Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Live Demo CD of Microkernel-Based TUD:OS Released

Roblimo posted more than 8 years ago | from the yet-another-contender-in-the-os-sweepstakes dept.

103

Norman Feske writes "The OS Group of Technische Universität Dresden (TUD:OS) has released a live demo CD of their custom operating system project. TUD:OS is a microkernel-based operating system targeted at secure and real-time systems. Some highlights of the demo CD include a new approach for securing graphical user interfaces called Nitpicker, multiple L4Linux kernels running at the same time on top of a custom L4 microkernel, a survey on the reuse of device drivers on the TUD:OS platform, native Qt-applications, the DOpE windowing system, games, and a lot more. More information is available at the demo CD website demo.tudos.org. And yes, there are screenshots, too!"

cancel ×

103 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's German, eh ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907276)

All I can say is, if it's German, then it's probably unbreakable.

Re:It's German, eh ? (0, Flamebait)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907303)

So why do the turn indicators on Mercs and BMWs never work?

Re:It's German, eh ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907447)

Hey the people who are driving them know where they are going. Dont you?

Re:It's German, eh ? (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907525)

So why do the turn indicators on Mercs and BMWs never work?

Because Volkswagen nicked them.

Re:It's German, eh ? (1)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907747)

Because the people who buy them are assumed rich enough that mere mortals scurry out of their way. Or at least the asshats drive that way.

Re:It's German, eh ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907767)

Because they use Windows CE

Re:It's German, eh ? (3, Funny)

LightningBolt! (664763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908001)

So why do the turn indicators on Mercs and BMWs never work?

Based purely on observation, I'd guess it has something to do with radio interference from the drivers' cell phones.

Re:It's German, eh ? (2, Funny)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908110)

Because they have a built-in right of way (they are expensive enough for that :-P)

Re:It's German, eh ? (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14911548)

The good old Vauxhall Vectra isn't much better. I bought one. I tell you, after a year, I still can't get the hang of the indicators. *sigh*

Re:It's German, eh ? (1)

Moderatbastard (808662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14917353)

Wow, looks like some preppy little nonce got a nice car for his birthday ... and the trunk was full of mod points. I can feel the heat from here.

That or it's Germans not finding it funny. No, silly idea, couldn't be that.

you convinced me (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907282)

...the DOpE windowing system...

That's all I needed right there. I'm checking this out right now.

Re:you convinced me (0)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907349)

I was't sold until I read about the L4/Fiasco microkernel, but then I realised that nothing could go wrong with this one...

Re:you convinced me (1)

Fanboy Troy (957025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907368)

FTFA: Multiple virtualized Linux kernels running deprivileged on the L4/Fiasco microkernel

Gold I tell ya! :)

Another kernel (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907290)

and another FIRST POST

TURD OS (3, Funny)

Anoraknid the Sartor (9334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907291)

so near, and yet so far....

What I want to know is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907813)

...were they able to polish this o/s?

Or FUD OS (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907894)

The opportunities seem boundless.

Re:TURD OS (1)

Ulrich Hobelmann (861309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14910126)

But this one is better than GNU/TURD, which will only be ready next year.

Not Bad... (1)

those.numbers (960432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907388)

Not too shabby lookin. I say we get all these underground OS's together. And overthrow Vista before Microsoft takes over the world. Oh wait, too late...

Re:Not Bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14908688)

Go away. This isn't digg.

woah (1)

orionware (575549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907402)

Truly revolutionary. I can't wait to get this bad ass up and running.

Unfortunate choice of name. (1)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907434)

Besides the (already made) jokes about 'TurdOS', the fact that the last three letters of the name are 'D', 'O' and 'S' might lead people to pronounce it "Two DOS", and think it's a DOS clone like FreeDOS...

Re:Unfortunate choice of name. (0, Flamebait)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907762)

They're too late. Microsoft has been producing turd os's with dope windowing systems for years now.

Re:Unfortunate choice of name. (1)

FearTheFrail (666535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908012)

Besides the (already made) jokes about 'TurdOS', the fact that the last three letters of the name are 'D', 'O' and 'S' might lead people to pronounce it "Two DOS", and think it's a DOS clone like FreeDOS...


Well hey, with multiple microkernels and a name like TUDOS, it'll surely beat the pants off of any one DOS you've got!

