Intel doesn't have Dual Core

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:47:58 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>> Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
>> will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
>> really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
>> could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
>> microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
>> all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
>> development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
>> probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.
>
> Because as I've said before in this thread, I don't believe the "$2 ARM
> chip" is even close to adequate for the job. I don't believe any of the
> current generation of embedded processors and/or DSPs are adequate for
> the job anymore. If you look at the array of tasks that's being foisted
> upon them, they are quite obviously overloaded. Used to be a time when a
> broadband router was just an ethernet router, now it's Ethernet and
> WiFi. On top of that, the WiFi requires encrypting. The Ethernet
> connection now uses a switching function that is done at the speed of
> 100Mbps. Let's not forget the most important function of the broadband
> router, the NAT firewall. Is it a wonder that we see these routers drop
> packets left-right and centre.

Perhaps not a $2 ARM, but throw off the layers of windows cruft and there
is a lot of horsepower in embedded processors these days. EN switching and
encryption are trivial processes which can be accellerated in hardware.
Embed the processor on an ASIC and be done with it. A router doesn't have
all *that* much work to do, even at 100Mbps. That's only 12MBps. Even
with four ports (only two streams at this rate) not all that much is
happening. If a dropped packet happens, who's going to notice?

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>> code for this very purpose.
>
> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?

They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
that they do.

> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> Perhaps not a $2 ARM, but throw off the layers of windows cruft and there
> is a lot of horsepower in embedded processors these days. EN switching and
> encryption are trivial processes which can be accellerated in hardware.

There is no Windows cruft inside embedded applications, mostly.

> Embed the processor on an ASIC and be done with it. A router doesn't have
> all *that* much work to do, even at 100Mbps. That's only 12MBps. Even
> with four ports (only two streams at this rate) not all that much is
> happening. If a dropped packet happens, who's going to notice?
>

Well obviously if this were that simple and clearcut, then i wouldn't
have mentioned it. But many of these routers are having a lot of trouble
keeping up with the traffic coming through them.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>
>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>> code for this very purpose.
>>
>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>
>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
>that they do.
>
>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html

That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).

RM

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:39:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> Perhaps not a $2 ARM, but throw off the layers of windows cruft and there
>> is a lot of horsepower in embedded processors these days. EN switching and
>> encryption are trivial processes which can be accellerated in hardware.
>
> There is no Windows cruft inside embedded applications, mostly.

Sure, but look at the subject again. If you're not going to do Win-cruft
there are far cheaper processors out there. Some are even rather high
performance.

>> Embed the processor on an ASIC and be done with it. A router doesn't
>> have all *that* much work to do, even at 100Mbps. That's only 12MBps.
>> Even with four ports (only two streams at this rate) not all that much
>> is happening. If a dropped packet happens, who's going to notice?
>>
>>
> Well obviously if this were that simple and clearcut, then i wouldn't
> have mentioned it. But many of these routers are having a lot of trouble
> keeping up with the traffic coming through them.

I haven't seen that to be the case. I don't beleive routers are CPU
starved. I'm not sure how you'd tell a dropped packet from loading from
WiFi EMI.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:47:58 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>> Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
>> will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
>> really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
>> could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
>> microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
>> all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
>> development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
>> probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.
>
>Because as I've said before in this thread, I don't believe the "$2 ARM
>chip" is even close to adequate for the job. I don't believe any of the
>current generation of embedded processors and/or DSPs are adequate for
>the job anymore. If you look at the array of tasks that's being foisted
>upon them, they are quite obviously overloaded. Used to be a time when a
>broadband router was just an ethernet router, now it's Ethernet and
>WiFi. On top of that, the WiFi requires encrypting. The Ethernet
>connection now uses a switching function that is done at the speed of
>100Mbps. Let's not forget the most important function of the broadband
>router, the NAT firewall. Is it a wonder that we see these routers drop
>packets left-right and centre.

