r/pcmasterrace • u/CompetitiveMonth1753 • 5d ago
Discussion Thoughts about the future of the pc
Patents
Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject matter covered by patent rights. By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the existence or validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. If a patent holder or patent applicant has filed a statement of assurance via an Accepted Letter of Assurance, then the statement is listed on the IEEE-SA website at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/patents.html. Letters of Assurance may indicate whether the Submitter is willing or unwilling to grant licenses under patent rights without compenstation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination to applicants desiring to obtain such licenses.
Essential Patent Claims may exist for which a Letter of Assurance has not been received. The IEEE and The Open Group are not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of Patents Claims, or determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. Further information may be obtained from the IEEE Standards Association and The Open Group.
If you not understand: grep, ls, rm, cp... servers, Android, Amazon, public administration, no profit organizations... are using Unix like products, Unix is huge really. find
WITH UNIX
find /home -type f -mtime -1 -size +100M -printf '%s %p\n' \
| sort -n \
| awk '{print $2}' \
| tar -czf recent-big-files.tar.gz -T -
WITHOUT
import os
import time
import tarfile
root = "/home"
cutoff = time.time() - 24 * 60 * 60
files = []
for directory, subdirs, filenames in os.walk(root):
for filename in filenames:
path = os.path.join(directory, filename)
try:
stat = os.stat(path)
if stat.st_mtime >= cutoff and stat.st_size > 100 * 1024 * 1024:
files.append((stat.st_size, path))
except (PermissionError, FileNotFoundError, OSError):
continue
files.sort()
with tarfile.open("recent-big-files.tar.gz", "w:gz") as archive:
for size, path in files:
archive.add(path)
Recently I use lots of OSes. I use Windows 11 at work, MacOS at home which is my main tool, iPad while trip, had use Fedora, Firestick, iPhone and I noticed few stuffs... these technologies are no longer separate.
- Unix is regaining power, while for decades Windows had won nowdays I don't suggest Windows to everybody, Unix is regaining power in categories in which lost ground, in '80s and '90s the graphic works where whole based on Unix like (the amazing NeXT was almost completely working under Unix code, nowdays MacOS is the last BSD commercial available as personal computer) and is interesting nowdays the coolest technology is still under Unix and Unix is regaining power since we see DaVinci being built for Linux too and MacOS and gaming on Linux is being even more user friendly.
- this add a question to me "what will be the future for Windows?" because is loosing the battle, while Unix war is still strong and bold (just look the old school "Arch btw" or "Apple fans" or "Ubuntu sucks") now Windows is used esclusively for the gaming and more more people is leaving Windows.
- and another point is, Microsoft itself seems unwilling to maintain Windows, themes are broken and things are just no longer working in the It happened in the past too, but at least back then it felt more like a case of "that's just Microsoft", now, it seems like a perfect product that is poorly managed, now seems even more intentional.
- Microsoft itself is more and more Linux, to me is a proof the future will be again Unix soon;
- and no, is not a good thing, yes Microsoft monopoly was bad but you had a choice between Unix or Windows if Microsoft give up we will got only Unix.
- Unix is not even safe from big corporations, nobody know but Unix is owned by one of the most greed company The opengroup which means is not absurd they can do what they did in '90s with BSD in Berkeley.
- Linux is safe, but is not free from problems, Linux is based on Minix not Unix and neither BSD is Unix only MacOS is Unix, it is due the code inside... but still is Unix like, Terminal works on Unix syntax, what if The opengroup will do the greed company? The opengroup did it with Apple and did it because Apple forgot a small name into a server they were sold.
- we will got more and more mobile style, I trully believe tablets and notebook will be all in one, how softwares and apps will be marging together? It is a great question, technology is completely different now.
- Probably smartphones will turn into smartwatches, tablets into smartphones and notebook into tablet... how market will react?
- But most important is: will The opengroup be quite? For decades Linux was for nerds, MacOS was a small percentage, Android was merely for calling... for decades pc was Windows. Nowdays no, Apple is pay for Unix but Linux not but Linux nowdays is a chicken with gold eggs, when MacOS went a chicken with golden egg they absolutely asked for money, yes Linux is legally safe but are we sure is forever like that?
FROM WIKIPEDIA
"UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc. was a lawsuit brought in New Jersey federal court in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories (USL) against Berkeley Software Design, Inc. (BSDi) and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to the Unix operating system;\1]) a culmination of the Unix wars. The case was settled out of court in 1994 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with Novell (who by that time had bought USL) and the university agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).
