Docker is a program for operating system-level virtualization based on the

Kubernetes "is a[...] container-orchestration system for automating deployment, scaling and management of containerized applications [... that] aims to provide a "platform for automating deployment, scaling, and operations of application containers across clusters of hosts".[3] It works with a range of container tools, including Docker.[5] Many cloud services offer a Kubernetes-based platform or infrastructure as a service (PaaS or IaaS) on which Kubernetes can be deployed as a platform-providing service."

Istio is described as technology that

• service discovery systems and
• cloud container registries,

Istio looks very interesting, but it is based on our Ontologic System (OS), specifically our

• Resilient Distributed Systems (RDSs) respectively Challenge-Tolerant and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (CTTDSs),
• microkernel-based operating systems,
• Kernel-Less Operating Systems (KLOSs),
• the Systems Programming using Address-spaces and Capabilities for Extensibility (SPACE) approach, and
• the CHemical Abstract Machine (CHAM), which has very similar concepts and the same degree of parallelism like the tuple space model of Linda (see also Java JavaSpaces and Jini),

(see the sections Basic Properties and Integrating Architecture of the webpage Overview of the website of OntoLinux) and

• client-server computing (see also the implementation of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism called gRPC and introduced with Istio 0.8),
• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing,
• grid computing and cloud computing, and
• cluster computing.

Also note that

• tuple space paradigm,
• Java technology including
  • JavaSpaces based on the tuple space paradigm,
  • Jini based on JavaSpaces, and
  • Rio based on Jini,

  and

• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx),

and

By the way:

• reflective, (resilient) fault-tolerant, reliable, and distributed operating system Apertos (Muse) and the Cognac system based on Apertos, and
• Byzantine-resilient tuple space paradigm.

The problem of operating system-level virtualization or containerization is that it only

• capability-based operating systems,
• (software) isolated process runtime environments,
• Multi-Agent Systems (MASs),
• Agent-Based Operating Systems (ABOSs), and
• Multi-Agent-Based Operating Systems (MABOSs),

but not their interaction, scaling, clustering (see also orchestration), dynamic federation, service meshing, and so on through kernel {system} services, which have to be emulated or implemented in other ways somehow to provide the same functionalities. Such kernel {system} services are a feature of

What we are observing since some years are attempts to solve its deficits by

• the SOx and
• our Ontologic System (OS) with its basic properties and integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA),

and

After orchestration of applications inside a container the service meshing was introduced in the last year, which comprises to some extent features and functionalities of the

• was introduced around the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, and
• is based on Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) with Autonomic Computing (AC) and Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) standards and technologies.

This can be easily viewed with the so-called microservices but also other developments like for example development methodologies themselves including the

DevOps is a reflective methodology leading us again to our OS and has been developed further by taking our OS as blueprint once again with the data-driven approach based on SoftBionics (SB), which includes fields like

to our SB-powered DevOps (SBDevOps or simply SBOps) methodology.
Also completely missing are our

• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and
• Industry 4.0 (including ontologies as well),

Conceptually, operating system-level virtualization or containerization is not required because it is included in our automatic multilingual multimodal multiparadigmatic multimedia multidimensional programming paradigm or better said Ontologic(-Oriented) (OO 3) Programming and Ontologic Computing (OC) paradigms including the integrated features and functionalities of for example the fields of

• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing,

• grid computing,

• Maude,
• Unified Parallel C (UPC),
• X10,
• Meld for ensembles and based on the logic-programming language P2 designed for programming overlay networks, and
• Locally Distributed Predicates (LDP),

• SimAgent Toolkit,
• Real-time Control System (RCS),
• Reusable Environment for Task-Structured Intelligent Networked Agents (RETSINA),
• etc. (see the section Intelligent/Cognitive Agent of the webpage Links to Software),

• Service-Oriented Computing of the first generation (SOC 1.0) (e.g. Service ORiented Computing EnviRonment (SORCER)), and
• Service-Oriented Computing of the second generation (SOC 2.0) (Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) with Autonomic Computing (AC) and Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) standards and technologies),

Eventually, operating system-level virtualization or containerization remains a techology of the early 2000's and every attempt to catch up with contemporary systems leads over SOx to our OS.

We also explained several times that we have

• Kernel-Less Operating Systems (KLOSs),
• Systems Programming using Address-spaces and Capabilities for Extensibility (SPACE) approach,
• L4 and other microkernels,
• CHemical Abstract Machine (CHAM) and other abstract machines, and
• reflective, (resilient) fault-tolerant, reliable, and distributed operating system Apertos (Muse) and the Cognac system based on Apertos,

  as foundation including our

• exception-less system call mechanism, including its kernel-less asynchronous variant,
• Multi-Agent-Based Operating Systems (MABOSs),
• High Performance and High Productivity Computing Systems (HP²CSs), and
• Resilient Distributed Systems (RDSs) respectively Challenge-Tolerant and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (CTTDSs),

  specifically our

• SoftBionic (SB) supercomputer,
• Ontologic High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (OHP²CS),
• and so on,

and

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV)

  as the successors of the

• Internet and
• World Wide Web (WWW),

which are based on this foundation (see also the Clarification of the 4th of June 2018, the issue SOPR #122 of the 24th of June 2018, and the Clarification of the 21st of October 2018).

We also created the

{?}The infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) comprises public service registry, discovery, and mesh for such microservices, or Layer 7 network in the 2nd ring and the assigned ID spaces of the management structure [IDAMS] of our ON, OW, and OV.

We also did this integrating work with the other original and unique features of our OS based on the

• SoftBionics (SB) with its subfields
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • Machine Learning (ML),
  • Computer Vision (CV),
  • and so on,
• Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE), and
• Knowledge-Based Engineering (KBE),

and

• non-deterministic and deterministic,
• well-structured and -formed,
• validated and verified,
• specification- and proof-carrying,
• kernel-less reflective/fractal/holonic,
• self-adaptive,
• self-organizing, and
• self-regenerative or self-healing, as well as
• synchronous and asynchronous,

and their integration with the

• Software 2.0 and
• continuous AI-powered DevOps (AIOps),

and the field of

by following the strategy of automating as much as possible as part of our OO 3 and OC paradigms.

We also combined the listed systems with

• OntoNet,
• OntoWeb, and
• OntoVerse.

No matter how a realization or implementation looks like, we still cannot see here a legal loophole for the companies Google, IBM, and Co., Microsoft, as well as Amazon, VMware, and Co., investors, and so on, but also infringements of our rights.
And here is also a red line for them that will not be crossed (again). Some companies have to give up public services once again if they are part of the infrastructure and platform of our SOPR. Luckily, developments in the field of cloud computing and operating system-level virtualization are relative new, for example registries and marketplaces of cloud computing platforms started only some few years ago and for example Istio started only in 2017.

