SGI Freeware Feb. 2004 - SGI

This is a discussion on SGI Freeware Feb. 2004 - SGI ; Shouldn't it be available by now?...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

  1. SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    Shouldn't it be available by now?


  2. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    In article ,
    Bernhard Erdmann wrote:
    :Shouldn't it be available by now?

    It's only January. And the previous Freeware hasn't come out yet.
    --
    Oh, to be a Blobel!

  3. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in message news:...
    > In article ,
    > Bernhard Erdmann wrote:
    > :Shouldn't it be available by now?
    >
    > It's only January. And the previous Freeware hasn't come out yet.


    not to worry because freeware is not needed anymore i think. when sgi
    puts out linux on mips and you can easily upgrade to a real working os
    with all these greate open source tools included then there is no
    need.

    i will post info to put an athlon combo in your sgi so you can run
    linux right now and not need others to make the freeware for you

  4. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    On 2004-01-30, Linux on SGI User wrote:
    > not to worry because freeware is not needed anymore i think. when sgi


    So, you never tried to package something from scratch uh?
    Do you ever used a compiler? Or, you're just an "user"? What DOES an
    user with a *nix box??, tell me. Go buy a console.

    > i will post info to put an athlon combo in your sgi so you can run
    > linux right now and not need others to make the freeware for you


    3rd post without content, you reached my killfile.

    --
    __/ __, wave++ "Yuri D'Elia" http://www.yuv.info/
    / \__/ \ HPC and Engineering: bringing BITs to life!
    \__/ \_ WARNING: the email address is fake.

  5. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004


    And when do you think SGI Linux working on a dual Octane
    for example will be avaliable ?
    As far as I know Freeware OS development for mips
    machine is quite slow...
    There is NetBSD working on old mips machines as far as I know but
    nothing like a Octane....

    Do you have foreseen of a upcoming Linux release for SGI ?

    thanks

    Rick


    >>
    >> It's only January. And the previous Freeware hasn't come out yet.

    >
    > not to worry because freeware is not needed anymore i think. when sgi
    > puts out linux on mips and you can easily upgrade to a real working os
    > with all these greate open source tools included then there is no
    > need.
    >
    > i will post info to put an athlon combo in your sgi so you can run
    > linux right now and not need others to make the freeware for you


  6. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    Linux on SGI User wrote:
    > roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in message news:...
    >
    >>In article ,
    >>Bernhard Erdmann wrote:
    >>:Shouldn't it be available by now?
    >>
    >>It's only January. And the previous Freeware hasn't come out yet.

    >
    >
    > not to worry because freeware is not needed anymore i think. when sgi
    > puts out linux on mips and you can easily upgrade to a real working os
    > with all these greate open source tools included then there is no
    > need.
    >

    Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    restrictions than commercial softwares, at least I can use commercial
    Unix and know everything we developed in the lab can be published
    without any questions being asked by the vendors, can you do that with
    softwares under GPL?
    Source is opened but only for decoration!

    > i will post info to put an athlon combo in your sgi so you can run
    > linux right now and not need others to make the freeware for you

    Buy a PC, install Linux, and wait for X to crash so you can press
    Crt+Alt+Back, how exciting when you are half way through a 6000 CPU hour
    simulation, only happens on Linux, not even M$ will give you this
    pleasure of losing everything you have done.

    Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    config? can "young" Linux handle that?

    S.Chang

  7. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:54:35 GMT,
    S.Chang , in
    wrote:

    >+ Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    >+ restrictions than commercial softwares,


    Have you actually *read* the typical EULA that comes with those
    commercial softwares? Have you actually *read* the GPL?

    >+ at least I can use commercial Unix and know everything we developed
    >+ in the lab can be published without any questions being asked by the
    >+ vendors, can you do that with softwares under GPL?


    Huh? this doesn't parse for me.

    If anything, third party resellers should be asking their
    closed-source software vendors if they're cheating in the production
    cycle by violating the GPL and including purloined GPL code and
    placing it into their offerings.

