You're confusing EULAs with distribution licenses. Consider:
EULA: Microsoft produces Office. Before I can use it I have to agree to certain conditions of use. Copyright law restricts me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it without permission getting permission from MS.
GPL: Sun produces Java. They give it to me and I can use it without agreeing to any conditions limiting my use of the software*. Copyright law would restrict me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it, but Sun has already given me permission to do this through the GPL.
Doesn't Stallman claim to want freedom for "recipients" of software to be able to use it and modify it, and not a free-for-all for developers and distributors? If those are his goals, then whether you agree with them or not presumably people who produce and distribute software under the GPL either agree with them, or don't understand the point of the license.
* I'll acknowledge that plenty of software presents a copy of the GPL and asks you to acknowledge it before installing the software. This doesn't change the fact that the GPL does not take any rights away from you, it only grants you certain rights (with regards to redistribution and modification) that you would not have otherwise. In fact the GPL itself says that "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program"
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."
The MySQL source is released explicitly under version 2 of the licence and *not* "any later version". Let's pick a random MySQL source file and read the copyright notice at the top:
From./storage/myisammrg/myrg_rkey.c
"/* Copyright (C) 2000-2003, 2005 MySQL AB
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA */"
It's reasonable to make mistakes, but to make them repeatedly in such a condescending, impertinent tone is outrageous. Please stop telling people that you can re-licence something under the GPL3 by virtue of the fact that it is released under the GPL2 - you can only do so if the copyright holder adds the "and any later version" statement.
That's crazy. You need to have a stage and live. Fortunatlythese daysyou can doosixmachines on one virtual machine. I suggest you:
* Buy one server (it needs to be powerful, so maybe one of those ones that goes in a rack (don't worry about a rack though)
* Install Windows on it and VMWareServer (the free one)
* Install 3VMs and put Windows on each.
* You'll need one web server and one database server for live and stage. So use two VMs for production, and the other VM and the machine with VMware server installed for stage.
* Eventually this might not be enough performance, if so you can just add more virtual machines to spread the load. Maybe but more virtual CPUs in them?
Slashdot is a great source for expert info like this: be sure to ask about backups later too!
"Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand Workin' in the dark against your fellow man But as sure as God made black and white What's down in the dark will be brought to the light"
I think that's very naive approach to verbal communication often adopted by programmers.
If a person "says" something, then they are using spoken words to convey a particular meaning. In most contexts, using the words "Are you not going" conveys that the speaker does not know for certain if the addressed person is going (though the speaker suspects the addressed is not going - against earlier expectations), and requests that the addressed confirms that they are not going by responding in the negative or belays their suspicions by replying some other way. I suspect this phrase has become prevalent because it is extremely economical - almost universally understood and can convey what I typed in a couple lines in less than a second. Note that it conveys more information than a mere request for the addressed to make their position on a subject clear.
Most native English speakers are capable of using contextual clues to understand all this intuitively, and will not be consciously aware absurdity that arises when the words are parsed literally. Some people need to resort to intellectually determining the meaning of phrases like this.
Where I say 'programmers' it may be more appropriate to say 'people who lie further to the autistic side of the autism spectrum than average'
'If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version'
But my copy of the kernel source code says:
" Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
Which I take to mean that in order for anyone to distribute the kernel under a GPLv3 licence, they'll need to get permission from all of the contributors.
If your going somewhere thinking a wiki-reader may become useful for survival...you're asking for a Darwin Award.
flares/firemaking tools, let people know the are you're going to, bring a GPS receiver capable of transmmitting your location and if you have the resources bring a sat phone. If you think a reference guide to the local environment will be useful - bring that too.
There's surely a niche for this, and it's a great way to exploit the free documentation license to earn a crust. Not a survival tool though.
I would expect that (if this is true) then the exponential rate of performance increases processor to processor will decrease, or to put it another way: you'll see diminishing returns on your processor improvements that will keep putting that 80 year figure further into the future.
Is anyone who understands this sort of stuff commenting? This sounds like it'll be regarded as quite an important discovery.
Here's some fun numbers: a typical tape restore runs at something like 70MB/sec, if you're lucky, per tape drive. Some small low-end SANs that I see people buying these days are 10TB or bigger. At those speeds, it takes 40 hours to restore the complete system
Why not just buy two of those 10TB sans, keep one in your office (call it primary) keep one with your hosting provider (call it secondary). You keep the secondary sync'd up two a day or so behind your primary. As a part of your regular backup routine you record an each days changes.In the case of a catastrophic failure, you swap round the hardware, and sync it up with the latest set of changes.
The real problem in the scenario you describe if that the 10TB SAN is a single point of failure with unacceptably long recovery times. Just because you have a huge SAN powering a bunch of servers doesn't mean it has to be a case of "all your eggs in one basket"
I know what you mean. I was going to buy a car, but then I realised I don't have a gas station in my house.
Seriously, if this is a problem manufacturers will develop a small 'emergency power augmentation' to get you to the nearest gas-hydro-electric station.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you write them nicely explaining why you can't afford to, I'd imagine they might cover the cost for you
That's like saying a blimp is an overly complicated way to cross the street.
Pipes: Not just for hitting any more.
You're confusing EULAs with distribution licenses. Consider:
EULA: Microsoft produces Office. Before I can use it I have to agree to certain conditions of use. Copyright law restricts me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it without permission getting permission from MS.
GPL: Sun produces Java. They give it to me and I can use it without agreeing to any conditions limiting my use of the software*. Copyright law would restrict me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it, but Sun has already given me permission to do this through the GPL.
Doesn't Stallman claim to want freedom for "recipients" of software to be able to use it and modify it, and not a free-for-all for developers and distributors? If those are his goals, then whether you agree with them or not presumably people who produce and distribute software under the GPL either agree with them, or don't understand the point of the license.