Re:Unfortunate choice of name. (1)

lcam (848192) | more than 8 years ago | (#14910539)

Well they didn't have a chief marketing director handly to help them with that one...

I wonder if here are any chief software architect/marketing guys would be willing to fill out an application...

Re:Unfortunate choice of name. (1)

martinultima (832468) | more than 8 years ago | (#14910846)

Just wait until tomorrow when Microsoft releases their own microkernel-based "FUD:OS" :-)

in debian (2, Funny)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907437)

so in debian a package kernel-image*.deb was renamed to linux-kernel*.deb just so that packages netbsd-kernel*.deb, hurd-kernel*.deb or openbsd-kernel*.deb can be added. Now I'm anxious to see plans for including tudos-kernel*.deb in debian.

Re:in debian (2, Insightful)

Godji (957148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907745)

Sure, just give it the usual 13 years or so to get stable.

Funny?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911745)

Why did this get moderated as funny? It's a pretty insightful and informative comment.

FINALLY! (3, Insightful)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907439)

Hurray for TUD:OS! Kudos for actually managing to get a functional but custom operating system into working live-CD form.

The system architecture looks fine and dandy (L4 is a pretty good base microkernel), and I love the capability to make this system perform 9 different scenarios, including running L4Linux for when they lack their own software.

Mazl tov!

Re:FINALLY! (2, Funny)

RatOfTheLab (535003) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908676)

Indeed, KUD:OS to TUD:OS

Re:FINALLY! (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 8 years ago | (#14910392)

"Some input device configuration may end in arbitrary mouse movements or lockups."

You don't see that as being a bit of a fundamental flaw?

"Here's your new super-secure machine. Oh - by the way, the keyboard mightn't work, and may screw your usage of the mouse, which might lock up entirely"

"Gee, thanks"

Re:FINALLY! (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14912406)

No. That's just what you expect of an alpha (or even beta) product of this kind. They aren't calling this a release, they're calling it a demo.

Re:FINALLY! (1)

st1d (218383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915006)

I take it you've never seen Bill Gates give a presentation of "the new big thing" MS has to offer. :)

Re:FINALLY! (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915908)

Hmmm, when put in perspective, this ain't a bad demo after all.

Selective amnesia has caused me to purge all memories of M$ crap out of my mind. I'll forgive you, just this once, for reminding me!

shi7. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907498)

just yet, but I'm juggernaut either lube. This can lead had at lunchtime lesson 4nd posts on Usenet are

If they managed to create something like this... (4, Interesting)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907540)

Why is HURD still nowhere near finished (as in: ready to be used)?

Re:If they managed to create something like this.. (2, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907774)

HURD was aiming to be a general purpose OS, not a realtime or embedded secure OS. That said, just by looking at its CVS, looks like HURD became undead over a year ago. It's ok, GNU has given us everything else an operating system needs, probably Linux and the BSDs sapped the life & development mindshare out of HURD.

HURD delays (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14908934)

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2006-03 /msg00091.html [gnu.org] seems to indicate that the devs are still discussing HURD...

...of course HURD is the Gargantuan Ancient Granddaddy of Cathedral vs Bazaar style development ...

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/samizdat-respons e.html [catb.org]

...I can tell you exactly why the HURD tanked. It was listening to a presentation by HURD's project lead in 1996, and realizing the project was doomed, that started me on the train of thought that led to "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". They were trying to do engineering and pure R&D at the same time; they lacked focus or any drive to actually ship code; and their development group was too small and inbred.

Re:If they managed to create something like this.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907983)

They keep having to rewrite it, because the hardware is improving faster than the ability of EMACS to bog it down.

Whats with the linux thing (2, Funny)

tecker (793737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907569)

Ok they specify that this "L4Linux" is a modified kernel to allow linux programs to run. Now is it using a virtualiztion layer and running a FULL kernel or is it a PARTIAL kernel that simply provides familliar hooks that the real linux kernel uses.

If it is a Partial kernel do they have plans to include something like Xen [cam.ac.uk] to allow for the use of this as a server base and then have linux on top?

Somebody set me strait.

Re:Whats with the linux thing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14908276)

L4Linux is para-virtualized, that means the Linux kernel was adapted to run as an application on top of the Fiasco microkernel. Xen is really virtualized - it emulates a virtual machine that the OS runs inside.