I would tend to disagree, you can get some VERY beefy ARM chips for
pretty darn cheap when buying in large quantities (though I was
exaggerating a bit when I said "$2"). Sure, the requirements are
fairly high, and the encryption might pose slight problems, though I
wouldn't be at all surprised if you can get an ARM chip with an
encryption off-load engine attached. Most of the other stuff is just
a matter of tossing bits around and doesn't really require a huge
amount of processor umph.

Now, mind you, I wouldn't expect most of the low-end routers probably
don't even use a $2 ARM chip. Instead they mostly seem to use ASICs
designed specifically for the job. You actually got me curious enough
that I cracked open my D-Link 522 router (802.11G WiFi + 4 port
ethernet). It uses a Marvel 88W8510 chipset:

http://www.marvell.com/products/wireless/libertas/88W8510.jsp


This chip has, among other things, an embedded ARM9 core, though I
couldn't find many details about the performance of this chip.
Presumably it's not a very high-end core like you would get with a
stand-alone ARM chip.

To go along with this it has a Marvel 88E6060 Ethernet switch chip:

http://www.marvell.com/products/switching/linkstreet/88E6060.jsp


Only other chips in there are a 64Mbit SDRAM chip for ISSI and a Flash
chip from Intel.


This router seems to do the job pretty well, albeit for a fairly
simple network of only 2 PCs (both wired at this stage). Obviously a
more complex setup would require a more powerful design. If you
REALLY need some higher end performance then IBM has a rather nice
line of PowerPC chips designed specifically for this sort of task.
This is what Cisco uses for their routers.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>> code for this very purpose.
>
>That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?

Most of the IP and firewall related stuff in Linux is old BSD stuff,
so it's quite possible that they have absolutely no need to release
the source code.

Not all of Linux is covered under the GPL.

Keep in mind also that this is just what I've heard about the nVidia
firewall, I can't verify if the information is correct in any way.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:36:02 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
<Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:21:59 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
>>>**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
>>>your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
>>>unless you upload on your regular ISP.
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
>I have it from good sources that the **AA are putting up fake torrents,
>like they sometimes do with MP3's so the person who downloads the torrent
>thinks they are getting the file which turns out to be a whole lot of
>filler. Ok its a slashdot post, which points to an inquirer article, but I
>think its a valid statement.
>
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/1831256&from=rss

Did you even *READ* that article? If so, can you please explain to me
how, in ANY possible way, copy protection built into modern releases
of music products has even the slightest connection to a legal
download of Mandrake?

You're not only barking up the wrong tree here, you're not even in the
right forest!

> When I am talking about Usenet, I am talking about alt.binaries
>newsgroups, not just our discussion groups, but the other end of the
>spectrum.
>
>In a lot of those groups they post samples of movies, and music that you
>can download to determine the quality of the product. If the sample looks
>bad you can not download it, thus saving you all the bandwidth, and time.
>But with torrents you really do not know the quality until you have the
>file in front of you.

And again, how in the hell does this relate to the full, legal
download of a Mandrake Linux distribution that is seeded directly from
Mandrake themselves?!?!

NOBODY was talking about piracy here, we're talking the fully legal
and original intended use of Bittorrent, ie to allow for the
distribution of large files without draining your websites bandwidth.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>>> code for this very purpose.
>>>
>>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>>
>>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
>>that they do.
>>
>>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
>
> That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?

If that's a problem, dynamically link them. This stull *IS* done, so by
EXISTANCE, it is possible.

> I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
> scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).

Perhaps, but the secrets can easily be hidden in silicon, as long as
the silicon is a given. What do they care if you copy the code?

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:50:32 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:36:02 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
> <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:21:59 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
>>>>**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
>>>>your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
>>>>unless you upload on your regular ISP.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about?
>>
>>I have it from good sources that the **AA are putting up fake torrents,
>>like they sometimes do with MP3's so the person who downloads the torrent
>>thinks they are getting the file which turns out to be a whole lot of
>>filler. Ok its a slashdot post, which points to an inquirer article, but I
>>think its a valid statement.
>>
>>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/1831256&from=rss
>
> Did you even *READ* that article? If so, can you please explain to me
> how, in ANY possible way, copy protection built into modern releases
> of music products has even the slightest connection to a legal
> download of Mandrake?