03.December.2018
Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continues
In relation to the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation of the 20th of November 2018, we quote the following statements from related emails:
"[...]
The speedups are pretty impressive!
[...]
Jeff [Moyer; employee of IBM→Red Hat]"

"[...]
>The speedups are pretty impressive!
That's why I put them in there, maybe that'd get peoples attention :)
-- Jens Axboe[; member of Kernel.org and employee of Facebook]

"[...]
>>The speedups are pretty impressive!
>That's why I put them in there, maybe that'd get peoples attention :)
Indeed. :)
[...]
Jeff [Moyer; employee of IBM→Red Hat]"

In fact, the speedups are up to 100% in some cases.

Merely saying that an idea cannot be copyrighted is not persuasive, though a work must be sufficiently creative and significant, and have an original and unique, characteristic expression directly connected with its creator.
In the Clarification #1 of the 3rd of November 2017, we already gave a collection of recipes as an example. The idea of a collection of recipes is not copyrighted but a specific collection of recipes is protected by the copyright.
The ideas of the integration of the asynchronous or the concurrent programming paradigms with the avoidance of context switching, or being more precise, the software architecture that integrates the asynchronous or the concurrent programming paradigms with an exception-less system call mechanism have already sufficient creativity, substance, and significance for being protected by the copyright, but when it is even designed

then we do not think that a discussion is required at all.

In this context, we also noted the significance of asynchronicity for Distributed Systems (DSs) like for example

Having said this, our architecture has to be viewed like a specific collection of recipes and therefore is sufficiently original and unique for copyright protection as well.

But this is not the end of the legal story. Even if in theory the copyright protection for our architecture is rejected by a court, then we still have the origin of a sufficiently creative and significant work as is the case with such a new architecture and impressive improvements.
So naming C.S. in a related open source license is required as well, but the open source license used for the Linux kernel and Unix based operating systems are incompatible with such a legal requirement.

The open source community has crystal clear rules, so does the rest of the societies.

05.December.2018
SOPR #153
We have to talk about the following topics:

Legal matter
In relation to the latest actings of open source communities and foundations, we would like to repeat once again that

• open source hardware and software, which is based on our original and unique works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S., as well as
• other work, which is directly connected by a causal link with our Ontologic System and Ontoscope,

and

• illegal business strategies and actings done with the goals to infringe the rights of C.S. and our corporation and even destroy our corporation, and
• the twisted mindset that everything is allowed because it is open source.

Therefore, it is time to recognize that the tide has turned and the movement has to go in the other direction.
Furthermore, despite we opened our Ontologic System and Ontoscope for reproduction and performance by every entity, the business strategies and actings have not changed and our

Eventually, what we see at too many open source communities and foundations is not very encouraging and correspondingly we thought about more options to enforce the consensus already found by happy winners including the following ones:

Ratio of overall revenue share
We observed that the transformation of applications and services to Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) does not happen instantly or in some few steps but takes many years.
Furthermore, we already made clear our point of view that not only cloud computing platforms and their customers, like for example social networking and streaming platforms, but also online shops, marketplaces, and other service platforms are performing our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), though in various levels of scope. Therefore, we introduced a related multiplication factor or ratio ranging from 0.00 to 1.00, which

• amount of utilized
  • Ontologic System Components (OSC) and
  • Ontoscope Components (OsC),
• level of integration of the utilized OSC or OsC or both according to our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and
• dependency of an overall business on the utilized OSC or OsC or both,

and

for calculating our share of 5% of the result of multiplying the overall revenue generated with an application or a service by said factor or ratio in a way that is fairer and more reasonable for the customers, business partners, or members of our SOPR.
We also said that this factor will only increase in the next future and hence it should be obvious that the maximal factor of 1.00 is reached sooner or later. See also the issues SOPR #128 14th of July 2018 and SOPR #147 of the 04.November.2018 for the due dates.

Eventually, the latest actions of leading companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry sector show why our SOPR is as it is and why we will not make any further concessions.

Infrastructure and platforms

The commissioning of infrastructure tasks will be done by

In addition, due to the reasons that some of the latest actings of large companies in the field of cloud computing related to our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), as well as our SOPR were ambiguous, because they were

• mimicking, surrounding, and enclosing of our corporation and its business units, specifically Ontonics with the SOPR and Ontologics, and
• pursuing already known strategies of expansion and unfair business practices,

we are considering to take actions on the same level to

indeed.
One option could be to exclude clever entities from the commissioning of tasks related to the infrastructures and platforms of our ON, OW, and OV, as well as our SOPR.

For sure, our friends from all areas of the planet Earth are also welcomed but also taken up on their promises as always.

Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continues
In relation to the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continues of the 20th of November 2018 and 3rd of December 2018, we quote the following statement from a related email:
[...]
"It also opens up the possibility of doing polled IO without any system calls at all, if we add a thread on the kernel side ..."
[...]
-- Jens Axboe[; member of Kernel.org and employee of Facebook]
This proves our allegations that our whole asynchronous functionality of our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), which is based on our exception-less system call mechanism, including its kernel-less asynchronous variant, is

indeed, because the more general integration of features of microkernel-based operating systems with monolithic operating systems (in this case the Linux kernel) is suggested here.
Ah, what ... Bingo?!

In the meantime, we got more evidences that the Linux Foundation is copying our original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., specifically the functionalities related to an operating system, that are added to the Linux kernel, as not expected otherwise around 13 years ago (see also the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation started of the 12th of October 2018).
We have also observed attempts to apply vodoo magic and some psychological tricks and semantic sleights of hand with functionalities related to

for providing

09.December.2018
An anecdote
When investigating and documenting plagiarisms and illegal activities related to our works of art we often think about an event that happened in the early teenager times of C.S..
A cousin of C.S. (hereafter called J.M.1) and C.S. were always riding bicycles, J.M. trial bicycles and C.S. mountain, moto cross, and trial bicycles.
When J.M.1 got a new bicycle he sold his old one to his younger brother and other cousin of C.S. (hereafter called J.M.2). But when J.M.1 participated at a European trial contest in Spain at that time the truck of his bicycle team was looted and everything was taken away including his new bicycle.
At home again J.M.1 asked J.M.2 if he could use his bicycle until he got a new one, which by the way took several weeks.

After some days, the brothers got into a dispute somehow, as not unusual for siblings, and in the course of this J.M.2 rejected his allowance to use his bicycle given to J.M.1. But J.M.1 refused to follow this prohibition and still used the bicycle of J.M.2. Eventually, J.M.2 had to lock his bicycle to enforce his prohibition.
But a friend of J.M.1 and C.S. managed to pick the lock and J.M.1 took the bicycle once again.

Needless to say, the tension was very high and the dispute had reached its absolute climax now. Totally sad and even desparated J.M.2 screamed around until the aunt of C.S. got knowledge about the whole issue. After hearing what was going on and the argument of J.M.1 that J.M.2 is not riding his bicycle at all but only wants to anger him she said that the bicycle belongs to J.M.2 and J.M.1 should give it back immediately and never take it again without the consensus of J.M.2. Period.

