Hi,
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
http://www.specopslabs.com/david.htm
Rein.
On Thursday 22 April 2004 12:08 pm, Rein Klazes wrote:
Hi,
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
If you can pierce through all that marketing hype, it seems to indicate they're using some code from the Wine project. I hope they're in compliance with Wine's LGPL license...
It's probably just vaporware though.
R.U. Deranged wrote:
On Thursday 22 April 2004 12:08 pm, Rein Klazes wrote:
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
If you can pierce through all that marketing hype, it seems to indicate they're using some code from the Wine project. I hope they're in compliance with Wine's LGPL license...
It's probably just vaporware though.
Well, but it at least _seems_ as if IBM is investing in them...
Henk Poley <><
A story on this has finally hit the AP wire today:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&ncid=738&e=9... ap/20040423/ap_on_hi_te/philippines_linux
Unfortunately the reporter hasn't done his homework and is obviously ignorant about running Windows applications on Linux, and Linux in general.
The article states "David" is currently 80 MB. Anyone care to wager on how much of that is Wine code? Their developers sure have been busy... </sarcasm>
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:53:40 -0500 "R.U. Deranged" yes_this_is_a_real_address@earthlink.net wrote:
The article states "David" is currently 80 MB. Anyone care to wager on how much of that is Wine code? Their developers sure have been busy... </sarcasm>
Yeah, I can almost predict that it will be at least 75% Wine code. I don't think they understand the LGPL, maybe someone should explain it to them, and how they're soon to be violating it. :P
Tim
Tim Hentenaar wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:53:40 -0500 "R.U. Deranged" yes_this_is_a_real_address@earthlink.net wrote:
The article states "David" is currently 80 MB. Anyone care to wager on how much of that is Wine code? Their developers sure have been busy... </sarcasm>
Yeah, I can almost predict that it will be at least 75% Wine code. I don't think they understand the LGPL, maybe someone should explain it to them, and how they're soon to be violating it. :P
LGPL is pretty easy to satisfy. That's why it was chosen for libc.
Jakob
Looking on http://www.specopslabs.com/david_development.htm it doesn't sound like they've done much other then come up with a business model based on theoretical goals
And on http://www.specopslabs.com/market_competition4.htm They mention just taking all the previous open source windows compatibility projects and "incorporating the best features" of them all
I wonder what that means exactly
On Thursday 22 April 2004 01:08 pm, Rein Klazes wrote:
Hi,
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
http://www.specopslabs.com/david.htm
Rein.
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:52:05 -0400 Kevin Koltzau kevin@plop.org wrote:
And on http://www.specopslabs.com/market_competition4.htm They mention just taking all the previous open source windows compatibility projects and "incorporating the best features" of them all
I wonder what that means exactly
I wonder too... ya know, if they really cared, they'd be spending time trying to aid in projects such as wine, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel :P
Tim
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:08:11 +0200, Rein Klazes wrote:
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
Yeah, we're actually solving the problem instead of scamming investors out of their cash - or was I the only one who watched Hustle ?
Of course it's possible that they found some amazing way of hosting the NT kernel as a Linux kernel module, lifted the Wine x11drv and can now boot NT straight into Linux in an amusing twist on the CoLinux theme ..... but I doubt it ;)
thanks -mike
Rein Klazes wrote:
Hi,
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
http://www.specopslabs.com/david.htm
Rein.
I must be not getting something. Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction? First they say:
However, unlike our competitors, SpecOpS Labs has identified the flaws of Microsoft's WES and determined how to improve the design of the architecture so that the flaws would be eliminated. The result is that we have a fault-corrected subsystem design. One of the problems of the MS Windows OS is that it is subject to crash applications and itself. While studying the Microsoft Windows OS, we found the design flaw that causes this problem. One of the causes of this flaw is the method that Microsoft used to interface the WES with the OS Kernel. Certain functions within the WES are integrated directly into the Windows OS with full system privileges.
(http://www.specopslabs.com/david_microsoft_flaws.htm#technology) Then they say:
SpecOpS Labs believes, that despite the efforts that have been exerted in the development of WINE, it suffers from a major architectural flaw, which requires a major rewrite of the WINE code. The WINE project had been too faithful in reverse engineering the Windows Environment Subsystem, that it also inherited the architectural flaws in Windows. Among these flaws is when a problem is experienced by an application running in a Window, it can crash the whole operating system, causing it to either hang or reboot.
