This is what I love about the MySQL/PostgreSQL silliness. Postgres is a mostly complete DB, with some things that need work. MySQL is a fast hack with little overhead. For real solutions where you can apply heavy engineering, MySQL's speed advantages can be mitigated away. However, it serves a niche.
If you have a little web site (or even a big one) where integrity is not key and ease of setup is important, MySQL serves that niche. If the improvments don't sacrifice their advantages, go MySQL. However, if they move towards completeness at the expense of speed... well, how silly. We already have Postgres...
Postgres is trying for speed and MySQL for correctness. Yeah... we get two similar systems. I would rather they focus on their advantages so we maintain two useful system.
As a lover of DB theory, I hate MySQL. As a lover of low barriers to entry, I love it. I'd hate to see MySQL lose it's niche by becoming too general.
Moore's law is a flippant statement that happens to hold true. It is no more "law" than the Monroe Doctrine was, it just happened to work.
We can double the transistor density whenever we want. Economic factors will effect it as will government research policies.
There is no need to exceed Moore's law, you could just increase the number of processors. However, if we need to increase faster, we can, we just pump money into engineering research.
There are laws of physics - these can't be broken (although the law could be changed if we had a problem)
There are laws of society/traffic - these can be broken but you can get in trouble
There are historical trends with cool names that include law... these can be broken whenever someone is in the mood too...
Grin, in the corporate world, the same thing would have likely happened, probably with a $1 settlement. Given the relationship between Nupedia and FSF, there normally would have been an NDA, so "gnupedia" would have been in violation. The main difference here is than FSF is small enough that rms should know what is going on (especially if he is doing both items).
Ooops, Brain Fart, an apology, and (probably?) an oops post on GNU.org at some point. At the very least, if gnupedia.(com|org|net) was acquired, they should point to nupedia.
In the real world, this stuff happens. When MS does the NDA violation, they usually pay a large sum (to the little company, not to MS) to either buy the company or settle so the company can launch a new business idea. When other companies do it, they either back down (and pay $1 + legal fees), or they fight and lose badly.
Now, if you don't use an NDA and give details, well, what can you do.
Now, as Nupedia is wide open, NDA isn't quite the perfect analogy. A non-compete would be, but contracts to divide the market are not looked on favorably by the anti-trust laws.
Hmm, enough ramblings, but I wonder, could a Free Software agreement not to compete be seen as anti-trust? It wouldn't really prevent "competition" as anyone can take the work for free... is it market dumping? Hmm... IP applies artificial scarcity to force IP based products to follow normal microeconomics (albeit with a monopoly/oligopoly), how do you reconcile this with Free Software...
Well, it seems like you have a bad business plan. You plan to enter a market with an established firm by undercutting them. You wish to target a technical audience selling documents that have equivalents on the web. It would appear that you are going for a VERY small market.
To make matters worse, remember the mentality of many people in this "community." While there is a small minority (that is vocal on/.) of die-hard coders that believe in Free Software, there is a HUGE majority of kids who believe in free stuff, for whom Linux is "leet" (or is it 31337?)and never pay for anything.
I think that you're aiming for a VERY small market, and I wouldn't suggest this group for your target.
Again, when the Internet was researchers e-mail and college kids playing, you can do whatever you want. Once you become integral to the economic prosperity, the government must oversee it. Why? Because private groups will not represent the public's interests.
For a company that got put in control of the infrastructure, they are in a weird situation. The normal approach would be for ICANN to be an Executive Committee (i.e. appointed by the President), but they went with this quasi-public organization.
This has advantages and disadvantages. It mostly shields the Internet from Presidential Politics (although Evans could get Commerce back involved), and gives it more leeway, but it forces Congress and the White House to take major steps if they want changes. This prevents micromanagement, but it means that if it doesn't like the direction, it can get involved.
The wheels of government are slow but awesome. Perhaps we'll finally start realizing that government isn't obsolete, it still has the guns, and therefore rules.
Intro to Algorithms... used as the text for a sophomore/junior level CS class at MIT... definitely a great text book for your high school students...:)
Personally, I think that they should have stuck with Pascal. I feel that Pascal has some excellent implementations for learning (I miss my old copy of Think PASCAL on the Mac from freshman year of high school) that don't make you worry about system specific stuff.
I LOVE Java, I think that Java is a great teaching language. However, I think that the simplicity of Pascal makes it easier to teach concepts and encourage children to see if they like programming, C++/Java just seem to have too big of a learning curve to get that feel.
It is AP level, meaning it is intended to be college level. Give these college bound students a taste of programming, if they are interested, they can study it in school or elsewhere.
The software industry went after large counterfeiters, instead of users. They also seeked to educate users, and scare corporations.
There are NO corporate buyers of music, so you'd HAVE to go after the individual. However, the RIAA hasn't gone after individuals.
They went after the "large-scale" copiers (MP3.com) and the "large-scale copier enabler" (napster).