But aunt of C.S. has not only managed to reinstall order but also achieved that J.M.1 payed respect to his brother J.M.2 and after they get along once again J.M.1 was also allowed to use the bicycle of J.M.2 again.

We are not against societies in general and open source communities in particular, but

Blockchain fraud will come to an end #8
As not expected otherwise, Bitcoin and Ether are already dead and Iota, Litecoin, Dash, and Monero are already following them. We also read the headline that "Ripple Co-Founder's Token Selloff Accelerates".
In fact, Ethereum's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) introduced the next plagiarism of our original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. with an illegal blockchain platform, that includes a

which proves even more that our OS has been taken as a blueprint and is even licensed in a way not accredited by C.S. and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) as part of those illegal and even serious criminal activities, as can be seen easily with the sections Basic Properties and Integrating Architecture of the webpage Overview of the website of OntoLinux and also the Clarification #2 of the 3rd of August 2018.

Another illegal blockchain platform is promoted and described as follows:
"Fetch brings the world closer together and delivers power to the individual. We've built the world's first truly smart ledger, allowing data to act autonomously. Using machine learning and AI technology, we enable data to cooperate, solving problems instantly and presenting answers directly to you."
"Autonomous agents on the @fetch_ai network will provide #solutions to complex problems, enabling us to unlock the value of #data. [...]."
See the basic properties and the OntoBot and OntoLedger components of our OS, as well as the sectionSoftbionics (SB) of the webpageTerms of the 21st Century of the website of OntoLinux.
Also interesting is the following information: "Tomorrow @fetch_ai are sending a team to #Frankfurt They will be holding meetings in the city and on Friday will attend the @Trusted_IoT #hackathon and a conference hosted by @BoschGlobal and the Frankfurt School Blockchain Centre [...]."
We do not know why the company Robert Bosch is still supporting fraudulent entities or even collaborating with them.

But those blockchain fraudsters and gangsters did not stop at this point and were even so bold to found a lobby for their stolen blockchain platforms and criminal activities conducted with them:
"Ripple, NEM, Cardano, Fetch.AI, Found Blockchain Industry [Association]
The new lobby for the blockchain industry was founded by EMURGO/Cardano, Fetch.AI, NEM, and Ripple. Prior to the public announcement, the association hosted a Blockchain for Europe Summit on 27 November alongside the four largest groups in the European Parliament."
"Four leading blockchain companies including Ripple, NEM, Fetch.AI, and EMURGO/Cardano have come together to establish the "Blockchain for Europe" association, which will act as a representative for blockchain organizations in Europe. The association will help in providing a unified voice for the industry at a European level."
Obviously, there are even much stronger ties between these entities as well.
What they really need is not a lobbying association but a good legal representation.
We do not know why the company Google (investor in OpenCoin now Ripple Labs) is still supporting fraudulent entities or even collaborating with them.

Obviously, Charles Hoskinson and Co. have not understood our very serious warning given to that other blockhead and crypto kiddy of Ethereum.
Those blockchain-based systems, specifically the so-called blockchain platforms and cryptocurrencies of the third generation, will not be accepted by our SOPR because

that violates the related rules of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR deliberately, as usual.

Furthermore, if the digital currency exchange Coinbase will trade EOS, Tron, Cardano, Fetch, etc., then we will ban its financial services in our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), specifically in our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) with our OntoCoin and OntoTaler based on our universal ledger or alpha ledger and our OntoLedger, as well as our ontologic and cybernetic Proof of Existence (PoE) and Proof of Singular Existence (PoSE).

Consequently, we have to ask the

Note in this relation that

• were, are, and will be fair to anybody when opening our original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope for reproduction and performance, and
• did, do, and will not
  • take away an item that we do not own,
  • impose any restrictions on an entity to act in legal ways, or
  • make any politics

  when doing so, and also

• have found a consensus already, which should not be questioned any longer,

and

• open source foundations,
• blockchain associations, or
• similar groupings

are definitely not

It is time to bring back law and order again.

Style of Speed Further steps
We continued the work on one of our systems utilized for aerial vehicles with Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) capability. Some of the most interesting features are its

We also continued the work on one of our conventional VTOL aircrafts, which became a new type through the utilization of the perfected system mentioned above and much more of our original and unique inventions and improvements. Some of the most interesting features are its

• Personal Aerial Vehicle (PAV) as well as
• delivery drone™ and
• taxi drone (see also the Ontologic Web Further steps of the 5th of November 2018).

We also improved a very basic component that might become a little revolution in the field of aircraft construction.

10.December.2018
SOPR #154
*** Proof-reading mode ***
The topics of this issue are:

End of blockchain and distributed ledger experiment
Due to the latest developments and insights that

• constitute even more serious fraud not tolerated by our SOPR,
• do not comply or even refuse to comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, because the AoA and the ToS were made for tolerating only cryptocurrencies of the first and second generations but cryptocurrencies of the third and fourth generations are
  • disturbing the goals and even threatening the integrity of our SOPR and
  • are not needed at all, because we have our original and unique OS and related facilities and ecosystem since 2006 already,

and

• second generation cryptocurrency Iota, but a leading member of the Iota Foundation already moved to blockchain-based systems of the third generation and all its other members have to move to the new generations or most potentially have already moved to them as well, and
• collaboration of one of the largest chip manufacturer from the U.S.A. with a leading internet company from the P.R.C. in the field of blockchain-based systems of the first and second generations, but they have to move or most potentially have already moved to the new generations,

there is no reason for us anymore to tolerate any blockchain-based system of the first and second generations or allow any other Resilient Distributed System (RDS) respectively Challenge-Tolerant and Trustworthy Distributed System (CTTDS), that merely substitutes a blockchain-based system or blockchain platform of an older generation with the related essential parts of our OS and our SOPR.
Correspondingly, we are

• 7 years until 31st of December 2025 to unify distributed ledgers, cryptocurrencies, etc. to
• 2 years until 31st of December 2020 to unify distributed ledgers, cryptocurrencies, etc.,

which would mean that the transformation and unification has to begin immediately.
See also the related notes in the section about the official currencies in the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) below and the Comment of the Day of the 5th of April 2018.

Network of telescopes
The first telescope node of our universal ledger is already ready to go officially and more telescope nodes will be added soon.

Official currencies in ON, OW, and OV
Official currencies in our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) are now our

besides other centralized or centrally managed virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies (e.g. national CBDCs and CBCCs) but not Bitcoin and Co..
We will look after the formal accreditation and registration of our virtual currencies.
In the end, our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) will be less expensive than anything proposed before.

11.December.2018
Clarification
On the mailing list of a microkernel we found the following information about one of the usual nonsense patents:
"Claim 1 of the patent describes creating mathematical "axioms" - formal mathematical statements - that describe a computerized trading forum. The patented method then describes analyzing, with a "computer assessment system ... the mathematical axioms that describe the operation of the trading forum." In other words, the patent describes using formal proofs to check for bugs in a "computerized trading forum." It's formal verification - just applied to the financial services industry."

