Hi All,

Thanks to the Alist, I have become very interested in Linux as an automation and control platform as well as a home operating system, but I'm fuzzy on all the interrelationships and still learning:

According to LinuxISrg Darwin is a Power PC platform Linux distribution, but according to other sources it is a BSD Unix distribution.

I thought that Linux was a Unix-Like operating system but not Unix. How closely are these guys inter-related? The impression I have is that Darwin, at least, can run Linux applications and there is a GNU-Darwin distribution. If GNU stands for GNU is not Unix, how can there be a GNU-Darwin package if Darwin is BSD-Unix? How far does the compatibility go?

What can I say, I'm just a confused Newbie.

Mark Ezell
Project Engineer
Eutek Systems, Inc.
1055 NE 25th Ave Suite N
Hillsboro, OR 97124
503.615.8130
503.601.0851 Direct
503.615.2906 fax
www.eutek.com

 

Methinks there may well be more than one Darwin. It's a popular monikor around an OS that started with the right ideas and has thus seen evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. It's quite possible that Darwin is the name for both. At least it's not recursive. Windows describes a host of mostly incompatible DOS based OS's.

Regards

cww

 

Unix - the original AT&T kind, Linux - all the various flavors, and the various BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. are all close family members. There are differences, but a casual observer will see them as more similar than different.

For an analogy, when my father, my brother, his kids, my kids and I sit down at a restaurant we all order different things because we have different eating habits, but if you walked up to the table the first thing you would notice it that we all look alike.

And like family members, we argue and fight among ourselves frequently, but unite to fight against outsiders like Windows.

The argument that, "this branch isn't Unix," is a trademark issue to keep the lawyers at bay. It has nothing whatsoever to do with technical issues.

Go to Google and enter "unix history" for a whole lot of links.

There is an excellent time-line of the various derivatives here:

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

Michael

 

1. Unix is an OS (operating system) that was developed by AT&T almost 30 years ago.

2. BSD is derived from AT&T's Unix, and was developed by the University of California at Berkeley's Computer Systems Research Group.

3.a. FreeBSD is derived from Berkeley's BSD OS for DEC Alpha, IA-64, PC-98 and UltraSPARC® architectures. It is developed by many programmers that support the project around the world.

3.b On the other hand, Darwin is an OS from Apple Computer that is also derived from Berkeley's BSD, and it was designed to support both UNIX and Macintosh filesystems.It runs on PowerPC based Macintosh computers (and currently is being ported to Intel processor-based and compatible systems).

4. GNU-Darwin is another distribution of Darwin (not the one developed by Apple). It "aims to be the most free Darwin distribution. Many of Apple's tools are replaced and enhanced by Open Source applications".

Leo Palacios García,
[email protected]

 

Mark,

Here is a clip from Apple.com that may clear things up... or confuse them further.

"Beneath the appealing, easy-to-use interface of Mac OS X is a rock-solid foundation that is engineered for stability, reliability, and performance. This foundation is a core operating system commonly known as Darwin. Darwin integrates a number of technologies, most importantly Mach 3.0, operating-system services based on 4.4BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution), high-performance networking facilities, and support for multiple integrated file systems." Note that it's not Linux.

Of course, the Macintosh runs on the PowerPC chipset from Motorola and IBM.

Linux was an original work by Linus Torvalds based on the POSIX, AT&T, and BSD Unix API's, but using none of the code. Torvalds had the objective to make Linux run first on the Intel x86 platform, but since it was written in C, it could easily be ported to any other platform.

Dick Caro
============================================
Richard H. Caro, CEO
CMC Associates
2 Beth Circle, Acton, MA 01720
Tel: +1.978.635.9449 Mobile: +1.978.764.4728
Fax: +1.978.246.1270
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.CMC.us
============================================

 

Well, that remains to be seen, Dick. That "original work" issue is the subject of the SCO lawsuit.

Walt Boyes

---------------------
Spitzer and Boyes LLC
"consulting from the engineer
to the distribution channel"
21118 SE 278th Place
Maple Valley, WA 98038
Ph. 425-432-8262
Fx. 253-981-0285
[email protected]
www.spitzerandboyes.com
--------------------------

 

I have a minor correction to my previous post on this subject (from Saturday the 26th of July). I believe that at some point Apple had OS/X certified as official "UNIX", but decided not to maintain paying the annual certification fees. The Open Group therefor terminated the OS/X UNIX certification. "UNIX" is a trademark of the Open Group, and not of any individual company. Any Apple users who read this list may have a better explanation.