I personally think that MP3.com is in the moral right (although not the legal right) and Napster is in the legal right (and moral right, but I maintain that copying for personal use is fair use).
HOWEVER, the parallel to the counterfeitting shop is the napsters of the world...
The article is flawed, the RIAA is doing what the SPA did... Go after the big boys, and leave your customers alone. SDMI was a bad idea, and the pricing model sucks, but they haven't been suing people for using napster.
Additional systems are ANNOYING to support. I am responsible for IT and Development at my company, (i.e. a very small technical team), and we use Linux exclusively for development. We are developing PHP and Java code for web deployment, so Linux is the natural environment, the user has his own web server, etc.
Our network infrastructure is NT 4 w/ Exchange, so everyone has a Windows box. The developers have two boxes, NT and Linux, and they are responsible for their own Linux boxes.
However, that didn't stop a bad Samba configuration from causing nightmares. Samba is getting close to being banned.
It decided to claim to be the Master Browser, but the PDC was and knew it was right. Faulty election code, and the Samba box forced enough elections to crash my PDC.
Is this buggy code on MS's part? Absolutely. Was I annoyed? Absolutely.
Linux creates new headaches if SAMBA is installed. Without SAMBA, there really isn't much of a reason to worry about it. Let it do its own thing.
It is likely being used as a workstation, and you are not going to have licensing issues (normally), so there isn't a problem.
If someone is setting up an unauthorized server... well that person may need to be fired.
Now, a tolerant IT staff will have a policy on unsupported systems. They should allow them without support, but if they disrupt others, they need to be decommissioned. Rediculous overreactions are stupid, but having no policy and allowing a free-for-all is asking for spending Friday nights at the office debugging...
I am usign mod_ssl with a Verisign signed 128-bit certificate. Unfortunately, IE as shipped with Win2K is 56-bit and buggy. When a 56-bit SP1 Win2K box connects, all is good. When a 56-bit non-SP1 box connects, it errors out. A 128-bit machine works in either circumstance.
Well, the goal of the patent system is to do two things: encourage the release into the public of new technology through disclosure, and encourage businesses to thrive...
Yes, the constitutional mandate is the former, but the congressional mandate is the latter.
On the disclosure front, it isn't too relevant for some of the Internet related patents, especially business plan patents. I mean, you can't exactly keep your business secret. However, the business issue is real.
The Internet holds the potential to be the first perfectly competetive marketplace. While good for consumers, perfect competition is horrible for businesses. If you are guaranteed to mark zero profits, VC money disappears.
The other problem in a perfect market, sunk costs are gone, never to be recoved. You sink costs knowing they are gone, but you hope to make profits. In a world where you can't make profits, every business venture is a failure.
So, if we have the world of a microeconomics text book, entire industries that would benefit consumers never materialize because noone can make a profit. As a result, perhaps this "tax" serves a purpose. I mean, if the industry potentially doesn't happen because of no profits, then aren't we better as consumers to have the option of paying a premium instead of no option at all?
Also, with growing protections for trade secrets, doesn't encouraging patents make sense? Perhaps Congress should do the intelligent thing and reduce patent life for business plan/software patents? That way, their is an incentive to invent and create technology/business ideas, while the public benefits from cheaper prices in a few years.
Also, with Internet patents, it is easy to create something similar (an overly broad patent is easier to overturn), and this merely forces uniqueness. Hell, an Internet with dozens of similar but different major players in each space is FAR more interesting than one with everyone directly copying each other.
About two seconds after I posted, I saw the link. I felt really stupid, but realized that I couldn't rescind it. Oh well, I feel like a jackass.
The (r) still refers to the trademark... not that that helps my stupidity. I'm shocked that they don't mention that it is a registered trademark to Amazon on the page.
Their is no mention on the site of the patent. It may or may not be licensed from Amazon. HOWEVER, their is NO evidence on the site that they are licensing Amazon's patent.
I see 1-Click(R), meaning a registered trademark. As there is no mention that the trademark is registered to Amazon, I am inclined to believe that Apple trademarked 1-Click (in the realm of buying or e-commerce if their is a new catagory, or whatever).
Trademark means only THEY can refer to their feature as 1-Click, not that they own the term.
I am SICK of factually erroneous stories being passed for news, especially with the "editorial" staff adding the incorrectness.
If a submitter is wrong, you should verify it. If you are adding commentary, do SOME homework. Last time I checked, what you are doing is close to libel.
Alex
Re:ah, Jr High school relived... just for a moment
on
A Letter from 2020
·
· Score: 2
Grin, the closest I had was the senior year letter that went out 2 years later (was supposed to be one, our English teacher forgot... the only teacher lazier than the seniors)...
It was really freaky, and that was two years... I couldn't imagine 10...
Alex
Not Economics, Accounting...
on
Me-Commerce
·
· Score: 5
Hmm, I'm the CFO of a company, and we are trying to show maximum gross operating profits so that our shareholders are happy. All that matters is the gross profits.