Indeed, it is a formally verified service, but we already

• Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) standards for automated communication,
• smart contract protocol, and
• all the Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) for Business Process Management (BPM) listed on the website of Ontologics.info including
  • trading and
  • financial services

are integrated in our Ontologic System as well.

Due to our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OS), which integrates all in one, we already have everything. See also the Clarification of the 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th of June 2016, and the related cases of Marko A. Rodriguez in the Investigations::AI and Knowledge management of the 10th of June 2016 (Resource Description Framework Virtual Machine (RDF VM) and a Web Ontology Language Virtual Machine (OWL VM)) and the company 1060 Research in the Investigations:Multimedia of the 28th of October 2018 (Netkernel and reflective Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)) for getting into the historical and technical details, specifically how we developed and others spied out all of that starting with ontologies given in for example the eXtensible Markup Language (XML), over XML processing and our Ontology-Oriented (OO 2) programming paradigm to our Ontologic Computing (OC) paradigm.
Eventually, we have shown at least a suggestion and a motivation but somehow also a teaching and therefore that patent claim as initially filed is void.

For sure, we anticipated that entities will file patents to disturb our business or even get the control over our Ontologic System (OS). Therefore, we described our OS top-down in a holistic way. See also the Clarification of the 18th of October 2018 and our other publications on this website of OntomaX where we make this issue the subject of discussion.
No chance for trolls here, neither patent, open source, blockchain, nor whatsoever trolls.

We are very sure that we have answered the implicit question of the developer.

03:53 and 18:06 UTC+1
Investigations::Multimedia

*** Work in progress *** Preliminary investigation of OpenStack Foundation started
In relation to the next copyright infringement of members of the Linux Foundation, specifically the companies IBM→Red Hat and Facebook and most potentially the companies Intel and Google, as well as other companies (see the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continued of today), we also got a link to the Kata Containers project. When making a quick look around we got the following informations about this project:

We

• Multi-Virtual Machine runtime system mentioned in relation to the programming language X10 of the company IBM (see the Ontonics, OntoLab, Ontologics, OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 19th of March 2012), which is also referenced on the webpage Project Status of the website of OntoLinux, with operating system-level virtualization and hypervisor,
• OntoCore based on Apertos (Muse) and the Cognac system based on Apertos,
• OntoScope based on the Virtual Object System (VOS),
• OntoBot based on MAS and the Simagent Toolkit together with the operating system-level virtualization or containerization, and hypervisior result in some kind of a Virtual Virtual Machine (VVM).

Also see for example the

Obviously, the deficits of operating system-level virtualization or containerization, and monolithic operating systems have been found out once again.
Somehow, we have the impression in this case as well that capability-based systems are

as an unsuccessful attempt to

• the related components of our Ontologic System (OS)
  • OntoL4,
  • OntoCore,
  • OntoL4OntoLinux, which includes the OntoL4Re,
  • OntoBot, which includes MASs of all kinds

  and

• their integration by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

See also the related section of the webpage Components of the website of OntoLinux and note that a specific system framework of a secure, formally verified L4 microkernel works already in this way with multiple VMs and cross-VM communication for example, which obviously is based on the related features of our OS and included in our OS.

It can also be viewed from the gain of performance by reducing the overall system stack by eleminating the additional level of a Virtual Machine (VM) or a complete Runtime Environment (RE) on top of an os. In the case of the quoted MASs this would be the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) or the complete Java Runtime Environment (JRE) which corresponds to the Cognac system based on Apertos and the statement about the Kata Containers project "The speed of containers, the security of VMs".
We also said in the past that safety and security is the duty of the operating system level and not a VM or a web browser running on top of it.

As can be seen easily, the Kata Containers hypervisor-based container runtime is another example for the second trick based on substitution and explained in the note FOSHS reached peak long ago of the 17th of December 2018, that remains an editing of the expression of an original work with a different syntax but the same semantics.
Eventually, one more of the many original and unique features of our OSA and its functionality has been presented by using different terms and a composition inheritend in our original and unique design.
Due to the semantic overlap with an Agent Virtual Machine (AVM), an Agent Container (AC), and a related Runtime Environment (RE) as part of a general Multi-Agent System (MAS) and a general Agent-Based Operating System (ABOS) as well as their integration with a hypervisor respectively on the overall system stack level of the operating system by our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), the Kata Containers project also provides an evidence that shows a causal link with our Ontologic System and eventually proves infringements of our copyright and other rights.

{...,} specifically the characteristic expression of the idea or concept of decreasing and integrating of the overall system stack as part of the whole design and resulting improvements with our OSA for providing a foundation for the the realization of our OS
Finally, the unfair business practice of the responsible companies in relation to

becomes evident and hence provable as well.

See also the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continued of today for some short informations of Kernel-less Operating Systems (KLOSs).

Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continued
*** Proof-reading ***
We quote the following content of an email of a Linux kernel developer:
"Problem Description
===================
We want to be able to take a directory tree on the host and share it with guest[s]. Our goal is to be able to do it in a fast, consistent and secure manner. Our primary use case is kata containers, but it should be usable in other scenarios as well.
Containers may rely on local file system semantics for shared volumes, read-write mounts that multiple containers access simultaneously. File system changes must be visible to other containers with the same consistency expected of a local file system, including mmap MAP_SHARED.

Existing Solutions
==================
We looked at existing solutions and virtio-9p already provides basic shared file system functionality although does not offer local file system semantics, causing some workloads and test suites to fail. In addition, virtio-9p performance has been an issue for Kata Containers and we believe this cannot be alleviated without major changes that do not fit into the 9P protocol.

Design Overview
===============
With the goal of designing something with better performance and local file system semantics, a bunch of ideas were proposed.
- Use [Filesystem in Userspace (]fuse[)] protocol (instead of 9p) for communication between guest and host. Guest kernel will be fuse client and a fuse server will run on host to serve the requests. Benchmark results (see below) are encouraging and show this approach performs well (2x to 8x improvement depending on test being run).
- For data access inside guest, mmap portion of file in QEMU address space and guest accesses this memory using dax. That way guest page cache is bypassed and there is only one copy of data (on host). This will also enable mmap(MAP_SHARED) between guests.
- For metadata coherency, there is a shared memory region which contains version number associated with metadata and any guest changing metadata updates version number and other guests refresh metadata on next access. This is still experimental and implementation is not complete.

