I wish you hadn't posted anonymously so I could make sure you never ever worked for any company I ever had anything to do with. That's exactly the kind of attitude that nobody needs. From reading the LinuxWorld article, they seem like utter jerks, plain and simple. That they happen to produce good code is like saying the fascists made the trains run on time.
Ahh, yes, the model corporate american citizen. No corporation should ever be held accountable in any way for its actions. They are, after all, quite above any strange ideas like 'morality'.
Re:This came up Monday and the verdict was...
on
Ximian Adds Subscription
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The problem is that cable companies essentially have to intrude on your network and figure out what you're running in order to offer their service. Ximian's service is a natural and reasonable one to offer. There is no 'customer policing' to make sure it works.
Also, I have no problem with the cable companies differentiating based on usage, but that should be based on usage, not what software you happen to be running. If they want to rate limit you and charge you extra to have it lifted, that's great. What I have a problem with is them telling you what you can and can't have on your network.
Essentially cable companies are trying to 'police' users for business mistakes they made. They shouldn't have assumed that all users would be docile downloading consumers, and structured their business and pricing plans accordingly. Instead, they want to blame consumers for their glaring error in offering unlimited bandwidth to home users isn't quite so apparent.
BTW, whoever moderated this as a troll moderated out of opinion instead of out of any kind of objective measure of how good the post was.
This person clearly stated an anxiety people in industries dominated by stupidly restrictive intellectual 'property' conventions and ideas. Industries where intellectual 'property' becomes a weapon instead of an incentive.
You want the liscensing changed, and you completely ignore the alternative, which was releasing the source. In fact, you ought to be sued to force the source to be released.
I'm betting the competitive advantage your competitors might get from seeing the source to your kernel mods would've been heavily outweighed by the time it took them to decipher it. Also, the easiest thing for them to do would be to also use Linux in their product, and releasing source, leaving you on a level playing field with respect to intellectual property concerns.
If they had tried to copy you, and also used Linux, it would've come down to which of your development teams could make a better product more quickly. Gee, that sounds like competition doesn't it?
I'm beginning to think you are a purposeful idiot who is merely trying to post something that has the appearance of being intelligent (but really required no thought at all) in order to get karma and the +2 bonus to be a jerk with later.
It won't work if they constantly resend the same packet over and over. They need it set up so that as soon as you get any N pcakets, you can reconstruct the file. This means that each packet needs to be different from all the other packets.
So if one side sends the other 6 packets before recieving the 'stop' request, and only 5 are needed to send the file, it doesn't matter which 5 of the 6 are recieved. No packets are sent from the reciever during the transfer, only at the beginning and end.
And, yes, it is a bandwidth hog, but for reasons that are rather different from the ones you imagine. It has no provision for congestion control, which means that it will keep blasting away with UDP packets at a congested router (keeping it congested) rather than backing off until the congestion ha cleared.
The 'equations' are broken up into pieces such that if you recieve any N pieces, you can reconstruct the entire file. It's like how some key sharing schemes work. Like Publius for example. Any N 'shares' of the key can be used to reconstruct the entire key. In this case the 'key' is the whole document, and I'm betting they use a different sharing scheme than ones already used for cryptography.
BTW, this post needs to be modded down rather badly as the person who wrote it doesn't seem to have read the article, or if (s)he did, (s)he misunderstood it badly.
UDP drops packets. What they are saying is they can packetize things in such a way that as soon as you pick up any N packets, you get the file, no matter what. They are also implying that anything less than N packets leaves you gibberish. This is quite different from file compression. It may be related to fractal file compression, but I think it's probably more related to cryptographic key sharing schemes.
Quite correct. This protocol does not sound at all TCP friendly. It needs some way of dynamically responding to network conditions to be that way. Even something so simple as doing an initial bandwidth test, then rate limiting the UDP packets to 90% of that would be a big help, though for a large file that would still create a lot of congestion problems.
Does anybody know if IPV6 has any kind of congestion notification ICMP messages so stacks can know to throttle applications when the applications are blasting out data that's congesting the network?
The company's name is OpenCola and the name of the product was SwarmCast. The guy who did SwarmCast, Justin Chapewske, is now at a company he started named Onion Networks. OpenCola appears to have completely abandon its original Open Source approach to their software.
Apparently, Justin has taken the GPL portions of Swarmcast and is improving them at Onion Networks.
Ahh, so the bodycounts are expected to be equal now? You know, if Palestinians didn't keep attacking Israel, they wouldn't lose so many people or so much land.
I suspect they aren't as far off as you think, but that's rampant speculation on my part. And you're certainly right that they most likely won't exist in the next 10-20 years.
I do think that certain goods will slowly go the path of being 'software'. The genetically modified food industry for example. I think the pharmaceutical industry is running close behind. I bet you could produce a lot of pharmaceuticals with a vat, some sugary mash, and a few genetically engineered bacteria. The real problem right now would be sorting out all the molecules you want from those you don't.
Those are the questions that flow out of my naive brain...
And quite a nieve brain it is.
