In this case you could just as easily point to the released products. The 4GB, 6GB and 8GB models in the e200 series retail for $120, $140 and $150, respectively. So $30 cheaper than the Nano @ 4GB and $50 cheaper @ 8GB.
Not to say that people shouldn't buy the iPod if they want, but it definitely is priced at a premium over its largest competitor.
The fact that you interpret Theo's words to mean that dual licenses are XOR not AND means either you didn't bother to read the rest of his sentence or you are deliberately twisting his words around to mean the exact opposite of what he intended.
No, I interpret the license to mean that dual licenses are XOR and not AND and that Theo is talking from betwixt his gluteus muscles.:)
Finally, the correct interpretation of a dual license does not add extra restriction and thus is not in conflict with the GPL.
It seems pretty cut and dry to me that "you must also distribute it under the terms of the BSD license" would constitute an additional restriction.
To re-quote Theo: "It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false..."
Seems pretty clear he is questioning it.
The fact that distribution is allowed under the GPL explicitely disallows under the terms of that license that additional restrictions be placed on redistribution such as, in this case, simultaneously maintaining a completely seperate license. It's XOR, not AND.
It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false...
In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law.
Funny, but I would have thought that 'Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.' would mean, well, that alternately the software could be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
If he had made the argument that some of the files (i.e. the headers) lacked that notice and thus couldn't be distributed under the GPL he would have been a point. If he said that even though it was allowed it was rude he might have had a point. Instead he's just being obtuse.
Erm, they are. Gateway announced they were exercising their right of first refusal to block Lenovo from buying them. So you'll have Acer, Gateway, eMachines and Packard Bell all under single ownership.
Luxury! You had lowercase letters and everything! Apple II+. Same 1MHz processor, 48K plus 16K (on the language card). No emulated drives, no RAM card, no 3.5" floppy. Hayes 300 baud modem that picked out of a dumpster and restored to working order through liberal application of solder and electrical tape.:)
You might try responding to what I actually said. I never said outages were inevitable. I was responding to your assertion that proof of productity is that "nothing goes wrong (no trouble tickets)", which is patently ridiculous. No amount of proactive administration is going to forestall every problem; it may mitigate their effects, but it won't and can't eliminate them entirely.
Since the real proof of actual productivity for network admins is negative: nothing goes wrong (no trouble tickets).
If nothing goes wrong, either you're not managing many systems or they're not doing very much. No matter how good an admin team is, things always go wrong. Components fail, traffic spikes, idiotic thieves who don't know the difference between copper and fiber cut through cables, applications have bugs, script kiddies attack, et cetera.
What differentiates a good admin team from a bad one is what happens when the inevitable problems do crop up.
Erm, quite a few of them. Little site called eBay, for example, who migrated from a C++ impmlementation to Java in 2002. Happen to know one of the top ISPs in the country will be migrating about 20 million mailboxes to Java mailstores in the near future.
When people think scalability has much to do with what language an application is written in, I start suspecting they've never worked in a real data center before.
It really depends on the application. We're handling hundreds of concurrent connections and millions of connections a day per server with average CPU utilization hovering averaging 43.09% and never exceeding 63.47%. If you subtract time waiting for I/O and the average drops to 9.89% and peak 23.24%.
Performance bottlenecks often lie in the disks and network, not in the application.
Six: Use AJAX wherever you can. The response time for an AJAX function is amazing and it is really not that hard to do Basic AJAX.
AJAX can be a performance win. It can also be a nightmare if done poorly. I've seen far too many "web 2.0" applications that flood servers with tons of AJAX calls that return far too little data without a consideration for the cost (TCP connections aren't free, logging requests isn't free).
Response time is also variable. What feels 'amazing' local to the server can be annoyingly slow over an internet connection, especially if the design is particularly interactive.
Couple things I'd suggest:
1) Don't do usability testing on a LAN. An EV-DO card wouldn't be a bad choice for an individual. For a larger scale development environment a secondary internet connection works well.
2) Remember that a page can be dynamic without AJAX. Response time toggling the display property of an object is far more impressive than establishing a new network connection and fetching the data.
3) Isolate AJAX interfaces in their own virtual host so that you can use less verbose logging for API calls. This is a good idea for images as well.
Unfortunately for HD-DVD, Blu-Ray trumps it in convenience, technical quality, and library of available media.
How is blu-ray any more convienent? Put disk in player, hit play.
How is blu-ray significantly different in terms of technical quality when they support the same codecs and both have ample capacity and bandwidth to serve 1080p video + TrueHD audio?
There is a slight advantage to Blu-ray at the moment in terms of available media, but it's minimal; Amazon reports 402 titles versus 456.
There is only one reason why someone would pay $150 million to buy the adoption of a particular format: The HD DVD people realized their preferred format was inferior, and could not possibly win in the marketplace in a fair competition on the merits.