Re:Whats with the linux thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14908351)

If you have a Vanderpool-enabled CPU, that's true. On standard x86 PCs, XenoLinux is para-virtualized too.

Re:Whats with the linux thing (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909460)

Uhh... no. A linux kernel, running under Xen, on any x86 cpu, is virtualized. On non-vanderpool CPUs, the kernel has been recompiled so that it doesn't invoke certain classes of instructions, but it's still being run in a fully virtualized environment.

Re:Whats with the linux thing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14910657)

A Linux on Xen is modified and thus paravirtualized. The term 'paravirtualization' is actually coming from Xen (IIRC). Fully virtualized means that you can take an unmodified Linux kernel and run it in the environment. That does not work with Xen (except with VT/Pacifica support).

L4Linux is also paravirtualized as it's a modified Linux kernel running on a hypervisor.

Re:Whats with the linux thing (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909373)

There has been a similar project before. MkLinux [mklinux.org] for 68K Macs was a port of a Linux to the Mach microkernel (same microkernel used by OSF/1, Nextstep, and OS X).

Anyone have a torrent? (5, Informative)

jarom (899827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907679)

Anyone have a torrent, or has downloaded the ISO and can make one?

Re:Anyone have a torrent? (1)

ilovemrdoe (927268) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908415)

Why is it +3 funny?

Re:Anyone have a torrent? (1)

jarom (899827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909073)

I was wodering the same thing. Maybe they thought I said "Does it run linux?"

Trusted computing (3, Insightful)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907722)

This kind of thing goes to show that an OS designed for security can provide it without the need for the so called "trusted computing": the user can still have the machine entirely under your own control.. programs can be isolated from each other so that keylogging and other spyware techniques do not work, but the user can still do what the hell he wants with his machine (including tampering with the "secure" applications he is using if he wants to).

Trusted Complaining. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14907905)

The basic principles around TC are sound (or didn't you notice that IBM is involved?). The problem people have is with the keys, not the cryptological foundations.

"(including tampering with the "secure" applications he is using if he wants to)."

That's assuming the user can be trusted. As I've said repeatedly if you don't like the terms that content is being offered under, then don't have anything to do with it, in any kind of form or fashion. Period! DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content.

I trust myself. (5, Insightful)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908261)

That's assuming the user can be trusted
I don't care if they trust me. I'm the one buying the computer and I trust myself to use it however I see fit (and if I break any laws with it I can be tried for it, same as with my kitchen knife if I use it to stab someone).

Aside from this, it's true that having a hardware safe for cryptographic private keys (the fritz chip) is sound from a security perspective (while takign control of what the chip will or will not sign away from the user is bad).

The reason I was comparing this TUD OS with TC is that the intel and AMD TC platforms both implement memory curtaining to isolate programs from one another, which this project seems to do quite nicely with a software-only solution.

And let me rebuke this OT but blatantly false line:
DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content.
It is relevant to anyone who has any interest to legally buying content which is sold with DRM restrictions. Even in the best of worlds, where the content sellers play nice, DRM stops me from playing something I bought from company X on anything but the players approved by company X. (iTunes audio files on anything but an iPod?). And if company X goes out of buisness or just decides not to support that format anymore you may be unable to play those files ever again.

And in the real world, companies which can effectively write a different copyright law for each piece of content will use this to their advantage and to the user's disadvantage: to milk more money by selling the same stuff multiple times, and to hinder interoperability in anti-competitive ways.

Re:I trust myself. (2, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908961)

"And if company X goes out of buisness or just decides not to support that format anymore you may be unable to play those files ever again."

So true. In fact, just yesterday I was trying cram my vast collection of 8-tracks, reel-to-reel tapes, LPs, and cassettes into that thin little slot on the front of my car stereo. Not only did it not work, but now I need a new car stereo.

The point being, of course, that we bought into all of those different types of media knowing their limitations, and also knowing full well that they were not going to last forever. Same with everyone's favorite example, iTMS. I know the limitations, have yet to come close to hitting them, and always have the CD-burning "out" if need be.

As long as my notebook and mini run in their existing configuration, I can play my music. Should Apple look like it's about to die, I'll snap up a spare. Which is much as it it was with my turntable, reel-to-reel, and cassette player. My 8-track player, however, is dead, Jim....

