On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 23:12 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

nVidia _stopped_ supporting the NV0x (Riva TNT2, GeForce [1]) as of the Forceware 75 (1.0-75xx) drivers. You have to use an earlier Forceware driver for support. Are you _sure_ it's using the "nvidia" driver?

The last release for NV0x (TNT2/GeForce), NV10 (GeForce2) and NV15 (GeForce2 GTS) was 1.0-7174: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-7174.html Those cards are 6+ generations** (over 5 years**) old. If you have a NV11 (GeForce2 Go, MX), NV17/18 (GeForce4 MX), NV2x (GeForce 3/4Ti) or later, all current drivers work: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_18897.html -- Bryan **NOTE: nVidia's Law is that GPUs double in performance every 9-12 months. Moore's Law is that CPUs double in performance very 18-24 months. nVidia generations: 2005 G7x GeForce 7 2004 NV4x GeForce 6 2003 NV3x GeForce FX 2002 NV25-28 GeForce4 Ti 2001 NV2x GeForce3 2000 NV15/11* GeForce2/MX* (and NV17/18 GeForce4 MX in 2002) 1999 NV0x Vanta/TNT/TNT2 *NOTE: There are a few slight, but key changes in the NV11 ("MX" and "Go") that the earlier NV15 (GeForce2/GTS) did not have, hence why the NV15 is _not_ supported in ForceWare 75+, but NV11 is. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 04:34, Bryan J. Smith wrote: [snip] [re TNT2]

Those cards are 6+ generations** (over 5 years**) old. [snip]

Exactly! ... since one can buy a brand new (and _much_ faster than TNT2) nVIDIA card (geforce mx4000) which _is_ supported by nVIDIA's accelerated drivers, on AGP for less than UKP20 (or PCI for less than 30), then why not just do that to use xgl? Then sell the TNT2 on eBay (to a museum ;) Or, one could just install an old enough version of xorg/XFree86 that you can use an old enough version of nVIDIA's accelerated driver. Or port the UtahGLX driver to DRI! -- Bill Gallafent.

William Gallafent wrote:

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 04:34, Bryan J. Smith wrote: [snip] [re TNT2]

...

Those cards are 6+ generations** (over 5 years**) old.

[snip]

Exactly! ... since one can buy a brand new (and _much_ faster than TNT2) nVIDIA card (geforce mx4000) which _is_ supported by nVIDIA's accelerated drivers, on AGP for less than UKP20 (or PCI for less than 30), then why not just do that to use xgl? Then sell the TNT2 on eBay (to a museum ;)

Or, one could just install an old enough version of xorg/XFree86 that you can use an old enough version of nVIDIA's accelerated driver. Or port the UtahGLX driver to DRI!

What's wrong with you people! Were is your GNU GPL spirit? For now I just buy computer parts that have data sheets freely available or enough information for a good driver. That's a good way to support the really GNU/Linux Friendly enterprises. ...and support Linux in general. But, on the Video Card segment... is though! Just nVidia and ATI... both on war. Not a friendly situation.

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:08 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

...

What's wrong with you people! Were is your GNU GPL spirit?

It's called intellectual property (IP). IP is _always_ going to be an issue with GPUs (Graphical Processing Unit), _period_. Today's GPUs are _more_powerful_ than CPUs. It's like having a CPU with specialized vector units. And must is driven in specialized software. A lot of that IP is either Intel's or, increasingly via cross-licensing agreements, Microsoft.

An additional problem at the _hardware_ level is the Intel platform design itself. The reason why ATI and nVidia need kernel drivers is largely Intel's fault. Intel continues to have _no_ "system" interconnect and connects the GPU via an "peripheral" interconnect. So it has to use hacks in software for coherency between the GPU and CPUs.

If we all used AMD HyperTransport eXtension (HTX) for GPUs like we do Infiniband and select other expansions, then we wouldn't have a problem. But as of right now, except for a few non-commodity, multi-GPU, specialized systems, HTX isn't available for GPUs. And that's not likely to change with Intel's control over the GPU industry -- especially when it comes to IP.

But at least it's an _open_ API in OpenGL, including extensions via an Architectural Review Board (ARB) to keep vendor extensions from dominating out of next generations. That's completely _different_ than how DirectX is.

So even if we don't have "open source," we _do_ have "open standards." It's only half of the equation, but given all the IP ownership issues, it's actually advantageous (from a legal perspective) for ATI, Matrox, nVidia and others to keep the source code closed. Especially with some of the key IP at the kernel level being Intel's (which they don't share in their own drivers).

...

For now I just buy computer parts that have data sheets freely available or enough information for a good driver.

Writing a GLX and corresponding kernel-level memory/interconnect interface driver for a GPU is about 1,000x time more difficult than a network driver for a MAC (Media Access Control) IC.

It's like comparing a single stateful packet filter (SPF) firewall for layer 2-4 to a complete security appliance that also proxy and filters layers 5-7 as well.

This is reality. It's not going to change. Especially since GPUs double in performance _twice_as_fast_ as CPUs.

...

That's a good way to support the really GNU/Linux Friendly enterprises. ...and support Linux in general. But, on the Video Card segment... is though! Just nVidia and ATI... both on war. Not a friendly situation.