How virtio-fs differs from existing approaches
==============================================
The unique idea behind virtio-fs is to take advantage of the co-location of the virtual machine and hypervisor to avoid communication (vmexits).
DAX allows file contents to be accessed without communication with the hypervisor. The shared memory region for metadata avoids communication in the common case where metadata is unchanged.
By replacing expensive communication with cheaper shared memory accesses, we expect to achieve better performance than approaches based on network file system protocols. In addition, this also makes it easier to achieve local file system semantics (coherency).
These techniques are not applicable to network file system protocols since the communications channel is bypassed by taking advantage of shared memory on a local machine. This is why we decided to build virtio-fs rather than focus on 9P or NFS.
[...]
Thanks
Vivek [Goyal; employee of IBM→Red Hat]
[...] David Alan Gilbert [employee of IBM→Red Hat]
[...]
Miklos Szeredi [employee of IBM→Red Hat]
[...]
Stefan Hajnoczi [employee of IBM→Red Hat]
[...]
"

In the patch we found the following descriptions:

See also the note Preliminary investigation of OpenStack Foundation started of today for a very short introduction into the Kata Containers project.

Co-location on the basis of shared memory (shm) is also discussed in the chapter 3.3 Kernel-less Operating System Services of the document titled "Efficient Cross-domain Mechanisms for Building Kernel-less Operating Systems" of the Systems Programming using Address-spaces and Capabilities for Extensibility (SPACE) approach, whcih

Also mentioned in the same note is the fact that the related open source software including the Linux kernel are transformed and extended to a hybrid operating system by using microkernel features. But that is a substantially similar expression of idea and an essential foundation of our OS and therefore an essential part of the original and unique, characteristic expression of the artwork of C.S. titled Ontologic System. Eventually, our original and unique, iconic Ontologic System is taken as blueprint in a top-down approach and we have a causal link and the next infringement of our copyright.
We have not allowed to replicate our OS in whole or in part under a GNU Public License (GPL).

Also note the further provocations by

We also note once again, that he whole Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry is not interested in any alternatives at all, but only in everything we do, specifically our OS.

Indeed, we understand the

• libaio library of the Kernel Asynchronous I/O (AIO) project,
• field of operating system-level virtualization or containerization, and
• many other similar activities against C.S. and our corporation

as the long-awaited official breach of consensus by leading members of

because many leading members of these foundations reached the end of their legal, technological, and economical possibilities due to our OS. Having said this, the main issue is not about Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) but about the already foreseeable economic decline of companies dependent on FOSS and also our OS.
Companies that misuse and exploit FOSHS as a strategical and eventually economical weapon have to stop those actions and remove all infringing matter immediately, because otherwise a collaboration is very difficult or even impossible and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has to act appropriately against that.

There is no need anymore to spend time and money for finding a legal loophole on the basis of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), because we already got so many evidences that show the required causal links with our Ontologic System and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has sufficient regulations and options for handling and rejecting the licensing of any related misconduct.
As we said before on the 17th of December 2018, FOSS reached its peak and that trick does not work anymore, too. :)

Style of Speed Further steps
We also continued the work on our variant of a special module utilized for Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircrafts.
Some of its most interesting features are its

In a subsequent step we reconfigured one of our conventional VTOL aircrafts with this module.

If all requirements are fulfilled and the module works as designed and predicted then we have a little revolution in the field of aeronautics and other fields.

13.December.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We developed a new material of our Hoverinium class, which has its very own kind of complexity on the one hand and fascination on the other.
Interestingly, some properties of it can also be found in nature, which raises the question if nature has already created a similar solution as well.

Style of Speed Further steps
We continued the work on our variant of a special module utilized for Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircrafts and mentioned in the Further steps 11th of December 2018 by substituting one basic item of the module with another one.
Some of the most interesting features are its

In a subsequent step we reconfigured one of our conventional VTOL aircrafts with this module.

If all requirements are fulfilled and the module works as designed and predicted then we have a bigger revolution in the field of aeronautics and other fields.
Admittedly, the foundational technology is not as perfect as technologies based on our Hoverinium material class but it is very close to Hoverinium, already available today, and even very inexpensive, and in this way closes the gap until Hoverinium becomes available for a reasonable and affordable price.

14.December.2018

19:58 UTC+1
SOPR #155

*** Proof-reading mode ***
We are discussing topics that seem to be more urgent:

• recent FOSHS developments and
• SOPR EULA,

and

Legal matter
First of all, we would like to make crystal clear once again that we are not against Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) in general. But we also recall that we see a legal problem with licensing our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) in whole or in part under an open source license and think that such a licensing is not appropriated, as leading managers of for example the companies Microsoft and Oath have pointed out as well:

Correspondingly, we do ask the question how licensing as FOSS should work with the demand for a fixed fee for a reproduction of our Ontologic System Components (OSC), specifically in relation to copyleft licenses, which are also called viral licenses and include the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike (CC-BY-SA) license. The answer is simple: It does not work.

We have also the impression that due to the latest developments in the fields of FOSS and cloud computing, containerization (Kata), orchestration (Kubernetes), service meshing (Istio), etc. vs. OS the whole legal situation or legal ground for opening our OS and our Os in accordance with the AoA and the ToS with the LM and the EULA of our SOPR might be changing. Eventually, the final situation will be that we are either

• fixed fees by 100% and
• share of the overall revenue to 15 - 20% accordingly.

At least, we got the crystal clear answer that we have seeked. The so-called 115 consensus is not acceptable if FOSHS is demanded, because

We have opened our works of art for reproduction and performance, and correspondingly we do expect that others close their works when reproducing and performing our works if such a measure is required to protect our Intellectual Properties (IPs).

Honestly, we even do not know what the exploitation of FOSHS movements should be good for when only an extremely small fraction of the worldwide population is interested in that at all.
Anyway, nothing stolen from us in the last years is in a safe harbour home and dry or can be rescued but given back. We will not invest more time in negotiations or whatsoever anymore but only recall the alternative options once again that would be part of a new consensus, which has to be found if the theoretical case that the reproduction and performance of our Ontologic System (Components) (OS(C)) and our Ontoscope (Components) (Os(C)) in whole or in part as FOSHS is legal:

• fixed fee for the reproduction of our Ontologic System (Components) (OS(C)) and the range of billed devices in the data centers, or
• share of the overall revenue generated with Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) to 15 - 20%, or
• both.

• fixed fees, or
• share, or
• both.

• file lawsuits,
• demand triple damages as compensation, and
• observe the prosecutions that might result in up to 30 years in jail for responsible persons.

We might exclude or sue entities that

Please stop all your skewed business strategies of the last 2 decades and find a legal way by taking one of the many alternatives that does not dilute our rights for example by giving our works away without a fee.

We will continue the discussion about the case FOSS vs. OS with our legal team.

License Model (LM) extension with FOSHS surcharge
We have begun to extend our License Model (LM) with the introduction of a surcharge for the reproduction of our OSC and our OsC, and the performance of our OAOS as Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) that

• removed or
• substituted with hardware and software protected by a license, which is accredited by our SOPR,

and results in the following license items:

In a FOSHS transition phase the surcharge will be deposited on a special escrow account and given back after the substitution ended in a reasonable time or transfered to the SOPR after 5 years of showing a causal link the first time.

