His analogy means that greed is like the flame in a hot forge and that Linux developers are like an anvil, well worn, but with plenty of use still left in them. The idea is that every time the flame of greed is stoked, the forge becomes hotter, causing the air of superiority to expand, which helps nobody. Of course, it all comes crashing down onto the helmet of irresponsibility, which becomes tighter and tighter on the head of progress, eventually causing a massive headache, such that no amount of source code Advil is enough to stop the pain.
He's talking about linking, not changing files. You're not allowed by the BSD license to throw away the copyright notice willy-nilly.
However, if you use the BSD files unchanged and link with the GPL, the resulting binary is covered by both licenses. Individual portions of the aggregate work (The Program) can be licensed with any compatible licenses, but all restrictions for every license would apply to the resulting binary.
No matter how you slice it, though, you can't just remove the BSD copyright if you feel like it, even if you replace it with the GPL.
"I was sad to see the same was true in A-Level Chemistry. A-Level Chemistry isn't really science, it's more like religion. You learn an enormous table of facts with some spirtual-esc "electron cloud" explanation for it. There's no way to work through it from first principles - there is no understanding and a vague promise it would come some day."
I don't know what A-level means, but this perfectly describes the problem with how Chemistry is taught. I hated it, because it was a confusing mess of memorization of atomic models that were simply outdated and wrong, with "exceptions" covering the areas that didn't make sense according to the model.
Enron tried doing this, although I have no idea if what they were doing had any technical merit or whether they were selling hot air.
Still, it's a good idea. If I have a file I want to distribute but no bandwidth to do it, I could pay for other people to download my file and distribute it for me via P2P.
The problem is that the p2p client is going to have to track who serves your file and how many times, and clients can't be trusted. It's always going to be vulnerable to hacking and gaming.
Re:The more I learn about JavaScript...
on
GWT in Action
·
· Score: 1
I haven't considered doing xdialog in the browser, but it's a good idea. Vian came out of a desire for a web-based unix environment. The next step is a command shell, which can use the same editor/cursor class that vian uses, so it should be very easy to do.
I think the coolest thing potentially is being able to send the commands to a real unix server and then pipe the output back to the Javascript shell. Obviously this has potentially serious security implications, but with a secure setup could be extremely useful.
Re:The more I learn about JavaScript...
on
GWT in Action
·
· Score: 1
"I like Javascript, but it has the same problem as PHP: no namespaces."
You can work around this by writing object-oriented Javascript, like this:
function myNamespace() {
}
myNamespace.prototype = {
var1: null,
var2: null,
func1: function(){alert('yay');}, };
myObject = new myNamespace();
The only problem you run into is if you want to call a member function as a result of an event. I haven't found a good way to do this without using some sort of global variable or function, because of the brain-dead way "this" works in Javascript.
But the vast majority of namespace problems in Javascript can be solved with this approach.
Yeah, it's one of the dumbest things on the front page *today*, but ever? Let's not get carried away.
Re:The more I learn about JavaScript...
on
GWT in Action
·
· Score: 1
A couple of days ago I was thinking about what would an ideal scripting language would look like.
The first thing I'd like are some of my favorite features from Common Lisp, like first class functions, ability to do procedural, functional, and object oriented programming with the same language, dynamic typing, macros, closures, and lexical scoping.
Having a C-like syntax would be good for people who are used to C or Perl and don't want to learn about s-expressions. Automatic memory management is a must.
So I was thinking about how much work it would take to implement something like that, and I realized that Javascript has just about every one of those features, although some are implemented in odd ways. The scoping rules are a bit strange, and the "this" operator is handled poorly, IMHO, but everything else is almost exactly what I'd want.
I think Javascript gets a bad rap because you have to worry about browser compatibility. But if you ever use it while only targetting a single browser, it's a dream to work with, and all of the annoyances go away.
And it's much more powerful than I used to think, before I started working on my now half-finished Javascript app. (Shameless plug there.)
That overload is going to have to get a hell of a lot cheaper in order for me to accept it.:-)
In all seriousness, what do you guys actually do with your Macs that justifies the expense? I completely understand if it's just that it's aesthetically pleasing, too, I have an impractical car that runs fast and looks cool.
Snore. Let's see the actual numbers that include direct order.
That's not to say that this isn't impressive, but how about keeping the sensationalism down a bit?
In any event, this doesn't really get me excited, as I'm even less inclined to buy into Apple's expensive machines when I can run FreeBSD or Linux on the cheapest of the cheap laptops and be very happy.