    >+ Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    >+ handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    >+ config? can "young" Linux handle that?


    http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/whitepapers/index.html

    Linux Scalability for the Altix 3000 (PDF 85K)
    This paper describes how SGI adapted the SGI Linux Environment to
    support single system scalability to 128 processors, and developed an
    overall operating environment specifically for HPC applications.

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  8. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    > Buy a PC, install Linux, and wait for X to crash so you can press
    > Crt+Alt+Back, how exciting when you are half way through a 6000 CPU hour
    > simulation, only happens on Linux, not even M$ will give you this
    > pleasure of losing everything you have done.

    If you run a simulation for 3/4 of a year, it would be wise to write
    in some temporary snapshots of your model. Any number of things can
    occur to crash your model and it would be nice to be able to quickly
    restart the simulation. It seems a bit short sighted to blame the
    crash of such an obvisouly CPU intensive model on Linux. Maybe you
    should configure the Linux system more than just buying a PC,
    installing Linux and then run a 6000 hour simulaiton.

    > Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    > handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    > config? can "young" Linux handle that?


    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a Linux network of
    thousands of nodes ranking it as one of the 5 fastest computers in the
    world. Plus there are many others.

  9. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    In comp.sys.sgi.admin I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

    >>+ at least I can use commercial Unix and know everything we developed
    >>+ in the lab can be published without any questions being asked by the
    >>+ vendors, can you do that with softwares under GPL?


    > Huh? this doesn't parse for me.


    I guess he means one can release the binaries for a software product on
    commercial unix without having to worry about the libraries used and if
    those demand you release the source with your binaries.

    > If anything, third party resellers should be asking their
    > closed-source software vendors if they're cheating in the production
    > cycle by violating the GPL and including purloined GPL code and
    > placing it into their offerings.


    Whoo! You should go work for SCO!

    --
    Khamba Staring
    Disclaimer: my employer and I never agree.

  10. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    > Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    > restrictions than commercial softwares, at least I can use commercial
    > Unix and know everything we developed in the lab can be published
    > without any questions being asked by the vendors, can you do that with
    > softwares under GPL?
    > Source is opened but only for decoration!


    I disagree:

    1. The major restriction of GPL is that everything derived from works
    under a GPL license must have source released under GPL with explict
    notice where changes to the original source were made.

    2. Major companies, among them SGI of course, invest resources in
    developing open source software, it's not bunch of loosers as many
    (including my boss) think!

    3. I'm loosely involved into few Open Source project myself, Indogo
    Magic Desktop for Linux, XMcd (test it on HP and SGI boxes), without
    regretting that.

    > Buy a PC, install Linux, and wait for X to crash so you can press

    [...]
    > pleasure of losing everything you have done.


    Ehem, I work with XFree 4.3.1, on a nVidia GeForce, and can ensure
    you- my X have NEVER crashed! And info for you: autosave! Most of apps
    (commercial or not) have it

    > Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    > handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    > config? can "young" Linux handle that?


    "Penguins can fly" is the answer for you!

    > S.Chang


    Rambo

  11. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    qubert@orbit.gotdns.com (Qubert) writes:

    > > Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    > > handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    > > config? can "young" Linux handle that?

    >
    > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a Linux network of
    > thousands of nodes ranking it as one of the 5 fastest computers in the
    > world. Plus there are many others.


    That is not SMP though, and only requires the OS to work on single CPU
    nodes.

    However, I'm told that NASA has a 512p Altix running Linux in SSI on
    test.

    *p


  12. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    "S.Chang" wrote in message news:...

    > Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    > restrictions than commercial softwares, at least I can use commercial
    > Unix and know everything we developed in the lab can be published
    > without any questions being asked by the vendors, can you do that with
    > softwares under GPL?
    > Source is opened but only for decoration!
    >


    you are closed minded american capitalizt who has ruined computing so
    far. if anyone even uses one piece of non GPL software they commit
    ultimate treachery to the world. if everyone use the GPL no more
    problems would be happening.

    open source is for linux only not others liks solaris and bsd who
    steals the code and innovation with tricky fake open source license.