BSD (including OS/X), Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX, etc. may all be considered as types of Unix, provided you don't understand this to mean that all of them are officially certified as such. This is similar to using other trademarks in a generic sense (e.g. "ski-doo", "allen wrench", etc.).

 

Hi Walt

SCO is no longer a *nix vendor. They are now exclusively in the litigation business. In the highly improbable event that they manage to extort money from the community, it will be more than offset by the even more remote possibility that the community will buy anything from them again. The Linux team is more than capable of producing superior non-infringing code, and they know it, as evidenced by their refusal to publish what they consider infringing. The code would have been replaced already if SCO weren't making an effort to exacerbate rather than mitigate any supposed damages. If there were any significant basis, we would have seen an injunction by now. This is simply a new form of FUD, using the legal system. If you can't compete, sue.

Regards

cww

 

Actually, it is not really a question of original work. SCO does not claim that the entire kernel was copied from the System V code.

What SCO claims is that certain portions of the 2.4 and above kernel were contributed by IBM in violation of contracts between IBM and AT&T/Novell/SCO. SCO acknowledges that IBM holds the copyrights to the code that was contributed. See:

http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-24-Copyrights_Story01.html

in particular, this paragraph, as part of an interview. The speaker represents SCO itself...

Blake Stowell: SCO does not have copyrights on these, but as stated earlier, this is not about copyrights. It is about a contract. SCO had a contract with IBM that said that once licensed, they had to hold this software in confidence. AIX is based on UNIX System V source code. Any derivative work has to be held in confidence. They have not held the AIX code in confidence, which is why we have a lawsuit against them.

Now, a review of:

http://www.caldera.com/scosource/ExhibitD.qxd.pdf

page 12, section 3.04(i) and (v) seem to state that if IBM developed extensions to the System V code, they retain all rights to that extension. Likewise section (i) states that if the code is released through actions not attributed to IBM, then IBM is no longer responsible. Since SCO published their own distribution of Linux, that would seem to be an action not attributable to IBM.

Basically, SCO is trying to state that even though IBM wrote JFS, NUMA support, etc. and holds the copyrights to these pieces of code, SCO still maintains the right to control what IBM does with that code. It is a question of whether the extensions of System V code that became AIX is subject to the same confidentiality as the original System V / AIX.

This has nothing to do with original work. SCO acknowledges, begrudgingly, that IBM holds the copyrights on the sections of code in question. This is about SCO trying to control 'derivative works' of the original code, and believing they have the right to enforce confidentiality of 'any and all' derivative works that come from the use of System V code.

My reading of the exhibits at

http://www.caldera.com/scosource/

Does not turn up anything that says they can do so, although I have heard from other sources that the original AT&T contract has language to that effect.

Anyway, read, digest, and let me know what your take on all this is.

--Joe Jansen

ICQ# 39 182 450

 

Could we please leave the lawsuit-of-the-day to the computer press? I can't think of a single major company (IBM? Microsoft? Dell?, RIM? etc.) in the computer or telecommunications business that isn't being sued over one thing or another. Anyone who wants to hear about this sort of thing can read the computer trade press for more gory details than they can handle. You're not going to explain the IBM-SCO lawsuit, or the Microsoft-Sony/Phillips lawsuit, or the Dell-Tulip lawsuit to any useful degree in a letter to this list, and some of the more odourous financial scandals that are part of some of them are not fit to print here either.

Fortunately, we don't work in an industry that has enough money to interest the legal piranhas so we don't have to deal with this sort of stuff all the time ourselves.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

Hello automation, As well as I understand, the story with SCO and IBM|Linux is happen because of the open source (SCO has possibility to check the source code and has found the same comments, etc.)

It seems it is not right. I bet there is a lot of borrowed codes in the close systems... Which way can somebody check the close systems for lack of the violations?

The other question -- why it is possible in the USA to patent wheels? I know there is a possibility to patent algorithms (sic!) in the USA. It is obviously counterproductive laws... Is there any changes in mind of the community?

It seems to me it would be fair enough: if you don't want anybody see your source, then hide your "know-how" in the machine codes ( and via company-inside discipline, and so on).

Best regards.
Vladimir E. Zyubin

 

Oh Michael, are you in a cave somewhere? There are plenty of lawsuits in the control systems industry that have the potential to limit our freedom to select the vendor of choice for a project. I agree that we should not discuss general lawsuits-du jour here, but those that affect our future are fair game.