The overall legal situation will not be touched by paying the surcharge. Indeed, the surcharge has to be understood as a motivation or a compensation of damages if an entity does not feel to be motivated.

The rule of thumb for always being on the safe side is simple: Do not change, recreate, or even copy works of others in whole or in part.
For example, recreating capability-based operating systems with containerization is not creative but merely editing or reproducing features of capability-based operating systems.

FOSHS transition phase
In the issues SOPR #126 of the 10th of July 2018 and SOPR #127 of the 11th of July 2018 we said "we prefer that the implementation of the overall OS with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) is financed by the SOPR and publicated under the SOPR EULA or DEULA, specifically in the case when a related hardware or software is a part of the basic infrastructure managed by the SOPR".
In the case that a member of the SOPR would like to reprogram illegal software for us and publicate the resulting legal software under our SOPR EULA the incurred transformation costs can be subtracted from the royalties being due.

Preliminary investigation of Github started
We are investigating if the owner and operator of the website Github, the company Microsoft, is supporting entities in infringing our rights.

In this relation, we also saw that when we are talking about disclosed source software we mean something similar like shared source software introduced by the company Microsoft.

15.December.2018
Clarification
When finalizing the Clarification of the 1st of December 2018 and the issue SOPR #155 of the 14th of December 2018 (yesterday) we noticed that both the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry subsectors of

were and still are built up by using our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) as blueprint in a top-down approach and therefore are parts of our OS in this realization.

This also

• copying our Intellectual Properties (IPs) and
• infringing our rights,

which again

17.December.2018

04:16 and 19:11 UTC+1
FOSHS reached peak long ago

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
We already said yesterday that "it was definitely never our goal but like for example Linux and Android forced Windows out of the field of mobile computing our Ontologic System (OS) does the same with Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) in the field of something totally new. Where is the problem that the only threat, that we present to the field of FOSHS, is the end of viral[ly infecting], free-riding, and exploiting practices not related to [freedom and] liberty? [...] FOSHS is not for making chaos, realizing [...], and conducting [... a]

In fact,

What companies like IBM, Red Hat, Google and Co. did was always only meant as an

Meanwhile, FOSHS has become a common marketing tool of the industry for carefully wrapping pure capitalism as socialism.

The issues related to the

• libaio library,
• fs-verity, and
• virtio-fs,

which are not just only common parts of operating systems but already based on new, original and unique, and essential elements of our OS and their integration after our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) (keep in mind that everything in Unix and Unix-like operating systems is a file), and

• Docker
  • Docker Swarm (provides native clustering functionality based on the Raft Consensus Algorithm),
• Kubernetes,
• OpenShift
  • OpenShift Origin,
  • OpenShift Dedicated,
  • Istio,
  • etc.,
• Kata Containers,
• Mesos,
• Container Linux by CoreOS and rkt,
• Singularity,
• and so on

are rising, as not expected otherwise and also discussed in the last past already for example in the Clarification of the 1st of December 2018.

Some years ago, we have already described the overall strategy (see the case of the company Google in the Investigations::Multimedia of the 17th of June 2014) that is "applying a step-by-step strategy of incremental stealing, which is even done in a planned coordinated and synchronized way together with other competitors in the market as well as with media corporations, research institutes, and even political groups, so that in the end our original and unique, personal and special, and also very extraordinary intention behind and expression of our ideas, concepts, paradigms, and other works of C.S. should look like a seamless technological development respectively an ordinary technological progress, which would mean that we could not claim for a protection by the copyright law".
In addition, the

• to make the individual development results overlapping, compatible, and matching with each other, and
• by taking our OS as a blueprint in a top-down approach,

so that eventually the single buttom-up developments fit together perfectly and implement our OS to a large extent, and

• confuse the public even more,
• suggest creations of new own works instead of reworks of the original and unique ones, and
• camouflage the fraud even more

(see for example the Clarification of the 1st of December 2018 once again and also the note Preliminary investigation of OpenStack Foundation started of the 11th of December 2018).

In these specific cases of the Linux® kernel and the field of operating system-level virtualization, which are exemplary for most FOSHS foundations, associations, and similar groupings, entities have developed open source software alone and in collaboration by applying that step-by-step strategy of incremental stealing and the other tricks.
We do not consider that as clever moves of the responsible members of FOSHS foundations, associations, and similar groupings, because the

All larger companies were aware about the legal situation and therefore we have to assume that they truly wanted to effectively screw of everything owned by us for example by implementing and giving our works of art away as open source to destroy our possibility of their commercialization in this way, while simultaneously scarfing the whole market surrounding our works down.

18.December.2018
Comment of the Day

"The world is not waiting for anybody, even not for China.", [C.S., Today]

19.December.2018

18:56 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
For our fans and readers but also for some clever (not really) Linux® kernel developers we have found an introductory article titled Architecture & copyright controversies and publicated in the magazin of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), one of the 17 specialized agencies of the United Nations.
Note that the subject matter is also about moral rights and the legal relations between plans, plans and realizations, and realizations.

We do know that the

• does not cover any idea, concept, principle, discovery, procedure, process, method of operation, or system, but a characteristic expression of them in general, and
• views a command structure as a method of operation or system under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act in particular.

and

Nevertheless, we also recall the facts that

(see also the Clarification of the 8th of November 2016).
Furthermore, new worlds and realities, as well as their creation, as presented with our Caliber/Calibre, New Reality (NR), and Ontologic uniVerse (OntoVerse or OV) (see also the Clarification of the 4th of September 2018 and the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 19th of October 2018), are unforeseeable and unexpected creations that emphasizes the originality and uniqueness of our works of art and their corresponding protection.

However, in the case Oracle vs. Google the Federal Circuit partially reversed the district court ruling in Oracle's favor on the copyrightability issue related to the Application Programmng Interface (API) of its Java programming language and remanded the issue of fair use to the district court (see also the note API free or not free? of the 16th of December 2016).
Moreover, we do not think that the copyright might effectively prevent all future competition if broadly interpreted like in this ruling because the

• exploit the goodwill and reputation of another entity in general, and
• copy an intellectual work or other creative work of another entity and commercialize it as an own work,

and

• competitor can demand licensing under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, if there are no alternatives, and
• market regulator can punish and stop any abuse of market power.

In fact,

But also note that at this point we have not even discussed again about the

• interpretations including
  • the cybernetic self-image of C.S. (see also the Clarification of the 18th of December 2016),
  • vision,
  • science fiction (unforeseeable and unexpected), and
  • architecture and design,
• views including the views as
  • world architectures and New Realities (NR), as well as
  • software and hardware architectures and therefore as some kind of designs (see also the Clarifiaction of the 8th of November 2016 once again),
• aspects, and
• interdependences of our original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope in many ways and on various levels

(see the Clarification of the 16th of July 2016, Clarification of the 14th of December 2016, Clarification #1 of the 8th and 13th of January 2017, and 15th of May 2017).
In this relation, we also noted several times that also for example the moral rights of C.S., which include the rights to

were and still are infringed and correspondingly the reputations of C.S. and our corporation were and still are damaged, both deliberately and most potentially with irreparable damages.

