Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashback: SGI, Exploding Dell, Gizmo

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jul 21, 2006 06:49 PM
from the nothing-like-a-little-slashback-in-your-teeth dept.
Slashback Communications The Internet Hardware Politics
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: the possibility of selling OpenGL to save SGI, a denial from Dell that it knew of the overheating battery problem, an update on the Skype competitor Gizmo, and a response from the Chinese folks that reverse-engineered the Skype protocol. Read on for details.
SGI's McKenna Considers sale of OpenGL. delire writes "The Computer Business Review has an article on McKenna's strategies to salvage the flailing SGI from bankruptcy ... one of which may include selling assets like OpenGL. As Gnome developer Christian Schaller aptly put it, 'I hope this gets picked up by a friendly entity, especially if there are some patents still attached to OpenGL.'"

Dell Denies It Knew of Overheating Battery Problem. Billosaur writes "A report from ConsumerAffairs.com staties that according to inside information, Dell knew about the overheating problem in its laptop batteries for years. According to the report, an un-named insider 'leaked scores of documents to CRN, a computer industry publication, that indicated Dell knew of a dangerous battery malfunction for two years before a shocking video of an exploding laptop forced the company to recall batteries for about 22,000 laptops.' This on top of Dell's warning about lower than expected second quarter profits may cause the company some problems on Wall Street."

Gizmo: free VoIP to landlines in 60 countries. KrispyGlider writes "The more-standards-compliant Skype competitor Gizmo has launched a promotion in a bid to rapidly grow its userbase: free VoIP-to-landline calls to 60 countries, and even to mobiles in many countries. There aren't too many onerous catches to the deal Gizmo was previously covered in a Slashdot article from 2005 where it was noted that the Gizmo network has interoperability with other SIP networks, unlike Skype. However, the new version, 2.0 also has the ability to directly log in to open-source Asterisk VoIP servers, so you don't even have to use Gizmo's VoIP network any more."

When is it Okay to Reverse Engineer? Charlie Paglee writes "Last week Slashdot covered a story about a team of engineers in China reverse engineering Skype. Reaction on Slashdot was largely negative and raised many questions: Just when is it okay to reverse engineer and then innovate? The Chinese team issued a statement clarifying their actions: 'The domain of P2P innovation is limitless. We are very honored to work side by side Skype to promote P2P technologies in the VOIP industry. Our team is composed of the most talented P2P engineers in the world. We are working day and night to build a superior quality P2P network.'"

Related Stories

[+] Project Gizmo Challenges Skype 207 comments
valmont writes "The Register is offering an interesting introduction to Project Gizmo, a new player in the Voice over IP field, poised to challenge Skype with its ability to interoperate with others thanks to the SIP protocol it complies to. Whereas Skype has selectively licensed usage of an API that offers limited insight into a closed protocol, a closed ecosystem solely controlled by one organization, the SIP protocol is open. Free open-source proxy/server implementations are sprouting up, and many developers are actively working on SIP clients. The Gizmo Project is the first to bring a truly-usable, user-friendly, cross-platform SIP client (Mac, Windows, Linux coming soon) to market. Meanwhile, theappleblog.com is already offering a Gizmo Project Wish-List to promote better interoperability between current and upcoming SIP providers, to make it more practical for users of disparate SIP clients to communicate with one another."
[+] Politics: Skype Protocol Has Been Cracked 279 comments
nsrCZ writes "The Skype core protocol has been reverse-engineered by a Chinese company. The interesting thing is, that although the protocol is closed, it is not patented and thus it is not against the law to crack it. If it's true, then it could affect the whole eBay/Skype business in many ways, including that they might not get their piece of the emerging Chinese cake." From the article: "By cracking the Skype protocol, the company claims it can also block Skype voice traffic, Paglee said. 'They could literally turn the lights off on Skype in China very, very quickly,' said Paglee, who is also a lawyer and engineer, speaking from California on Friday. The company could transfer the technology to the Chinese government, which has continually sought ways to tighten its filtering and control over the Internet. So far, the company doesn't have any plans to market its blocking capabilities, Paglee said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Slashback: SGI, Exploding Dell, Gizmo 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • tinker rights (Score:5, Funny)

    by b4stard (893180) on Friday July 21 2006, @06:55PM (#15760943)
    When is it Okay to Reverse Engineer?
    Always. Everybody should have the right to tinker with their gadgets and publish their results. Period.

    PS tinkering with your gadget != masturbation DS
  • Hmmm, I wonder what computer company would want to buy OpenGL? It would have to be someone that doesn't have a DirectX license,or already used OpenGL in its operating system. I wonder who that could be?

    (cough cough Apple cough cough)

    • Seriously though, I hope this goes the way that Blender did. If SGI could agree to give OpenGL to a non-profit organisation for a fixed amount, the non-profit organisation could appeal to the opensource community (and companies like RedHat, Novell) for don

    • Re:Hmm, who would buy OpenGL? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ewhac (5844) on Friday July 21 2006, @08:23PM (#15761251) Homepage Journal
      Microsoft would buy it for the express purpose of killing it. It's been a thorn in their side for over ten years.