The Schneider lawsuit against Opto22 for embedding a web server in their Modbus/TCP products has been settled out of court, according to my information, but the details are not available. The series of lawsuits by Solaia against users of Rockwell PLCs for moving data from the PLC to PC software is particularly onerous. This one has positioned itself such that any end user implementing software that transfers data using OPC from a non-Schneider PLC to a PC is violating the Solaia patent rights that they purchased from Schneider. So far, Solaia has successfully sued about 8 end users who have settled out of court, rather than to fight in court. Rockwell's first attempt to defend their customers based on the indemnity clause in their purchasing contract, was thrown out of court. Early this year, Rockwell has sued Schneider and Solaia for "conspiring in violation of antitrust laws to 'shake down' Rockwell's users and customers with 'baseless patent infringement lawsuits.'" See this reference: http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA269801

So far, Solaia has not sued any users of Siemens PLCs, but given time they will.

I have read the patents being used against these innocent end users, and the suits are baseless. The patents have no claims over the software being used. This amounts to a form of legal extortion, and will damage Rockwell's and other PLC companies ability to compete in the marketplace.

This is important stuff, and the only cry of indignation has come from START magazine. We should all be concerned.

Dick Caro
============================================
Richard H. Caro, CEO
CMC Associates
2 Beth Circle, Acton, MA 01720
Tel: +1.978.635.9449 Mobile: +1.978.764.4728
Fax: +1.978.246.1270
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.CMC.us

 

I wish it were just that simple, Curt. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cut corners in Linux by the "information just wanna bee free" folk that will be coming to roost now that it is impinging on serious money.

Yes, there are professional litigants, like Solaia. I am not convinced that SCO is the only one spreading FUD. Your post did a good job of it as well.

We will see what the courts say.

Walt Boyes

---------------------
Spitzer and Boyes LLC
"consulting from the engineer
to the distribution channel"
21118 SE 278th Place
Maple Valley, WA 98038
Ph. 425-432-8262
Fx. 253-981-0285
[email protected]
www.spitzerandboyes.com
--------------------------

 

I knew there were a few lawsuits in our industry, but they are simply not on the same scale or frequency as those in the computer industry. I think the reason for that is that the computer industry has more money to fight over. Microsoft has just recently lost another big lawsuit, this time to a company backed by Sony and Phillips. Supposedly, 85% of Microsoft's products (including all the major ones) violate patents held by this company. Everyone can now be sued just for using WIndows XP. This comes on top of a previous unrelated lawsuit for certain features in MS-SQL. Probably every major company in the industry has a similar tale to tell. Aren't software patents wonderful?

I thought of asking in my previous message how the Solaia spreadsheet patent suit was going, but that didn't seem go well with a message asking people to not talk about lawsuits. However now that we are on the subject, I was wondering how that story was going. The link you provided was from last January. Has anyone heard any more recent news?

I wasn't aware that this has been extended to essentially all use of OPC. I had originally been under the impression that it only referred to interfacing with a spreadsheet, which was a technique which seems to have become rather passe anyway.

The web server patent has a lot of potential for future problems as well, since embedding a web server in a PLC seems to be more or less in line with the more common idea of embedding web servers in everything.

The news articles I read on these subjects are rather long on the business aspects and short on the technical detail. If the automation industry follows what has been happening in the computer industry, then I expect that someone will announce tomorrow that they have a patent on ladder logic and start demanding roylaties from everyone who uses it.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

On August 2, 2003, Vladimir E. Zyubin wrote:
> It seems it is not right. I bet there is a lot of borrowed codes in
> the close systems... Which way can somebody check the close systems
> for lack of the violations? <

You file a lawsuit.

> The other question -- why it is possible in the USA to patent wheels?
> I know there is a possibility to patent algorithms (sic!) in the USA.
> It is obviously counterproductive laws... Is there any changes in mind
> of the community? <

Obviously counterproductive to everyone except patent lawyers. Why is it possible to patent algorithms in the USA? Who do you think has more influence with the legislators that implemented this bad law? Software engineers or lawyers? The answer tells you why. And because the damage this does to our industry is indirect (mostly big companies suing other big companies right now) many otherwise sharp people think it is inappropriate to discuss here the political aspects of the patent lawsuit du jour and all the slow but inexorable damage it does to innovation and the ability for individuals and small businesses to build software. Until EVERYBODY is screaming about the destruction possible with software patents, there won't be any changes. And, with WTO alignment of IP policy across the globe, this could be coming to a country near you.

 

FWIW, no they haven't - that suit is still pending. InterTrust may have
won a preliminary round, but that's about it.

 

Right On, Dick!