I look at it from the point of view that Bittorent is a tool, anytime
someone has a method of reducing your ability to use that tool in my book
is bad. I wish more people would use Bittorent to cut costs, and welcome
any Distro for using it. I thought Slashdot did a good job of bringing
out the fears of people in the threads, no need to go over that, I just
said it was possible. I think my worries are justified, by looking at
this article.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/23341.htm


> You're not only barking up the wrong tree here, you're not even in the
> right forest!

Someone asked a question of what I was talking about and I answered the
question.

They are entitled to their opinion, I don't tell others how to think, or
act and I do not expect them to do the same for me.


>> When I am talking
about Usenet, I am talking about alt.binaries
>>newsgroups, not just our discussion groups, but the other end of the
>>spectrum.
>>
>>In a lot of those groups they post samples of movies, and music that you
>>can download to determine the quality of the product. If the sample
>>looks bad you can not download it, thus saving you all the bandwidth,
>>and time. But with torrents you really do not know the quality until you
>>have the file in front of you.
>
> And again, how in the hell does this relate to the full, legal download
> of a Mandrake Linux distribution that is seeded directly from Mandrake
> themselves?!?!
>
> NOBODY was talking about piracy here, we're talking the fully legal and
> original intended use of Bittorrent, ie to allow for the distribution of
> large files without draining your websites bandwidth.

I never mentioned illegal activities, or Piracy in my post I just pointed
at some of the uses of Usenet. I leave that up to the individual to
decide, I am not here to defend, or attack ones use of Usenet. As I
stated before I feel the same way about Bittorent, Kazza, any other P2P
network. One thing I can't stand is for people who want to reduce the
effectiveness, of the tools I use be it Bittorent, Usenet, or any other
item.


> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Gnu_Raiz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>>> code for this very purpose.
>>>
>>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>>
>>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
>>that they do.
>>
>>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
>
>That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
>I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
>scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).

Seems I'm not alone - eh? I think you''re going to see more of this
reluctance to release public detailed specs - there's always been some
motivation to protect IP from the copyists; now you also have to protect
yourself from the patent hi-jackers. Scientific conferences are also
suffering from this phenomenon - nobody wants to present their work
anymore.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:16:55 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>>>> code for this very purpose.
>>>>
>>>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>>>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>>>
>>>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>>>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>>>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>>>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
>>>that they do.
>>>
>>>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>>>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
>>
>>That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
>>I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
>>scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
>
>Seems I'm not alone - eh?

Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
whatever) a derived work? I think it does.

>I think you''re going to see more of this
>reluctance to release public detailed specs - there's always been some
>motivation to protect IP from the copyists; now you also have to protect
>yourself from the patent hi-jackers.

Where is that patent that might be hijacked? What I think they're
really worried about is the public finding out just how little there
is to the secret sauce.

>Scientific conferences are also
>suffering from this phenomenon - nobody wants to present their work
>anymore.

Scientists never really wanted to share. That's not new. It's a
competitive business.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j45n61lt6h8bl53i284etrcot3g4fgoet5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:16:55 -0400, George Macdonald
> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>>>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>>>>> code for this very purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>>>>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>>>>
>>>>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>>>>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>>>>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>>>>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard
>>>>requirement
>>>>that they do.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>>>>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
>>>
>>>That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
>>>I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
>>>scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
>>
>>Seems I'm not alone - eh?
>
> Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
> it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
> whatever) a derived work? I think it does.
>
>>I think you''re going to see more of this
>>reluctance to release public detailed specs - there's always been some
>>motivation to protect IP from the copyists; now you also have to protect
>>yourself from the patent hi-jackers.
>
> Where is that patent that might be hijacked? What I think they're
> really worried about is the public finding out just how little there
> is to the secret sauce.
>
>>Scientific conferences are also
>>suffering from this phenomenon - nobody wants to present their work
>>anymore.
>
> Scientists never really wanted to share. That's not new. It's a
> competitive business.
>
> RM
>
In the US one has a year after disclosure to file the patent. In EU and
some other places, disclosure precludes filing.