I can hire a full-time employee at $60k/yr (I'm using Boston entry level salaries), or spend $60k on a contractor for 3 months. If it is a one-shot need, it is a wash. If I constantly need the contractor, I pay four times as much, right?
Well, not exactly. With the full-timer, I need to pay for them to keep their skills up to date, $15k/year (either classes or their learning time), soc. sec. tak, $5k/yr, benefits, say $25k/year, now I'm up to 105K/yr for the full-timer, 240K/yr for the contractor.
With the contractor, I record it as a one time expense. It affects my bottom line, but not my gross operating profit which is more interesting to investors. After all, from a business fundamental point, operating profits SHOULD matter more, unless games like this are payed.
If the business needs change, I have to lay-off full-timers, with severance, my unemployment insurance costs increase, etc. I also get my corporate name in the paper for lay-offs, etc. I record big restructuring costs while Wall Street plays wait and see.
With the contractors, I can increase labor in the short term (theoretically true in all labor, but the modern reality is that full-time help is a short-term fixed cost) and adjust to the market. With full-timers, I need to project out 2-3 years.
So, do I take a hit against "profits" to increase "net profits" or do I sacrifice net for gross?
I guess it depends what my cashflow expectancies and my ability to make aquisitions with a high stock price....
A dollar is not a dollar... what column does it go in?
Do I authorize the IT Staff to increase numbers, or do I allocate a one-time cost to get the short-term needs handled.
I know my company is using contractors and part-timers to avoid having to project our cash situation in 6-12 months which depends on financing which is variable... but YMMV.
Over the post-civil war years, Americans have been on an unended quest to trash the republican system that was brilliantly crafted.
Several steps have been taken that have resulted in complete alienation.
1. Obsession with Judicial review and the Supreme Court's power and responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
2. Direct Election of Senators
3. Universal Sufferage (I would argue in SUPPORT of "negro sufferage" (voting rights regardless of race) and women sufferage, Universal Sufferage is a DIFFERENT concept) - no qualifications to vote
4. Constitutionally limiting the President to two terms
5. Lowering the voting age to 18
6. Post Watergate fundraising limits
7. Presidential primary system
The key thing with each of these issues is the shift from a republic to a democracy, and with each one them resulting in more apathy. Each step of the way, more power has been turned to the common people.
This was a mistake. The two party system worked when the parties were actual parties. They actively recruited people, each town was a two newspaper town (Philadelphia Democrat and Philadelphia Whig, for example), and you were really involved with your party. You'd attend meetings for the party, pay dues, etc. You were involved, and you would try to sign up others to your cause. This was an engaging process. You would send representatives to fight over your presidential candidate, etc.
With the removal of the parties as real organizations, it's a joke. Their are die-hard partisans, but it doesn't make any sense. I am a registered Republican because my state is a closed primary state, but if I didn't care about the primaries (which only the actual partisans should care about), there would be no point in registering.
Besides, why should someone who isn't a strong Republican help pick their nominee. Essentially, we've neutralized politics.
Instead of allowing the politically active to get involved and recruit their neighbor, we've trashed grassroots activism and replaced it with television.
Direct Election of senators DESTROYED state governments, because it let Washington go amuck. The expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states would be less of a problem if the state governments were directly represented.
Fundraising limits (not indexed to inflation, doh!) has resulted in a silly mess of different sides raising money through fake organizations. People that would like to be involved are limited in their involvement. This has saved the parties (soft money is necessary, therefore the national parties remain relavent), but hampered the nation.
You can't run without money, and you can't get money without soft money through the party... good luck running as an independant.
We wanted to equalize everyone, and we did. As a result, the politically active class shrunk (no incentive to be involved anymore), and stopped recruiting others.
A reference to a primary key. However, a foreign key supports integrity because you know that the item with the primary key is there.
Delete the primary, delete things referencing it. It's great, you don't have to putz around trying to maintain consistent data.
The answer of let the client do it is naive. It means that you can't allow more open access to the backend, only controlled client. Also, if the machine dies (someone shoots the powersupply?) in the middle of a bunch of delete and you get these orphaned entries.
We're using Slash (MySQL based) and a database system some "consultants" did for us that is MySQL based... I want to cry.
The lack of Views has resulted in a simple join taking 30 seconds. We're stuck building a View (generating a table every day) to optimize this.
The list of missing features is painful. And no, I won't run the Development version.
Converting to Postgres for much of our functionality is going to happen over the next month or two.
Alex
Re:Has Anybody Used the Mindstorms Before?
on
Lego + Linux HOWTO
·
· Score: 2
There is some serious legitamacy there. In a computer company, your staff is all tech focused, and the tinkering is part of the useful business process.
In a financial firm, you care about reliability. You don't care about cool. You don't care about saving OS costs. You're dealing with large sums of money, and the risk of a system going down is huge.