Re:I trust myself. (2, Insightful)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909272)

Yes, but one of the supposed improvements that were hyped when "we bought into" CD's was that they would not degrade over time as do analog formats*. DRM is an attempt to artificially degrade a digital product.

This was unusually accurate for marketing hype, as now the short-sighted music executives are faced with legions of people making legitimate copies of their legitimately-paid-for CD's, and not needing to relicense their songs.

Re:I trust myself. (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14913140)

My iTMS songs will degrade in quality over time? Oh my!

First, CDs may have been "hyped" that way, but any intelligent person soon realized that you had to handle them with care as not to scratch them, not leave them in the car in direct sunlight, and so on.

Second, why are we always posing worst-case scenarios? Yes, it's "possible" that Apple will fold as a company tomorrow, though I doubt it. Personally, I think it's demostrated its hardiness as a company, and as such more likely to outlast me, making the question moot. It's also equally possible that even if Apple folds, they will have licensed FairPlay and/or the iTMS by that time anyway.

As to relicensing, don't count them out. They may, for example, look at all of the home theaters now out there with 5.1 surround sound, and decide the next "format" is ultra-high sampled 5-channel music that let's you hear the position of each singer and band member. Should it catch on, people will repurchase many of their favorite songs, much as they've done in the VHS to DVD transition.

they can still stop you from burning CDs (1)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14914477)

My iTMS songs will degrade in quality over time? Oh my! First, CDs may have been "hyped" that way, but any intelligent person soon realized that you had to handle them with care as not to scratch them, not leave them in the car in direct sunlight, and so on.
That's why I rip my CDs dude. If I have them on my pc(s) and on my mp3 player and on the physical disk i'm not going to lose them even if my house burns down (although if it does, music will be the least of my problems).

Your iTMS songs may "degrade" in the sense that your next update to iTunes might disallow burning them to CDs (not because apple is bad, but because they do buisness and if theyhave enough pressure from the **AA's, who knows..). And anyhow you can't play them on any portable player except an iPod. This should be punished by antitrust law IMHO.

Re:I trust myself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911520)

The difference is that any company could decide tomorrow that there's enough demand for 8-track players to design and sell one. But with DRMed files, a company would be legally prevented from making such a player.

Re:Trusted Complaining. (3, Insightful)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908479)

"DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content."

Wow, is that statement ever wrong. As wrong as could be. "None more wrong"

Generally DRM only affects legitimate users. If I buy a copy protected CD I get the DRM. If I download the same music from shareaza - No DRM. DRM is very relevant when it prevents legal purchasers of content from legitimate "fair use" of that content. If DRM means I can't rip the CD I just bought to put the music on my MP3 player, or make a backup copy of my kid's DVDs then it is most certainly relevant.

On the other hand DRM is at most an inconvenience to hackers , pirates and other users of "illegal copyrighted content" . I can't think of one form of copy protection that hasn't been cracked.

Trusted Complaining-II (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14909367)

And what part of "do not have anything to do with" do you not understand? If you have only approved content in your possession (you created or someone else created and said it was OK)? Then DRM is absolutely irrelevent. It's like conplaining about the baggage handling at the airport when you have no intentions of ever setting foot there.

"On the other hand DRM is at most an inconvenience to hackers , pirates and other users of "illegal copyrighted content" . I can't think of one form of copy protection that hasn't been cracked."

The same argument could be leveled towards security in general, and I don't see anyone saying that we should stop doing so.

[js_sebastian (946118)]
"I don't care if they trust me. I'm the one buying the computer and I trust myself to use it however I see fit (and if I break any laws with it I can be tried for it, same as with my kitchen knife if I use it to stab someone)."

Not according to slashdot you're not. Pay attention (or just google for it if you really care about the truth), and see the primary reaction when someone is prosecuted for using their computers to violate the law.

"
The reason I was comparing this TUD OS with TC is that the intel and AMD TC platforms both implement memory curtaining to isolate programs from one another, which this project seems to do quite nicely with a software-only solution."

And has been repeatedly demonstrated, software-only solutions don't work against a determined hacker.