Writing a paper or making a conference presentation is a lot of work. So of
course folks don't want to do it unless there is some benefit to them
personally. This benefit could be as little as peer recognition or a trip
to a nice locale, or as great as the career advancment necessity of the
academic track, but it has to be there. If one is employed and one's
employer in indifferent to the publication process then why bother?

del cecchi

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:

> That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables? I
> don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
> scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).

More to the point, why bother with Linux/iptables when OpenBSD/pf (as an
example) is better from both a technical and a licensing point of view?

--
Cheers
Anton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:37:53 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
<Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:50:32 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>> Did you even *READ* that article? If so, can you please explain to me
>> how, in ANY possible way, copy protection built into modern releases
>> of music products has even the slightest connection to a legal
>> download of Mandrake?
>
>I look at it from the point of view that Bittorent is a tool, anytime
>someone has a method of reducing your ability to use that tool in my book
>is bad. I wish more people would use Bittorent to cut costs, and welcome
>any Distro for using it.

The people reducing the ability to use Bittorent as a tool are those
using it to illegally distribute copyrighted material. The RIAA and
MPAA have every reason to be opposed to that as it is straight-up
illegal. While I often disagree with the methods they use to fight
such crimes and I absolutely refuse to buy some of their "copy
protected" CDs, there's absolutely no argument anyone can make to say
that they shouldn't be trying to prevent this copyright infringement.

> I thought Slashdot did a good job of bringing
>out the fears of people in the threads, no need to go over that, I just
>said it was possible. I think my worries are justified, by looking at
>this article.
>http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/23341.htm

You're worries are only justified here if you're illegally
distributing (or in this case, selling) copyrighted material to which
you do not have a license.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:48:00 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:16:55 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>>>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>>>>> code for this very purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>>>>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>>>>
>>>>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>>>>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>>>>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>>>>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
>>>>that they do.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>>>>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
>>>
>>>That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
>>>I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
>>>scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
>>
>>Seems I'm not alone - eh?
>
>Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
>it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
>whatever) a derived work? I think it does.

Very worrying all this stuff about "free" doo-hickeys.🙂

>>I think you''re going to see more of this
>>reluctance to release public detailed specs - there's always been some
>>motivation to protect IP from the copyists; now you also have to protect
>>yourself from the patent hi-jackers.
>
>Where is that patent that might be hijacked? What I think they're
>really worried about is the public finding out just how little there
>is to the secret sauce.

You only have to look at what's going on. Here's one:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA526838.html. PCI
Express is an "open" standard with a .org and nominal (for a corp) fees for
membership to share err, "technology". Based on their Jedec chicanery and
results, I imagine they're going to be better equipped here to defend their
umm, behavior. I've mentioned a couple of times here that RMBS seemed to
be girding up to hi-jack PCI Express - the company is a nest of legal
vultures... the evidence is clear. You don't have to be a genius to figure
out the agendum - just wait for the infringement claims: "oh you can't use
a register here or a count-down timer there - that's our IP".

As for being "worried" just look at how VIA got harried, hounded and
mauled... shortly before they quit making their Data Sheets freely
available. Is it right? I dunno but having a license which limits clock
speed ramps seems kinda nutty to me. Has anybody got a patent on the
decimal number system yet?.... hmmmm.

>>Scientific conferences are also
>>suffering from this phenomenon - nobody wants to present their work
>>anymore.
>
>Scientists never really wanted to share. That's not new. It's a
>competitive business.