    >
    > Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    > handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    > config? can "young" Linux handle that?
    >


    you must be more educated sir! learn about BEOWULF and how it smokes
    all
    other supercomputer combined.

  13. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:54:35 GMT,
    > S.Chang , in
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>+ Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    >>+ restrictions than commercial softwares,

    >
    >
    > Have you actually *read* the typical EULA that comes with those
    > commercial softwares? Have you actually *read* the GPL?
    >

    Lets see, if I released my 3.5G's HSDL algorithm under GPL, I would need
    to "share" the code with the rest of the world, sounds good, but what
    about security? what's stopping people from using my code and create
    their own equipment so they can browse the web for free on their hand set?
    what about copy right? if a multi billion dollar company decided to
    modify my code and use it as their own, how is GPL going to protect my
    copy right?
    You have company such as Sun, SGI, HP and IBM supporting their own
    version of Unix, so we can safely develope softwares and hardwares on
    it, what about Linux? who is supporting Linux? which Linux vendors is
    willing to support Hard RT applications running on their OS? and GPL
    states NO WARRENTY, huh! don't we all love to have a
    get-out-of-jail-free card.

    >
    >>+ at least I can use commercial Unix and know everything we developed
    >>+ in the lab can be published without any questions being asked by the
    >>+ vendors, can you do that with softwares under GPL?

    >
    >
    > Huh? this doesn't parse for me.
    >
    > If anything, third party resellers should be asking their
    > closed-source software vendors if they're cheating in the production
    > cycle by violating the GPL and including purloined GPL code and
    > placing it into their offerings.
    >
    >

    How many programers working on Linux are from traditional Unix vendors?
    without the efforts from Sun, SGI, IBM and HP, what would Linux become
    today?

    >>+ Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    >>+ handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    >>+ config? can "young" Linux handle that?

    >
    >
    > http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/whitepapers/index.html
    >
    > Linux Scalability for the Altix 3000 (PDF 85K)
    > This paper describes how SGI adapted the SGI Linux Environment to
    > support single system scalability to 128 processors, and developed an
    > overall operating environment specifically for HPC applications.
    >

    Well, maybe SGI made something I don't know, but the one I have access
    to from EPSRC
    http://www.csar.cfs.ac.uk/newton/
    It consists of 4 x 64CPUs node, not yet capable of running over 100 CPU
    per node, therefor 3700 is a cluster, not single node HPC yet.

    S.Chang

  14. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    Marcin 'Rambo' Roguski wrote:

    >>Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    >>restrictions than commercial softwares, at least I can use commercial
    >>Unix and know everything we developed in the lab can be published
    >>without any questions being asked by the vendors, can you do that with
    >>softwares under GPL?
    >>Source is opened but only for decoration!

    >
    >
    > I disagree:
    >
    > 1. The major restriction of GPL is that everything derived from works
    > under a GPL license must have source released under GPL with explict
    > notice where changes to the original source were made.
    >

    Can you use GPL software with non-GPL software in a commercial or highly
    sensitive environment?

    > 2. Major companies, among them SGI of course, invest resources in
    > developing open source software, it's not bunch of loosers as many
    > (including my boss) think!
    >
    > 3. I'm loosely involved into few Open Source project myself, Indogo
    > Magic Desktop for Linux, XMcd (test it on HP and SGI boxes), without
    > regretting that.
    >

    As I said, it's a good idea to make the source opened, but not if at the
    same time it presents more problems than benefits, I never say or think
    people working under GPL are all losers, juts don't like his attitude
    and behavior, while you know SGI has been working along side open source
    community, you wouldn't come to an SGI related group start to disrespect
    virtually all of us who enjoy using Irix on SGI, in a way, we all paid a
    share for SGI's engineers to work on their Linux project.