It's too bad that more market share for Apple doesn't translate into more open hardware specs instead of "we support Windows and Mac OS."
I used LyX for a while, and it's great, but completely unnecessary. LaTeX is simple enough that you could learn most of what you need in a few hours, from tutorials you can find on the web, and then use your favorite text editor. (I like emacs in viper mode.)
If you can write HTML, you can write LaTeX. They're essentially the same idea, only LaTeX is much more complete with nicer output.
I'm just left shaking my head that after all this time, x86 compatibility is still such a big selling feature that you'd compromise on just about every performance improvement just to have it.
If you were to translate this to the auto industry, "you can reuse your old Ford Pinto carbeurator" would be the feature that would ensure your new car design would capture a large portion of the market.
Yeah, I know the reason for it, major investment in existing software and all that, but I doubt even Intel in the 80's would have thought x86 would have lasted half this long.
"The type of work being done is generally straightforward reads or updates that typically hit two or three DB tables per transaction. So this isn't a complicated site and the usage is pretty low."
There is no reason this should taking multiple seconds. He has a basic problem there. Now is not the time to be thinking about multiple distributed tiers, as much as he wishes he were working on a really complex, cool system. He's not.
All of the people chiming in with their own details aren't helping the original poster out, they're steering him way off base. It's impossible to recommend anything to this guy without knowing more detail about his problem, how it can be partitioned, what hardware and software he's currently using, and what his cost constraints are.
But I'm almost positive that his simple database queries aren't optimized and there's some other bottleneck when handling only 90 simultaneous users.
Your humorous insights based on topical current events, not to mention the manner in which they were delivered, forced me to register an out-loud laugh.
The trade imbalance is peanuts compared to the amount of dollars the Chinese hold in reserve currency. Even if we were to run a trade surplus with China, it would do very little about the treasury bills their government currently owns, and that we taxpayers pay interest to.
Slashdot Mirror
(Okay, now back to responsible mature posting)
No, stay with us on Slashdot!
The Assyrian is the only one I care about, since their tool age archer rush is one of the most unstoppable forces in the history of man.
Thank you, that's a big help. This is going to simplify a lot of things for me.
Stop being obtuse.
His analogy means that greed is like the flame in a hot forge and that Linux developers are like an anvil, well worn, but with plenty of use still left in them. The idea is that every time the flame of greed is stoked, the forge becomes hotter, causing the air of superiority to expand, which helps nobody. Of course, it all comes crashing down onto the helmet of irresponsibility, which becomes tighter and tighter on the head of progress, eventually causing a massive headache, such that no amount of source code Advil is enough to stop the pain.
Really, it couldn't be more clear.
He's talking about linking, not changing files. You're not allowed by the BSD license to throw away the copyright notice willy-nilly.
However, if you use the BSD files unchanged and link with the GPL, the resulting binary is covered by both licenses. Individual portions of the aggregate work (The Program) can be licensed with any compatible licenses, but all restrictions for every license would apply to the resulting binary.
No matter how you slice it, though, you can't just remove the BSD copyright if you feel like it, even if you replace it with the GPL.
"I was sad to see the same was true in A-Level Chemistry. A-Level Chemistry isn't really science, it's more like religion. You learn an enormous table of facts with some spirtual-esc "electron cloud" explanation for it. There's no way to work through it from first principles - there is no understanding and a vague promise it would come some day."
I don't know what A-level means, but this perfectly describes the problem with how Chemistry is taught. I hated it, because it was a confusing mess of memorization of atomic models that were simply outdated and wrong, with "exceptions" covering the areas that didn't make sense according to the model.
Enron tried doing this, although I have no idea if what they were doing had any technical merit or whether they were selling hot air.
Still, it's a good idea. If I have a file I want to distribute but no bandwidth to do it, I could pay for other people to download my file and distribute it for me via P2P.
The problem is that the p2p client is going to have to track who serves your file and how many times, and clients can't be trusted. It's always going to be vulnerable to hacking and gaming.
I haven't considered doing xdialog in the browser, but it's a good idea. Vian came out of a desire for a web-based unix environment. The next step is a command shell, which can use the same editor/cursor class that vian uses, so it should be very easy to do.
I think the coolest thing potentially is being able to send the commands to a real unix server and then pipe the output back to the Javascript shell. Obviously this has potentially serious security implications, but with a secure setup could be extremely useful.