Not true! Not true at all!

ATI and nVidia, as well as Creative, Matrox and others, _do_ work together in the OpenGL ARB! They keep the _open_ standard going! So anything written today in OpenGL will _still_ work on OpenGL in the future!

GPUs are _not_ MACs. They are 1,000x more complex -- especially in their software support. But at least we _do_ have an open standard.

What will happen to OpenGL? SGI filled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and 3Dlabs going off the Professional Workstation market. Worst yet, since 2003 Microsoft is the "number one" enemy of OpenGL. GPUs are important today, they will be more in the future. It's irrational how the market is turning, we need the same control over the GPU as we have over the CPU.

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 13:13 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

...

GPUs are important today, they will be more in the future. It's irrational how the market is turning, we need the same control over the GPU as we have over the CPU.

But the problem is that GPUs are _not_ like CPUs!

It's not like you just have a base CPU ISA add a few extensions every few years. Each and _every_ GPU is tuned with additional library and software performance.

It's as if CPUs came out with a radically _new_ design every 9-12 months that was _slow_ if you just used the same ISA from 9-12 months earlier.

That's GPUs in a nutshell.

Yes it's true, like a new CPU architecture on your AGP. But they don't change so fast. nvidia has the TNT architecture from, well, the TNT trough the GeForce2. The GeForce3 was new, because of the vertex programs and pixel shaders. GeForce4 was a "power up" GeForce3. The new arch. came with the GeForce FX, it's said that was a VLIW architecture... a short lived one. Now it's the NV4x cards and G70 IS a NV4x. For ATI, it's the same. Radeon was R100, Radeon 8500... R200, Radeon 9700... R300 and R4xx. How many years the R300/R4xx architecture lasted? Now here we need to define the act of buying a hardware. What is buying hardware? For me the idea is: I bought a Hardware, not a service. More if it's programmable, I want to use it at it's full extent. If not so, it's a service, I buy it to do it's job in a lock down way. In reality computers are not like cars. Too many patents really hurts economy. And why, if they only want 12 months of head start, a patent grants to a Hardware/Software based model 20 years of ownership?

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

Then blame Intel. Then blame Microsoft.

I do, I do... everyday!

And don't forget IBM -- the biggest IP monster of them all (just ask the Linux kernel developers) -- and the 1000lbs. gorilla that knocks companies out of the way, while donating $1B to maturing its product line (and _not_ actual GPL donations -- which makes me sick).

Blame a lot of companies.

ATI and nVidia didn't start it. In fact, nVidia _fought_it_, in the name of Linux, during XFree 3.3.x by _releasing_ the source code!

That's because nVidia was already 80+% Linux internally by 2000, like most other semiconductor firms running EDA applicatons. While Intel got lambasted by SVLUG for their lack of supporting Linux, nVidia was moving forward. I know because I was working in the semiconductor industry at the time, and _knew_ the people involved with many firms.

Furthermore, without nVidia's _quality_ GLX support in 2000+, we would have lost a _lot_ of POSIX/GLX CAM and EDA applications to Win32/DX ports. Had those CAM and EDA applications gone Win32/DX, they would have definitely been Windows-only forward! But because nVidia offered a _quality_ GLX option on Linux, those apps stayed POSIX/GLX, and were ported from AIX, HP/UX, Solaris and other UNIX flavors to Linux -- instead of Win32/DX.

CAM and EDA Engineering has been the _leading_ adopter of Linux on the desktop/workstation. Thanx to them, Linux is a _very_mature_ GLX platform. And thanx to nVidia, who recognized the need for a _quality_ GLX implementation on Linux over 6 years ago, we have it.

No, I don't like the IP issue. nVidia doesn't either. But because nVidia (as well as ATI) have signed agreements with Intel, Microsoft, SGI and others, we have them. Even if the community comes up with its own 3D API, it will infringe on that same IP.

So get used to it for the next 5+ years, because that's just how it is.

I'm just mad, because the TNT2 is 7 years old, they don't sell it anymore and yet they can't release the datasheet of that chip. But: What about Riva 128? Riva still holds "IP" from other companies? 3dfx released a lot of datasheets on it's last breath (I have them, they are on dri.fredesktop.org). Well, in 20 years they will have no excuse!!! Right?

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 10:17 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

...

But: What about Riva 128? Riva still holds "IP" from other companies?

Riva128 was _never_ supported by nVidia's unified driver. _Only_ NV-series.

Err... mmm... What is an "NV-series"? ----Quadratic Texture Mapping---- NV1 - "The NV1" seen on Diamond Edge3D NV2 - Never released ----Polygons Era---- NV3 - Riva128 NV4 - TNT NV5 - TNT2 The unified thing started with (I think) the TNT2. I found Riva128 datasheets!!! I need to check out the Utah-GLX code... Thanks a lot!

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 22:34 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

...

Err... mmm... What is an "NV-series"?

I meant when they switched to the modern NV0x convention.

And now the G70... G70, the codename of the NV47.

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 00:12 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

...

And now the G70... G70, the codename of the NV47.