The capitalist system is designed to produce what people want. If nobody wanted Corvettes, nobody would want to own a Corvette assembly line. In this system, it really is possible (though exceedingly difficult, and requiring an element of luck) for someone who has an idea for producing something to get together all of the capital required to produce it and start producing it. Of course, if it turns out that nobody wants it, all that capital goes *poof* and there are a lot of angrier, poorer people in the world.
If the people don't want to work in factories on assembly lines, they can go try to come up with their own idea of something to produce. Many of them wouldn't care to. Also, many things couldn't be produced without the assembly line, so the assembly lines are necessary or society would be much poorer.
Of course, you argue that assembly lines should be jointly owned by everybody. But, I argue that nothing at all would ever get produced that way. Having your ability to amass the capital required to build an assembly line restricted by your ability to make a profit selling the things it produces is a great check to try to make sure that the assembly lines that are created are ones that society as a whole finds useful. Other systems for trying to make this decision without some kind of profit feedback will fail. You can't truly accurately predict what needs to be made without making it and seeing if people want it.
Yes, this is quite true, but increasingly, the special tools requirement will be going away, and there are abundant raw materials, if you assume that the special tools needed to refine them will be cheaply and abundantly available, and are the same special tools as are used to contruct everything.
Lots of silicon in sand. Lots of carbon all over the place. Lots of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen. You can build lots of useful stuff from those things, properly arranged. You can even make (someday) general purpose assemblers that will both mine those resources, and build the things you want from them.
As more and more goods become just blueprints waiting for cheap assemblers to manufacture them, goods come to look a lot like computer programs in their economics.
That's fine for home use. You might be willing to put up with a jury-rigged solution like that for your home. Most companies I know would shell out for the infrastructure needed to make the generator a part of the whole power system. My concern would be with how this affected the humidity of the machine room, and whether or not any unreacted hydrogen made it out of the machine.
Indulging a few rich people their fancy is the ticket for travel to space to become affordable. We don't try to get people into space much now because no profit can be made doing it. If a profit can be made doing it, there will be strong financial incentive to do it more and more cheaply, and eventually it probably won't cost too much more than a transcontinental airline flight.
That's the logic that's driven the semiconductor revolution to incredible advances in speed and minaturization. Mark up your advanced products, and sell them to rich people who want them, use the money to design the next batch to be better and cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish you hadn't posted anonymously so I could make sure you never ever worked for any company I ever had anything to do with. That's exactly the kind of attitude that nobody needs. From reading the LinuxWorld article, they seem like utter jerks, plain and simple. That they happen to produce good code is like saying the fascists made the trains run on time.
Ahh, yes, the model corporate american citizen. No corporation should ever be held accountable in any way for its actions. They are, after all, quite above any strange ideas like 'morality'.
The problem is that cable companies essentially have to intrude on your network and figure out what you're running in order to offer their service. Ximian's service is a natural and reasonable one to offer. There is no 'customer policing' to make sure it works.
Also, I have no problem with the cable companies differentiating based on usage, but that should be based on usage, not what software you happen to be running. If they want to rate limit you and charge you extra to have it lifted, that's great. What I have a problem with is them telling you what you can and can't have on your network.
Essentially cable companies are trying to 'police' users for business mistakes they made. They shouldn't have assumed that all users would be docile downloading consumers, and structured their business and pricing plans accordingly. Instead, they want to blame consumers for their glaring error in offering unlimited bandwidth to home users isn't quite so apparent.
In short, the situations are not comparable.
It got moderated down while I was composing my other comment, and I didn't look at all the replies first before responding again.
BTW, whoever moderated this as a troll moderated out of opinion instead of out of any kind of objective measure of how good the post was.
This person clearly stated an anxiety people in industries dominated by stupidly restrictive intellectual 'property' conventions and ideas. Industries where intellectual 'property' becomes a weapon instead of an incentive.
You want the liscensing changed, and you completely ignore the alternative, which was releasing the source. In fact, you ought to be sued to force the source to be released.
I'm betting the competitive advantage your competitors might get from seeing the source to your kernel mods would've been heavily outweighed by the time it took them to decipher it. Also, the easiest thing for them to do would be to also use Linux in their product, and releasing source, leaving you on a level playing field with respect to intellectual property concerns.
If they had tried to copy you, and also used Linux, it would've come down to which of your development teams could make a better product more quickly. Gee, that sounds like competition doesn't it?
Nah, I'm at the cap. :-) Been there for a couple of years now. :-)
I'm beginning to think you are a purposeful idiot who is merely trying to post something that has the appearance of being intelligent (but really required no thought at all) in order to get karma and the +2 bonus to be a jerk with later.
It won't work if they constantly resend the same packet over and over. They need it set up so that as soon as you get any N pcakets, you can reconstruct the file. This means that each packet needs to be different from all the other packets.
So if one side sends the other 6 packets before recieving the 'stop' request, and only 5 are needed to send the file, it doesn't matter which 5 of the 6 are recieved. No packets are sent from the reciever during the transfer, only at the beginning and end.