This isn't a NT/Linux thing. It is a pick your OS thing. No financial firm puts important things on NT. Their financial stuff (ya know, the core business) is based on a mainframe. They probably have some Unix servers that do some number crunching by connecting to that mainframe. The NT Servers store people's profiles and handle printers, maybe Exchange. The Windows or NT workstations run Microsoft Office, and more important, a 3270 emulator.
These companies shouldn't want to risk running anything on a box where the tech could have been playing with recompiling the kernel to get a tweak that broke something that he didn't know about.
You buy a reasonable package with a good support contract, and your techs keep the things going.
Can a tech screw up an NT or Solaris machine? Absolutely. Is it as likely as screwing with a Linux box? Not even remotely.
Your Linux admin is much more likely to play with settings, recompile the kernel, and do other major things. The source availability is part of it. The culture of Linux is another.
You can't risk that. If the NT machine is screwy, redoing the installation actually isn't such a bad option. If you have reasonable documentation, you can get the box back up in an hour. Good luck keeping as good docs with a Linux box. I use both systems in my company, and it is impossible to keep a Linux doc, you make too many changes. A NT box is really straightfoward and has less tweaking.
This is a REAL issue. Whining about NT's problems doesn't fix it.
However, why do you care? Does your ability to enjoy Linux depend upon banks and traders print servers running on Linux instead of NT? These are the most conservative companies in the world. That is a good thing. I'd HATE to think that banks were using leading edge machines with the problems. They need reliable systems.
Ripping on NT techs, the usual response to anything critical of Linux staffing, is immature, rude, and irrelevant. If you are hiring bad MCSEs, then fix your staffing problems. Tell HR to look for experience, not courses. Interview people. Having your MCSE certification doesn't mean that you are stupid. In fact, I think you would NOT find a negative intelligence correlation with certification, in fact, it is probably a positive one.
I make a lot of hiring decisions where I am. I few coursework (MCSE classes, Perl classes, etc.) as a negative point. However, I view certifications as a positive. I want people that poke around and learn, not need a $3000 class to learn a new skill.
Studying on your own for your MCSE exam is a good thing. Learning the material (I used the resource kit, not study aids) is a good thing and helps you learn the OS.
The fact that NT has problems doesn't mask Linux's. Furthermore, the choice is never only between NT and Linux. There ARE other OSes, and companies that deal with billions of dollars and depend on IT don't really care about the cost of a Solaris box.
No, businesses make decisions with money. Assessing the financial strength of different players also uses money. This is measuring percentage of server license sales.
Who cares how many servers are deployed? It is irrelevant to EVERYONE. Your decision to use an OS should be completely independent of what other people are doing, right?
Numbers matter to zealots and brats who want to scream and yell.
Money, however, matters. It makes a lot of BIG differences. If I am a interested in the revenue model of a OS, then the money does matter.
Business analysis is not aimed for slashdot, it is aimed towards business executives. Ya know, the people who worry about this for a living, not a pissing contest.
Guys, you're being absurd. They announced two years ago that they would be removing DOS mode. In fact, they had planned on doing so for Win98, but needed to maintain it for one more edition.
The entire Win32s for Windows 3.1 and Windows 4.x series (95, 98, 98SE, ME) has existed for one purpose: get all applications replaced by Win32 versions and migrate everyone to NT.
This is not a hidden agenda. Gates talked about this in the EARLY 90s ('92 or '93). Back then WinCE was referred to as modular windows, Chicago was Windows 4.0, etc.
None of this is secret. None of this is aimed at killing Linux. This is aimmed at killing DOS applications that won't run in a NT VDM. Those applications are the enemy, not Linux. They prevent MS from killing the DOS legacy and moving everyone to NT.
Right now, MS is saddled by that compatibility and limits their products ability to work. There is a world of difference between NT 3.51/4.0/5.0(W2K) and Win3.1/95/98 (can't say for me) in terms of stability, etc.
They keep migrating to new driver models that were more similar to the NT ones to improve stability and make the migration easier (more driver support for NT).
This isn't aimed at Linux, it is aimed at helping MS make a better OS.
In fairness, Gnutella was thrown up for comment, when AOL (the copyright owners) took it down.
Had the source been available, than everyone distributing Gnutella might be in trouble. It was all reverse engineered, which is a good thing. Had the source code been available, AOL could demand all the copies of the program be taken down as violating their copyright...
The Washington voters are actually perfectly rational here. Although consumers in general would be benefited by Microsoft being forced out of being a monopoly, there would be a cost. The cost of harming Microsoft (or even Microsoft losing its monopoly... monopoly rents are very useful...) is born largely on the people of Washington.
It is easy for us to criticize them. We'd get the benefits and not pay the costs. They'd pay the costs and not get the benefits. Do you really not understand why they wouldn't want that?
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I love about the MySQL/PostgreSQL silliness. Postgres is a mostly complete DB, with some things that need work. MySQL is a fast hack with little overhead. For real solutions where you can apply heavy engineering, MySQL's speed advantages can be mitigated away. However, it serves a niche.