Actually, the G70 is the G70. It might have originally been the NV47, but there are now G71, G72 and G73 GPUs.

Who knows why they change NV47 to G70. Anyway, I will stop ranting now. Thanks for your light on this nvidia / ATI / intel / "IP" subject.

Laugardaginn 27 maí 2006 16:05 skrifaði Bryan J. Smith:

Never has been. Never will be. That's just the post-2003 May "smokescreen" -- a "smokescreen" that would have _not_ been possible had the Linux community not been so ignorant of contract law and rabid.

SCO's claim never had any merit, never will. The only thing IBM has to do, is to survive the current "regime". After that, SCO is burried and so is M$. As most of SCO's claims are what can be called "monopolist" attitude, and so is that of M$. Both are temporary, and in violation of anything decent. The original AT/T copyright, was in reality a violation ... it was a theft that took place under the "protectionist" right wing of the US. A lot of the code in the original Unix environment, was a common University code, developed openly amongst the many universities and students, world wide. When AT/T decided to "take" everything that was under Unix and copyright it, based on the original laboratory work, only BSD survived, but a lot of that work was done in common good faith. But at the same time, it gave birth to Linux. As the Universities around the world, took Linux to heart, when they lost their University copies of Unix. However, a lot of the original Linux stuff appears to be Xenix originated. And has some SCO/M$ origin, apparantly. THIS, is what was, perhaps, the Linux community's mistake. Going down that path, one has to wonder why AT/T made Unix such a hard case, which made to expensive to enter the desktop world. At the time, everyone expected Unix to become a lot more than it did, as Unix was then what Linux is today ... it was soaring, and became the solid ground of all Computer/OS education the world over. And while IBM is being pursued, nobody is sueing Micro$oft, while all know that the core of NT was a direct copy of Unix. The driver environment originally, was copied from Unix. While IBM, Sun and HP licensed Unix ... nobody appears to have bothered about Micro$oft getting the technology, and hereby not merely from Xerox. Not only that, it also appears that a lot of "Linux" enthusiasts stuff appears to "enter" Windows. Linux appears to be the platform of test, and when it's tested ... the functionality appears in Windows. That's amazing, because I don't think many enthusiasts in the Linux community are getting paid for their work. Of course, maybe I'm wrong ... maybe they're all M$ developers. Nope, I'd say IBM, Sun and HP are being royally screwed ... and SCO is merely a tool to do so. But if they can last another 3 years ... SCO and M$ will be sliced to pieces, as they should've been a long time ago. As they are both the heart of what they accuse others off. That is usually the case, that the ones who cry wolf are usually doing it to direct attention away from themselves. And I believe, that even though the bad guys always win ... they'll eventually get what they deserve. Not because there's some good guys who protect us poor idiots, but because they themselves will sooner or later, get royally screwed. And all I can say, is: Amen.

Sunnudaginn 28 maí 2006 05:11 skrifaðir þú:

Again, if SCO makes it through trial, IBM is going to _lose_ on _several_ counts. And that's when 90+% of the ignorant Linux community and 100% of the clueless IT media goes "how?"

As I stated in my earlier statement, all of SCO's claim is based on the same existance as M$ is. An attitude of "monopoly", something that is forbidden in the buisness world. We can discuss to the end of time, how on earth this "clause" did come into the Unix world, or how on earth AT/T managed to get it there. It doesn't matter, as it's not a decent practice. And is solely based on "questionable" regime practices, that will take an end, one way or the other. I do agree, that many companies like IBM, Sun and HP did support Linux on basis grounds of not having to pay the license for Unix. However, at the time they did, Unix was not a competent product and had no competence status. SCO's claim is on the sole basis, that IBM competet against SCO (and M$) and not that it was competing against Unix. The questionable attitude of AT/T, and later SCO, to hold up the Lincencing of Unix, to such a state that it made Unix a completely incompetent product in the computer market, can and should be interpreted as a common effort to bury the major computer firms. M$ payup to SCO is, and should be, interpreted as a contribution to their cause and not as a paying for the license which they never have. This battle started, the very day M$ screwed up IBM, and they've been fighting to bury Unix ever since even by "taking" code from it, as well Linux code. And as I stated earlier, the biggest idiocy the Linux community ever did, was to embrace "Linux" instead of BSD, which they should have. As the Linux code has a very questionable "Xenix" origin, which is basically a MicroSoft/SCO original product. And the Linux world did very well in interpreting the status. If SCO wins, which they may well do, it will be a death blow against the "corporate" state of Linux. The status was very well said by Bill Gates himself, Linux is a threat and should be burried ... and one way of doing, is killing the corporations that are supporting it and giving code to it, to make it a competent product in the corporate market. Nobody bothered with Unix, because it was already burried by the AT/T license, that made it so expensive that no white man could buy it on their private machine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 14:42 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

...

As I stated in my earlier statement, all of SCO's claim is based on the same existance as M$ is. An attitude of "monopoly", something that is forbidden in the buisness world.

Microsoft is a 800lbs. gorilla. IBM is a 1200lbs. gorilla.

IBM was the "monopoly" when it came to Calera! IBM was the "big bully" that had the money, IP and lawyers to "outlast" Caldera.