(http://www.specopslabs.com/market_competition3.htm#competition - WHAT?? What are they talking about??) But then, they say:
In our design we have integrated the Windows API directly into the Linux kernel giving our WACS greater speed than the Windows OS.
(http://www.specopslabs.com/david_microsoft_flaws.htm#technology) WTF????????
So, this is a GPL project (kernel)? LGPL (Wine?). How much are Wine and Odin alike? Is it really feasible to take code from both? Was WABI at all open source?
Yes, I have to agree with R.U. and Mike. I wouldn't go out and buy their stock just yet.
Shachar
I'd also like to respond, as if their BS actually needs to be taken seriously, that I have personally never had a Win32 application under Wine crash my Linux kernel, nor have I experienced a Blue Screen of Death while running an application under Wine. For me, that pretty much negates the "market advantage" their alleged architectural improvements supposedly gives them over Wine.
They say they're giving a demo of their beta version to the press today, so perhaps we'll have more specific information tomorrow.
Incidentally I wonder how Bill Joy would feel about his words and name being misused as a virtual endorsement of this company in their marketing spiel.
On April 22, 2004 04:46 pm, R.U. Deranged wrote:
Incidentally I wonder how Bill Joy would feel about his words and name being misused as a virtual endorsement of this company in their marketing spiel.
Overjoyed would perhaps be the term.
BTW: The very second their "demo" hits the wires, the redistribution clauses of the (L)GPL apply ...
Cheers, Geoff
R.U. Deranged wrote:
I'd also like to respond, as if their BS actually needs to be taken seriously, that I have personally never had a Win32 application under Wine crash my Linux kernel, nor have I experienced a Blue Screen of Death while running an application under Wine. For me, that pretty much negates the "market advantage" their alleged architectural improvements supposedly gives them over Wine.
They say they're giving a demo of their beta version to the press today, so perhaps we'll have more specific information tomorrow.
Did the demo happen? What was the outcome?
On Friday 23 April 2004 1:17 pm, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
Did the demo happen? What was the outcome?
Unknown. I'm still scanning for any word on that.
In the meantime, here's some more info I dug up:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15496
http://www.cxotoday.com/cxo/jsp/ index.jsp?section=News&subsection=Business&subsection_code=1&file=template1.jsp&storyid=867
Found some additional tidbits of info on "David" scattered among the following:
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040421225912693
http://www.mb.com.ph/INFO200404207565.html
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/040422/15/3joiz.html
My guess is that they're going to try implement the NT Native API (system calls using INT 2F(?)) in the Linux kernel, then install Windows 2000 on top. That would make them somewhat similar to Win4Lin.
Mike
Rein Klazes wrote:
Hi,
Somehow, we are doing something far to complicated:
http://www.specopslabs.com/david.htm
Rein.
From: Mike McCormack
My guess is that they're going to try implement the NT Native API (system calls using INT 2F(?)) in the Linux kernel, then install Windows 2000 on top. That would make them somewhat similar to Win4Lin.
I guess you'd need a Windows license then, and they say on the website: "David offer the following advantages: Does not require a copy of Microsoft Windows to run Windows Applications."
So, according to their website: - They didn't license Windows technology from Microsoft - They are not using native Windows components - They will build this David thing in 6 - 8 weeks
I'd say good luck.... If anyone wants to invest in this I also have a nice piece of Moon for sale, with a good view of the Earth.
Ge van Geldorp.
FYI, here's a press release from these jokers on Yahoo! Finance Singapore:
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/040421/15/3jnea.html
Interesting that their web site is referenced in the release, but no link is provided.
- They will build this David thing in 6 - 8 weeks
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I wouldn't touch this thing with a thirty foot pole.
-
Abby Ricart -
Ge van Geldorp -
Geoff Thorpe -
Henk Poley -
Jakob Eriksson -
Joel Konkle-Parker -
Kevin Koltzau -
Mike Hearn -
Mike McCormack -
R.U. Deranged -
Rein Klazes -
Shachar Shemesh -
Tim Hentenaar