And, yes, it is a bandwidth hog, but for reasons that are rather different from the ones you imagine. It has no provision for congestion control, which means that it will keep blasting away with UDP packets at a congested router (keeping it congested) rather than backing off until the congestion ha cleared.
The 'equations' are broken up into pieces such that if you recieve any N pieces, you can reconstruct the entire file. It's like how some key sharing schemes work. Like Publius for example. Any N 'shares' of the key can be used to reconstruct the entire key. In this case the 'key' is the whole document, and I'm betting they use a different sharing scheme than ones already used for cryptography.
BTW, this post needs to be modded down rather badly as the person who wrote it doesn't seem to have read the article, or if (s)he did, (s)he misunderstood it badly.
UDP drops packets. What they are saying is they can packetize things in such a way that as soon as you pick up any N packets, you get the file, no matter what. They are also implying that anything less than N packets leaves you gibberish. This is quite different from file compression. It may be related to fractal file compression, but I think it's probably more related to cryptographic key sharing schemes.
Oh, yes, here's a link to the SourceForge project for SwarmCast.
Quite correct. This protocol does not sound at all TCP friendly. It needs some way of dynamically responding to network conditions to be that way. Even something so simple as doing an initial bandwidth test, then rate limiting the UDP packets to 90% of that would be a big help, though for a large file that would still create a lot of congestion problems.
Does anybody know if IPV6 has any kind of congestion notification ICMP messages so stacks can know to throttle applications when the applications are blasting out data that's congesting the network?
Oops, make that Justin Chapweske. That's what I get for typing out an odd name from memory. :-)
The company's name is OpenCola and the name of the product was SwarmCast. The guy who did SwarmCast, Justin Chapewske, is now at a company he started named Onion Networks. OpenCola appears to have completely abandon its original Open Source approach to their software.
Apparently, Justin has taken the GPL portions of Swarmcast and is improving them at Onion Networks.
I agree with you about their settlement policies.
Ahh, so the bodycounts are expected to be equal now? You know, if Palestinians didn't keep attacking Israel, they wouldn't lose so many people or so much land.
Good answer. :-)
I suspect they aren't as far off as you think, but that's rampant speculation on my part. And you're certainly right that they most likely won't exist in the next 10-20 years.
I do think that certain goods will slowly go the path of being 'software'. The genetically modified food industry for example. I think the pharmaceutical industry is running close behind. I bet you could produce a lot of pharmaceuticals with a vat, some sugary mash, and a few genetically engineered bacteria. The real problem right now would be sorting out all the molecules you want from those you don't.
And quite a nieve brain it is.
The capitalist system is designed to produce what people want. If nobody wanted Corvettes, nobody would want to own a Corvette assembly line. In this system, it really is possible (though exceedingly difficult, and requiring an element of luck) for someone who has an idea for producing something to get together all of the capital required to produce it and start producing it. Of course, if it turns out that nobody wants it, all that capital goes *poof* and there are a lot of angrier, poorer people in the world.
If the people don't want to work in factories on assembly lines, they can go try to come up with their own idea of something to produce. Many of them wouldn't care to. Also, many things couldn't be produced without the assembly line, so the assembly lines are necessary or society would be much poorer.
Of course, you argue that assembly lines should be jointly owned by everybody. But, I argue that nothing at all would ever get produced that way. Having your ability to amass the capital required to build an assembly line restricted by your ability to make a profit selling the things it produces is a great check to try to make sure that the assembly lines that are created are ones that society as a whole finds useful. Other systems for trying to make this decision without some kind of profit feedback will fail. You can't truly accurately predict what needs to be made without making it and seeing if people want it.
Yes, this is quite true, but increasingly, the special tools requirement will be going away, and there are abundant raw materials, if you assume that the special tools needed to refine them will be cheaply and abundantly available, and are the same special tools as are used to contruct everything.
Lots of silicon in sand. Lots of carbon all over the place. Lots of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen. You can build lots of useful stuff from those things, properly arranged. You can even make (someday) general purpose assemblers that will both mine those resources, and build the things you want from them.
As more and more goods become just blueprints waiting for cheap assemblers to manufacture them, goods come to look a lot like computer programs in their economics.
That's fine for home use. You might be willing to put up with a jury-rigged solution like that for your home. Most companies I know would shell out for the infrastructure needed to make the generator a part of the whole power system. My concern would be with how this affected the humidity of the machine room, and whether or not any unreacted hydrogen made it out of the machine.
*chuckle* Now that's funny. :-)
Indulging a few rich people their fancy is the ticket for travel to space to become affordable. We don't try to get people into space much now because no profit can be made doing it. If a profit can be made doing it, there will be strong financial incentive to do it more and more cheaply, and eventually it probably won't cost too much more than a transcontinental airline flight.
That's the logic that's driven the semiconductor revolution to incredible advances in speed and minaturization. Mark up your advanced products, and sell them to rich people who want them, use the money to design the next batch to be better and cheaper.
If that's actually how you feel, stop coming here, reading and posting. AFAIK, nobody sticks a gun to your head and makes you go to Slashdot.