No one gives Caldera credit (except for ex-Caldera employees) for spending 2 years trying to weather the fact that they had _no_ 64-bit UNIX when IBM withheld the Monterey source, and started competing in the Linux space.

IBM created the monster we now have in SCO. Caldera was an outstanding Linux company, and Caldera-SCO would have been very profitable with a split Linux-UNIX strategy -- with all UNIX proceeds feeding back into Linux.

IBM couldn't have that, because Intel Monterey sales would take away from Power Monterey sales. AIX5L (Power Monterey) has been a _great_ success -- and SCO _definitely_ has a _sound_ argument there.

...

We can discuss to the end of time, how on earth this "clause" did come into the Unix world,

It's a _contract_ dispute!

IBM and SCO decided to build a strategic alliance on 64-bit UNIX. IBM on Power, SCO on IA-64 and any subsequent 64-bit PC. The contract was Project Monterey.

Caldera bought SCO because of Monterey. IBM withheld the Intel Monterey source 20 days after Caldera bought them, yet continued to work on their own Power Monterey -- which became AIX5L.

SCO's, now Caldera's, future rode on Intel Monterey. IBM killed it, which was _clearly_ the 1200lbs. gorilla being a "monopoly."

...

or how on earth AT/T managed to get it there. It doesn't matter, as it's not a decent practice.

The "Non-Compete" was designed to _protect_ SCO (then Caldera) from _exactly_ what IBM did! It is a _very_common_ practice! Why?

Because it protects small companies from large ones, like SCO (then Caldera) against IBM! IBM is the "monopoly" here, _not_ SCO!

Yes, this is true. SCO(Caldera) wanted to opensource the PC side of the 64 bit stuff for Linux. IBM put a big cabash on it. For exactly the reasons stated. This point is what every one misses. IBM really was the bad guy. Linux would have been really further/farther ahead had IBM not been the Monopilist. Sadly this is what allowed the current situation to come about.

...

And the Linux world did very well in interpreting the status.

As of May 2003? Sort of. But as of March 2003? No!

In Ransom Love's 2003 fall interview with eWeek, he pegged it 100% like I, Cox, ESR and even Linus himself _knew_.

IBM _killed_ a _very_ pro-Linux company. Why? Because they were going to take away from their non-Linux sales.

Sun is next. HP is after that. Red Hat's eventually going to get it too.

I agree 100%. I fear we have not heard the last from this IBM Gorilla. I only hope that the larger force of change will show IBM the error of their ways and let the pro OSS attitude make headway inside IBM to the upper echolongs that allowed this to happen.

...

If SCO wins, which they may well do, it will be a death blow against the "corporate" state of Linux.

*BECAUSE* people like yourself have related the SCO v. IBM _contract_ lawsuit to Linux IP. The March 2003 filing had _nothing_ to do with Linux IP -- but 100% contract, including the Non-Compete.

But because 90+% of the Linux community, and then 100% of the IT media off of that, assumed that SCO v. IBM was about Linux IP _before_ the May 2003 augmentation of the lawsuit (after IBM didn't settle). If the community would have _stopped_ and _listened_ to Cox, ESR, Linux, etc... and realized it was a 100% _contract_ lawsuit, then SCO probably wouldn't have been able to put up the "smokescreen" May on-ward.

Trust me, I've been in Fortune 20 companies and have gone through this with lawyers and executives. Getting them to recognize the liability (or lack thereof) has _nothing_ to do with the lawsuit.

Unless they sign an agreement with SCO.

+1 - -- Boyd Gerber ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD4DBQFEeatXVtBjDid73eYRAlOdAJivnhdhSK1IFgcT/BIcc6Qh4BnxAJ0fuJTg UWpmhGS9kbWRAJcc428NBQ== =jbny -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sunday 28 May 2006 11:23 am, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

IBM is not a problem, they have a completely different market than anything on the open source market. The Linux share, is the end user market, that wants freedom. IBM is about their dynosaur Cray like machines, which are set for large corporate entities. Linux has never been about "entering" that world,

SUSE Linux runs on those dinosaurs and has for many years. So does Red Hat. IBM acvtively supports them both on their big iron mainframes and has for years.

however it has been the dream of SCO/Microsoft and any other small middle company, to kill that big old Dynosaur, known as IBM and get their share of the big heavy market.

Don't know about killing it but taking a portion of its lunch maybe.

I'm saddened to the amount of "corporate" people that are entering the Linux community, and eventually you'll kill this project the same way you killed Unix. Which is a sad thing, really ...

Corporate/business support by using and sharing code back to Linux has allowed it to progress over the years. Corporations/businesses, large and small, have helped it grow since the early days/months. So "they" have been "killing" Linux practically from day one or two. Sure has been a slow, miserable death. Too bad it keeps getting better or it would have been dead long ago. Stan

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 11:49 -0500, S Glasoe wrote:

Don't know about killing it but taking a portion of its lunch maybe.