Patents, and IP "protection" along with DRM ("Digital Rights Management") are always sold with the image of the poor inventor getting their just reward and protection from ruthless copycats and idea thieves. Chances are you have never heard of a suit that matches that image. Indeed, the force behind DRM is notable for being some of the most ruthless and blatant "idea" theives the planet has ever known. And patents, which in good faith struck a balance between just dues for an inventor and the public good, have been perverted into a disasterous tax or outright prohibition on doing the commonplace and obvious with the full force of law. Once corporations realized that these could be used as an unassailable roadblock to competition and the Holy Grail of legal extortion, they have set about trying to patent everything possible, no matter how old or obvious, counting on the inablity of the patent office to possess expertise in all matters. Some amazingly stupid patents have been granted like those mentioned. It will soon be dangerous to do any programming, for fear that someone holds a patent on common constructs or any idea you may have to solve a problem. Your PC will be useless except to run what you are allowed to run and what you are allowed see or hear. The hardware will actually not allow it. It is extremely on topic, relevent, and important as automation will be a "mine canary" for the damage wrought on a largely unsuspecting and undeserving public when greed owns the courts. This is due to the total control already ceded to the vendors. Until the abuses are somehow punished and eliminated, there is only harm in these areas of law, making them bad laws. And this is an area that really needs to see the light of day and rigorous exposure and critique.

Regards

cww

 

interesting, from FUD to libel. To whom are you refering? What kernal developer do you accuse of "cutting corners"? What evidence do you have?

I'm sure you realise the gravity of your accusations and have proof to back them up.

Richard Higginbotham
(speaking for me)

 

Hi Walt

Actually it is that simple. That's why the suit is against IBM and not Linux or the Linux team. First, the origin of every single piece of code is well documented, because the process is open and public, and second, since it is a non profit volunteer project operating in the public interest, rewriting any "infringing" code is about the strongest remedy that can be considered reasonable or enforceable. Especially since the intent was to produce a non-UNIX implementation. And trust me, a lot more OSS code has gone into private projects than the other way around. Add to this the fact that SCO _published_ all of the "infringing" code under the GPL themselves and acknowledged the same, it's very questionable that they retain any proprietary interest. None the less, I'm sure the Linux team is eager to be rid of anything with strings attached. As for IBM's license problem, that was a private contract and nobody knows what the terms were at this point.

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1142792

Since SCO execs are busily dumping stock at the manipulated price, I suspect this is sort of a last hurrah for SCO. Suing IBM is a large project, and they don't have a business model at the moment. Linux was doing fine before big blue got involved and will go on just as well after the dust settles. I believe the money behind SCO will go another direction. I'm not so sure about their conspirator who has more stomach for the fight.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20276629,00.htm

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20276662,00.htm

Regards

cww

 

Hello automation,

On August 4, 2003, Anan Omus wrote:
> On August 2, 2003, Vladimir E. Zyubin wrote:
>> It seems it is not right. I bet there is a lot of borrowed codes in
>> the close systems... Which way can somebody check the close systems
>> for lack of the violations? <

> You file a lawsuit. <

And you think, MS open the source codes for the community after that? MS, that try to protect the source codes by law... because (as they argue) it increases the safety...

And what will give the occasion for the lawsuit? My suspicions? It is ridiculous... and obviously, the situation is not symmetric... it is a game with one goal...

>> The other question -- why it is possible in the USA to patent wheels?
>> I know there is a possibility to patent algorithms (sic!) in the USA.
>> It is obviously counterproductive laws... Is there any changes in mind
>> of the community? <

> Obviously counterproductive to everyone except patent lawyers. Why is
> it possible to patent algorithms in the USA? Who do you think has
> more influence with the legislators that implemented this bad law?
> Software engineers or lawyers? The answer tells you why. And because
> the damage this does to our industry is indirect (mostly big
> companies suing other big companies right now) many otherwise sharp
> people think it is inappropriate to discuss here the political
> aspects of the patent lawsuit du jour and all the slow but inexorable
> damage it does to innovation and the ability for individuals and
> small businesses to build software. Until EVERYBODY is screaming
> about the destruction possible with software patents, there won't be
> any changes. And, with WTO alignment of IP policy across the globe,
> this could be coming to a country near you.

Yes. But now I see only the attempts to fix the ugly situation. DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) for example...

BTW, there are opinions, that it violates USA constitution... the First Amendment. What about USA citizens? IMO, it is more important than cheap oil and a bottle of beer near TV screen...

So, everybody ought to discuss the matter... to make the things clear. It is a very bad situation when lawers make decisions in fields where they have no appropriate education... in the field where _complete comprehension_ is not exist... So, the question must be solved not only by lawers... but, necessarily, with software engineers' help and with philosophers' assistance as well.

--
Best regards.
Vladimir E. Zyubin mailto:[email protected]