      Since SGI needs money more than it needs OpenGL to survive, I expect SGI would acquiesce to such a deal even if Microsoft were up-front about their intentions.

      Schwab

      [ Parent ]
    • I think it's more likely the Khronos Group would buy OpenGL. They are already taking over management of OpenGL.org and handle lots of other "open" media libraries (OpenGL ES, Open ML, Open VG Open SL, ...). It's better than Microsoft but I suspect they wou
      • Why would they charge a fee for access to the specification? Khronos is all about open standards. If they need to reimbursed for the purchase of OpenGL, I imagine they would just charge more for the conformance tests. You do have to pay to pay to put an
        • First of all, I have to apologize. I've read several stories on open standards lately and I confused this story with another where I heard "RAND" (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) fees which can be used to effectively shut down open source software proje
    • That's the first thing I thought. Apple, I hope, will buy it if only to protect their quartz extreme investment. What would be the coolest thing would be for them to buy it, continue using as normal, and keep it open and free for anyone else that wanted to

  • I think... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jd (1658) <imipak@@@yahoo...com> on Friday July 21 2006, @07:21PM (#15761021) Homepage Journal
    Open Cores, Sourceforge and Slashdot should get together to see if they can jointly buy OpenGL. SGI'll probably take anything at this point, most vendors already have OpenGL implementations of their own and don't need anything SGI still has, and I'd rather trust CowboyNeil with the specs than most of the vendors out there.


    (Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft bought it? Does anyone seriously believe ANY implementation would be safe, MESA included?)


    Failing that, Google must have some spare change. Hell, they could probably buy SGI for less than the value of the machines in SGI's inventory, which would seriously boost their server power.

  • Eek! (Score:4, Informative)

    by RyanFenton (230700) on Friday July 21 2006, @07:27PM (#15761051)
    I hope an entity like Microsoft doesn't end up buying rights to too much of OpenGL, and thus lock it up for years. It's a superb cross-platform language for development... pretty much all there is for high-end games or similar real-time rendering when you want to develop something open source. It would pretty much suck if no further standards could safely rely on a base of OpenGL/GLSL/GL* to attract an audience and technology base in the future. DirectX isn't bad on windows... but I'd hate for that to be all there is for upcoming years.

    Still... perhaps a something new from the ashes could form a more lasting standard that's better than going through major-company approval process of the OpenGL ARB. Even if DirectX continues to be the basis of future graphics card development, new open-source standards can use the same hardware hooks for better ends. I can't imagine that the graphics card manufacturers wouldn't be interested in helping a new standard form if enough of the developer community had a hunger for newer cross-platform 3d graphics library. GLSL is very nice - but perhaps a better set of standard could be developed in conjunction with future hardware in mind.

    Ryan Fenton (Who has been reading through the GLSL Orange book for the past few weeks)

    • Re:Eek! (Score:5, Informative)

      by MasterVidBoi (267096) on Friday July 21 2006, @09:52PM (#15761496)
      SGI already sold most of the important OpenGL patents to Microsoft years ago, and it basically had no impact on OpenGL's development. The ARB has already announced that it is merging with the Khronos Group (which standardized OpenGL ES), and have taken the name and trademark with them. Basically, the OpenGL ARB have cut themselves loose from SGI, and SGI's future actions won't have any real impact on the development of the standard.

      About the only part of OpenGL that SGI can sell at this point is perhaps their implementations (which would be specific to SGI hardware). And just about everyone who wants one of those already has one.
      [ Parent ]

  • Wha...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cal Paterson (881180) on Friday July 21 2006, @07:28PM (#15761055)
    In what alternate universe did Slashdot react badly to reverse engineering?

    Reverse engineering meaning what FOSS groups do every day...meaning WINE, Gaim, Samba etc...? I am actually shocked. This is a very good thing - I'm not sure if the Chinese group plan to release source code, but hopefully if they can, then others can, and we'll end up with FOSS Skype programs.
    • The "foreigners bad" attitude overpowered the "freedom good" attitude.
    • Ah, but if people criticize the sacred cows of Apple and Skype, it might stop them getting the good juju like iPods and other fashion accessories.

    • Re:Wha...? (Score:3, Informative)

      by DigiShaman (671371)
      Just run a google search for "China blocks skype" and you will understand why.

      The problem with opening up the protocol means that the Chinese government can now effectively program their firewall to stop all Skype VOIP traffic going in and out of the count

    • Slashdotters don't always have a consistant opinion on reverse engineering (which is natural given the large number of us with differing opinions.) It wouldn't be the first time a vocal group opposed reverse engineering though - when Linus threw a hissy f

  • Dell and exploding laptops (Score:4, Informative)

    by 56ker (566853) on Friday July 21 2006, @07:39PM (#15761101) Homepage Journal
    Reading about Dell and the exploding batteries reminds me of the story about Ford and its Firestone tyres (oh and Cadbury's and its recall of chocolates because of salmonella). In the latter two cases both companies knew about the problem yet nothing was done (or things were just glossed over by management) until the bad PR forced them to do something. However I'm sure it's bad PR to have to do a product recall at all as it starts making people wonder as to whether your other products have major faults too.