How much does IBM make on Itanium? Power? IBM makes over one hundred million on Itanium -- nearly _all_ of the Itanium market (far more than HP, who helped design the chip!), and then even more on Power as well. It's really sad to see such statements, because that could have been a major Caldera profit center. And that money would have been turned into more GPL Linux development. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 18:23 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

SCO was never about opening anything, and never will.

You already said you know nothing about the Caldera case. So you have already told me you don't know anything of what you're talking about.

IBM is not a problem, they have a completely different market than anything on the open source market.

Like Caldera-SCO? Like Sun? Like HP? And like Red Hat? 1 down, 3 to go.

The Linux share, is the end user market, that wants freedom.

Could you be more specific?

IBM is about their dynosaur Cray like machines, which are set for large corporate entities.

But what about pro-Linux companies that make money with select commercial services, software and support? Especially those companies that have given the _most_ GPL/LGPL? Sun, Red Hat and HP? And Novell is in that mix at some point too!

Linux has never been about "entering" that world,

But the companies developing and releasing the _most_ GPL/LGPL and pushing the _greatest_ Linux adoption _are_!

however> it has been the dream of SCO/Microsoft and any other small middle company, to kill that big old Dynosaur, known as IBM and get their share of the big heavy market.

Which Caldera made the mistake of entering with their purchase of SCO. A company that had a 100% Linux future on its mind, with all the benefits for Linux. Caldera actually thought IBM would abide by their contract terms. IBM knows how 90+% of Linux advocates (and 100% of the IT media) works.

I'm saddened to the amount of "corporate" people that are entering the Linux community, and eventually you'll kill this project the same way you killed Unix. Which is a sad thing, really ...

I'm saddened about how much people tune in for money. They think IBM is pro-open source and is spending that $1B on it. Or the $100M on Notes for Linux. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

IBM created the monster we now have in SCO. Caldera was an outstanding Linux company, and Caldera-SCO would have been very profitable with a split Linux-UNIX strategy -- with all UNIX proceeds feeding back into Linux.

When did SCO become a monster? I was under the impression they were a laughing stock. Judges certainly laugh at them enough...

It's a _contract_ dispute!

Wrong. It _was_ a contract dispute. After realizing that their contract claims couldn't hold up, SCO amended their complaint to say that Linux was violating their copyrights. That, too, wasn't true. SCO couldn't find any code that belonged to them in Linux. (Never mind the issue of them distributing Linux themselves)

SCO's, now Caldera's, future rode on Intel Monterey. IBM killed it, which was _clearly_ the 1200lbs. gorilla being a "monopoly."

You need to go learn what a monopoly is. Just because one company pinned their hopes on a failed project has nothing to do with a monopoly. (Amusingly enough, ia64 has utterly failed, so SCO would still have gone down the tubes) IBM doesn't have a monopoly on unix. Just because one unix provider made some bad decision and went down the tubes doesn't mean that their competitor is using monopoly power to crush them. At the time, you had at least a good half dozen or so major unix competitors.

The "Non-Compete" was designed to _protect_ SCO (then Caldera) from _exactly_ what IBM did! It is a _very_common_ practice! Why?

SCO couldn't prove that in court. Otherwise, they would have won or settled, rather than beginning their odyssey of amended claims in order to attack Linux itself.

...

If SCO wins, which they may well do, it will be a death blow against the "corporate" state of Linux.

SCO is being laughed out of court, they won't win. They've amended their complaint so many times it's dizzying. Every time IBM demands they produce the evidence, SCO fails.

*BECAUSE* people like yourself have related the SCO v. IBM _contract_ lawsuit to Linux IP. The March 2003 filing had _nothing_ to do with Linux IP -- but 100% contract, including the Non-Compete.

But because 90+% of the Linux community, and then 100% of the IT media off of that, assumed that SCO v. IBM was about Linux IP _before_ the May 2003 augmentation of the lawsuit (after IBM didn't settle). If the community would have _stopped_ and _listened_ to Cox, ESR, Linux, etc... and realized it was a 100% _contract_ lawsuit, then SCO probably wouldn't have been able to put up the "smokescreen" May on-ward.

Also, Linux advocates did _NOT_ give a fig about the SCO v. IBM contract dispute. It wasn't until May 2003 when SCO began threatening companies that used Linux that the community actually began to look at the case. Prior to SCO's threats, it was seen as a contract dispute that had little more than academic interest. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=6 Seriously, read the whole history at groklaw. They have links to the rulings themselves.

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 12:09 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:

Caldera also had Ransome Love who was every bit as bad as Daryl <whats-his-name> is... May they R.I.P. because of their bad mgmt.

You're kidding me, right? Ransome Love _left_ Caldera _before_ the lawsuit. He was the reason why so much was made GPL at Caldera? I guess "no good dead goes unpunished"? Ransom has been with Progeny for years now, and is a major reason for their success with the "configuration management as a process, not a static box." This is what I "love" about 90+% the Linux community! No good person or entity is left untrashed. Especially when it's based on 100% FUD. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:16 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:

What I was saying was that Ransome ran the company into the ground long before the lawsuit and therefore, it did a lot to set the stage for the lawsuit.

Caldera did _more_ for the GPL world under his guidance. And IBM screwed them over, when they _smartly_ bought SCO. In fact, I think you just made my point better than I could have. ;->

They had to earn money somehow to keep the company afloat and to save their stock price.