You can work around this by writing object-oriented Javascript, like this: The only problem you run into is if you want to call a member function as a result of an event. I haven't found a good way to do this without using some sort of global variable or function, because of the brain-dead way "this" works in Javascript.
But the vast majority of namespace problems in Javascript can be solved with this approach.
Yeah, it's one of the dumbest things on the front page *today*, but ever? Let's not get carried away.
A couple of days ago I was thinking about what would an ideal scripting language would look like.
The first thing I'd like are some of my favorite features from Common Lisp, like first class functions, ability to do procedural, functional, and object oriented programming with the same language, dynamic typing, macros, closures, and lexical scoping.
Having a C-like syntax would be good for people who are used to C or Perl and don't want to learn about s-expressions. Automatic memory management is a must.
So I was thinking about how much work it would take to implement something like that, and I realized that Javascript has just about every one of those features, although some are implemented in odd ways. The scoping rules are a bit strange, and the "this" operator is handled poorly, IMHO, but everything else is almost exactly what I'd want.
I think Javascript gets a bad rap because you have to worry about browser compatibility. But if you ever use it while only targetting a single browser, it's a dream to work with, and all of the annoyances go away.
And it's much more powerful than I used to think, before I started working on my now half-finished Javascript app. (Shameless plug there.)
That overload is going to have to get a hell of a lot cheaper in order for me to accept it. :-)
In all seriousness, what do you guys actually do with your Macs that justifies the expense? I completely understand if it's just that it's aesthetically pleasing, too, I have an impractical car that runs fast and looks cool.
Makes sense. You'd get similar numbers from my house.
:%s/?/!/
Fixed that for all of you. vi isn't PERL.
Snore. Let's see the actual numbers that include direct order.
That's not to say that this isn't impressive, but how about keeping the sensationalism down a bit?
In any event, this doesn't really get me excited, as I'm even less inclined to buy into Apple's expensive machines when I can run FreeBSD or Linux on the cheapest of the cheap laptops and be very happy.
It's too bad that more market share for Apple doesn't translate into more open hardware specs instead of "we support Windows and Mac OS."
"You'll spend 120% of your time in meetings, doing paperwork, . . ."
. . . exaggerating percentages until engineers laugh at you, . . .
"but the case does not have a cutout for a power switch on the PSU, making it impossible to put anything but a Dell PSU in there."
:-)
What kind of geek are you? Impossible? Psh. Impossible if you don't have five minutes and a Dremel.
I used LyX for a while, and it's great, but completely unnecessary. LaTeX is simple enough that you could learn most of what you need in a few hours, from tutorials you can find on the web, and then use your favorite text editor. (I like emacs in viper mode.)
If you can write HTML, you can write LaTeX. They're essentially the same idea, only LaTeX is much more complete with nicer output.
Use LaTeX for research papers. Thank me later.
I think Microsoft's documentation is excellent, but the tools and API's they document are generally things I'd never want to use.
Open source stuff is usually exactly the opposite.
I'm just left shaking my head that after all this time, x86 compatibility is still such a big selling feature that you'd compromise on just about every performance improvement just to have it.
If you were to translate this to the auto industry, "you can reuse your old Ford Pinto carbeurator" would be the feature that would ensure your new car design would capture a large portion of the market.
Yeah, I know the reason for it, major investment in existing software and all that, but I doubt even Intel in the 80's would have thought x86 would have lasted half this long.
From the original question:
"The type of work being done is generally straightforward reads or updates that typically hit two or three DB tables per transaction. So this isn't a complicated site and the usage is pretty low."
There is no reason this should taking multiple seconds. He has a basic problem there. Now is not the time to be thinking about multiple distributed tiers, as much as he wishes he were working on a really complex, cool system. He's not.
All of the people chiming in with their own details aren't helping the original poster out, they're steering him way off base. It's impossible to recommend anything to this guy without knowing more detail about his problem, how it can be partitioned, what hardware and software he's currently using, and what his cost constraints are.
But I'm almost positive that his simple database queries aren't optimized and there's some other bottleneck when handling only 90 simultaneous users.
Why would anyone want to do that? Emacs is available for Windows, too.
Your humorous insights based on topical current events, not to mention the manner in which they were delivered, forced me to register an out-loud laugh.
The trade imbalance is peanuts compared to the amount of dollars the Chinese hold in reserve currency. Even if we were to run a trade surplus with China, it would do very little about the treasury bills their government currently owns, and that we taxpayers pay interest to.