    >
    >>Buy a PC, install Linux, and wait for X to crash so you can press

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >>pleasure of losing everything you have done.

    >
    >
    > Ehem, I work with XFree 4.3.1, on a nVidia GeForce, and can ensure
    > you- my X have NEVER crashed! And info for you: autosave! Most of apps
    > (commercial or not) have it
    >

    Can't use auto save, it will break the continuous loop for the sim, even
    if we enabled auto save, once the sim is interrupted, we still need to
    restart again.

    >
    >>Not everything is all abut parallel processing, how many CPUs can Linux
    >>handle in an SMP system? 2? 4? 8? how about over 100 CPUs in vertical
    >>config? can "young" Linux handle that?

    >
    >
    > "Penguins can fly" is the answer for you!
    >

    I only know the way they swim looks like flying birds.

    S.Chang

  15. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

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

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.sgi.misc.]

    On 2004-01-30, S.Chang wrote:

    > at least I can use commercial
    > Unix and know everything we developed in the lab can be published
    > without any questions being asked by the vendors, can you do that with
    > softwares under GPL?


    Are you *sure*? Have you read every single license agreement for
    every single piece of software you've installed on your system? I've
    seen some (in an academic environment) where you were basically
    restricted from ever distributing any product produced by the software.

    > Source is opened but only for decoration!


    Hardly, but I'm not sure these newsgroups are the place for such
    a discussion.

    > Buy a PC, install Linux, and wait for X to crash so you can press
    > Crt+Alt+Back, how exciting when you are half way through a 6000 CPU hour
    > simulation, only happens on Linux, not even M$ will give you this
    > pleasure of losing everything you have done.


    True--Windows wouldn't last 6000 cpu hours. ;-)

    - --keith

    - --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFAGpJmhVcNCxZ5ID8RAiK9AJ0a0kH6FwiLAz0vOqC1Hm dkrlz4BgCdFc5h
    YzrTkgi178znGoHJOkzHrAs=
    =9mAp
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  16. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:39:16 GMT,
    S.Chang , in
    wrote:
    >+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
    >+ > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:54:35 GMT,
    >+ > S.Chang , in
    >+ > wrote:
    >+ >
    >+ >
    >+ >>+ Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has more
    >+ >>+ restrictions than commercial softwares,
    >+ >
    >+ >
    >+ > Have you actually *read* the typical EULA that comes with those
    >+ > commercial softwares? Have you actually *read* the GPL?
    >+ >
    >+ Lets see, if I released my 3.5G's HSDL algorithm under GPL, I would
    >+ need


    Is that a patented technology?

    >+ to "share" the code with the rest of the world, sounds good, but what
    >+ about security?


    That's a good question. That's something you have to consider. Not
    everything should be GPL'd. It's your code, you're free do with it as
    you choose.

    >+ what's stopping people from using my code and create
    >+ their own equipment so they can browse the web for free on their
    >+ hand set?


    Instead of having to pay you a fee? probably the cost of creating
    their own equipment and/or the effort needed to put it all
    together. Yeah, some people will think that a cool project and do it
    for the sake of doing it. But most are going to buy a pre-made handset
    that's already properly configured.

    There's a case of selling a physical item as well of a service.
    Catering to people's lazienss is never a bad idea...if they're
    willing to pay for it, and many are...

    >+ what about copy right? if a multi billion dollar company decided to
    >+ modify my code and use it as their own, how is GPL going to protect my
    >+ copy right?


    It won't? *you* protect your copyright. If your code is released under
    the GPL, the only way they can *legally* use it is by agreeing to the
    terms of the GPL. Nothing else gives them the right to redistribute,
    modify or make derivative works. They could also ask you to relicense
    it for their own use. MySQL uses that approach.

    If this fictional company is not complying with the GPL and they
    haven't made other arrangements with you, they become simple copyright
    violators. You tell them what the deal is and how they can become
    legal -- either comply with the GPL -or- arrange alternative licensing.