Not stock price, carry them to the trial. Right now SCO is getting _hammered_ because investors thought it was -- just like 90+% of the Linux community -- about the stock price. That was _never_ SCO's intent. The intent was to get enough money to make it to trial. I'm sorry, I'm pulling for SCO -- _big_time_! However, when I try to say it has 0% to do with Linux IP, I get drowned out by 90+% of the Linux community. So when SCO wins, while I'm trying to educate people on why they won and that it had 0% to do with Linux IP -- I'll be drowned out by the same mass ignorance we've seen here. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 18:17 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

I agree that both are the bad guys, but I'd be careful stating who is the bigger bad guy today. MicroSoft is known to be extremely shrewd, and IBM has done a lot of blunders for the past 20 years.

Blunders with MS. But who has more IP and has knocked off more companies? You might be surprised! IBM is playing a game with the Linux world, and we've already seen some very _good_ Linux players killed.

I'm not familiar with the Caldera case,

Nah, really? FUD machine man, FUD machine. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 18:30 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

No matter how you want to "explain" it away, these are indecent buisness practices. SCO + IBM wanna screw the world, SCO ends up screwed.

Caldera bought SCO, then IBM screwed Caldera. One of the _greatest_ things for Linux was Caldera's purchase of SCO. Then IBM, just 20 days after the purchase, totally hosed it! The Linux community got screwed by IBM, and 90+% sit there and thank IBM. Nuts! (or what General MacAfflife actually told the Germans ;-).

Am I supposed to feel sorry for a criminal, who got robbed by his comrade in crime .. not even in your dreams.

Stop! You've admitted you don't know what you're talking about. Let it _go_! I'm sorry, but I _am_ "condescending" to people who proliferate FUD when they don't know what they are talking about. Especially when they are in the 90+% ignorant majority and just go along with the mindless herd. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 17:20 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-991464.html The article was written March 6, 2003

Yes, because 100% of the IT media didn't actually _read_ the brief and recognize what it was in the March 2003 filing. A _contract_ dispute. SCO didn't have to prove junk. They only had to show that IBM violated the Non-Compete by assisting Linux -- a violation of that contract to share IP. It wasn't until May 2003, when IBM didn't settle, that the Linux IP "smokescreen" went up.

"We are alleging they have contaminated their Linux work with inappropriate knowledge from Unix," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president of operating systems at SCO and head of the company's SCOsource effort to make more money from its intellectual property.

Yes! Exactly! You're misinterpreting that! IBM had a _signed_contract_ with SCO to develop 64-bit UNIX! That contract included a "Non-Compete"! The March 2003 filing had _nothing_ to do with the USL purchase from Novell, originally AT&T. It had 100% to do with IBM's _signed_contract_ to develop a 64-bit UNIX with SCO! 90+% of rabid Linux advocates didn't know that. and 100% of the IT media didn't as well!

[...] SCO hasn't sued other companies that have Linux products--for example, Red Hat or SuSE, but Sontag didn't rule out such actions.

That's c|Net leading SCO. Which is what 100% of the IT media industry did. Because 99.9% of people didn't have the faintest idea of what Monterey was! IBM was _contractually_obligated_ to many things with SCO. When IBM didn't settle, the rabid Linux advocates and IT media _gave_ SCO the "smokescreen" it could use to get more funding to make it to trial. So they did so in May 2003 -- expanding the lawsuit to $3B and the whole "Linux IP" FUD. That's it in a nutshell! And we helped SCO do it! And we're supporting bully's like IBM! -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

Sunnudaginn 28 maí 2006 17:20 skrifaði Alvaro Kuolas:

This is "the biggest idiocy" ever. If Linux were licensed with the BSD, even Microsoft will be using It! as they do with their infamous "BSD TCP/IP Stack" or their BSD servers on Hotmail (I know they were there before Microsoft bought Hotmail, but they still are there!)

BSD is like free source code for nothing to the enterprises, I just love the "virulence" of the GNU GPL, it's great.

GPL is not Linux specific, and I don't see that stopping anyone. If it came down to it, who do you think is going to take the fall ... some poor smuck, who can't afford his pants, or the big corporations? It'll always come down to politics, no matter what, and the winning arguement in politics is and always will be "it's gonna cost jobs". The world is full of rip off stories, and con stories ... and even the GPL is now being "addressed" as non-valid.

On Sunday 28 May 2006 08:59 am, suse@rio.vg wrote:

Orn E. Hansen wrote:

...

This battle started, the very day M$ screwed up IBM, and they've been fighting to bury Unix ever since even by "taking" code from it, as well Linux code. And as I stated earlier, the biggest idiocy the Linux community ever did, was to embrace "Linux" instead of BSD, which they should have. As the Linux code has a very questionable "Xenix" origin, which is basically a MicroSoft/SCO original product.

Excuse me? Linux was written from scratch. It had no connection to Xenix. Torvalds had no access to Xenix source code. You can track Linux's history from the consistent releases and patches posted directly to the internet. By going through the archive, you can literally watch how Linux was written.