It *is* getting worse. There are ways to present say, an algorithm without
revealing "how to do it" and compromise your ability to profit in some way
from your work. You only have to look at the conference attendance and
program schedules compared with a few years ago.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

>As mentioned previously, I still refuse
>to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
>problems they cause

How do you tell, before you buy?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:49:12 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:37:53 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
> <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:50:32 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>>> Did you even *READ* that article? If so, can you please explain to me
>>> how, in ANY possible way, copy protection built into modern releases
>>> of music products has even the slightest connection to a legal
>>> download of Mandrake?
>>
>>I look at it from the point of view that Bittorent is a tool, anytime
>>someone has a method of reducing your ability to use that tool in my book
>>is bad. I wish more people would use Bittorent to cut costs, and welcome
>>any Distro for using it.
>
> The people reducing the ability to use Bittorent as a tool are those
> using it to illegally distribute copyrighted material. The RIAA and
> MPAA have every reason to be opposed to that as it is straight-up
> illegal. While I often disagree with the methods they use to fight
> such crimes and I absolutely refuse to buy some of their "copy
> protected" CDs, there's absolutely no argument anyone can make to say
> that they shouldn't be trying to prevent this copyright infringement.
>
>> I thought Slashdot did a good job of bringing
>>out the fears of people in the threads, no need to go over that, I just
>>said it was possible. I think my worries are justified, by looking at
>>this article.
>>http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/23341.htm
>
> You're worries are only justified here if you're illegally
> distributing (or in this case, selling) copyrighted material to which
> you do not have a license.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

My take on the article is not the fact that the **AA have the right to go
after copyright infringement, but the fact they paid someone after the
fact. It comes down to illegal activities, the cops took a bribe.

from the **AA point of view they would love to ban all distributing
methods, that by pass them, as well as fair rights use. Just look over
the battle of PVR, DVR's, Tivo's and fast forwarding. Say I record a TV
show and take out all the commercials, then I want to share that with my
buddies, why should I not be allowed to do that? Or say I make a backup of
a DVD and a friend wants to borrow it, according to your definition of
distribution this would be illegal.

As one who uses Usenet I thought the free exchange of ideals and
information would be something worth protecting. We should try to break
down barriers of entrance, not build them up.

This could all become moot anyway as video blogs start to become more of a
presence, as well as Internet TV shows. The more the net is used for such
methods the bigger the change will happen, as others have stated if it is
a problem here, it will be developed some where else. As far as I am
concerned as long as they makes huge profits year after year, how has this
illegal distribution hurt them? Where is the loss that is effecting their
business?

Gnu_Raiz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> Tony Hill wrote:
>
>
>>As mentioned previously, I still refuse
>>to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
>>problems they cause
>
>
> How do you tell, before you buy?
>

I don't know about Tony, but I simply ask the clerk at the store
to demonstrate for me on one of their computers that the CD is
playable on a PC. Music stores are usually happy to oblige, but
employees at a place like Walmart won't.

I have *no* stand-alone CD player at home. Any CD I buy *must*
be playable in the DVD burner in my computer.

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:48:00 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:16:55 -0400, George Macdonald
> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:09:39 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:35:45 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:25:20 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
>>>>>> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
>>>>>> code for this very purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
>>>>> drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?
>>>>
>>>>They'd only have to release the source of anything that uses the tainted
>>>>libraries. Not all Linux device drivers are open source. If they did
>>>>release the source it would be a good thing for security (and wouldn't
>>>>compormise their IP, I don't think), but I don't see any hard requirement
>>>>that they do.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
>>>>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
>>>
>>>That means that the hardware reproduces the functionality of iptables?
>>>I don't think nvidia would have a very hard time reproducing it from
>>>scratch. No point in getting tangled up with GPL code (eh, George?).
>>
>>Seems I'm not alone - eh?
>
> Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
> it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
> whatever) a derived work? I think it does.