If you have a little web site (or even a big one) where integrity is not key and ease of setup is important, MySQL serves that niche. If the improvments don't sacrifice their advantages, go MySQL. However, if they move towards completeness at the expense of speed... well, how silly. We already have Postgres...
Postgres is trying for speed and MySQL for correctness. Yeah... we get two similar systems. I would rather they focus on their advantages so we maintain two useful system.
As a lover of DB theory, I hate MySQL. As a lover of low barriers to entry, I love it. I'd hate to see MySQL lose it's niche by becoming too general.
Alex
Moore's law is a flippant statement that happens to hold true. It is no more "law" than the Monroe Doctrine was, it just happened to work.
We can double the transistor density whenever we want. Economic factors will effect it as will government research policies.
There is no need to exceed Moore's law, you could just increase the number of processors. However, if we need to increase faster, we can, we just pump money into engineering research.
There are laws of physics - these can't be broken (although the law could be changed if we had a problem)
There are laws of society/traffic - these can be broken but you can get in trouble
There are historical trends with cool names that include law... these can be broken whenever someone is in the mood too...
Grin, in the corporate world, the same thing would have likely happened, probably with a $1 settlement. Given the relationship between Nupedia and FSF, there normally would have been an NDA, so "gnupedia" would have been in violation. The main difference here is than FSF is small enough that rms should know what is going on (especially if he is doing both items).
Ooops, Brain Fart, an apology, and (probably?) an oops post on GNU.org at some point. At the very least, if gnupedia.(com|org|net) was acquired, they should point to nupedia.
In the real world, this stuff happens. When MS does the NDA violation, they usually pay a large sum (to the little company, not to MS) to either buy the company or settle so the company can launch a new business idea. When other companies do it, they either back down (and pay $1 + legal fees), or they fight and lose badly.
Now, if you don't use an NDA and give details, well, what can you do.
Now, as Nupedia is wide open, NDA isn't quite the perfect analogy. A non-compete would be, but contracts to divide the market are not looked on favorably by the anti-trust laws.
Hmm, enough ramblings, but I wonder, could a Free Software agreement not to compete be seen as anti-trust? It wouldn't really prevent "competition" as anyone can take the work for free... is it market dumping? Hmm... IP applies artificial scarcity to force IP based products to follow normal microeconomics (albeit with a monopoly/oligopoly), how do you reconcile this with Free Software...
Hmm...
If they had the 5200 games, I'd try to get a machine and go nuts, the 2600/7800 was never my favorite.
Alex
Well, it seems like you have a bad business plan. You plan to enter a market with an established firm by undercutting them. You wish to target a technical audience selling documents that have equivalents on the web. It would appear that you are going for a VERY small market.
/.) of die-hard coders that believe in Free Software, there is a HUGE majority of kids who believe in free stuff, for whom Linux is "leet" (or is it 31337?)and never pay for anything.
To make matters worse, remember the mentality of many people in this "community." While there is a small minority (that is vocal on
I think that you're aiming for a VERY small market, and I wouldn't suggest this group for your target.
Alex
Again, when the Internet was researchers e-mail and college kids playing, you can do whatever you want. Once you become integral to the economic prosperity, the government must oversee it. Why? Because private groups will not represent the public's interests.
For a company that got put in control of the infrastructure, they are in a weird situation. The normal approach would be for ICANN to be an Executive Committee (i.e. appointed by the President), but they went with this quasi-public organization.
This has advantages and disadvantages. It mostly shields the Internet from Presidential Politics (although Evans could get Commerce back involved), and gives it more leeway, but it forces Congress and the White House to take major steps if they want changes. This prevents micromanagement, but it means that if it doesn't like the direction, it can get involved.
The wheels of government are slow but awesome. Perhaps we'll finally start realizing that government isn't obsolete, it still has the guns, and therefore rules.
Alex
Intro to Algorithms... used as the text for a sophomore/junior level CS class at MIT... definitely a great text book for your high school students... :)
Personally, I think that they should have stuck with Pascal. I feel that Pascal has some excellent implementations for learning (I miss my old copy of Think PASCAL on the Mac from freshman year of high school) that don't make you worry about system specific stuff.
I LOVE Java, I think that Java is a great teaching language. However, I think that the simplicity of Pascal makes it easier to teach concepts and encourage children to see if they like programming, C++/Java just seem to have too big of a learning curve to get that feel.
It is AP level, meaning it is intended to be college level. Give these college bound students a taste of programming, if they are interested, they can study it in school or elsewhere.
Alex
I mean, he wrote Bolo, he must be a genius... :)
I like his writings actually, some good stuff, but I haven't looking at any of his stuff in a few years, so I should read before commenting on him...
Alex
The software industry went after large counterfeiters, instead of users. They also seeked to educate users, and scare corporations.
There are NO corporate buyers of music, so you'd HAVE to go after the individual. However, the RIAA hasn't gone after individuals.
They went after the "large-scale" copiers (MP3.com) and the "large-scale copier enabler" (napster).