Moreover, Torvalds used Minix to compile the early builds of Linux, so you can't even take that angle...

Exactly. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_frm/thread/e3df794a2bce97da/2194d253268b0a1b?lnk=st&q=author%3Alinus+group%3Acomp.os.minix&rnum=8#2194d253268b0a1b http://tinyurl.com/enhkc IIRC, Xenix was a MS port of Unix combining System V (7?) and BSD. Linux had nothing at all to do with it. Of course, Linux isn't an OS. If you all recall, linux is simply a kernel and can do nothing without a boot loader, filesystem and drivers. :) -- k

Orn E. Hansen wrote:

This battle started, the very day M$ screwed up IBM, and they've been fighting to bury Unix ever since even by "taking" code from it, as well Linux code. And as I stated earlier, the biggest idiocy the Linux community ever did, was to embrace "Linux" instead of BSD, which they should have. As the Linux code has a very questionable "Xenix" origin, which is basically a MicroSoft/SCO original product.

MS-DOS 2.0 on-ward has more SCO Xenix code than many OSes. That's major reason why Microsoft had to license SCO UNIX (as well as code sharing for MS-DOS 5.0+/Windows 2.0+)! Sun had to re-license because they didn't have a perpetual USL UNIX license. No offense, but you have provided repeatedly _incorrect_ technical information (and legal ignorance) in this _entire_ thread. Please stop. You're a major source of FUD on the subject. suse@rio.vg wrote:

Excuse me? Linux was written from scratch. It had no connection to Xenix. Torvalds had no access to Xenix source code. You can track Linux's history from the consistent releases and patches posted directly to the internet. By going through the archive, you can literally watch how Linux was written.

Agreed! GNU exists, and existed in the early '80s, for a damn good reason**. And it's the reason why BSD is _not_ the foundation of Linux. At least before the 4.4BSDLite release. This is why I _hate_ these meta-discussions. Lots of FUD, ignorance, etc...

As to Linux instead of BSD, the license is a crucial difference.

Not just that. **NOTE: This is the reason why I was always _for_ the proliferation that Linux is a "GNU System." Not because I wanted to provide free advertising for the FSF, but because GNU is a _major_ legal separation from _all_ AT&T USL, UCB BSD, etc... developments. I think _every_ IT professional needs to know this _basic_ foundation.

Anyone can steal BSD code. By forcing companies to put their own additions to Linux back into the pool, it vastly accelerated Linux development.

BSD is a "leech license." It throws away protections for the developer, and lets others "leech." Most commercial BSD proponents donate _little_ back. How many major open source projects has Microsoft made with the BSD license? Less than a half-dozen (and most only in the last year -- largely to get developers to help them).

Otherwise, no company would bother putting their work back into the community.

Ironically enough, Gates' "Most of you steal your software" letter is the _foundation_ for the GNU project -- separate from USL and BSD.

Torvalds was also far more open and straightforward in dealing with people than BSD's developers, who tended to be rather insular, as most projects of the time were.

Whoa! Watch that generalization! Hubbard and the FreeBSD team, as well as various people on the NetBSD team, are excellent and friendly individuals. And as far as a BSD-like "ports" distribution (improved no less) in the Linux world via Gentoo and portage, Robbins (and Gentoo) often gets demonized because he now works at Microsoft. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

This whole thread needs to move to the suse-ot list: On Sunday 28 May 2006 7:42 am, Orn E. Hansen wrote:

This battle started, the very day M$ screwed up IBM, and they've been fighting to bury Unix ever since even by "taking" code from it, as well Linux code. And as I stated earlier, the biggest idiocy the Linux community ever did, was to embrace "Linux" instead of BSD, which they should have. As the Linux code has a very questionable "Xenix" origin, which is basically a MicroSoft/SCO original product.

Xenix was pre-SCO and Microsoft's try at Unix scaled down (cost and complexity) for small business. They spun it off so SCO could be a business and Microsoft could license it so they could continue to use it internally. SCO added Unix System 3 and 4 and X and other Unix software as customer demand for Xenix lessened due it not having enough capabilities. Microsoft continued to use Xenix internally for OS development (Windows through and into 2000) and for internal financial accounting.

And as I stated earlier, the biggest idiocy the Linux community ever did, was to embrace "Linux" instead of BSD

Now that has to be one of the strangest statements I've read in a long time. Let's see here... the community that Linus Torvalds kicked off with the kernel he began should have straightened him out and got him to go the BSD route instead... Stan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2006-05-24 at 13:13 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

SGI filled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

I was told by a friend in SGI that #11 is not bankruptcy, that's #7. It only means that the company is going to change its business model. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEdY9AtTMYHG2NR9URAv8TAJ0WZZpVQMpUIAnnOgprABLfOYItQwCgiwG1 ZO12pUANN7s2b4NGi856HQ4= =euW+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thursday 25 May 2006 07:04 am, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Wednesday 2006-05-24 at 13:13 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

...

SGI filled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

I was told by a friend in SGI that #11 is not bankruptcy, that's #7. It only means that the company is going to change its business model.