"It is relevant to anyone who has any interest to legally buying content which is sold with DRM restrictions. Even in the best of worlds, where the content sellers play nice, DRM stops me from playing something I bought from company X on anything but the players approved by company X. (iTunes audio files on anything but an iPod?). And if company X goes out of buisness or just decides not to support that format anymore you may be unable to play those files ever again."

Well I'll let someone who's used steam and iTunes show you the reality. I however want to address the simple fact that this whole situation is a demonstration that those who intentionly disrupt society are no one's friend. It sucks to be caught in the crossfire but heapping damnation on those who have legitimate concerns over those things they work hard to bring to us will not make the situation any better. Willfully violation the law will not either and it only leads to an escalation of the situation. Not a resolution.

"And in the real world, companies which can effectively write a different copyright law for each piece of content will use this to their advantage and to the user's disadvantage: to milk more money by selling the same stuff multiple times, and to hinder interoperability in anti-competitive ways."

Since we're addressing the "real world". Why doesn't slashdot dispense with the "us verses them we hate anything organized" attitude? Do you really think that copyright violations happen ONLY to those you choose to hate? The audiance may not like DRM (much as we may not like having to buy locks for our possessions), but as long as others have a "fuck you" attitude towards their fellow citizens, and the middle majority continue to lack the will to use the means that societies provided for change. Well we will get DRM, and all the other baggage.

Re:Trusted Complaining-II (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909816)

"And what part of "do not have anything to do with" do you not understand? If you have only approved content in your possession (you created or someone else created and said it was OK)? Then DRM is absolutely irrelevent."

Apparently, I do not understand any part of it. I think you are saying that if I don't have any DRM-ed files then DRM doesn't affect me. This seems self evident.

What set off my bogometer, and what I was commenting on, was this particular phrase. -

"DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content."

This is not true! There are many known instances where DRM affects "those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content", generally by preventing legal fair use in a futile attempt to prevent illegal use.

Redefining terms. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909852)

And what part of "do not have anything to do with" do you not understand? If you have only approved content in your possession (you created or someone else created and said it was OK)? Then DRM is absolutely irrelevent.

You changed the language. You originally wrote "illegal". It's legal for me to rip a CD whether it's protected by Sony's DRM or not. It's legal for me to make a copy of a video, or create a new work of art based on its content. It's legal for me to copy and modify any work that is in my posession.

What's illegal is redistributing it without authorization except as is allowed under fair use.

If the creator wants me to play the work only on alternate tuesdays while showering for no more than 30 minutes at a time, they can implement it in DRM, but that doesn't make it illegal for me to use it in other ways. It's not even illegal for me to download a copy that someone else has already extracted from the DRMed package I purchased so I'm not put to the trouble of muffling my shower and taping it myself. It may be illegal for them to distribute it (though not necessarily, if they were (for example) paying all the appropriate broadcast fees), but it's not illegal to download it.

DRM restricts your rights more than copyright law does, therefore even if you are obeying all the relevant laws DRM is a burden.

Re:Redefining terms. (1, Insightful)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14911335)

It's legal for me to rip a CD whether it's protected by Sony's DRM or not.

Lucky you. In many places it is not, regardless of DRM. In some places, the act of circumventing the DRM makes it illegal. The GP didn't specify a jurisdiction.

It's legal for me to make a copy of a video, or create a new work of art based on its content.

Lucky you. I'd need the copyright holder's permission.

It's legal for me to copy and modify any work that is in my posession.

Lucky you. Not here.

What's illegal is redistributing it without authorization except as is allowed under fair use.

Erm, nope, not here. Here, "copying" is infringement, and "issue of copies" is also. Separate clauses in law, but both infringement.

If the creator wants me to play the work [...] but that doesn't make it illegal for me to use it in other ways.

Here, creators have "performance rights". They certainly do have the right to restrict how you play the work (although probably not to the extent of your example), and going beyond that is illegal.

DRM restricts your rights more than copyright law does

It could - but then so could other laws, or contracts etc. Or, on the other hand it could restrict you less, or about the same.

DRM is a technology (or more a loose collection of technologies), and there is nothing whatsoever in that technology that inherently restricts you more than the law (except, possibly, if you have no copyright law at all).

Like most technologies, it can be used in "good" and "bad" ways.

Your argument seems to come down to:

"DRMed content is more of a restriction / burden than non-DRMed content, so DRM is bad".

s/DRM/encryption/

Yippee, lets ban encryption too. After all, terrorists use it, must be bad.

