Pardon me for posting not being a subscriber, I already subscribe to too
many lists and I prefer to readd the archives at Minnie.
I've used the procedures described in
http://www.rickbradley.com/chron/20030619/
to compare the code in Linux with the code of Solaris. There are a few
striking comments shared by .c files, some actually containing "jokes".
However.
Note that I'll NOT comment on anything I've seen in the Solaris
code. I'll only talk of my own experience and what LINUX/BSD code says.
Matches for [argh urg not set but urp changed a sensible implementation should n
ever do this but rfc793 doesnt prohibit the change so we have to deal with it]:
***SOLARIS SOURCE ID REMOVED***
./drivers/net/slhc.c
Looks like the possible 'joke' shared code. Code inspection confirms.
Linux code states that slhc code is (c) by BSD.
4.4BSD-Lite contains the code in ./sys/net/slcompress.c
The same code appears first in 4.3BSD in the same file.
This is NOT therefore SUN/ATT/SCO code, so I guess I can safely comment
on it.
This looks like one of those infamous source files from BSD whose
copyright comments where stripped before the BSD/ATT lawsuit. SCO might
preserve the original, pre-lawsuit ATT code (without the (c) notice) and
_believe_ it to be theirs. Actually it makes sense in the UNIX sellout
turmoil after the lawsuit that the BSD copyrights were forgotten to be
merged back in the code.
Should it be so, then perhaps SCO zealots did the so much aired
comparison UNIX/Linux but did not care to check their own source code
against BSD, thus slipping on this one?
There is another source file which _might_ be contaminated, but I
can't tell in which direction this might have happened. I won't venture
breaking confidentiality agreements, but this I believe I can say: I know
from experinece this file has suffered extense enhancements during the '90s,
most of which were done by independent developers for Suns. The LINUX comments
identify the author as an independent developer of world fame in the area
indicating the routines were originally developed for SUN and DEC, so if
SCO has any claims it might only be by "license contamination" (i.e. any
independent addition must belong to me no matter how indirect because I say
so). Actually it might be that Sun and DEC added the changes contributed to
them and provided them back to the UNIX reference source. In that case,
SCO will have a hard time to claim the code belongs to them and they are
not stealing other people's contributed code.
Furthermore, if they still claim it's theirs 'cos of license
contamination, they will put a hard stress on UNIX vendors: in the '90s
some vendors survived mainly because of specialized market niches (e.g. MBONE
on Sun, graphics on SGI, etc..): everybody in some field would use the same
system, users would contribute fixes to them, and this gave them an advantage.
Now, if people see that contributing to any system will make them lose
rights over their own code, in the future they won't tie themselves to any
specific vendor, and vendors will lose the opportunity of taking advantage
of specialized user groups to increase their competitivity. Now, imagine
where would Sun be if they had never been able to differentiate themselves
as, say, the 'dot com' company during the Internet boom.
Were I SCO I'd think twice before hampering licensees ability to
capitalize on market niche differentiations because of claims on independent,
free code developed by _their_ users.
All this, assuming, of course, these are the files in dispute.
So far, and assuming these are the files, it mostly looks like external
additions to SCO code that lost the original copyright references. It is
understandable that SCO modern engineers ignore what happened before the ATT/BSD
trial, or even ignore the original author of code reverted back by UNIX licensees,
and that ignoring who wrote what, they may believe it is all theirs.
But, if these were the files, they'll have a hard time. First for not
checking correctly their claims (agains say, BSD code), second for not
acknowledging nor keeping track of original authors of contributed code,
and finally for claiming ownership of code that does not belong to them.
Other files share some odd small comment, often it looks like pure
chance, machine/vendor dependent code (probably not ATT/SCO therefore) or
common sense, so I didn't investigate those any further.
j
--
These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!
José R. Valverde
De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
>From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com>
>Sent: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 05:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
>To: Steve Nickolas <usagi.tsukino(a)pinku.zzn.com>
>Subject: Re: RE: [TUHS] v6on286
>The README says:
><< The kernel makes heavy use of the special 286 protected mode
>features >>
>Try bochs set to be a 286.
I figure that a Celeron is a superset of the 386 - ergo, of the 286
also - so there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe I'll do that though,
it's safer in a sandbox.
>I am wondering if Cygwin could be used to build the code. I see that
>ancient C stuff like "=+" was eliminated already.
!!
I think if you converted the ASM to some other format, you could use
Turbo C++ to build it, though...haven't tried that, I don't grok ASM.
>Plus check this site out:
>
>http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
LOL, I have 6 working C compilers on the Windows/DOS side of my box
already :) (Turbo C++ 1, Borland C++ 3, Watcom C 11, djgpp, MinGW32,
Cygwin)
-uso.
kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito
___________________________________________________________
Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com
I was finally able to download a good copy of v6on286 from minnie...