I personally think that MP3.com is in the moral right (although not the legal right) and Napster is in the legal right (and moral right, but I maintain that copying for personal use is fair use).
HOWEVER, the parallel to the counterfeitting shop is the napsters of the world...
The article is flawed, the RIAA is doing what the SPA did... Go after the big boys, and leave your customers alone. SDMI was a bad idea, and the pricing model sucks, but they haven't been suing people for using napster.
Alex
Additional systems are ANNOYING to support. I am responsible for IT and Development at my company, (i.e. a very small technical team), and we use Linux exclusively for development. We are developing PHP and Java code for web deployment, so Linux is the natural environment, the user has his own web server, etc.
Our network infrastructure is NT 4 w/ Exchange, so everyone has a Windows box. The developers have two boxes, NT and Linux, and they are responsible for their own Linux boxes.
However, that didn't stop a bad Samba configuration from causing nightmares. Samba is getting close to being banned.
It decided to claim to be the Master Browser, but the PDC was and knew it was right. Faulty election code, and the Samba box forced enough elections to crash my PDC.
Is this buggy code on MS's part? Absolutely. Was I annoyed? Absolutely.
Linux creates new headaches if SAMBA is installed. Without SAMBA, there really isn't much of a reason to worry about it. Let it do its own thing.
It is likely being used as a workstation, and you are not going to have licensing issues (normally), so there isn't a problem.
If someone is setting up an unauthorized server... well that person may need to be fired.
Now, a tolerant IT staff will have a policy on unsupported systems. They should allow them without support, but if they disrupt others, they need to be decommissioned. Rediculous overreactions are stupid, but having no policy and allowing a free-for-all is asking for spending Friday nights at the office debugging...
Alex
One thing I noticed, there wasn't much changeover in the core members. I noticed the names were reordered, but many names were the same.
I thought that this was interesting, apparently there was a lot of satisfaction with the initial team.
Would someone more involved with the process explain how this worked? Who could vote, etc?
Alex
I am usign mod_ssl with a Verisign signed 128-bit certificate. Unfortunately, IE as shipped with Win2K is 56-bit and buggy. When a 56-bit SP1 Win2K box connects, all is good. When a 56-bit non-SP1 box connects, it errors out. A 128-bit machine works in either circumstance.
Any suggestions
Well, the goal of the patent system is to do two things: encourage the release into the public of new technology through disclosure, and encourage businesses to thrive...
Yes, the constitutional mandate is the former, but the congressional mandate is the latter.
On the disclosure front, it isn't too relevant for some of the Internet related patents, especially business plan patents. I mean, you can't exactly keep your business secret. However, the business issue is real.
The Internet holds the potential to be the first perfectly competetive marketplace. While good for consumers, perfect competition is horrible for businesses. If you are guaranteed to mark zero profits, VC money disappears.
The other problem in a perfect market, sunk costs are gone, never to be recoved. You sink costs knowing they are gone, but you hope to make profits. In a world where you can't make profits, every business venture is a failure.
So, if we have the world of a microeconomics text book, entire industries that would benefit consumers never materialize because noone can make a profit. As a result, perhaps this "tax" serves a purpose. I mean, if the industry potentially doesn't happen because of no profits, then aren't we better as consumers to have the option of paying a premium instead of no option at all?
Also, with growing protections for trade secrets, doesn't encouraging patents make sense? Perhaps Congress should do the intelligent thing and reduce patent life for business plan/software patents? That way, their is an incentive to invent and create technology/business ideas, while the public benefits from cheaper prices in a few years.
Also, with Internet patents, it is easy to create something similar (an overly broad patent is easier to overturn), and this merely forces uniqueness. Hell, an Internet with dozens of similar but different major players in each space is FAR more interesting than one with everyone directly copying each other.
Done playing Devil's advocate,
Alex
About two seconds after I posted, I saw the link. I felt really stupid, but realized that I couldn't rescind it. Oh well, I feel like a jackass.
The (r) still refers to the trademark... not that that helps my stupidity. I'm shocked that they don't mention that it is a registered trademark to Amazon on the page.
Alex
Their is no mention on the site of the patent. It may or may not be licensed from Amazon. HOWEVER, their is NO evidence on the site that they are licensing Amazon's patent.
I see 1-Click(R), meaning a registered trademark. As there is no mention that the trademark is registered to Amazon, I am inclined to believe that Apple trademarked 1-Click (in the realm of buying or e-commerce if their is a new catagory, or whatever).
Trademark means only THEY can refer to their feature as 1-Click, not that they own the term.
I am SICK of factually erroneous stories being passed for news, especially with the "editorial" staff adding the incorrectness.
If a submitter is wrong, you should verify it. If you are adding commentary, do SOME homework. Last time I checked, what you are doing is close to libel.
Alex
Grin, the closest I had was the senior year letter that went out 2 years later (was supposed to be one, our English teacher forgot... the only teacher lazier than the seniors)...