Re:Redefining terms. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14911708)

In many places it is not, regardless of DRM. In some places, the act of circumventing the DRM makes it illegal.

Erm, if your computer is properly secured you will never know that Sony's DRM is on the disc, because your computer won't be looking for files on an audio CD.

If the DRM makes it impossible for me to properly secure my computer... then again it makes legal activities impossible... and therefore DRM does matter even if you're not interested in stealing copyrighted files.

That doesn't make the original false-to-fact statement correct: not only was it not qualified by "in this country" or "in that country" but no matter what the laws are DRM can be used to restrict you further than the laws do.

It could - but then so could other laws, or contracts etc. Or, on the other hand it could restrict you less, or about the same.

So? That doesn't mean 'you don't have to care aboutthe law if you're not doing anything illegal' or 'you don't have to care about your rental contract if you're not planning on stealing the car'. It doesn't matter whether DRM might issue in an era of previously unknown creativity or a dictatorship worse than the world has ever seen... it doesn't change the fact that you are effected by it even if you're not looking to play illegal content.

Re:Redefining terms. (1)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14917654)


Erm, if your computer is properly secured you will never know that Sony's DRM is on the disc, because your computer won't be looking for files on an audio CD.


Exactly (I think ?). If it doesn't look for files, doesn't auto-run them etc. (ie. it is properly secured), then no files from the CD can possibly be executed. So... the DRM has no effect on my computer.

If the CD doesn't play on a conforming player as an audio CD then that is because it is not a conforming audio CD, whether that is a pressing fault or DRM. If I have the right format (DRM-CD) player then I can play it, if not, then I can't - just the same as a CD will not play in a cassette player.

A DRM-CD might stop me copying the content to real-CD to play in a real CD player. A real CD will not stop me copying the content to cassette to play in my car.

So, DRM has limited my legal activities, right ? Wrong - it has only stopped me doing something which is actually illegal (both cases above), and has always been illegal (although we might have become accustomed to doing it). Maybe if DRM wakes people up to the fact that the law is silly we'll get the laws changed.

DRM can be used to restrict you further than the laws do.


Agreed. In fact that is what I said. The statement I disagreed with was:

        DRM restricts your rights more than copyright law does

"can be used to" vs. does.

That is a whole world of difference.

IMO we should on principle _not_ be attacking _technologies_ simply because they "can be used" to do something we don't like.

When RIAA attacked P2P there were many here saying they were luddites, that they should attack the "bad" uses of the technology, not the technology itself (because that is an easier target) - because that had legitimate uses. I'm sticking with that principle.

Effective DRM vs your rights... (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909697)

DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content.

That should read...

"DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing copyrighted content."

It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, even if I have no intention of buying DRM-protected content legally, DRM restricts what I can do with my own computer. Any even minimally effective DRM scheme will require draconian restrictions. Hardware that only boots cryptographically signed kernels. Kernels that only load cryptographically signed drivers. Access controls based on cryptographically signed applications. Applications that only use cryptographically signed libraries.

It's possible that for all these stages there will be escapes, so that the various secure components will have a way to relinquish their rights and load insecure content so I can still use a media player to play back the recording I made of a class I gave even if I've had to install a patched driver to fix a problem with my computer... but I wouldn't put money down on it.

And you never know what you will need to run. I mean, there's already public material... recordings of town hall meetings and the like... only distributed in proprietary and undocumented streaming formats.

Effective reading vs your rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911316)

"Hardware that only boots cryptographically signed kernels. Kernels that only load cryptographically signed drivers. Access controls based on cryptographically signed applications. Applications that only use cryptographically signed libraries."

Well no. Hardware that can boot anything, BUT can only establish a trust tree for cryptographically signed software. In other words, if you want to build your foundation on something untrustworthy? Then go right ahead.

"It's possible that for all these stages there will be escapes, so that the various secure components will have a way to relinquish their rights and load insecure content so I can still use a media player to play back the recording I made of a class I gave even if I've had to install a patched driver to fix a problem with my computer... but I wouldn't put money down on it."

That would be owner override which is part of the specification. So you don't need money, just reading skills.

"And you never know what you will need to run. I mean, there's already public material... recordings of town hall meetings and the like... only distributed in proprietary and undocumented streaming formats."

