much about being viewed as "community radicals";
Why not? It happens all-the-time. Personally, I run into it all-the-
time. I'm arguing for Freedomware (open source, open standards by
choice) solutions, and then I get shot down because people lump my
concepts in with the Commuware (open source, open standards by mandate)
fundamentalists.
By not taking the time to differentiate Commerceware/Hostageware from
Standardware/Sourceware, you're going the same thing in reverse. There
is this absolutist radicalism on _both_ sides.
[ And yes, these terms are terms of my own creation. But I haven't seen
a better set -- other than the 1-dimensional "open" v. "proprietary"
sides that doesn't do much to expose the lack of understanding in both
directions. ]
> lets just keep making the best open source solutions we know how.
I agree very much so. But that doesn't mean by tearing down the whole
institution of IP -- or just the portion that affects us.
> Those who see the benefits will follow; those who don't, will do
> something else.
In the majority of cases, especially with commodity concepts and ideas,
open source is the ideal. But sometimes, especially in an area with
limited development by the community, especially with new concepts,
things aren't so commodity.
In that case, we can either hope someone will release open standards
until the concepts become commodity or open source endeavors mature, or
we're stuck with proprietary standards and everyone loses. No one has a
right to every idea as it is thought of, but we can appreciate those who
care to share it, even when it is still fresh.
Especially when the industry is still maturing, and there is a lot at
stake in products -- especially when products themselves are obsoleted
not only after the moment they are conceived.
> In the end, there is very little value to the open source community in
> supporting an infestation of binary-hacks into the O/S,
You don't have to support it -- not one finger. But you do have to
understand why others might want it. That's what the term "freedom to
choose" means.
> no matter how much you personally believe in the functionality they add.
And *I* will decide that for myself. We should let others do the same.
Sometimes there is nothing more dangerous than someone saying "we know
what's better for you." As much as I may _agree_ with you, I have to
step back and realize that _choice_ much be preserved, even when I don't
agree with Microsoft or others.
Alan Cox wrote:
> Nobody has a right to "own" ideas. Al the countries that have patents do so
> because they recognized the need to make a pact between the people and the
> creator and to distort both markets and natural order in order to foster
> progress (in theory).
> No I'm just pointing out that the evil federal mandates include good things 8)
Yes, as they are necessary.
In fact, if someone wants to mandate "open standards," I'm all for it.
The problem is when someone decides that "open source" is always better.
In many, many cases, yes. But not always.
Especially not when someone is willing to pay for an implementation that
might not be so commodity in idea, at least not at first.
> But this is getting off topic so I'll shut up
Well, sometimes I can be a little "radical" in my ideas too, I'll admit
that. I'm sure some of my American Libertarian-oriented views probably
make various people sick. But I don't think I'm too far from ESR.
My biggest fear is to see Linux mandated. It's one thing to standardize
on it as a consumer -- even as the federal government (thinking as a
consumer). It's another, very scare thing to see it legislated
(thinking as a regulator).
As much as I would never vote Ralph Nader, he hit it on the nose when he
said the US federal government should think more as a consumer, than as
a regulator when it comes to Microsoft. We must remember not to
demonize the entire commercial software industry as Microsoft.
Even if that is a popular way to demonizing something we don't agree
with -- use the worst case as an example. It expenses a lot of people
and companies "caught in the middle."
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith(a)ieee.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
18 years, 10 months
Which patches to apply to source RPMs for a mini KDE?
by M. Fioretti
Greetings,
I want to figure out how to install stable, already packaged versions
of only some KDE applications on a Fedora Core 3 system which already
has X and Qt. In other words, I would like to start from some KDE
source RPMs for Fedora and massage the spec and Make files until I get
other RPMs that *only* install:
KOffice
Konqueror
KMail
Kopete
Kpdf
(maybe a couple more whose name escapes me now)
all the base KDE libraries that are *really* needed by those programs
*nothing* else: NO sound, only one theme and set of icons, no
wallpaper, no animation....
The purpose is to build a mini-KDe desktop for basic SOHO applications
which has modern functionality (gpg, Khtml, Imap OpenDocument
support...) but is as light as possible on RAM and hard drive.
Said this:
what are the latest stable SRPMS for the apps above for FC3, and
where?
any suggestion and tip on how and which files and settings remove
and/or change (how) in the spec files?
Thank you in advance,
Marco
--
Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it
Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/
In a hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account
was, the type of house I lived in, or the kinds of clothes I wore, but
the world may be much different because I was important in the life of
a child Author unknown
18 years, 10 months
gnome-panel eats a lot of memory
by Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
I noticed that gnome-panel eats 25% (=256mb) of my memory which is quite a
lot for a simple panel. Does anybody else see this too? I installed
FC4Test2 and then upgraded to Rawhide.
Regards,
Dennis
18 years, 10 months
Breakage today on i686
by Horst H. von Brand
Kernel is broken ("BUG(): Software watchdog on CPU#0" or some such), freeze
until I push the power button on this Toshiba Satellite M30, then boot
continues.
redhat-artwork-0.124-1.i386 kills gdm login completely. I get a login
screen with a flower, but it doesn't work at all. Had to downgrade.
selinux-policy-strict-1.23.18-4.noarch kills bash somehow, luckily I had
tcsh installed, and (via rescue) created an account using it.
YHBT. HAND.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
18 years, 10 months
rawhide report: 20050611 changes
by Build System
New package gpart
A program for recovering corrupt partition tables.
