Thanks for your comment, I had no idea. Out of curiosity, do you know if it's dangerous or otherwise unadvisable to try and start it before making this modification?
It did in fact start back up again, but to what extent I don't know because it seems the power supply to the flat panel I have is fried. The O2 did play the guitar sound when starting though, and boy did it stir up memories!
The fan is also a lot louder than I remember. Thanks for the tips sir, I'll try to get the screens running to see if I can find any fun data on the drive.
as opposed to solar and wind "shills" who say humanity is doomed if the government doesn't funnel billions of dollars to their industries? Each side has monetary incentives to push their view point
Fact is that without the fear mongering about nuclear energy decades ago we'd probably be carbon neutral by now
Gentoo also has instructions. Linux/ia64 works fine for the most part, it's not an architecture that causes much drama for userspace applications.
Servers are cheap on ebay and the older Intel boards (also sold by Dell, Fujitsu,..) can be upgraded to newer CPUs that are either less power hungry or faster with more cores and sort-of HT. HP are generally not upgrade-able and SGI/ia64 is a special case with lots of other custom hardware as usual.
Annoyingly many Linux / gcc developers want to remove ia64 support from their source trees because the architecture is no longer commercially relevant.
As a necrocomputing enthusiast it's quite sad, but not much one can do about.
If only this old junk was as popular as the various homecomputers...
> You can build gnat and gnatprove yourself, including runtime exception.
How does that work? Are the binaries from Ada core (not FSF) intentionally distributed under GPL while the source for standardlib/run-time come with LGPL/run-time exceptions?
It was my understanding that the Ada core distribution is full GPL only, and the FSF one (lagging a few versions) was licensed more like gcc?
I am more of an end-user here trying to use SPARK2014 for applications, not doing any unnecessary software engineering or builds outside of using SPARK2014 and a compiler. It is this type of thing that makes it a bad choice for someone like me who doesn't have the time and sometimes the wherewithal to build my own compiler. Sure, a simple build of source without licensing restrictions, maybe, but not much above just using the PL to get a job done. This is why I will never give up C and the tools around it, well, maybe Zig or Rust, which I am playing with, but they are nowhere near SPARK2014/Ada for all that you get with them and the Gnat compiler. I was introduced to SPARK2014 with the book, "Building High Integrity Applications with Spark". I also read a fantastic book, "Analysable Real-Time Systems: Programmed in Ada" that put me on this vector. Great stuff and timely.
SPARK2014 is just a tool (gnatprove), which you don't distribute to others (would be rather pointless). Compiling can be done with gnat from your Linux distro, which usually has the Runtime Library Exception.
But if you're going to use the FSF version, why not use fsf/distro binaries? Getting the source from Ada core still leaves you without the runtime exception? (Ada core is upstream/newer, fsf is downstream, lagging a bit behind Ada core(?)).
Unlike other parts of GCC, GNAT copyright is held by AdaCore due to some special arrangement with the FSF.
For the compiled CE releases on their website, AdaCore strips the runtime exception:
-- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted --
-- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, --
-- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. --
So yes, binaries compiled with that particular compiler are de-facto under GPLv3, and you have to abide by its terms (eg. if a customer using these binaries requests the source code)
You are of course free to build the compiler yourself, or use the Ada compiler that comes with your distro.
The sources are available, you just don't get a tag that tells you which exact combination of files AdaCore used to build and verify their binaries.
This is a strategic PITA, and AdaCore have in recent years made some moves to improve the situation, with being active on github and responding to issues in general.
You seem to have various misconceptions; I suggest you consult your legal advisor.
> Unlike other parts of GCC, GNAT copyright is held by AdaCore due to some special arrangement with the FSF.
Adacore holds at least the copyright of their own contributions and therefore can decide whether they want to release their version of GNAT with or without the runtime library exception; the FSF version eventually inherits also the contributions of Adacore, but the Adacore version is more current.
> So yes, binaries compiled with that particular compiler are de-facto under GPLv3, and you have to abide by its terms
This doesn't have anything to do with source or binary version. The reason is that the binaries provided by Adacore are compiled from their (most recent) source version which they publish under GPL without the runtime library exception. For this (and only this) reason you create a "combined work" when you link your code with the Adacore version of the runtime library. This doesn't change in any way if you compile the GNAT version of Adacore by yourself; you still don't have the runtime libary exception which only Adacore can give for their contributions.
> Adacore holds at least the copyright of their own contributions and therefore can decide whether they want to release their version of GNAT with or without the runtime library exception.
Indeed.
> the FSF version eventually inherits also the contributions of Adacore, but the Adacore version is more current.
AdaCore contributes to GCC, with some contributions copyright FSF, some copyright AdaCore.
AdaCore retains full rights on the later, limited by whatever private agreement they have with the FSF.
Whether it is more current or not is not relevant to the discussion, and given that GNAT CE has release cycles of 1 year it stands to reason that FSF GNAT gets bugfixes that GNAT CE will only get in 2022.
> This doesn't have anything to do with source or binary version.
I'm now pretty convinced you're reading things that I didn't write.
You seem to be under the impression that dual licensing only works because AdaCore GNAT contains newer files.
However, AdaCore can download stock upstream gcc, remove the linking exception from files they hold copyright over, and distribute this result in source and binary form on their website.
This is due to their unique status with the FSF, something that other companies and private contributors can not do.
Finally, I have never suggested recompiling AdaCore GNAT CE sources will result in a GNAT compiler with runtime exception.
Instead I've pointed out the mechanism of how they achieve this dual licensing: A) unique status as copyright holders alongside the FSF B) strategic inclusion or removal of the runtime exception in each and every file they hold copyright over.
> AdaCore retains full rights on the later, limited by whatever private agreement they have with the FSF.
No "private agreement" is necessary. It's just about whether Adacore grants the runtime library exception for their contributions or not. And they apparently only do that with a delay (a year or so).
Watch out! If you compile the Adacore version of GNAT then you're limited by the license they give you for their version which is GPL without runtime library exception. This doesn't change when you compile their code. With some delay (a year or so) Adacore releases their versions of GNAT with runtime library exception so it can be merged with the FSF version of GNAT.
It's crazy how you are downvoted and people who are downright uninformed both about the licensing and the legal issues are upvoted.
Last time I used Ada, around ten years ago, the situation was exactly the same. This goes to show that the licensing issues around GNAT continue to hamper the ecosystem, contrary to what Adacore like to suggest.
Recently, study results were in the press (e.g. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/pisa-studie-lesen-fakten...) according to which the young have more and more trouble distinguishing between facts and opinions. And everyone and their dog seems to have an opinion on everything, whether they understand any of the subject matter or not (people even seem to resent it when you have relevant qualifications and point them out). So it's no surprise that there are random votes.
> binaries compiled with that particular compiler are de-facto under GPLv3, and you have to abide by its terms (eg. if a customer using these binaries requests the source code)
You'll be violating the terms that allow you to use the compiler if your source code isn't GPL licensed. That doesn't mean your source code is automatically converted to GPL. It just means you don't have a right to use the compiler or to distribute the binaries you've produced with it.
Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity sponsored by Broadcom, maker of the chip.
$5 is an arbitrary price, and in no way shape or form comparable with a business making a single board computer and having to buy components at market rate.
There are plenty of tutorials on where to dig into the epoxy and add a cr2032 battery holder to fix it permanently.
Same deal with various SPARC machines (those will at least power on)