It's a concept that has been around for quite some
time. A quick search on google reveals around 8000
hits, it's even got an entry in the jargon file.
A friend of mine at university has quite a large collection of postcards people have sent him from around the world for various bits and pieces of code he wrote.
Take a peek over at linux-ha.org and do some reading.
Distributed filesystems like CODA and/or GFS might go quite a ways to solving some of your problems without resorting to implementing a filesystem on Oracle. In the end, what extra capabilities is Oracle going to give you that the right sort of filesystem wouldn't?
Plus, if your data should be stored in a database, then store it in a database. Don't store database data in a filesystem, and don't store filesystem data in a database. They're two very different ideas for data storage (heirachical vs relational is just for starters).
Perhaps simply sitting back and doing a bit of reorganising and replication (produce some read-only mirrors using rsync, or use the network block device to do some network-raid or something) will solve all your problems.
I'm a fan of the vi keybindings myself.
Basically, having vi keybindings seems to improve your rate of interaction with any given program. There is no need to move your hand extra distance to access arrow keys (they're instantly accessible under hjkl), there's no need to use a mouse, etc.
I regularly perform tasks alongside people who use the mouse or non-vi keybinding based equivalents of various pieces of software and I find I can do a large majority of basic tasks much much faster. For those tasks where vi keybindings don't make sense, I can always revert to the mouse or arrow keys.
I don't know what the process used to commission the Y2K Olympic website was, but it sounds like it was the usual deal where vendors bid for the work. That said, without specific, pre-existing requirements, written down on paper, I know of very few consulting style firms who would bother with accessibility requirements. To adhere to them, you actually need to do a reasonable job, and have people understand how the website is put together, without making any assumptions about what tools will be available to the end user (I can't tell you how many people I've worked with who've never even *heard* of a text mode browser).
It's all a matter of education. There are too many developer/business people out there whose experience is far more limited than they might imagine. So many of them have just never thought outside the limited scope of their experience. I for one have never had the requirement for accessibility included in any of the projects I do, but I usually try and do it as a matter of course, because it's the correct thing to do. Why don't other people think that way?
This is yet another instance of altruism (the almost exclusively human quality of doing things for others that has virtually no benefit for yourself).
It's an oft-discussed topic in psychological and sociobiological circles. Why would anyone devote time and effort to something that has little or no benefit for yourself.
There are lots of ideas as to why people do altruistic things. One that appeals to me is Susan Blackmores theory based on memetics. That is, we do altruistic things because it is beneficial for memes.
Take a read of her book, The Meme Machine, it goes into quite a lot of detail.
I should have made that clarity. I'm outside the US, so the difference has never really been emphasised on me. Also note that it's only illegal to export the non-US section from the US, not import it. It mostly contains software that is involved in crypto in some manner, so if your country of choice has restrictions, be careful when using it.
The non-us.debian.org machine is hosted outside the US and CD images for distribution inside the US are built from it. CD's for distribution outside the US are also built from non-us.debian.org so the software is never exported from the US.
It seems that there are a few people still in the dark about how Debian's distribution fits together.
We have 2 archives, and each has 3 sections. There is 1 official section in each archive. The two archives are the "regular/low fat/most of the stuff" archive, and the "non-US/don't mind me/watch out for the helicopters" archive. Software that breaks the US export control laws goes into the non-US archive.
Inside each archive are 3 sections, called "main", "contrib" and "non-free". The only part of the archive that we "officially" support is the "main" section. Every piece of software in the "main" section is compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This software is all GPL, MPL, BSD, [insert favourite free licence here] stuff. The "contrib" section stuff *would* be in the "main" section, except that it for some reason relies on something from the "non-free" section. "non-free" stuff is stuff that we are allowed to distribute, but does not fall under our Free Software Guidelines.
The official Debian cd images that come out with each distribution contain the regular/main, regular/contrib, non-US/main and non-US/contrib stuff, along with all the source. Of course, often to use much of the contrib stuff, you need to grab non-free stuff (many packages however only partly rely on non-free stuff, such as driver modules, this still gets them into contrib, but you can use them without non-free).
You are incorrect about your statement about Debian. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) which are often referred to when evaluating whether a piece of software comes under a "free" licence or not governs what software is allowed into the Debain GNU/Linux distribution. The _only_ stuff that Debian officially recognises is software in the "main" tree, all of which conforms to the DFSG. All other software that is bundled and put in "contrib" and "non-free" is _not_ part of the Debian distribution. When it comes around time for a release, we do _not_ build official ISO's for non-free and contrib, because they are _not_ part of the Debian GNU/Linux (or GNU/Hurd if you're that way inclined) distribution. Please go and read the Debian Social Contract, which binds all developers at http://www.debian.org/social_contract. If you want a 100% free system with Debian, it's easy. Don't use anything from non-free or contrib. Debian/main is exactly as free as RMS Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a concept that has been around for quite some
time. A quick search on google reveals around 8000
hits, it's even got an entry in the jargon file.
A friend of mine at university has quite a large collection of postcards people have sent him from around the world for various bits and pieces of code he wrote.
Take a peek over at linux-ha.org and do some reading.
