Queue's Kode Vicious interviews Robert Watson, a security researcher and open source developer at the University of Cambridge about a project studying the boundaries of the hardware/software interface. Covering a wide ranging set of topics, from the tension between security and system performance, to the challenges putting together a team capable of building a variant of the MIPS processor. The interview covers the interplay between CPU design, operating systems, compilers, and applications, areas normally thought of as separate, but which influence each other in unexpected ways in practical, running systems.
What requirement is being satisfied by having Unclear build a P2P file-sharing system? Based upon the answer, it may be more effective, and perhaps even more secure, to use an existing open source project or purchase commercial software to address the business need.
A busy system makes thousands of scheduling decisions per second, so the speed with which scheduling decisions are made is critical to the performance of the system as a whole. This article - excerpted from the forthcoming book, "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" - uses the example of the open source FreeBSD system to help us understand thread scheduling. The original FreeBSD scheduler was designed in the 1980s for large uniprocessor systems. Although it continues to work well in that environment today, the new ULE scheduler was designed specifically to optimize multiprocessor and multithread environments. This article first studies the original FreeBSD scheduler, then describes the new ULE scheduler.
Linux on the desktop has come a long way - and it's been a roller-coaster ride. At the height of the dot-com boom, around the time of Red Hat's initial public offering, people expected Linux to take off on the desktop in short order. A few years later, after the stock market crash and the failure of a couple of high-profile Linux companies, pundits were quick to proclaim the stillborn death of Linux on the desktop.
"The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software to make sure the software is free for all its users." So begins the GNU General Public License, or GPL, which has become the most widely used of open source software licenses. Freedom is the watchword; it's no coincidence that the organization that wrote the GPL is called the Free Software Foundation and that open source developers everywhere proclaim, "Information wants to be free."
The media often present open source software as a direct competitor to commercial software. This depiction, usually pitting David (Linux) against Goliath (Microsoft), makes for fun reading in the weekend paper. However, it mostly misses the point of what open source means to a development organization. In this article, I use the experiences of GizmoSoft (a fictitious software company) to present some perspectives on the impact of open source software usage in a software development shop.
The open source development model is not exactly new. Individual engineers have been using open source as a collaborative development methodology for decades. Now that it has come to the attention of upper and middle management, however, it's finally being openly acknowledged as a commercial engineering force-multiplier and important option for avoiding significant software development costs.
Often lost amid the focus on software you don't have to pay for - such as Linux and Eclipse - is any mention of the organization that started it all: the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
Chris DiBona has been out front and outspoken about the open source movement.
In May 2003, the SCO Group, a vendor of the Linux operating system, sent a letter to its customers. Among other things, it stated, "We believe that Linux is, in material part, an unauthorized derivative of Unix." What would make SCO do that?
The use of open source software has become increasingly popular in production environments, as well as in research and software development. One obvious attraction is the low cost of acquisition. Commercial software has a higher initial cost, though it usually has advantages such as support and training. A number of business models designed by users and vendors combine open source and commercial software; they use open source as much as possible, adding commercial software as needed.
It's a bad idea, mixing politics and religion. Conventional wisdom tells us to keep them separate - and to discuss neither at a dinner party. The same has been said about the world of software. When it comes to mixing the open source church with the proprietary state (or is it the other way around?), only one rule applies: Don't do it.
The open source movement, exemplified by the growing acceptance of Linux, is finding its way not only into corporate environments but also into a home near you. For some time now, high-end applications such as software development, computer-aided design and manufacturing, and heavy computational applications have been implemented using Linux and generic PC hardware.