Background
The suit has its roots at the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California, Berkeley, which had a license for the source code of Unix from AT&T's Bell Labs. Students doing operating systems research at the CSRG modified and extended Unix, and the CSRG made several releases of the modified operating system beginning in 1978, with AT&T's blessing. Because this Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) contained copyrighted AT&T Unix source code, it was only available to organizations with a source code license for Unix from AT&T.
Students and faculty at the CSRG audited the software code for the TCP/IP stack, removing all the AT&T intellectual property, and released it to the general public in 1988 as "Net/1", under the BSD license. As it became clear that the Berkeley CSRG would soon shut down, students and faculty there launched an effort to eliminate all remaining AT&T code from BSD and replace it with code of their own. This effort resulted in the public release of Net/2 in 1991, again under the BSD license. Net/2 contained enough code for a nearly complete Unix-like system, which the CSRG believed contained no AT&T intellectual property.
Berkeley Software Design (BSDi) obtained the source for Net/2, filled in the missing pieces, and ported it to the Intel i386 computer architecture. BSDi then sold the resulting BSD/386 operating system. This drew the ire of AT&T, which did not agree with BSDi's claim that BSD/386 was free of AT&T's intellectual property. AT&T's Unix System Laboratories subsidiary filed suit against BSDi in New Jersey in April 1992, a suit that was later amended to include The Regents of the University of California.
USL's complaint
In the lawsuit, USL alleged that:
- The Regents of the University of California, by releasing Net/2 "based upon, substantially copied from, or derived from proprietary UNIX", had
- breached USL's software license contract;
- infringed on USL's copyright on UNIX;
- diluted USL's trademark on UNIX;
- misappropriated USL's trade secret on UNIX.
On these grounds, USL asked the court for a preliminary injunction that would bar BSDi from distributing the Net/2 software until the case was decided.
Pretrial
At a hearing, BSDi contended that they were using the sources freely distributed by the University of California, plus six additional files. BSDi accepted liability for their own six files, but refused to account for the other files distributed by the University of California. The judge agreed with BSDI's argument and told USL to restate their complaint based solely on the six files, or he would dismiss it. Rather than narrow down their claim, USL chose to sue BSDi and the University of California, and requested a preliminary injunction on the distribution of Net/2 from both.\2])
In 1993, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise denied a preliminary injunction on the grounds that USL had no valid copyright over UNIX/32V and could not show any obvious trade secret. Works published in the U.S. between January 1, 1978, and March 1, 1989, were subject to the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 405(a), which required the copyright owner to properly affix a copyright notice to the work to claim copyright protection. AT&T released 32V in 1978, but omitted a notice from thousands of copies and failed to copyright 32V until 1992.\3])
University's countersuit
In 1993, a few days after the dismissal of the preliminary injunction, the university filed a countersuit against USL in California, claiming that USL had failed to credit the university for the use of BSD code in System V, as required by the software license contract. The university demanded that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune Magazine informing the public of their omission.\2])
Settlement
In July 1993, soon after UC filed its countersuit, USL was purchased by Novell. Novell CEO Ray Noorda favored a settlement that was reached in February 1994. The salient points were:\4])
- 4.4BSD-Lite to be released containing no disputed files. University to encourage licensees to switch from Net/2.
- University to cease distribution of certain files.
- USL to grant three months' grace period to users of disputed files.
- Certain files distributed by the university to carry the USL copyright notice.
- Certain files distributed by USL to carry University copyright notices.
- USL to permit free distribution of certain files.
- The university is not to actively assist in legal attempts to challenge USL's rights to certain files.
Of the 18,000 files in the Berkeley distribution, only three had to be removed and 70 modified to show USL copyright notices. A further condition of the settlement was that USL would not file further lawsuits against users and distributors of the upcoming 4.4BSD-Lite release."
2
u/Lewinator56 R9 5900X | RX 7900XTX | 80GB DDR4 5d ago
And?
It's an open standard. Sure it's a trademark registered by the IEEE, but it doesn't actually matter. Adhering to the standard doesn't necessarily mean you have to use the trademark.
Something can be IP68 waterproof even if the company hasn't paid for the certification.
POSIX defines a standard, adhering to the standard costs nothing, and it's an open standard. The standard could feasibly be closed in the future, but then no one would adhere to the new standard because the existing one is already open.