But the whole legal situation is even more complicated because developers of FOSHS claim for their copyright but license their work simultaneously under a copyleft clause or in ways that are not compatible with the copyright laws as part of the anarchistic tendencies inherent in the FOSHS culture. For example, the definition and handling of what is a derivative work by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is not compatible with the copyright laws.

Eventually, entities who seek legal certainty, specifically companies listed at a stock market, should not use open source hardware and software at all.

Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continued
We quote the following content of an email of a Linux kernel developer:
"[PATCH 22/22] aio: add my copyright
---
fs/aio.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/fs/aio.c b/fs/aio.c
index b194f0b1f2f8..ab39e941ca07 100644
--- a/fs/aio.c
+++ b/fs/aio.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
   *
   * Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
   * Copyright 2018 Christoph Hellwig.
+ * Copyright 2018 Jens Axboe
   *
   * See ../COPYING for licensing terms.
   */
--

C. Hellwig did the same between January to May 2018 in relation to the other code added to the libaio library by him and also disputed by us for the same reason.
By the way, there is either a period too much after Hellwig or missing after Axboe. :þ ©
Either way, both actions

• disputed codes,
• basic functionalities, that these codes implement, and
• part of our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), that these functionalities represent,

were neither included in the libaio library and the Linux kernel nor in other Unix-like, monolithic, as well as other types of operating systems before, as it is also confirmed in the emails beginning with PATCHSET v[*] of the same patch series of the one Linux kernel developer quoted above and in another patch series (see the related note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continued of the 11th of December 2018), which implies that this basic functionality is indeed our new general element of operating system architectures respectively our new system architecture.
Due to its significance for for example

• Ontologic Net (ON) respectively SoftBionic (SB) supercomputer,
• Ontologic Web (OW) respectively Ontologic High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (OHP²CS), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV)

(see also the Clarification of the 1st of December 2018 for example) C.S. holds the moral rights at least, which include the rights to

(see the Clarification of today).

But we also repeat once again that

• required causal links with our unforeseeable and unexpected, personal work of art, and
• use of our work or art as a source of inspiration and a blueprint,

situation allows no cherry picking due to these reasons, even not in relation to technical designs like a system architecture of an Application Programming Interface (API).

Due to these reasons, there is no way to cure that issue in relation to the GNU Public License (GPL) for example, because one would have to add
+ * Copyright 2018 C******** S*********.
but also to remove the line
   * See ../COPYING for licensing terms.
or alternatively to keep this line but substitute the contents of the directory ../COPYING with

• does not include clauses like the copyleft clause but is accredited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), or
• does include the SOPR End-User License Agreement (SOPR EULA).

20.December.2018
SOPR #156
Due to the

• FOSHS,
• Distributed Systems (DSs)
  • High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (HP²CS)
    • cluster computing,
  • Client-Server (CS) computing,
  • Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing,
  • grid computing, cloud computing, edge computing, and volunteer computing, and
  • Resilient Distributed Systems (RDSs) respectively Challenge-Tolerant and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (CTTDSs),
    • blockchain platforms and
    • distributed ledgers,
• mobile computing,
• virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies,
• Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded Systems (NES) including
  • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and
  • Industry 4.0,
• Web of Things (WoT),
• SoftBionics (SB) including
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • Machine Learning (ML),
  • Computer Vision (CV),
  • Cognitive Vision (CogV),
  • Cognitive Software Agent System (CSAS),
  • Cognitive Computing (CogC),
  • etc.,
• robotics including
  • immobotics,
  • autonomous vehicles
    • delivery drones™,
  • humanoids,
  • etc.,
• Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) including
  • 3D printing,
• New Reality (NR) including
  • Augmented Reality (AR),
  • Virtual Reality (VR),
  • Mixed Reality (MR),
  • etc.,

• encircling our corporation to prevent any further movement, momentum, development, and growth,
• taking illegally acquired money against our corporation,
• conducting illegal agreements and orchestrations, and
• sounding out how far one can take us for a ride,

• attacking the mood and mind of C.S. in relation to private matter as well,

we are

The AoA and the ToS of our SOPR would remain unchanged that means

We also reserve the right to improve our economic results in accordance with national laws.

We are looking forward to cooperating with the customers, business partners, or members of our SOPR in the future in good and successful ways that has been made possible in the last 20 years by the incredible creative and inventive C.S. and our corporation. :)

All for the users. :D

23.December.2018
Comment of the Day
Quantum ledger™
Quantum coin™
Qoin™

19:46 and 19:50 UTC+1
SOPR #157

*** Work in progress - ***
We would like to share some considerations and decisions about the following two topics:

Restructuring of LM
Because the introduction of the

on the 1st of January 2019 is very likely, we are also thinking about a possibility to restructure the License Model (LM) by introducing various categories of activity with different shares to address and handle the licensing in a fairer way. For example, a simple structuring would have three categories of activities and related shares:

This suggestion is not limited to this amount of categories. For example, another simple structuring would have five categories of activities and related shares:

Structuring in correspondence to activities allows a fairer assignment to a category. For example, if a

• billionaire,
• wealthy family, or
• Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) established as 501(c)(6) organization, which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings goes to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,

that would be assigned to the 0% category, or

that would be assigned to the 5% category, does an investment in an ICT startup, then we have a commercial activity that is assigned to the 10% category.
Indeed, this way of structuring the LM is not so complex as initially said.

Eventually, only the right entities would be concerned anyway.

Extension of universal ledger
We have extended the foundation of our universal ledger with a quantum computing-based ledger (quantum ledger) included in our Ontologic System (OS) by design (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of today).
In fact, we have already begun some years ago to

• permitted virtual currencies and
• platforms of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS).

19:50, 19:54, and 20:07 UTC+1
OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps

*** Work in progress - alignment with SOPR #157, better wording for sure ***
In section 6 Ausblick==Outlook of The Proposal quantum computing such as optical computing are mentioned as well "Computer-Systeme mit quanten-, photonen- oder molekülbasierten CPUs==computer systems with quantum-, photon-, or molecule-based CPUs".
We also explained several times that our OS is also designed for quantum computers and used together with quantum cryptography for establishing its basic properties of (mostly) being validated and verified and validating and verifiable due to the reflective property, and due to the fact that Resilient Distributed Systems (RDSs) respectively Challenge-Tolerant and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (CTTDSs) are also included quantum computing-based ledgers or quantum ledgers are included in our OS by design as well.
See also the related projects in the Innovation-Pipeline of Ontonics.
In addition, "the concept of the Caliber is founded on the latest accepted physics of the universe", which includes Quantum Mechanics (QM), also known as quantum physics, and quantum theory.
establishing the Proof of Existence (PoE) consensus {correct term?} in our Ontologic uniVerse (OntoVerse or OV) and its New Reality Environments (NREs)

quantum network for multiuser operation based on quantum cryptography. The quantum network is scallable and allows to increase the number of users by integrating new users into the quantum network easily and with minimal operations and interferences.
Furthermore, we already planned around the year 2004 that the members of our network of telescopes, that provide our universal consensus or alpha consensus, will be the first ones followed by our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) specifically for

• communications,
• transactions, and
• collaborations

between them and

We also exploited respectively overlaid a feature of QM and our original and unique OntoLedger that is to create multiple tokens in one step, which correspond to the multiple entangled states of particles created by a single source, obviously, increasing the efficiency of our FTRTDSs such as distributed ledgers significantly, immensely, and incredibly.

