Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 December 3

= December 3 =

Unix history
I just rambled through a series of articles, and now I have a rambling series of questions: Hmm, my numbering system becomes a bit worthless by that last question. Anyway, those are the things I wonder about. (I've just read Threaded code, which answered #3.) 213.122.13.97 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Though AT&T weren't allowed (for a long time) to sell Unix as a product because of an antitrust agreement, they licensed it to various universities and commercial firms. What was the nature of these licenses? Did the right to make a version of Unix cost money? Were there rules about what you couldn't do with the code? I'm unclear about how free it was.
 * 2) Unix says the settlement was 1958, but every other source I find (and the article Bell System) says 1956, so I think that's a mistake.
 * 3) The same source cited in the Unix article (from which the paragraph is copied verbatim) says that B (programming language) was interpreted, but the Wikipedia article says it was compiled, so is the faqs.org source just generally wrong about stuff?
 * 4) In 1983, AT&T was allowed to sell Unix as a product again. Then several confusing things happen: BSD competes with the newly commercial Unix - how was that allowed, why couldn't AT&T assert control over BSD? Lots of companies suddenly start making commercial Unixes under license - but this was allowed earlier, so why the rush? Weren't all these companies leaping to pay money to AT&T for an OS which was previously free? (Again, I'm confused about whether it was free or not both before and after 1983, and in what ways.) What was the motivation? Why did Apple feel the need to join in with A/UX, when they already had a perfectly nice OS?


 * The original AT&T licenses, to be very brief, stated that you couldn't claim you wrote Unix and you had to share any improvements on Unix with AT&T. The second item is why the popular features of BSD Unix were merged back into AT&T's version of Unix.
 * The 195x decree was part of a large case that lasted many years. It is likely that you will find different years listed depending on which date of the case the author wants to use.  I have always seen 1958 listed, but I'm not surprised to see 1956 also.
 * As for selling a previously free operating system... Why not? That was done at the time.  QDOS was a free OS for use with the SCP8086.  Why would anyone pay to get QDOS renamed MS-DOS?  Microsoft offered commercial support - a requirement in the commercial market.  So, even when AT&T was turning Unix into a commercial product, there were free versions of BSD Unix.  AT&T offered commercial support.  Now, with Linux, there are many free versions of Linux.  Still, there are commercial versions (like Redhat) that come with commercial support.  Basically, you can take anything that is free and make a "product" out of it by offering some sort of added value.  In this case, the added value is mainly a phone number you can call when you have trouble.
 * As for A/UX, Apple sold hardware. Hardware is useless without an OS.  By giving users the option to run what was basically Unix, the users suddenly had access to anything available for Unix.  Even back then, there was a lot of free software for Unix systems (especially the early Internet software). --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BSD was originally only available to Unix licensees. Eventually all the AT&T code got removed and BSD became free software, with a detour through a lawsuit.  USL v. BSDi has some info about that.  67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That lawsuit was particularly overreaching, since it was basically a claim that the code written by Berkeley grad students supported by U.S. government grants, which had greatly increased the commercial value of Unix for AT&T, was now closed proprietary corporate property. It succeeded in casting a legal cloud over BSD for long enough to assist Linux in becoming the most widely-used free Unix variant... AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My walkman mp3 freezes when i try to sync music?
I've had my walkman since december 3rd of last year, and it was working fine. About 2 months ago, it started messing up. If i plug it into the computer, it will charge, no problem. Then, when i try to sync the music from Windows Media Player, it freezes. And when I disconnect the player, it's still frozen. I can't un-freeze it until the next day, when it uses up it's battery supporting the frozen screen, and then i can re-charge it, and listen to my old music once again. I'd rather not reset it if there is an alternative way, and just incase it still doesn't let me put music on it. Then, i would have a piece of worthless crap in my hands :P Anyone else had this problem? Any solutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.129.82 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No specific solution at this point, but if you tell us what specific brand and model you have, it might help somebody figure it out. -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Voice UK?
Has Google announced any plans to bring Google Voice to the UK? If not, are there any decent alternatives available? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found an article that suggests that UK users will be/are able to receive google voice calls, but it looks like there probably won't be a UK roll-out any time soon. The google voice forums don't offer any clues either, other than the fact that a release outside the US is in the pipeline, but with no timescale given :S Darigan (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Postcode analysis software?
Is there any software (preferably free & easily available) which can take a list of UK postcodes and give an analysis of geographical spread, eg numbers within 1m, 5m, 10m, etc from a certain point, show the distribution on a map, etc.

Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See Postcode Address File for information on this. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 13:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

zsync options
Hi everyone, as we don't have an article on zsync, and I can't figure it out from the man page, I've come here to ask the following question:

Is it possible to generate a zsync-patched output file from an input file and the *.zsync file, assuming they are both already downloaded, without having a network connection? Or will I still need access to the fully-patched file on a remote server?

In other words, does zsync work like this: [original input file] + [.zsync file] = [patched output file] or like this: [original input file] + [.zsync file] = [list of file fragments to extract from remote patched output file] ?

-- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget this, rdiff (note: this link forwards to rsync) is the tool I need. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IE7 certificate error question part 2
Wow, these threads get archived quickly! This is a continuation of this question here. I did submit a help desk ticket, and the response was to add each site to the safe list. But that still doesn't work. One of my co-workers believes that what's causing the issue is that I'm going through a proxy server and the certificate's credentials don't match the proxy server. No, not all the PCs here have this problem. Another co-worker does not but he has an older image than I do. Perhaps not coincidentally, he's able to surf to mozilla.org, but it's blocked for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking up former IP addresses
DNS doesn't stand for "denial of service", but perhaps it ought. Revoking domain names periodically crops up as a method of censorship, most recently of Wikileaks. But in theory, so far as I know, the former contents of domain name servers aren't copyrighted or otherwise secret - someone could have a Web service that tells you where a domain name pointed on some day in history. But does such a site exist? Wnt (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * searchdns.netcraft.com? 125.163.233.25 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Using this site, I typed in file.wikileaks.org (which for some inexplicable reason isn't listed in the mirror site's IP lookups and gives an unresolved link on their cablegate page) and found out it was 88.80.16.63 as of November 30.  Substituting the IP for the name, I successfully downloaded  and used it to get the latest archive. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAIK no wikileaks domain names have been 'revoked' recently. Their free DNS provider abandoned them because they kept getting DDOSed. This isn't exactly surprising. I myself use a free DNS provider for my personal website but I do so under the full knowledge that as a free service their are few guarantees and in particular it's rather unlikely my provider is going to stand by me if there is an extreme amount of DNS traffic such as if I'm repeatedly DDOSed to a high level (in fact most free providers I've seen make this clear in the TOS) no matter how noble my cause. Really if you're doing something which may cause such attacks even if the TOS doesn't mention it, it's almost rude to use a free provider without at least getting their permission to use their service despite the likelihood you may come under attack and I haven't see any evidence they actually did that. Even better pay for a service or find someone who is willing to provide a service for free that meets your needs. Note that wikileaks did briefly lose one of their domain names 2 years ago but that isn't exactly 'most recently' since I'm pretty sure plenty of domain names have been taken over etc since then. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Basic domain registering questions
I have some question open about domain registrars: 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. the prices vary from $1 to much more. Is something wrong with those $1 registrars?
 * 2. if I choose the privacy option when registering a domain, the domain is legally a property of the registrar. Is there any way round that, where I keep my privacy but remain the domain owner?
 * 3. is there a free reverse whois search tool somewhere? (where I type the address or name of someone and get which domains he has?
 * 4. if I have a domain name of some web-page, can I discover who is the hosting provider and domain registrar?


 * 1. You get what you pay for. Don't expect much support from a $1 registrar.  As an anecdote, I used to do web hosting.  Three of my clients had their domain names stolen.  All three used Godaddy.  None of the client who used Network Solutions had their domains stolen.  The thieves offered to return the domain names for $900.  When complaining to Godaddy, there was a $1,000 charge to investigate the complaint, so it was cheaper to pay off the thieves.
 * 1.1 So, the thieves new what Godaddy would charge and were cheaper than them?
 * Correct. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.2 How can we know that the thief was not you?
 * It doesn't matter who the thief was. A registrar that allows someone to steal a domain name registration is a bad registrar. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. The registrars always own the domain names. If you don't make it private and don't pay to renew, the registrar takes back the domain name.  If you want to transfer a domain name to a different registrar, having it private will simply add a small layer of complication to the transfer process.
 * 2.1 Well, and what if the domain becomes valuable? Can the registrar cancel my contract with them and sell it? Or deny renewal and keep it?
 * All registrars have a lengthy set of rules that you "agree to read" when you register a domain name. Break one of the rules and they can take back the domain name. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3. Not that I've seen.
 * 4. Whois is free and will show the registrar info. Ping/Whois/Traceroute will show the IP address, which can be easily traced to a hosting provider.
 * Please note that the anecdote in #1 is purely an anecdote. Also, the commands in #4 are Unix/Linux commands.  I do not know what the Windows equivalents are. --  k a i n a w &trade; 18:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not OP, but I have a question about this; if the registrars always own the domain names, where do they get them from? There must be some origin of domain names where the registrars buy them from, couldn't you also go to this place a get a domain name your truly own? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The TLD registries (e.g., VeriSign for .com and .net, CNNIC for .cn) 118.96.155.31 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Theoretically, it is technically possible that every Joe Schmoe who wanted to buy a domain-name could go straight to ICANN, but it is impossible as a matter of organization/policy. Domain_Name_System explains this: ICANN is the authoritative top-level organization responsible for delegating the DNS system.  Top-level domains (.com, .net, .mil ,and so on; and the various country code top-level domains), are each assigned to a select set of domain name registrars by ICANN - these are private entities that are given permission to regulate the domain and deal with end-customers.  Each top-level domain has a different set of rules: .mil and .gov, for example, are tightly controlled; they are operated by the United States Government on account of a historic "special privileged relationship" with ICANN and IANA.  The .com and .net are operated by commercial businesses who have a special privileged relationship with ICANN/IANA; they re-sell domains to end-users like you and I (because we don't have that same special privileged relationship with ICANN).  And, the top-level country codes are dealt with on a case-by-case basis: in most instances, a single registrar has authority over each country-code; it may be a government agency, or a private corporation; but in either case, they have a "special privileged position" in their ability to register directly with the top-level DNS system.  Nimur (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, to put it bluntly, these guys control the internet name system, and your business is too small to interest them if you're only registering 1 or 10 or 1000 dns-names at a time. So they have delegated that power to this list of organizations who are willing to deal with you.  Nimur (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a little similar to the way land ownership works (in the UK and US). You talk about owning the land your house stands on, but in fact you only hold it in fee simple and the Crown or the equivalent holds the actual allodial title.  Similarly I talk about owning my domains, but ultimately IANA is pulling the strings. Marnanel (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)