Distributed filesystems like CODA and/or GFS might go quite a ways to solving some of your problems without resorting to implementing a filesystem on Oracle. In the end, what extra capabilities is Oracle going to give you that the right sort of filesystem wouldn't?
Plus, if your data should be stored in a database, then store it in a database. Don't store database data in a filesystem, and don't store filesystem data in a database. They're two very different ideas for data storage (heirachical vs relational is just for starters).
Perhaps simply sitting back and doing a bit of reorganising and replication (produce some read-only mirrors using rsync, or use the network block device to do some network-raid or something) will solve all your problems.
Not a lot. Seems like the author should do a bit of research
and catch up to where everyone else is at with these lines of
thinking...
Mind you, at least the author has started down that path,
I just hope they end up in the right place.
Seems very nice for 2D vector graphics. It's based entiredly
around the SVG standard, saves in SVG, etc. Works well for
2D vector graphics for me.
http://sodipodi.sourceforge.net/
I'm a fan of the vi keybindings myself.
Basically, having vi keybindings seems to improve your rate of interaction with any given program. There is no need to move your hand extra distance to access arrow keys (they're instantly accessible under hjkl), there's no need to use a mouse, etc.
I regularly perform tasks alongside people who use the mouse or non-vi keybinding based equivalents of various pieces of software and I find I can do a large majority of basic tasks much much faster. For those tasks where vi keybindings don't make sense, I can always revert to the mouse or arrow keys.
I don't know what the process used to commission the Y2K Olympic website was, but it sounds like it was the usual deal where vendors bid for the work. That said, without specific, pre-existing requirements, written down on paper, I know of very few consulting style firms who would bother with accessibility requirements. To adhere to them, you actually need to do a reasonable job, and have people understand how the website is put together, without making any assumptions about what tools will be available to the end user (I can't tell you how many people I've worked with who've never even *heard* of a text mode browser).
It's all a matter of education. There are too many developer/business people out there whose experience is far more limited than they might imagine. So many of them have just never thought outside the limited scope of their experience. I for one have never had the requirement for accessibility included in any of the projects I do, but I usually try and do it as a matter of course, because it's the correct thing to do. Why don't other people think that way?
This is yet another instance of altruism (the almost exclusively human quality of doing things for others that has virtually no benefit for yourself).
It's an oft-discussed topic in psychological and sociobiological circles. Why would anyone devote time and effort to something that has little or no benefit for yourself.
There are lots of ideas as to why people do altruistic things. One that appeals to me is Susan Blackmores theory based on memetics. That is, we do altruistic things because it is beneficial for memes.
Take a read of her book, The Meme Machine, it goes into quite a lot of detail.
...could probably be considered a non-issue seeing as the atmosphere is made up of roughly 70% nitrogen already.
Nitrogen is also an inert element, so it doesn't go forming nasty things that deplete ozone layers. Every breath you take is mostly nitrogen already.
I should have made that clarity. I'm outside the US, so the difference has never really been emphasised on me. Also note that it's only illegal to export the non-US section from the US, not import it. It mostly contains software that is involved in crypto in some manner, so if your country of choice has restrictions, be careful when using it.
The non-us.debian.org machine is hosted outside the US and CD images for distribution inside the US are built from it. CD's for distribution outside the US are also built from non-us.debian.org so the software is never exported from the US.
All seems a bit silly in the end.
It seems that there are a few people still in the dark about how Debian's distribution fits together.
We have 2 archives, and each has 3 sections. There is 1 official section in each archive. The two archives are the "regular/low fat/most of the stuff" archive, and the "non-US/don't mind me/watch out for the helicopters" archive. Software that breaks the US export control laws goes into the non-US archive.
Inside each archive are 3 sections, called "main", "contrib" and "non-free". The only part of the archive that we "officially" support is the "main" section. Every piece of software in the "main" section is compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This software is all GPL, MPL, BSD, [insert favourite free licence here] stuff. The "contrib" section stuff *would* be in the "main" section, except that it for some reason relies on something from the "non-free" section. "non-free" stuff is stuff that we are allowed to distribute, but does not fall under our Free Software Guidelines.
The official Debian cd images that come out with each distribution contain the regular/main, regular/contrib, non-US/main and non-US/contrib stuff, along with all the source. Of course, often to use much of the contrib stuff, you need to grab non-free stuff (many packages however only partly rely on non-free stuff, such as driver modules, this still gets them into contrib, but you can use them without non-free).
You are incorrect about your statement about Debian. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) which are often referred to when evaluating whether a piece of software comes under a "free" licence or not governs what software is allowed into the Debain GNU/Linux distribution. The _only_ stuff that Debian officially recognises is software in the "main" tree, all of which conforms to the DFSG. All other software that is bundled and put in "contrib" and "non-free" is _not_ part of the Debian distribution. When it comes around time for a release, we do _not_ build official ISO's for non-free and contrib, because they are _not_ part of the Debian GNU/Linux (or GNU/Hurd if you're that way inclined) distribution. Please go and read the Debian Social Contract, which binds all developers at http://www.debian.org/social_contract. If you want a 100% free system with Debian, it's easy. Don't use anything from non-free or contrib. Debian/main is exactly as free as RMS Linux.