What is Digg?20 Comments
- Dankoozy, on 11/22/2007, -3/+24i thought embedded linux had always been open source
- MrViklund, on 11/22/2007, -0/+11If they used Linux, how could they have not released it's code from the beginning without violating GPL?
- jakethecake, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4DeviceVM, the makers of SplashTop, just released their code as GPL.
"We have received many requests from developers to modify or contribute to Splashtop. We are excited to open this unique platform to you and currently are building an SDK to make open source development easy. In the meantime, we are releasing Splashtop code licensed under the GPL, so the community can see and benefit from the improvements we have made.
If you are a developer we recommend you wait for our SDK because it will provide clear documentation and tools for Splashtop development not found in the code above. To be notified when the SDK is available please join our developer mailing list. If you can't wait, however, feel free to dive into the GPL code." - cpemma, on 11/22/2007, -1/+5http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/sto ...
A Linux *variant*... - CrazyDave303, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3I would still say that description seams to still be a paradox but -jakethecake- in the thread blow and some other people made it clear.
One would think a *variant* would be under GPL rules, meaning it would already be open. But what layperson like myself would not know is these variants are code parts that don't change the original source and don't link directly to GPL parts of code. And of course when the parts of the these new systems change GPL code or directly link, these code chunks have always released back under GPL. It's just now the said closed part are now being offered. - jakethecake, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4You can always attach binary blobs to a GPL licensed system. Like Nvidia does with their Linux graphics driver. DeviceVM could do this, but now the are releasing their code as GPL instead.
- cabazorro, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3For those who are confused by the headline, it should have the word DISTRIBUTION, somewhere. When you buy a Linux based gadget today, the vendors (Like Cisco) don't want you to load your own software in their gadget so they don't publish the WHOLE their software. If any, and forced to, they just publish the obvious stuff. Companies like MontaVista, license their distribution for embedded development. Asus now is saying, here's the board and here's the Linux SDK for the board. Before you had to find the SDK from another party (like MontaVista which is partially closed). Asus understand that is not enough to just sell a board that can do a X. Now sells a board doing X and now you can make it do Y and Z. Clever.
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2HP's QuickPlay is based on linux too but it aint open source either.
- Myztry, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3For the win, it needs a Xen Hypervisor.
Then you could run multiple operating systems simultaneously from the one PC.
Just allocate a seperate gfx card and monitor to each OS (or make a single switchable).
And give a virtual share of everything else (processor cores, RAM, network, input devices)
Why choice an Operating System when you could have several at once? - Theli, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I think Splashtop is a very interesting idea. If I could install Elisa Media Center on it, I would have the perfect motherboard for an HTPC.
Asus would need to implement it on lower end models though. - z0mbie2099, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Open hardware?
- geminitojanus, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Generally, as a courtesy, companies are given a grace period to release GPL'd sources, mainly because there are a lot of ugliness to clean up, and because they're usually fighting to get a product out of the door, damn everything else. Sometimes it's just for everyone to get together and see what patches they ended up actually using, sometimes it's just enough to give the bug teams enough time to decritter a piece of code, etc. The companies that don't release after a couple of months under the GPL are where it starts to get ugly.
The whole point is that people aren't perfect, and it can take some time to manage this kind of thing. Because software is fudgeable and hardware is not, we tend to give software guys a bit more time to get their ducks standing in a row. - Myztry, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Late reply BUT:
1. Obviously you'd increase the RAM. It's trivial compared to having a extra complete systems.
2. People are too used to how poorly Windows handles times multi-tasking. Timing is a non-issue when multitasking is implemented properly like on the Amiga. Most programs spend most of their time sleeping. The Amiga also used DMA hardware sound. All the processor had to do was queue the sounds. What you are used to, is a 'substandard' standard..
3. Hitting the hardware is a stupid idea in a multitasking environment and indeed is not used anymore. I did a lot of hardware hitting in the 80's and 90's and know the advantages. I also know the reasons it is a bad idea.
4. Multiple install is ideal for Virtual environments. It is one of the major selling points for existing VM software. You sound like you should be using a devoted setup rather than going through generic Operating Systems like Windows.
5. What's wrong with having OPTIONS?. I can boot Ubuntu either through Xen, or directly. Their is a unreleased version of Windows that will do the same. - Myztry, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1PC's spend a lot of time idle. Waiting for input or such.
That's why even a 7Mhz 1985 Amiga could run multiple tasks at the same time idle.
And processors are in the order of 500 time faster.
Xen hypervisor's utililise the new VM features of processors and run really close to full native speed.
Having the OPTION, with all the benefits greatly outweigh some speed loss. - CrazyDave303, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2performance
- CrazyDave303, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1It might run close to native speed, but a lot the memory will be used up so the OS will have to rely on the hard drive way more when I'm editing large files. I'm some times stuck with CPU utilization well under %50 because of this. To add to this if the other OS also starts to read and write to the hard drive I'm going to now have the drive head seeking about the place killing my drive's through put.
Also just as important as the program getting those clock cycles is when the programs gets them. If the programs is fighting for CPU time, my nice even brush strokes with Photoshop get splotchy and ends up missing chunks in what should be an even path. Audio can just die if clock cycles are late. Live Video can be effected like audio, but easier to ignore a bad frame or two. But video apps need a lot memory and lot of constant hard drive bandwidth.
Now I wonder if it takes any extra clock cycles for a pixel to make it to the screen, or a sample to speakers? What about programs the work closely at the hardware level? Gamers?
I go out of my way setting up my system so the OS uses up the lest amount resources, heck I even resort to using multiple machines to further this. I have different installs of my OS for different uses. My performance install I use at gigs is only for during gigs and it will often be re-written to the partition spanning the first segments of sectors on the fastest drive.
"Having the OPTION, with all the benefits greatly outweigh some speed loss."
Speak for yourself. - mrsteveman1, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Heres the split line, if you were unable to separate things into LKMs, would you have built this driver into the kernel anyway. If yes, your code is subject to the GPL.
I also think that demanding source for everything that comes near a Linux system is ridiculous and will be destructive beyond belief. There needs to be a license that allows people to release code and modifications to other people IF they paid for the code, so that you can still tie the program to a financial support system. This would allow the code to remain open, would allow peer review, would allow changes and modifications, but would reduce the subset of people allowed to do those things to those people who have a license for the code. Otherwise your only option is to hope that people like your code better and don't fork, because the GPL specifically permits ANYONE to hand out your code even if no one has paid for it at all. - CrazyDave303, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2It's not legally questionable at all. First off there's questions about the legality of GPL and how it deals IP. It really has not been put to the test by law yet.(or am I few year out of date on the topic?) The issue is ethical and has 100's of other ethical question all mixed in.
Just so people know my stand point I pro open source code, open standards are a MUST, and I think IP protecting has gone way too far. But I'm not against software for profit and I think demanding all software that works with Open Source environments like Linux (meaning the core OS) and the associated components, must be open and free it's self, will be harmful to the grater acceptance the movements.
If you don't like the way nvidia is doing their business then don't by from them. - YourDoom123, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2that's legally questionable at best :(
nvidia should just release the drivers. - KewlerKid3, on 11/22/2007, -6/+0There are other Embedded Linux flavors that have always been open source. Not like Embedded Windows, but that's just for PDA's
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is