And Sony paid Target for an exclusive marketing deal this holiday season because Blu-ray can't compete with HD DVD, right? These sorts of deals are hardly unusual.
In other words, the people who paid believed that the format they don't want to win, Blu-ray, is worth $150 million more than their HD DVD format in true value, so to even the score they had to pay.
Or in otherwords, the people who took the money expect that the potential sales of Blu-ray over the next 18 months would be less than $150 million. Frankly not that much money to companies which regularly spend more than that on production of a single movie.
And it's not as if they cut a couple of big honkin' checks. That figure (if even accurate) includes "a combination of cash and promotional guarantees". The example they cite is a cross promotion deal with Toshiba involving Shrek the Third. That's money that would have been spent, regardless, and Toshiba reaps the benefit of having a big name title to promote the player.
Personally I'm not in a rush to buy either format, although prices on HD DVD players are now edging into the "eh, what the hell?" territory if one of my SD players goes tits up on me.
Lets say you are a rich guy having those high end Macs or iMacs just for home entertainment. You can afford a $2k/3k thing and obviously you won't bother pirating, you will buy the original movies for your high end HDTV.
Enthusiasts are not mass market. The standard format for mass market media will not be decided by people who can drop a few grand on entertainment computers. It'll be decided by people who spend a couple hundred on a player.
Guess what? There is NO HD-DVD option but thanks to Roxio/Lacie you can even burn your own Blu Ray media on Macs.
And thanks to Apple you can author HD-DVD on Macs.
The XCode, thousands of pages of driver documentation, Apple Inc. is there for help and there is no HD DVD support. People will sure point their fingers to Microsoft, who else?
Huh? What does XCode have to do with drivers or HD? And what does driver documentation have to do with anything? Manufacturers of optical drives have no trouble writing drivers, last I checked.
Now, those HD DVDs have 2 options for Video codec. Industry standard H264 or Microsoft VC-1.
Three, actually - MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), and VC-1. What were the mandatory codecs for Blu-ray again? Oh, yeah - MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), and VC-1.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case you could just as easily point to the released products. The 4GB, 6GB and 8GB models in the e200 series retail for $120, $140 and $150, respectively. So $30 cheaper than the Nano @ 4GB and $50 cheaper @ 8GB.
Not to say that people shouldn't buy the iPod if they want, but it definitely is priced at a premium over its largest competitor.
Not quite - no switch or case. Unless you're running the prototype version of perl6 written in Haskell.
s/There/Their/
HTH
Kolivas maintained the SD scheduler, which never made it into mainline.
The overwhelming majority of people don't have a 56" HDTV. Just sayin'.
I'm sure your parents think so. :)
The lawyer also disagree with you.
The origional author, who put the dual license in place, disagrees with you.
The fact that you interpret Theo's words to mean that dual licenses are XOR not AND means either you didn't bother to read the rest of his sentence or you are deliberately twisting his words around to mean the exact opposite of what he intended.
:)
No, I interpret the license to mean that dual licenses are XOR and not AND and that Theo is talking from betwixt his gluteus muscles.
Finally, the correct interpretation of a dual license does not add extra restriction and thus is not in conflict with the GPL.
It seems pretty cut and dry to me that "you must also distribute it under the terms of the BSD license" would constitute an additional restriction.
To re-quote Theo: "It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false..."
Seems pretty clear he is questioning it.
The fact that distribution is allowed under the GPL explicitely disallows under the terms of that license that additional restrictions be placed on redistribution such as, in this case, simultaneously maintaining a completely seperate license. It's XOR, not AND.
It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false...
In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize
what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a
modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the
authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must
caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law.
Funny, but I would have thought that 'Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.' would mean, well, that alternately the software could be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
If he had made the argument that some of the files (i.e. the headers) lacked that notice and thus couldn't be distributed under the GPL he would have been a point. If he said that even though it was allowed it was rude he might have had a point. Instead he's just being obtuse.
Shit, how many people out there in the 'real' working world use 1.6?
*raises hand* Fifteen machines servicing about 700,000 users.
Erm, they are. Gateway announced they were exercising their right of first refusal to block Lenovo from buying them. So you'll have Acer, Gateway, eMachines and Packard Bell all under single ownership.
Luxury! You had lowercase letters and everything! Apple II+. Same 1MHz processor, 48K plus 16K (on the language card). No emulated drives, no RAM card, no 3.5" floppy. Hayes 300 baud modem that picked out of a dumpster and restored to working order through liberal application of solder and electrical tape. :)
You might try responding to what I actually said. I never said outages were inevitable. I was responding to your assertion that proof of productity is that "nothing goes wrong (no trouble tickets)", which is patently ridiculous. No amount of proactive administration is going to forestall every problem; it may mitigate their effects, but it won't and can't eliminate them entirely.
Since the real proof of actual productivity for network admins is negative: nothing goes wrong (no trouble tickets).