I have Borland C++ 3.1, the existing version was built with 3.0.
There are no binaries in the v6on286 package for the Unix itself,
AFAICT, but I did get a successful MAKE.
This is the weird thing, and I'm not sure if it's pilot error, the
fact I'm running Windoze, or a glitch in the code.
C:\UNIX>un
Screen goes blank except for a block flashing cursor. The keyboard
does not respond - not even the lights - indicating that the machine
is either in a PM loop or completely hung.
Has anyone had better luck than me?
Or have I had better luck than everyone else (author excluded)?
Thx.
BTW...I wonder, could some old C compiler be bootstrapped on v6on286
and then V7 ported on it?
-uso.
kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito
___________________________________________________________
Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com
Ah, silly of me. If I used FTP, that could have saved a couple wasted
hours compiling v6on286 :)
--
Maciek (macbiesz(a)optonline.net)
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Toomey [mailto:wkt@tuhs.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:25 PM
To: Maciek Bieszczad
Subject: Re: [TUHS] v6on286
?! It's still here at ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Other/V6on286/
but I'm not sure why Apache hides the README when the same directory
is viewed with http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Other/V6on286/, I'd better
check that out.
Warren
> From: "Joel Martinez" <president(a)coherent-logic.com>
> To: <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] OT: Patternless Encryption
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:35:24 -0600
>
> Is it possible to do this with a fixed length key?
>
> > Such a thing exists, it is called a one-time pad. Generate a
> > completely random key as long as the plaintext, and then XOR each
> > successive bit of the key with the corresponding bit of the plaintext.
> > The result is indistinguishable from random noise; only someone with
> > an identical copy of the key can decrypt it (using precisely the same
> > method of course).
For various degrees of security, depending on the length of the key.
Keys are not used directly for encryption, but are used to generate
cryptographically secure pseudo-random sequences.
As a starting point, look at
< http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/crypto/faq.htm >
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
> X-From: mirian(a)trantor.cosmic.com (Mirian Crzig Lennox)
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] OT: Patternless Encryption
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:31:08 GMT, John P. Willis <jwillis(a)coherent-logic.com> wrote:
> >
> >Just curious to hear the opinions of the many wise people here...
> >What is the likelihood of an encryption system in which the resulting data
> >has no pattern,
>
> Such a thing exists, it is called a one-time pad. Generate a
> completely random key as long as the plaintext, and then XOR each
> successive bit of the key with the corresponding bit of the plaintext.
> The result is indistinguishable from random noise; only someone with
> an identical copy of the key can decrypt it (using precisely the same
> method of course).
>
> > and one character of encrypted data may stand for many
> >different characters when decrypted?
>
> Assuming you mean "one character of encrypted data might represent any
> one of several different characters of plaintext" (not "one
> character's worth of encrypted data represents multiple characters
> worth of plaintext), this is indeed the effect of a one-time pad.
> Just don't ever reuse that key; promptly destroy both copies after
> use.
>
> --Mirian
This is hardly the place for a long discussion on such topics, but
one might want to look at the FAQ for the net news group sci.crypt.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
Just curious to hear the opinions of the many wise people here...
What is the likelihood of an encryption system in which the resulting data
has no pattern, and one character of encrypted data may stand for many
different characters when decrypted?
>From: Maciek Bieszczad <macbiesz(a)optonline.net>
>Sent: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:07:48 -0400
>To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>Subject: RE: [TUHS] v6on286
>This might help:
>http://nibbly.york.ac.uk/mirrors/TUHS/Other/V6on286/README
>(I'm not sure why it was removed from TUHS)
I did read it. (Hence, my knowledge to use BC3) :)
I was aware of the / bug and didn't even make it that far. I was
hoping (still am) that someone did build it and make it that far.
-uso.
kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito
___________________________________________________________
Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:36:02PM -0400, Latisha Vernon wrote:
> I would like to obtain a CD of the pups archive of UNIX. I have tried to
> access the link provided by the pups website, but was told the site no
> longer existed. If possible, please provide information on how I might
> obtain the CD.
I'll forward this to the mailing list; perhaps someone there might help
you. Can you tell us where you live?
Warren
I already had some ideas, and when I saw something called "v7upgrade", a weird thought came to my head...
I'm wondering if any gurus out there would be able to point me in the general direction, as far as getting V7 stuff running on an 8086,
perhaps a full V7 system. Something like v7upgrade but including a kernel and bootloader. I don't know. Just musing...
My only experience with a "real" UNIX is either SunOS via telnet or PicoBSD. I use RH8 Linux, FreeDOS ODIN 0.31 and Win98SE at
home. It would be interesting to play with V7 on one of my computers. :)
BTW I do have v7upgrade running on my Linux box - sweet! :}
-uso.
kirei-na pinku-na E-MAIL-saito
___________________________________________________________
Get your own Web-based E-mail Service at http://www.zzn.com