Also shows nicely the basic property of our OS of (mostly) being

• microscopic world (QM and quantum computing) and
• macroscopic world (universum and network of telescopes),

as well as

At this point, it should become clear why we have not described techniques like the smart contract protocol, distributed ledgers, and cryptocurrencies like for example Bitcoin, Ether, whatosever serious criminal nonsense in more detail but merely listed their basic properties (see for example the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 5th of July 2017).
See also the Comment of the Day of the 8th of January 2018 and the notes Blockchain fraud will come to an end.
This original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected idea, concept, and feature of our OS and its integrating OSA is also copyrighted due to the many legal reasons.
Are there any questions?

24.December.2018
Ontonics Further steps
By happenstance we solved a foundational problem with one of our energy storage technologies and in this way increased the range of ways of construction and gave the related field a new momentum.

11:39 UTC+1
SOPR #158

*** Work in progress ***
All the years we made presents. This year we did it already yesterday on the one hand and think it would be reasonable to get a present on the other hand:
The members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), actually only one with the supervisor, have decided unanimously with a sufficient majority of 100% of the eligible voters to update or extend the License Model (LM) as discussed in the issue #157 of the 23rd of December 2018 (yesterday). The new LM is valid beginning on the 1st of January 2019.
Details in relation to the classes will be worked out together with related matter.

The subject matter has been discussed several times in the past but each time we rejected to make such a step. Eventually, we concluded in the last weeks that a limit of tolerance was surpassed where we could not find any arguments for holding back this a step anymore. Expecially the insights and conclusions that we

• creation of the Dot.com wave,
• establishing of the
  • company Google and
  • companies in the field of social networking platforms like for example Facebook, Twitter, and Snap,
• resurrection and turnaround of the company Apple,
• growth of the company Amazon and many other companies like the ones listed before,
• development of mobile devices like for example the smartphone respectively variants of our Ontoscope,
• revival and breakthrough of the fields of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR),
• breakthrough of networking and collaboration platforms like for example WhatsApp and Slack,
• breakthrough of autonomous vehicles, like self-driving cars, flying cars and personal drones,
• development of the mobility of the next generation,
• development of several
  • scientific fields,
  • industrial sectors, and
  • armies,

• mood of C.S. is better,
• time was over at the end of the year 2014, transition period was over at the end of the year 2016, and overall time is over at the end of this year 2018 anyway, and
• family of C.S. has neither much understanding nor great interest in what is going on at all,

make a more in-depth discussion about the rational logic for this decision obsolete.

We also would like to mention that

25.December.2018

03:31 UTC+1
Copyright infringement by FOSHS confirmed

The disputed codes of Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) foundations, associations, and similar groupings, and also other entities have to be removed ASAP, specifically everything related to the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS) of (mostly) being

In the case of FOSHS foundations we suggest that this is happening in the course of their successive transformation to Shared and Disclosed Source Hardware and Software (SDSHS) foundations with licensings accredited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) respectively our SOPR End-User License Agreement (SOPR EULA).
We highly recommend members of FOSHS foundations and other entities to stop with their disintegrating activities and instead begin with showing respect for the works of others.

Eventually, we have worked out the best compromise for all, indeed, specifically for the users and the other end entities. :D
Thank you very much for understanding.

API free or not free? #2
An Application Programmng Interface (API) has at least two legal sides:

But what has been confused is that

• a first company did with a whole programming language of a second company,
• members of FOSHS foundations and companies with essential parts of our Ontologic System, and
• hardware manufacturers with essential parts of our Ontoscope

is considered as editing or copying the original work.

In the case of software the actors have been wrongly thought that there would be a legal loophole or legal synergy, so to say, given by the combination of the two points that

No, that is too clever. A software can be viewed like a novel of a specific genre with a specific structure and one is allowed to create an own story of the same genre but not to tell the same story or reproduce the same composition (see also the first note API free or not free? of the 16th of December 2016 and the Clarification of the ).
In the case of hardware a similar persuasive metaphor should be easy to find.

26.December.2018
Comment of the Day
"Cold War Crap"

29.December.2018
Comment of the Day
"Gleiches Recht für alle."
"Equal rights for all."
See also Ius respicit aequitatem.==Law regards equity.

30.December.2018
Website update
We added some missing points to the note Preliminary investigation of OpenStack Foundation started of the 11th of December 2018.
In fact, we also integrated Multi-Agent Systems (MASs), operating system-level virtualization or containerization, and a hypervisor or Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) with the programming language X10 already, that is also related to a Multi-Virtual Machine System (MVMS) or a complete Multi-Virtual Machine Runtime Environment (MVMRE), and did some more developments (see the updated note).

31.December.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We improved one of our technologies.

Ontoscope Further steps
We developed a new generation of one of our models and improved an application of one of its features.

Style of Speed Further steps
We worked on our variants of special modules utilized for Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircrafts and the related conventional VTOL aircraft and its configurations mentioned in the Further steps of the 11th and 13th of December 2018.
Despite we are still not convinced about the practicability of a basic technology developed by an external entity, because it trades advantages for disadvantages, we still find it sufficiently interesting to improve and develop it further. Eventually, practical tests and deployments as well as comparisons with our other advanced solutions have to show if its worth all the efforts.

In the course of this research and development activities, we also found

But in the end the adaption of our new technologies and aircrafts by the rest of the world will decide if they are a bigger revolution that provides breakthroughs indeed or just some more ingenious improvements that make roads and bridges obsolete.
At least, they are already defining the new state of the art far ahead of what has been shown before and will create a huge momentum in the respective field. As usual. What else?

20:26 and 22:41 UTC+1
SOPR #159

*** Work in progress - correction of categories and shares, better wording ***
We have added a more fine-grained categorization scheme to the new structure of our License Model (LM) that

specifically the following (meta) levels with their related multiplication factors for calculating the shares:

Some examples for the resulting shares for the performance of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS):

At this point we would like to repeat once again that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will provide the technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications), and services that are not provided or cannot be provided by other entities together with the members of our SOPR.
Prominent examples are the