If nothing goes wrong, either you're not managing many systems or they're not doing very much. No matter how good an admin team is, things always go wrong. Components fail, traffic spikes, idiotic thieves who don't know the difference between copper and fiber cut through cables, applications have bugs, script kiddies attack, et cetera.
What differentiates a good admin team from a bad one is what happens when the inevitable problems do crop up.
In case you haven't noticed, any application that has to do things fast, has to be reliable, or deal with large datasets ... is still written in C/C++.
... EBay, who transitioned from C++ to Java five years ago?
Like
So did you forget to make an actual argument, or do you just not have one?
Erm, quite a few of them. Little site called eBay, for example, who migrated from a C++ impmlementation to Java in 2002. Happen to know one of the top ISPs in the country will be migrating about 20 million mailboxes to Java mailstores in the near future.
When people think scalability has much to do with what language an application is written in, I start suspecting they've never worked in a real data center before.
It really depends on the application. We're handling hundreds of concurrent connections and millions of connections a day per server with average CPU utilization hovering averaging 43.09% and never exceeding 63.47%. If you subtract time waiting for I/O and the average drops to 9.89% and peak 23.24%.
Performance bottlenecks often lie in the disks and network, not in the application.
Six: Use AJAX wherever you can. The response time for an AJAX function is amazing and it is really not that hard to do Basic AJAX.
AJAX can be a performance win. It can also be a nightmare if done poorly. I've seen far too many "web 2.0" applications that flood servers with tons of AJAX calls that return far too little data without a consideration for the cost (TCP connections aren't free, logging requests isn't free).
Response time is also variable. What feels 'amazing' local to the server can be annoyingly slow over an internet connection, especially if the design is particularly interactive.
Couple things I'd suggest:
1) Don't do usability testing on a LAN. An EV-DO card wouldn't be a bad choice for an individual. For a larger scale development environment a secondary internet connection works well.
2) Remember that a page can be dynamic without AJAX. Response time toggling the display property of an object is far more impressive than establishing a new network connection and fetching the data.
3) Isolate AJAX interfaces in their own virtual host so that you can use less verbose logging for API calls. This is a good idea for images as well.
Unfortunately for HD-DVD, Blu-Ray trumps it in convenience, technical quality, and library of available media.
How is blu-ray any more convienent? Put disk in player, hit play.
How is blu-ray significantly different in terms of technical quality when they support the same codecs and both have ample capacity and bandwidth to serve 1080p video + TrueHD audio?
There is a slight advantage to Blu-ray at the moment in terms of available media, but it's minimal; Amazon reports 402 titles versus 456.
Erm, they both opted for both.
There is only one reason why someone would pay $150 million to buy the adoption of a particular format: The HD DVD people realized their preferred format was inferior, and could not possibly win in the marketplace in a fair competition on the merits.
And Sony paid Target for an exclusive marketing deal this holiday season because Blu-ray can't compete with HD DVD, right? These sorts of deals are hardly unusual.
In other words, the people who paid believed that the format they don't want to win, Blu-ray, is worth $150 million more than their HD DVD format in true value, so to even the score they had to pay.
Or in otherwords, the people who took the money expect that the potential sales of Blu-ray over the next 18 months would be less than $150 million. Frankly not that much money to companies which regularly spend more than that on production of a single movie.
And it's not as if they cut a couple of big honkin' checks. That figure (if even accurate) includes "a combination of cash and promotional guarantees". The example they cite is a cross promotion deal with Toshiba involving Shrek the Third. That's money that would have been spent, regardless, and Toshiba reaps the benefit of having a big name title to promote the player.
Personally I'm not in a rush to buy either format, although prices on HD DVD players are now edging into the "eh, what the hell?" territory if one of my SD players goes tits up on me.
Lets say you are a rich guy having those high end Macs or iMacs just for home entertainment. You can afford a $2k/3k thing and obviously you won't bother pirating, you will buy the original movies for your high end HDTV.
Enthusiasts are not mass market. The standard format for mass market media will not be decided by people who can drop a few grand on entertainment computers. It'll be decided by people who spend a couple hundred on a player.
Guess what? There is NO HD-DVD option but thanks to Roxio/Lacie you can even burn your own Blu Ray media on Macs.
And thanks to Apple you can author HD-DVD on Macs.
The XCode, thousands of pages of driver documentation, Apple Inc. is there for help and there is no HD DVD support. People will sure point their fingers to Microsoft, who else?
Huh? What does XCode have to do with drivers or HD? And what does driver documentation have to do with anything? Manufacturers of optical drives have no trouble writing drivers, last I checked.
Now, those HD DVDs have 2 options for Video codec. Industry standard H264 or Microsoft VC-1.
Three, actually - MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), and VC-1. What were the mandatory codecs for Blu-ray again? Oh, yeah - MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), and VC-1.