      • Re:diction nazi time.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Detritus (11846) on Friday July 21 2006, @07:59PM (#15761166) Homepage
        plasmacutter: a chauvinist who doesn't realize that the English language is used in countries other than the USA.
        [ Parent ]
      • I'm British so I use British spellings. We spell them tyres over here. Diction Nazi should also notice that sentences have capital letters at the start and so do proper nouns - eg Tyre and Carthage.

  • reverse enginnering bad? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion (181285) * on Friday July 21 2006, @07:45PM (#15761121) Journal
    Reverse engineering is always ok. Very little happens in technology without a community of development, some of which is poaching other peoples idea. We all like out cheap PCs, which is largely due to the effort of Compaq, and to a lesser extent MS. We all like Linux and BSD, which is in a way a reverse engineered version of Unix, except that the specs were largely published. We all like to use various messenging service, which is only possible because the protocols were discovered. We all like cheap replacement parts for our cars, which are only possible when unauthorized third parties are allowed to produce the parts. Same for printer refills.

    Perhaps this has caused skype some problems. Oh well, it happens. Perhaps this has caused Skype users some issue with security. Well, if reverse engineering can break security,then that is what is called bad security. If they want to interface with Skype, that is as good wanting the messaging services to interface. If they want to block it, as much as we may not understand, i think that soveriegnty is something everyone can agree upon. After all, you do not give keys to your house to just anyone, or let just anyone put stuff on you lawn.

    Reverse engineer, especially in software, is what is going to save this generation of computing technology. Can you imagine how much a PC would be if Dell did not have support MS 40% profit margin, if Dell were truly free to put whatever software it wished on the computer and charge for the privilege? This will happen when MS is forced to standardize, as is happening with the EU case, and a truly compatible WIndows runtime is present.

  • I find it a bit frustrating how closed minded people are being about this exploding laptop issue.

    Yes, its definitly possible that the battery exploded due to overheating or overcharging caused by failure of its protection circuit. However, it is also possi
    • Just because there might have been mishandling of the laptop does not absolve Dell of responsibility.

      If dropping a battery will cause it to later catch fire (which it will almost always not), they should build a motion sensor into it. You can't tell me tha
    • Dropping is part of the ordinary environment of a laptop. While one doesn't necessarily expect it to work afterwards, a reasonable person wouldn't expect one to spontaneously combust in a life-threatening sort of way afterwards, either. So there's no reaso
      • Assuming that supercaps or fuel cells are safe in this regard. I'd assume there'd be a lot of mechanical stress due to the electric charge in the former.

  • there is also ... (Score:2, Informative)

    by dominic.laporte (306430)
    another open source client [openwengo.com] out there that is way better for me. it also based on mozilla .. yay !

  • OpenGL - what is there to sell? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Saturday July 22 2006, @02:27AM (#15762166) Homepage

    SGI doesn't have any valuable rights in OpenGL. The specification is a public document. The reference implementation is open source. You can't copyright an API (SCO and Microsoft have both tried and failed). There's a charge to use the OpenGL trademark in a closed-source implementation [sgi.com], and that's it.

    SGI's higher level APIs, like Inventor and Performer, have little if any resale value.

    • But there are the patents. And yes, you can design patents such that they eliminate the possibility of implementing a certain API without being in breach. As I understood it, that's one reason why the Free Software community hasn't been that enthusiastic a
    • It looks like standard SIP.

    • Re:Is Gizmo peer to peer? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mikeisme77 (938209) on Friday July 21 2006, @08:23PM (#15761250) Homepage Journal
      I just started using Gizmo because I was looking for a VoIP service and they had one of the cheapest Call-In numbers (free if you use 775 otherwise as low as $3 a day for select area codes). It also helps that they have builds for all my operating systems (OS X, Windows, and Linux). Anyway... Gizmo supports multi-user chat with audio, but so far I haven't seen anything about video chat so I'm assuming that's not part of the deal. I don't really know about the answers to your other questions but I don't know about the decentralization issue. Voice quality is pretty good though and the interface is nice and that with the low prices are what made me choose it (at least for now) over the competitors.

      Even if it's decentralized though, it's not like the packets can't be intercepted... I don't think they encrypt the packets (but I could be wrong--and even if they did the NSA would be able to encrypt it). So if you're looking at general secured communication then I recommend meeting face to face.

      [ Parent ]

    • Is Gizmo peer to peer,

      Peer to peer is really a buzzword. It doesn't actually mean anything definite and skype's approach buys you little in the VOIP world apart from annoying some router administrators by usurping the internet's regular 'peer to peer' prot
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.