Well, the point is really this: There is a point beyond which making the software more stable is so much more work that it's simply not worth it. Where this point is depends, of course, largely on what the consequences of failure are. Obviously, if multi-million-dollar equipment is at stake, it is worth being extremely thorough.
Every time I read a history of a programme and find a line "completely re-wrote the code", I begin having second thougths about how really good the programme is.
Have you ever programmed a half-way complex system yourself? Re-writing it from scratch is often the best thing that you can do, the more often , the better. In fact, there are software engineering models that officially choose to re-write their code often. This is called "prototype-based SE".
The reason is that while you write the code, you invariably notice some decisions that you made earlier were false, but they affected the design so deeply that changing it would be more work than rewriting it from scratch. The alternative is to live with the design flaws; most commercial projects do that because they don't have the time to re-write their code.
Who would that "charismatic leader" of chritianity be? Jesus? Islam wasn't even around back then. And Christianity has never eroded Judaism's "user base" not has Islam seriously affected that of Christianity. They all just spread out in different directions.
Also, AFAIK there are presently more christians than muslims.
No./. and/.ers don't fall for trolls any more often in comparison to the amount of trolls than everyone else, e.g. on Usenet. The difference: there are a lot more trolls on/. than in any given Usenet group. The reason? The moderation. It makes trolling/. a real challenge. Flooding, too. It's an arms race that cant be won.
I agree completely that the current DNS system is a total mess. However, no matter how bad it is, it's too late to be changed, because its use is entrenced too deeply by now. The only hope is that a completely new system running parallel to the old one will be invented that is good enough to eventually replace the onld one in direct competition. But I wouldn't hold my breath...
No, the resemblances to Neuromancer are rather slim. Case doesn't find anything, he's picked deliberately. That something isn't "accidentally triggered"; in fact everything works out as planned by Neuromancer, and the end result is that nothing cahnges for the time being. I also don't remember any buzzwords, parental figures or music groups.
Finally, it doesn't even remotely fit most of Gibson's short stories.
The advantage a scientist has resides in the fact that a good one can spot an unfeasible idea right away.
Yeah, but he might hastily dismiss a really good idea as unfeasible just because his knowledge of what is feasible isnt really all that complete. Since today most scientists are extremely specialized, thats not that unlikely a scenario.
There's nothing wrong with the "next logical step", evolution works better than revolution most of the times.
Um... The "logical next step" has nothing in common with evolution, which is mostly based on mutations.
Doesnt sound familiar to me at all, but as I mentioned, I havent read Gibsons newer books. They might be crap, but that doesnt change the fact that his earlier ones were good.
So who deserves more credit? The real scientists and engineers who actually DEVELOPED an idea into a realistic form? or the person who had an idea/dream and did nothing with it?
But this is not about credit, its about ideas to begin with!
In a way, a scientific background can be a limitation. It forces you to always do the logical next step. Someone without a scientific background on the other hand, might come up with an idea thats totally ridiculous at first to any scientist, but thats revolutionary enough to be worth trying to implement anyway.
Science Fiction is usually (with few exceptions - Samuel Delany comes to mind) no better than other forms of pulp and is only accepted because of its subject. If it wasn't about outer space, technology or the future (things that us nerds are into) we wouldn't be so accepting of its shortcomings. The grammar is terrible, the spelling is even worse, the characters are paper-thin and the plots are almost always the same.
This is a sweeping generalization, and therefore automatically wrong. "Science Fiction" is in fact not really a genre at all, and certainly not a subgenre of pulp. In fact, it could be argued that it sheds a limitation that all other fiction adhers to - writing about the present or the past.
I think we do ourselves a tremendous misdeed when we consider a story interesting just because it happens on mars or in the future.
And how is considering a story uninteresting for the same reasons not stupid.
In regards to quality, science fiction is not at all different from other literature. Sturgeons Law applies, as always.
Huh? Mike (a computer) built a fully-realized, real-time, sight and sound presentation of a false reality. That's virtual reality, period.