* I'll acknowledge that plenty of software presents a copy of the GPL and asks you to acknowledge it before installing the software. This doesn't change the fact that the GPL does not take any rights away from you, it only grants you certain rights (with regards to redistribution and modification) that you would not have otherwise. In fact the GPL itself says that "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program"
Wrong. You made the same mistake with the Linux kernel ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406005&cid=29765325 ). The GPL states that:
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."
The MySQL source is released explicitly under version 2 of the licence and *not* "any later version". Let's pick a random MySQL source file and read the copyright notice at the top:
From ./storage/myisammrg/myrg_rkey.c
"/* Copyright (C) 2000-2003, 2005 MySQL AB
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA */"
Older versions of MySQL weren't tied to the GPL2. You can read the statement from when this was changed at http://blogs.mysql.com/kaj/2006/12/22/mysql-refines-its-gpl-licensing-scheme-under-mysql-50-and-mysql-51/
It's reasonable to make mistakes, but to make them repeatedly in such a condescending, impertinent tone is outrageous. Please stop telling people that you can re-licence something under the GPL3 by virtue of the fact that it is released under the GPL2 - you can only do so if the copyright holder adds the "and any later version" statement.
That's crazy. You need to have a stage and live. Fortunatlythese daysyou can doosixmachines on one virtual machine. I suggest you:
* Buy one server (it needs to be powerful, so maybe one of those ones that goes in a rack (don't worry about a rack though)
* Install Windows on it and VMWareServer (the free one)
* Install 3VMs and put Windows on each.
* You'll need one web server and one database server for live and stage. So use two VMs for production, and the other VM and the machine with VMware server installed for stage.
* Eventually this might not be enough performance, if so you can just add more virtual machines to spread the load. Maybe but more virtual CPUs in them?
Slashdot is a great source for expert info like this: be sure to ask about backups later too!
Never ascribe to corruption what you can ascribe to malicious incompetence.
"Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin' in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What's down in the dark will be brought to the light"
-Johnny Cash
Quote taken from the index of http://studysequoia.wikispaces.com/. Wishful thinking, but how apt.
I think that's very naive approach to verbal communication often adopted by programmers.
If a person "says" something, then they are using spoken words to convey a particular meaning. In most contexts, using the words "Are you not going" conveys that the speaker does not know for certain if the addressed person is going (though the speaker suspects the addressed is not going - against earlier expectations), and requests that the addressed confirms that they are not going by responding in the negative or belays their suspicions by replying some other way. I suspect this phrase has become prevalent because it is extremely economical - almost universally understood and can convey what I typed in a couple lines in less than a second. Note that it conveys more information than a mere request for the addressed to make their position on a subject clear.
Most native English speakers are capable of using contextual clues to understand all this intuitively, and will not be consciously aware absurdity that arises when the words are parsed literally. Some people need to resort to intellectually determining the meaning of phrases like this.
Where I say 'programmers' it may be more appropriate to say 'people who lie further to the autistic side of the autism spectrum than average'
They already can and do - all the time!
Pah, over a yeah to read some papers and bust someone. Right.~
Sure, but a whole Internet for just $31M? BARGAIN!
Yeah I've read it, it says:
'If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version'
But my copy of the kernel source code says:
" Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
Which I take to mean that in order for anyone to distribute the kernel under a GPLv3 licence, they'll need to get permission from all of the contributors.
Do you know something I don't?
He doesn't have the legal right to do that, well not for the parts he didn't write anyway.
This really sucks.
You all still think the earth is less than 10,000 years old though, right?
If your going somewhere thinking a wiki-reader may become useful for survival...you're asking for a Darwin Award.
flares/firemaking tools, let people know the are you're going to, bring a GPS receiver capable of transmmitting your location and if you have the resources bring a sat phone. If you think a reference guide to the local environment will be useful - bring that too.
There's surely a niche for this, and it's a great way to exploit the free documentation license to earn a crust. Not a survival tool though.
Froody.
I'm either shocked that a diff of wikipedia comes in at 4GB, or shocked that they're not using diffs.
And another thing....(to tenuously link this to the comment above) really is the sixth in the trilogy. Highly recommended ;)
I would expect that (if this is true) then the exponential rate of performance increases processor to processor will decrease, or to put it another way: you'll see diminishing returns on your processor improvements that will keep putting that 80 year figure further into the future.
Is anyone who understands this sort of stuff commenting? This sounds like it'll be regarded as quite an important discovery.
Sounds like they'll have to start a new category for half billion dollar space guns.
Here's some fun numbers: a typical tape restore runs at something like 70MB/sec, if you're lucky, per tape drive. Some small low-end SANs that I see people buying these days are 10TB or bigger. At those speeds, it takes 40 hours to restore the complete system
Why not just buy two of those 10TB sans, keep one in your office (call it primary) keep one with your hosting provider (call it secondary). You keep the secondary sync'd up two a day or so behind your primary. As a part of your regular backup routine you record an each days changes.In the case of a catastrophic failure, you swap round the hardware, and sync it up with the latest set of changes.
The real problem in the scenario you describe if that the 10TB SAN is a single point of failure with unacceptably long recovery times. Just because you have a huge SAN powering a bunch of servers doesn't mean it has to be a case of "all your eggs in one basket"
Sure.
More seriously, this nicely highlights the silliness and growing ambiguity in saying you "run Linux". It's like an Apple user saying "I run XNU"
It's a fantastic idea, I'm too cynical/lazy/apathetic to push for it though. Hopefully someone else will though.
I know what you mean. I was going to buy a car, but then I realised I don't have a gas station in my house.
Seriously, if this is a problem manufacturers will develop a small 'emergency power augmentation' to get you to the nearest gas-hydro-electric station.