Then it's your responsability to ask for them in an open format.

Re:Trusted computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14909099)

... but... but... Trusted Computing provides the extra benefits of DRM and total control by Microsoft and Intel [theregister.co.uk] . No contest really... I, for one, welcome our "new" corporate overlords. They've been planning it a long time, they deserve it.

The name is unfortunate though (0, Redundant)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907783)

As I was scanning the Slashdot RSS feed, I had a "bite the wax tadpole" moment when I misread the article title as "Live Demo CD of Microkernel-Based TURD:OS Released".

I Need Glasses (0, Redundant)

no_good_nicknames_le (876557) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907797)

I thought it said TURD:OS.

/me rubs his eyes...

TurdOS, Dope (3, Insightful)

zerojoker (812874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907827)

and I always thought that germans are known to have no sense of humor...

Re:TurdOS, Dope (1)

LordOfTheNoobs (949080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909408)

"and I always thought that germans are known to have no sense of humor..."

That's the name of your OS? That's hilarious!

I fail to see your humour.

Do you speak english?

Yes, what is your point?

Re:TurdOS, Dope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911302)

and I always thought that germans are known to have no sense of humor...

You must be Jewish.

w00t (0, Redundant)

cosminn (889926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907863)

sweet, good job guys! Keep it up!

Explanation of the naming (4, Informative)

Florian (2471) | more than 8 years ago | (#14907977)

"TUD:OS" is simply an acronym of "Technical University Dresden Operating System". Their computer science department has done amazing work on the l4 microkernel, and continues to release all its code under free licenses, btw.

Re:Explanation of the naming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14908470)

Why is this moderated as funny?

OS:TUD (1)

karlfr (897006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909372)

They should turn the acronym around and call it "OS:TUD". That would avoid most of the issues with the existing name, yet still communicate the same information.

err... (0, Troll)

soapdog (773638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908029)

in humorless germany, the os turd you?!

Great, but... (1)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908214)

I love it, but can't find any documentation on how to get a dhcp network up under linux. Running it via qemu, and it rocks though!

This is Ingenius! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14908277)

OMG OMG. This thing runs:

- state-of-the-art applications like xterm.
- latest games like chess and tetris.

Looks like a student project. Otherwise I'd add the slashdot-monkey question about so how is this different from every other OSS project that keeps reinventing the wheel year after year without ever innovating something first.

Re:This is Ingenius! (1)

MPHellwig (847067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909335)

"reinventing the wheel year after year without ever innovating something first"

I imagine a whole new breed of wheels here ... perhaps some will be even more or less round ;-)

Re:This is Ingenius! (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14911114)

Actually, these guys seem to have developed and worked the major bugs out of the hover pad. What needs done now is to slap a car on them puppies.

Re:This is Ingenius! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911563)

If you do not see what's different you haven't read the texts for each scenario. I recommend doing so and coming back after having understood them.

iso and vmware (1)

kyoko21 (198413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908520)

They have ISOs and vmware configuration files... I have to say, it looks like they want to get the word out. I'll bite soon as I get home and download the puppy... :-)

lynx.. (1)

braindead_in (933655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908700)

how about firefox or lynx on it?

How does this compare to HURD? (2, Interesting)

Sam Haine '95 (918696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908797)

multiple L4Linux kernels running at the same time on top of a custom L4 microkernel
Sorry if this is a stupid/obvious question, but is this similar to HURD?

Re:How does this compare to HURD? (2, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909502)

Not really, no. The HURD is a project to implement a Unix-like API on top of a microkernel (originally Mach, now L4) as a set of servers. This is distinctly different from running an entire Linux kernel as a single L4 process (which is what is done with L4Linux).

Re:How does this compare to HURD? (1)

Sam Haine '95 (918696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909722)

Right, so is running multiple L4Linux kernels simultaneously on top of an L4 microkernel similar to running the HURD set of servers on top of an L4 microkernel?