Not necessarily. Depending on what exactly was being done with this, it might just be an imitation of reality. The point about virtual reality is to visualize completely abstract stuff (like a database) in a way so that you can interact with it "naturally".
In any case, I doubt Gibson came up with THAT either. Johnny Mnemonic is the only movie that I've preferred (as dumb as it was) to the story.
You really, really dont like Gibsons work, eh? Cant see why, though.
Just thinking off the top of my head I already came up with "prior art" for virtual reality: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Remember how Mike presented a false image of himself and the "room" he was in?
Dont know that particular story (Heinlein?), but it doesnt sound like "real" Virtual Reality. The really initeresting thing about Gibsons use of the idea was that he postulated an abstract virtual representation, basically a fully 3D GUI. AFAIC, Gibson couldn't write himself out of a paper bag, let alone invent anything novel.
To each his own. IMO hes written some of the best SF, period. Few other stories have captivated me as much as Neuromancer and especially some of his short stories. That being said, his recent works do seem a lot less inspired.
... would be William Gibson's "invention" of virtual reality.
All the more impressive since he apparently had no clue of how computers actually work.
Along that line, it could be argued that "hard" science fiction is the wrong target for such a project: If someone has no idea if what can be done and what cant, they're much more likely to come up with an idea thats worth changing what can be done for.
I'd like to say this: face it, Napster's purpose is trading mp3s illegally, there is no other legitatamate use.
That's "legitimate", and you're, of course, wrong. There most definitely is a legitimate use for Napster. That the vast majority of users are using it for prating doesnt change that.
I don't think so. The manufacturing process is easily as complicated as the chip design itself, and the processes developed by Intel and AMD are most likely not very compatible.
The point is that usually, you get the blueprints only if you sign a nondisclosure agreement. But Intel apparently is willing to let everyone take a loot at their designs, and that is ususual.
Of course, I agree that it's different from open source software. Intel really doesnt need to fear anything, since no-one except them has the know-how and hardware to actually make the chip.
I have news for you: "performance" usually means "speed". As in "fast", which is usually measured by "benchmarks", which do fulfill all the requirements for a "test". One of these benchmarks, in which PostgreSQL loses pitifully to MySQL is here.
Sure, I'm perfectly aware that you shouldnt trust a benchmark you havent rigged yourself, but it does prove that there is at least one test in which PostgreSQL loses.
Re:Is there a full-featured open source RDBMS?
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
As a professional IT consultant working for
This is getting old. Please try being more creative.
Anyway, my question is, is there a fully-featured open source RDBMS out there?
...entirely on what "critical" means for your particular case. If your definition of "critical" doesnt require transactions and all the fancy stuff, but does require very good performance, then MySQL is great. If your do require full ACID, then you'll just have to pay the price of one of the bigger players.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the point is really this: There is a point beyond which making the software more stable is so much more work that it's simply not worth it. Where this point is depends, of course, largely on what the consequences of failure are. Obviously, if multi-million-dollar equipment is at stake, it is worth being extremely thorough.
Have you ever programmed a half-way complex system yourself? Re-writing it from scratch is often the best thing that you can do, the more often , the better. In fact, there are software engineering models that officially choose to re-write their code often. This is called "prototype-based SE".
The reason is that while you write the code, you invariably notice some decisions that you made earlier were false, but they affected the design so deeply that changing it would be more work than rewriting it from scratch. The alternative is to live with the design flaws; most commercial projects do that because they don't have the time to re-write their code.
Still, he *is* a troll. And getting lazy, too.
Who would that "charismatic leader" of chritianity be? Jesus? Islam wasn't even around back then. And Christianity has never eroded Judaism's "user base" not has Islam seriously affected that of Christianity. They all just spread out in different directions.
Also, AFAIK there are presently more christians than muslims.
Heh. Different path, same conclusion.
I agree completely that the current DNS system is a total mess. However, no matter how bad it is, it's too late to be changed, because its use is entrenced too deeply by now. The only hope is that a completely new system running parallel to the old one will be invented that is good enough to eventually replace the onld one in direct competition. But I wouldn't hold my breath...