Both of the above statements are correct. #11 is bankruptcy and provides protection from debts while a company attempta a recovery such as finding new sources of financing, reorganize etc. A judge must approve any plan for recovery. #7 is bankruptcy with no attempts being made to recover from it.

On Thursday 25 May 2006 15:32, Ken Schneider wrote:

#7 means a company has -no- hope of paying its creditors and is going out of business.

#11 means a company is having financial difficulties and is trying to over come them. It also gives them court backing and allows them to temporarily suspend payment to its creditors until another payment option is agreeable to all involved.

For those interested in US bankruptcy law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sup_01_11.html

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:58 +0100, William Gallafent wrote:

Exactly! ... since one can buy a brand new (and _much_ faster than TNT2) nVIDIA card (geforce mx4000) which _is_ supported by nVIDIA's accelerated drivers, on AGP for less than UKP20 (or PCI for less than 30), then why not just do that to use xgl? Then sell the TNT2 on eBay (to a museum ;)

Agreed. Although you have to be careful on AGP voltage. Normally, anything NV28 or newer is AGP 3.0 _only_. That's a major issue when it comes to voltage: http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/11/agp-agp-pro-pci-and-pci-x-voltage.html But the NV18 (MX4000) cards are typically designed to be universally AGP 1.5/0.8V across AGP 3.0, 2.0 and even 1.0 (with rear exception) compatible.

Or, one could just install an old enough version of xorg/XFree86 that you can use an old enough version of nVIDIA's accelerated driver. Or port the UtahGLX driver to DRI!

The DRI/UtahGLX support for nVidia is pretty much NV0x only (maybe NV10/15 limitedly) and _lacks_ features for compiz last time I checked. Those developments were based on -- and I wish more people knew this -- nVidia's *100% SOURCE CODE RELEASE WITH OPENGL/GLX ACCELERATION!* Yes, nVidia released 100% of the source code in the XFree86 3.3.x days, changing identifiers and other things to protect IP. Unfortunately, it didn't stop the lawyers from Intel, Microsoft and others from sending cease'n desist letters. That's when nVidia decided to move the 3D code to an unified model across all OSes, with a dynamic loader. Intel's IP is at the heart of ATI and nVidia's kernel driver. IP Intel itself won't release for its own Linux drivers, but key to the unified model. Long story. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 11:10 -0300, Alvaro Kuolas wrote:

Could you tell us the long story? :) According to this article: http://news.com.com/New+Linux+look+fuels+old+debate/2100-7344_3-6061491.html "On the flip side, Intel believes it can use open-source drivers to gain against Nvidia and ATI.

First off, remember, there are *2* _key_ components to today's CPUs: 1. Kernel-level memory/interconnect driver 2. User-space OpenGL on X11 (GLX) Intel _withholds_ a lot of _key_ IP on #1. Intel does _not_ provide #1, only #2. nVidia and, as of the R300 series, ATI provide #1 as well. That's why Intel's Linux performance sucks -- let alone their GPUs are lackluster in OpenGL/ARB extension support when it comes to #2 as well. nVidia released 100% source code in the XFree 3.3.x days, and Intel (let alone Microsoft, SGI and others) threatened to sue them over the IP that was included. nVidia and ATI use a unified driver approach. They are far more capable in OpenGL/ARB extension support than Intel. nVidia used to not make their nForce AGPgart available. That changed once PCIe came out. Intel no longer considered some IP that nVidia had access to on AGP as a "trade secret." nVidia and Intel had a very tight relationship _until_ nVidia started providing key AMD solutions.

The strategy parallels the chipmaker's earlier move with wireless networking support http://news.com.com/Linux+gets+Intel+help+with+Centrino/2100-7344_3-5172162....,

Intel is a 800lbs. gorilla who can _force_all_ Tawainese vendors to buy not only their core MAC logic, but their PHY interface chip as well. That's why Intel's networking is rock solid. Outside of Intel, far too many Tawainese vendors "mix'n match" different MAC to PHY chips, etc... when it comes to networking cards. That's where 99% of ATI, nVidia, SiS and ViA's problems come from when it comes to NIC support. The driver works for the MAC logic, but not the PHY. When it comes to wireless, the problem is the FCC more than anything. Atheros "did the right thing" and they still got grilled by rabid Linux users for it. Even Linus might address the greater issue that some things for Wireless needs to be object code. Most everything else is due to the "superstore mode" -- cheap, simple hardware that is 100% OS driver driven. That code is typically licensed from various Tawainese vendors from a few 3rd parties, who won't ever GPL their core IP that makes them money from those licensees. Because they are small vendors -- and not the 800lbs. gorilla.

and it has won an ally in Red Hat. "Their partnering with the open-source community is a pretty strong advantage," Stevens said.

Red Hat is uber-GPL anal. They have their focus. But even Alan Cox and I have corresponded about many of the IP issues.

Intel has new plans for its open-source graphics driver work, though Hohndel wouldn't reveal details. "Our (graphics) drivers are open source. We are bringing out some interesting new stuff. It's not released yet," he said."

And at the same time, they don't include _key_ IP that ATI and nVidia use. Again, it's a really _long_ story -- and you have to have worked at least near the semiconductor industry to be exposed to the IP issues. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own