I wasn't suggesting that one build other's IP into hardware as a way to
skirt the law, rather build enough IP into the silicon that giving away
the software is a smart move. If someone wants to support your hardware,
fine.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:00:59 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On 21 Apr 2005 07:55:29 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
>>primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
>>had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet. I opened it up, and found inside
>>it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
>>things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?
>
>Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
>will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
>really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
>could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
>microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
>all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
>development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
>probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.
>
>-------------
>Tony Hill
>hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Here is some straightforward evidence to add to the debate. As a
direct result of this thread, I replaced my Belkin router with an old
Dell Optiplex GX1 computer. P1 cpu at 133 mhz, 96 megabytes of
memory, running Ipcop 1.4.5. Overnight last night, I was pulling some
big files down from Usenet. Newsleecher was running 6 connections (2
each to 3 separate usenet providers), total bandwidth here is 3Mbit
DSL. Now if you look at this graph

http://www.nobigdeal.org/cpu-day.png

you can see the amount of cpu horsepower required for the job. The
peak was almost 80% of the available cpu, and this on a P1 133 mhz
with only 6 connections driven. My rather vague understanding of Bit
Torrent indicates there could be a LOT more than 6 simultaneous
connections. I am already thinking of moving Ipcop to a faster cpu.
I have a junk HP motherboard with a Celeron 600, unfortunately it
won't fit in this proprietary-but-small Dell case. It's a real shame
that micro-ATX cases cost at least twice as much as a standard ATX
case.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:30:26 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>>As mentioned previously, I still refuse
>>to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
>>problems they cause
>
>How do you tell, before you buy?

In most countries the CD will have a warning label on it saying that
it "might not" (read "won't") play in certain computer systems or MP3
car stereos. If not, I'll sometimes ask the clerk. It hasn't been an
issue yet, but if I did happen to buy a CD with copy protection, I
would return it immediately and make sure that the reason why I was
returning it was clear.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:34:10 -0500, Henry Nettles
<hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:00:59 -0400, Tony Hill
><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
>>will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
>>really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
>>could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
>>microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
>>all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
>>development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
>>probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.
>
>Here is some straightforward evidence to add to the debate. As a
>direct result of this thread, I replaced my Belkin router with an old
>Dell Optiplex GX1 computer. P1 cpu at 133 mhz, 96 megabytes of
>memory, running Ipcop 1.4.5. Overnight last night, I was pulling some
>big files down from Usenet. Newsleecher was running 6 connections (2
>each to 3 separate usenet providers), total bandwidth here is 3Mbit
>DSL. Now if you look at this graph
>
>http://www.nobigdeal.org/cpu-day.png
>
>you can see the amount of cpu horsepower required for the job. The
>peak was almost 80% of the available cpu, and this on a P1 133 mhz
>with only 6 connections driven. My rather vague understanding of Bit
>Torrent indicates there could be a LOT more than 6 simultaneous
>connections. I am already thinking of moving Ipcop to a faster cpu.
>I have a junk HP motherboard with a Celeron 600, unfortunately it
>won't fit in this proprietary-but-small Dell case. It's a real shame
>that micro-ATX cases cost at least twice as much as a standard ATX
>case.

Are you running PCI NICs on that setup? I ran a very similar system,
except using a full-fledge Debian GNU/Linux install, on a Pentium 100
for several years and almost never saw the CPU usage exceed 10%, even
when I had several people sharing this network and running plenty of
P2P connections. The only time it ever got up there was when I needed
to throw an ISA NIC into the machine. Err, that and when I was trying
to recompile the kernel (though even then it didn't seem to drop
packets).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

jack wrote:

>To be honest I didn't notice the sticker until after I got home and
>examined the CD closer.

I buy most of my CD's from Amazon...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've
>>created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once
>>received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money."
>
> Yup, this story has been echoed by others in the music industry. In
> fact, even some fairly big name recording artists have found that they
> really aren't making any money from record sales anymore. Instead
> they use their record sales almost like a marketing tool to sell their
> music in other ways. Take someone like Moby, who has several platinum
> selling records to his name. He's become the master of licensing his
> music into commercials, movies, TV, etc.

AFAIK artists receive ~0.50 US$/CD. So 500 k$ for a platinum
seller. The same stars can make that in one live performance.
They cut CDs to support their Tours, although the record companies
see it the other way because their margin is ~4.00 US$/CD.

-- Robert