Finally, it doesn't even remotely fit most of Gibson's short stories.
Yeah, but he might hastily dismiss a really good idea as unfeasible just because his knowledge of what is feasible isnt really all that complete. Since today most scientists are extremely specialized, thats not that unlikely a scenario.
There's nothing wrong with the "next logical step", evolution works better than revolution most of the times.
Um... The "logical next step" has nothing in common with evolution, which is mostly based on mutations.
Doesnt sound familiar to me at all, but as I mentioned, I havent read Gibsons newer books. They might be crap, but that doesnt change the fact that his earlier ones were good.
But this is not about credit, its about ideas to begin with!
In a way, a scientific background can be a limitation. It forces you to always do the logical next step. Someone without a scientific background on the other hand, might come up with an idea thats totally ridiculous at first to any scientist, but thats revolutionary enough to be worth trying to implement anyway.
This is a sweeping generalization, and therefore automatically wrong. "Science Fiction" is in fact not really a genre at all, and certainly not a subgenre of pulp. In fact, it could be argued that it sheds a limitation that all other fiction adhers to - writing about the present or the past.
I think we do ourselves a tremendous misdeed when we consider a story interesting just because it happens on mars or in the future.
And how is considering a story uninteresting for the same reasons not stupid.
In regards to quality, science fiction is not at all different from other literature. Sturgeons Law applies, as always.
Not necessarily. Depending on what exactly was being done with this, it might just be an imitation of reality. The point about virtual reality is to visualize completely abstract stuff (like a database) in a way so that you can interact with it "naturally".
In any case, I doubt Gibson came up with THAT either. Johnny Mnemonic is the only movie that I've preferred (as dumb as it was) to the story.
You really, really dont like Gibsons work, eh? Cant see why, though.
Remember how Mike presented a false image of himself and the "room" he was in?
Dont know that particular story (Heinlein?), but it doesnt sound like "real" Virtual Reality. The really initeresting thing about Gibsons use of the idea was that he postulated an abstract virtual representation, basically a fully 3D GUI. AFAIC, Gibson couldn't write himself out of a paper bag, let alone invent anything novel.
To each his own. IMO hes written some of the best SF, period. Few other stories have captivated me as much as Neuromancer and especially some of his short stories. That being said, his recent works do seem a lot less inspired.
It's definitely not German. Probably Netherlandish (?) or Danish.
All the more impressive since he apparently had no clue of how computers actually work.
Along that line, it could be argued that "hard" science fiction is the wrong target for such a project: If someone has no idea if what can be done and what cant, they're much more likely to come up with an idea thats worth changing what can be done for.
That's "legitimate", and you're, of course, wrong. There most definitely is a legitimate use for Napster. That the vast majority of users are using it for prating doesnt change that.
Um... redistributing a radio recording is not legal either, AFAIK.
What about MIPS? Didn't that start out as an academic project, and wouldnt it therefore be publically accessibleß
I don't think so. The manufacturing process is easily as complicated as the chip design itself, and the processes developed by Intel and AMD are most likely not very compatible.
Of course, I agree that it's different from open source software. Intel really doesnt need to fear anything, since no-one except them has the know-how and hardware to actually make the chip.
Sure, I'm perfectly aware that you shouldnt trust a benchmark you havent rigged yourself, but it does prove that there is at least one test in which PostgreSQL loses.
This is getting old. Please try being more creative.
Anyway, my question is, is there a fully-featured open source RDBMS out there?
PostgerSQL
...entirely on what "critical" means for your particular case. If your definition of "critical" doesnt require transactions and all the fancy stuff, but does require very good performance, then MySQL is great. If your do require full ACID, then you'll just have to pay the price of one of the bigger players.
Are you seriously that blind? There is a "No Score +1 Bonus" button under every reply once you have the +1 Bonus. I'm currently using it.
It's the "much improved" successor of that browser.