Removed package sash
Updated Packages:
gamin-0.1.1-1
-------------
* Thu May 12 2005 Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com> 0.1.0-1
- Close inherited file descriptors on exec of gam_server
- Cancelling a monitor send back a FAMAcknowledge
- Fixed for big files > 2GB
- Bug when monitoring a non existing directory
- Make client side thread safe
- Unreadable directory fixes
- Better flow control handling
- Updated to latest inotify version: 0.23-6
* Tue Mar 15 2005 Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com> 0.0.26-1
- Fix an include problem showing up with gcc4</li>
- Fix the crash on failed tree assert bug #150471 based on patch from Dean Brettle
- removed an incompatibility with SGI FAM #149822
* Tue Mar 01 2005 Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com> 0.0.25-1
- Fix a configure problem reported by Martin Schlemmer
- Fix the /media/* and /mnt/* mount blocking problems from 0.0.24 e.g. #142637
- Fix the monitoring of directory using poll and not kernel
hplip-0.9.3-3
-------------
* Thu Jun 09 2005 Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com> 0.9.3-3
- Added Obsoletes: for xojpanel and hpoj-devel (but we don't actually package
devel files yet).
netpbm-10.28-1
--------------
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com> 10.28-1
- update to 10.28
- regenerated man pages
- sync .security, .security2, .badlink, .libpm, .gcc4 patches
- drop upstreamed .pngtopnm, .pnmcolormap patches
openoffice.org-1:1.9.109-1.2.0.fc5
----------------------------------
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Caolan McNamara <caolanm(a)redhat.com> - 1:1.9.109-1
- rh#158943# Require some fonts
- bump to next version
- drop integrated ooo46528.stillnotpic.icu.patch
- drop integrated ooo48816.instsetoo_native.systempython.patch
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Caolan McNamara <caolanm(a)redhat.com> - 1:1.9.108-4
- ooo#50556# Filetype-label doesn't support special char
* Thu Jun 09 2005 Caolan McNamara <caolanm(a)redhat.com> - 1:1.9.108-3
- rh#159930# use us english thesaurus for australia as well
- add openoffice.org-1.9.108.ooo47323.binfilter.stupiddetect.patch for
rh#159851#/ooo#47323#
prelink-0.3.5-1
---------------
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Jakub Jelinek <jakub(a)redhat.com> 0.3.5-1
- support for ppc32 -msecure-plt libraries and binaries
- don't crash if d_tag is invalid (#155605)
- rebuilt against robustified libelf (CAN-2005-1704)
- fix handling of libraries and binaries given on command
line without any / characters in the filename
selinux-policy-strict-1.23.18-5
-------------------------------
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Dan Walsh <dwalsh(a)redhat.com> 1.23.18-5
- Further cleanup of user separation patches from Ivan
selinux-policy-targeted-1.23.18-5
---------------------------------
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Dan Walsh <dwalsh(a)redhat.com> 1.23.18-5
- Further cleanup of user separation patches from Ivan
xerces-j2-0:2.6.2-4jpp_8fc
--------------------------
* Fri Jun 10 2005 Gary Benson <gbenson(a)redhat.com> 0:2.6.2-4jpp_8fc
- Remove the tools tarball, and build xjavac from source.
- Replace classpath workaround to xjavac task and use
xml-commons classes again (#152255).
18 years, 10 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list] -- nVidia doesn't own a lot of the IP
by Bryan Smith
From: Alan Cox <alan(a)redhat.com>
> Actually its a formally defined legal process to preserve free market behaviour
> and prevent massive abuse of the citizenship, riots, war and the other
> unpleasantries that follow when society isn't working.
> How well it works is a different matter.
I'll see your wisdom there.
> The EU people I've talked to don't think thats the case interestingly. They
> will point at SuSE, at KDE, (the fact Gnome is more European than US has
> eluded them so far) and numerous other projects in the EU.
Most Americans believed the DOJ v. MS case was more of the same. Most
didn't read the transcripts and follow the realities of the trial.
>From what I've seen, while the people in both Unions may believe it's
about them, it's really about the corporations in those Unions. Be it
an advantages of one in a state against another, or of the union against
other unions.
> So you want patents on books, movies, and other literary works (software is
> a literary work remember...)
I think you're confusing implementations with concepts. Movies are not
patentable. New innovations in movie technology are. That's why
implementations are copyrighted for many decades, whereas patents are
granted for a much shorter time.
> But nVidia and friends are how markets are supposed to work, or something like
> it. Innovation, competition and price battles - and at times co-operation. No
> different to any other market.
Yes and no. Yes, many markets have it. But no, we're talking products
that are obsoleted in months, instead of years.
We're already seeing community Freedomware development in the 3D space
that was only 3-4 years behind. That is more than understandable. The
community has never had the right to ownership to cutting-edge concepts,
at least not without the research burden that goes with it.
But it _is_ nice that we _do_ have corporate entities who _do_ at least
release Standardware so we _can_ benefit from their innovations on
Freedomware platforms _until_ the Freedomware research "catches up."
> Ah yes. Rights to justice, drinking water, not to be shot without a trial
> (except if you look foreign) ...
So you believe rights to software are an inalienable right?
How about a job for that matter?
Or anything else that you believe is absolutely necessary to live?
People who do not believe in entitlements aren't trying to preserve
anything but the reality that when you mandate something, you only
remove choice as well as any fiscal incentives to innovate.
Yes, most software patents are bad in the US. They are simplistic and
take no effort at all to conceive. And then there are real, innovative
algorithms in software, that took years of research and proof of
concepts to come about. Those endeavors and innovations will quickly
_go_away_ if software patents are taken away.
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith(a)ieee.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
18 years, 10 months