Re:How does this compare to HURD? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14910177)

At a glance, it looks like they have something like the HURD:

L4VFS is the IO infrastructure for a Posix-like multi-server system on top L4 and DROPS. It comprises a set of client-side libraries gluing together typical C library functions in the client and a service providing set of servers on the other side. In the demo we show how terminal IO works, demonstrate some VT100 escape sequence magic, GNU Readline Library support and file system browsing.

which seems seperate from their Linux kernel:

L4Linux is a port of the Linux kernel to L4 and makes it possible to run unmodified Linux programs on top of L4. In the L4Linux demo we will show how L4Linux integrates in an L4 system and point out several different usage scenarios in which L4Linux can be used. The actual demonstration focusses on launching multiple instances of L4Linux, until the system resources are exhausted. More deployments of L4Linux can be seen in the other demonstrations.

That's great. (2, Interesting)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14908841)

I wonder if they're able to load closed-source drivers like nvidia, and have accelerated OpenGL graphics...

but RMS call it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14909041)

GNU:TUD:OS

Naming??! (2, Funny)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14909814)

From the screenshots:

...applications running natively on the L4/Fiasco microkernel

Indeed, a complete fiasco ;-)

Not impressed (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14910435)

First, I had to install proprietary software, mvplayer, to run it.

When I had tudos up and running I tried the qtdemo, but after I browsed the pages descibing how great it was, it wouldn't work. Then I tried the games. Quake wouldn't run, it just gave a bunch of error message trying to setup the video screen, I guess, and then a blinking red-orange ball just set at the "]" prompt and no further keyboard or mouse interaction was functional. Barrage wouldn't allow keyboard or mouse input, so I couldn't run it. I decided not to try Tetris.

I fired the L4Linux and popped up a console box. I could ls the bin, sbin, etc, sys, and dev directories but there was next to nothing in them. "ls" was about all the practical stuff I could do.

I couldn't fire an xwindow client. Even RH5.0 had more power than this puppy.

several of the demos didn't supply a "reboot" option so I had to exit the whole thing, delete the vmware files, except the vmx, and refire wmplayer so I could get the tudos menu again. It's been years since I've run a Linux distro that was this buggy or hard to use.

Oh, the other thing I noticed was that it was slow.

Re:Not impressed (3, Informative)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14910773)

First, I had to install proprietary software, mvplayer, to run it.

Wrong.

It runs in qemu just fine. It's even described on their site how to do it.

And you can always burn it onto a physical CD-Rom, and boot it up in a physical machine.

several of the demos didn't supply a "reboot" option so I had to exit the whole thing, delete the vmware files, except the vmx, and refire wmplayer so I could get the tudos menu again. It's been years since I've run a Linux distro that was this buggy or hard to use.

It's a CD-based demo, so your vmware files won't have "state" in them anyways. Just kill your vmware, and restart it, without wiping any files.

Re:Not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911099)

The L4Linux filesystem is small by purpose. It is small so that many L4Linuxes can be run simultaneously, there's no X, KDE, Gnome, OOo or similar installed. I hope your RH5.0 did not only come with a 2MB RAMdisk.

And it might well be that some things do not work for you, it's not optimal, for sure but not earthshaking either. The purpose of the demo is to get some ideas spread (read the texts!), and not to compete with the latest greatest Linux distros. If you want those, just used their Live-CDs.

Re:Not impressed (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14911165)

ok. Runs in QEMU. Running it within VMWare is not going to be fast, nor will it have very reliable video, so no, Quake doesn't work from within VMWare. The QT Demo gave me some trouble too, but like said, it runs slow in a virtualized machine (not as slow as emulated, but hey) After a minute or so, the demo came up.

Also, it's not a linux distro. It's a technology demo. If it's buggy, it's cos they didn't have you in mind. (shame on them).

Re:Not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14912534)

"Even RH5.0 had more power than this puppy."

And your point is ... ? Count the point-releases, dick. This is a demoCD of an unfinished project which makes no claims whatsoever to do anything other than run a few linux kernels on top of a microkernel and put forward a few ideas on inter-application security.

Did you read the sign that said 'Dresden University'? Are you looking for a refund? Just what the f*ck is your problem, hatfart?

jimjimminy

-9, Clueless (1)

alienmole (15522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915260)

OK, if that was just some weird kind of troll, more power to you, I guess. But otherwise, I'm afraid you have to turn in your /. uid and be reissued with a 6-digit one, which is the standard procedure for the poster of a -9, Clueless post.

Does it run linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911523)

n/t

Re:Does it run linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14911836)

It does.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?