It was really freaky, and that was two years... I couldn't imagine 10...
Alex
Hmm, I'm the CFO of a company, and we are trying to show maximum gross operating profits so that our shareholders are happy. All that matters is the gross profits.
I can hire a full-time employee at $60k/yr (I'm using Boston entry level salaries), or spend $60k on a contractor for 3 months. If it is a one-shot need, it is a wash. If I constantly need the contractor, I pay four times as much, right?
Well, not exactly. With the full-timer, I need to pay for them to keep their skills up to date, $15k/year (either classes or their learning time), soc. sec. tak, $5k/yr, benefits, say $25k/year, now I'm up to 105K/yr for the full-timer, 240K/yr for the contractor.
With the contractor, I record it as a one time expense. It affects my bottom line, but not my gross operating profit which is more interesting to investors. After all, from a business fundamental point, operating profits SHOULD matter more, unless games like this are payed.
If the business needs change, I have to lay-off full-timers, with severance, my unemployment insurance costs increase, etc. I also get my corporate name in the paper for lay-offs, etc. I record big restructuring costs while Wall Street plays wait and see.
With the contractors, I can increase labor in the short term (theoretically true in all labor, but the modern reality is that full-time help is a short-term fixed cost) and adjust to the market. With full-timers, I need to project out 2-3 years.
So, do I take a hit against "profits" to increase "net profits" or do I sacrifice net for gross?
I guess it depends what my cashflow expectancies and my ability to make aquisitions with a high stock price....
A dollar is not a dollar... what column does it go in?
Do I authorize the IT Staff to increase numbers, or do I allocate a one-time cost to get the short-term needs handled.
I know my company is using contractors and part-timers to avoid having to project our cash situation in 6-12 months which depends on financing which is variable... but YMMV.
Alex
Over the post-civil war years, Americans have been on an unended quest to trash the republican system that was brilliantly crafted.
Several steps have been taken that have resulted in complete alienation.
1. Obsession with Judicial review and the Supreme Court's power and responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
2. Direct Election of Senators
3. Universal Sufferage (I would argue in SUPPORT of "negro sufferage" (voting rights regardless of race) and women sufferage, Universal Sufferage is a DIFFERENT concept) - no qualifications to vote
4. Constitutionally limiting the President to two terms
5. Lowering the voting age to 18
6. Post Watergate fundraising limits
7. Presidential primary system
The key thing with each of these issues is the shift from a republic to a democracy, and with each one them resulting in more apathy. Each step of the way, more power has been turned to the common people.
This was a mistake. The two party system worked when the parties were actual parties. They actively recruited people, each town was a two newspaper town (Philadelphia Democrat and Philadelphia Whig, for example), and you were really involved with your party. You'd attend meetings for the party, pay dues, etc. You were involved, and you would try to sign up others to your cause. This was an engaging process. You would send representatives to fight over your presidential candidate, etc.
With the removal of the parties as real organizations, it's a joke. Their are die-hard partisans, but it doesn't make any sense. I am a registered Republican because my state is a closed primary state, but if I didn't care about the primaries (which only the actual partisans should care about), there would be no point in registering.
Besides, why should someone who isn't a strong Republican help pick their nominee. Essentially, we've neutralized politics.
Instead of allowing the politically active to get involved and recruit their neighbor, we've trashed grassroots activism and replaced it with television.
Direct Election of senators DESTROYED state governments, because it let Washington go amuck. The expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states would be less of a problem if the state governments were directly represented.
Fundraising limits (not indexed to inflation, doh!) has resulted in a silly mess of different sides raising money through fake organizations. People that would like to be involved are limited in their involvement. This has saved the parties (soft money is necessary, therefore the national parties remain relavent), but hampered the nation.
You can't run without money, and you can't get money without soft money through the party... good luck running as an independant.
We wanted to equalize everyone, and we did. As a result, the politically active class shrunk (no incentive to be involved anymore), and stopped recruiting others.
Alex
A reference to a primary key. However, a foreign key supports integrity because you know that the item with the primary key is there.
Delete the primary, delete things referencing it. It's great, you don't have to putz around trying to maintain consistent data.
The answer of let the client do it is naive. It means that you can't allow more open access to the backend, only controlled client. Also, if the machine dies (someone shoots the powersupply?) in the middle of a bunch of delete and you get these orphaned entries.
We're using Slash (MySQL based) and a database system some "consultants" did for us that is MySQL based... I want to cry.
The lack of Views has resulted in a simple join taking 30 seconds. We're stuck building a View (generating a table every day) to optimize this.
The list of missing features is painful. And no, I won't run the Development version.
Converting to Postgres for much of our functionality is going to happen over the next month or two.
Alex
I have one lying around from my 6.270 robot...
The HandyBoard is damned cool though...
There is some serious legitamacy there. In a computer company, your staff is all tech focused, and the tinkering is part of the useful business process.