    On the other hand, if they do comply with the GPL, they've just given
    you their modifications. Do you want to tell me that has no value?

    >+ You have company such as Sun, SGI, HP and IBM supporting their own
    >+ version of Unix, so we can safely develope softwares and hardwares on
    >+ it, what about Linux? who is supporting Linux? which Linux vendors is
    >+ willing to support Hard RT applications running on their OS? and GPL
    >+ states NO WARRENTY, huh!


    So, what warranty *do* you have?

    >+ don't we all love to have a get-out-of-jail-free card.


    So, you give a warranty with your code? or do you (as is standard
    practice) not warrant your code?

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  17. Re: SGI Freeware Feb. 2004

    "S.Chang" writes:
    > I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
    > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:54:35 GMT,
    > > S.Chang , in
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> + Is that all you know? open source? take a look into GPL, it has
    > >> more + restrictions than commercial softwares,

    > > Have you actually *read* the typical EULA that comes with those
    > > commercial softwares? Have you actually *read* the GPL?
    > >

    > Lets see, if I released my 3.5G's HSDL algorithm under GPL, I would
    > need to "share" the code with the rest of the world, sounds good, but
    > what about security? what's stopping people from using my code and
    > create their own equipment so they can browse the web for free on
    > their hand set?


    You would release your software under GPL because you _want_ others to
    have free access to your code. If you find yourself using software
    published under the GPL and thereby would be forced to also publish
    your software under the GPL you are free to write a non-free, non-GPL
    replacement for the software you are using. If you don't want that ask
    yourself who's abusing whom here.

    > what about copy right? if a multi billion dollar company decided to
    > modify my code and use it as their own, how is GPL going to protect my
    > copy right?


    IIRC the FSF means to support developers in such a situation. So far
    pressure outside a court has always been enough to rectify cases of
    this type.

    > You have company such as Sun, SGI, HP and IBM supporting their own
    > version of Unix, so we can safely develope softwares and hardwares on
    > it, what about Linux? who is supporting Linux? which Linux vendors is
    > willing to support Hard RT applications running on their OS? and GPL
    > states NO WARRENTY, huh! don't we all love to have a
    > get-out-of-jail-free card.


    This does very much depend on how you define safety. With Linux you
    can theoretically keep your distribution supported indefinitely
    (although at a probably evenly high cost the more you approach
    infinity). With big vendors most people don't have any influence at
    all on how long a product (version) is supported. I'm not particularly
    knowledgeable with respect to hard RT applications in Linux but IIRC
    there is a few companies distributing and supporting such products.

    If you mean who is held liable for APIs in Linux that don't conform to
    specifications, than my experience tells me that for all practical
    purposes such problems exist for most software products and broken
    implementations are as likely to occur in free as in commercial
    products. (Yes, I'm aware that there seem to be big problems in this
    respect for Linux and e.g. Posix threads implementation, but in my
    experience this is not as significant as it seems on first look.)

    > >>+ at least I can use commercial Unix and know everything we developed
    > >>+ in the lab can be published without any questions being asked by the
    > >>+ vendors, can you do that with softwares under GPL?

    > > Huh? this doesn't parse for me. If anything, third party resellers
    > > should be asking their
    > > closed-source software vendors if they're cheating in the production
    > > cycle by violating the GPL and including purloined GPL code and
    > > placing it into their offerings.
    > >

    > How many programers working on Linux are from traditional Unix vendors?
    > without the efforts from Sun, SGI, IBM and HP, what would Linux become
    > today?


    In the history of Linux it's a relatively new development that big
    software houses pay for Linux development. Quite a bit was achieved
    without such sponsoring by people at universities or software/hardware
    vendors with a much more narrow focus on Linux development.

    [...]

    Thomas Jahns
    --
    "Computers are good at following instructions,
    but not at reading your mind."
    D. E. Knuth, The TeXbook, Addison-Wesley 1984, 1986, 1996, p. 9

+ Reply to Thread