In a financial firm, you care about reliability. You don't care about cool. You don't care about saving OS costs. You're dealing with large sums of money, and the risk of a system going down is huge.
This isn't a NT/Linux thing. It is a pick your OS thing. No financial firm puts important things on NT. Their financial stuff (ya know, the core business) is based on a mainframe. They probably have some Unix servers that do some number crunching by connecting to that mainframe. The NT Servers store people's profiles and handle printers, maybe Exchange. The Windows or NT workstations run Microsoft Office, and more important, a 3270 emulator.
These companies shouldn't want to risk running anything on a box where the tech could have been playing with recompiling the kernel to get a tweak that broke something that he didn't know about.
You buy a reasonable package with a good support contract, and your techs keep the things going.
Can a tech screw up an NT or Solaris machine? Absolutely. Is it as likely as screwing with a Linux box? Not even remotely.
Your Linux admin is much more likely to play with settings, recompile the kernel, and do other major things. The source availability is part of it. The culture of Linux is another.
You can't risk that. If the NT machine is screwy, redoing the installation actually isn't such a bad option. If you have reasonable documentation, you can get the box back up in an hour. Good luck keeping as good docs with a Linux box. I use both systems in my company, and it is impossible to keep a Linux doc, you make too many changes. A NT box is really straightfoward and has less tweaking.
This is a REAL issue. Whining about NT's problems doesn't fix it.
However, why do you care? Does your ability to enjoy Linux depend upon banks and traders print servers running on Linux instead of NT? These are the most conservative companies in the world. That is a good thing. I'd HATE to think that banks were using leading edge machines with the problems. They need reliable systems.
Ripping on NT techs, the usual response to anything critical of Linux staffing, is immature, rude, and irrelevant. If you are hiring bad MCSEs, then fix your staffing problems. Tell HR to look for experience, not courses. Interview people. Having your MCSE certification doesn't mean that you are stupid. In fact, I think you would NOT find a negative intelligence correlation with certification, in fact, it is probably a positive one.
I make a lot of hiring decisions where I am. I few coursework (MCSE classes, Perl classes, etc.) as a negative point. However, I view certifications as a positive. I want people that poke around and learn, not need a $3000 class to learn a new skill.
Studying on your own for your MCSE exam is a good thing. Learning the material (I used the resource kit, not study aids) is a good thing and helps you learn the OS.
The fact that NT has problems doesn't mask Linux's. Furthermore, the choice is never only between NT and Linux. There ARE other OSes, and companies that deal with billions of dollars and depend on IT don't really care about the cost of a Solaris box.
No, businesses make decisions with money. Assessing the financial strength of different players also uses money. This is measuring percentage of server license sales.
Who cares how many servers are deployed? It is irrelevant to EVERYONE. Your decision to use an OS should be completely independent of what other people are doing, right?
Numbers matter to zealots and brats who want to scream and yell.
Money, however, matters. It makes a lot of BIG differences. If I am a interested in the revenue model of a OS, then the money does matter.
Business analysis is not aimed for slashdot, it is aimed towards business executives. Ya know, the people who worry about this for a living, not a pissing contest.
Alex
Guys, you're being absurd. They announced two years ago that they would be removing DOS mode. In fact, they had planned on doing so for Win98, but needed to maintain it for one more edition.
The entire Win32s for Windows 3.1 and Windows 4.x series (95, 98, 98SE, ME) has existed for one purpose: get all applications replaced by Win32 versions and migrate everyone to NT.
This is not a hidden agenda. Gates talked about this in the EARLY 90s ('92 or '93). Back then WinCE was referred to as modular windows, Chicago was Windows 4.0, etc.
None of this is secret. None of this is aimed at killing Linux. This is aimmed at killing DOS applications that won't run in a NT VDM. Those applications are the enemy, not Linux. They prevent MS from killing the DOS legacy and moving everyone to NT.
Right now, MS is saddled by that compatibility and limits their products ability to work. There is a world of difference between NT 3.51/4.0/5.0(W2K) and Win3.1/95/98 (can't say for me) in terms of stability, etc.
They keep migrating to new driver models that were more similar to the NT ones to improve stability and make the migration easier (more driver support for NT).
This isn't aimed at Linux, it is aimed at helping MS make a better OS.
Alex
In fairness, Gnutella was thrown up for comment, when AOL (the copyright owners) took it down.
Had the source been available, than everyone distributing Gnutella might be in trouble. It was all reverse engineered, which is a good thing. Had the source code been available, AOL could demand all the copies of the program be taken down as violating their copyright...
Just a thought,
Alex
The Washington voters are actually perfectly rational here. Although consumers in general would be benefited by Microsoft being forced out of being a monopoly, there would be a cost. The cost of harming Microsoft (or even Microsoft losing its monopoly... monopoly rents are very useful...) is born largely on the people of Washington.
It is easy for us to criticize them. We'd get the benefits and not pay the costs. They'd pay the costs and not get the benefits. Do you really not understand why they wouldn't want that?
Alex