I can certainly see the need (or usefulness) to store wholly unparsed snapshots of external XML (or other) data in binary or text fields. Or even, to store pre-computed XML to be externally emitted later. However, it makes no sense to keep internally parsed data and structure in anything but basic/native database data types if you're going to the trouble of using an RDBMS in the first place.
Heck, you may even duplicate the data (an evil in itself) by storing both parsed values split into columns and external values aggregated into XML for the same record. My excuse for the evil portion of data duplication being that on the input side is "keeping a record of what was input" and on the output side is "caching or pre-caching for performance reasons", or even "keeping a record of exactly what was output". The presumption being that it's always possible for a parsing or emitting error to occur and recording pre-parsed and post emitted data, in addition to the internal structures, helps in diagnosing such problems when they occur.
Actually... Keeping both copies (fully or partially indexed and raw XML) might be something you could even sell in your situation. Of course, I still totally agree that using XML in an internally/controlled environment where you're doing RDBMS is a huge mistake. (XML is best for interfacing externally!!)
Perhaps the reality is that the primary difference between proprietary and OSS developers is that the former has to take full responsiblity for their work and the latter can pass the buck.
Na, buck-passing is an innate human trait. I don't think there's a software developer alive who hasn't done it. At least not an experienced one.
How about the bug I constantly get where copy/paste/shift-end/shift-home quits working in text boxes much like this slashdot submission form on a random basis? (Which I, ironically, just encoutenered as I popped to a different window to search for the bug...)
Sometimes it appears to be a selection issue and goes away when I change browser windows, other times I have to completely kill all instances of firefox to get it working again...
Running on Windows Server 2003, default theme, no extensions.
This same (or a similar) bug has cropped up in various releases since early Mozilla betas.
Alas, I'm running 1.0.5.6 and don't appear to have any spyware on this machine!
A final thought: Don't take this to mean I dislike Firefox, or the dev team as a whole, I love the fact that I can browse with Firefox and not have to constantly worry that my computer will be compromised by some ActiveX content I don't even want. Further I greatly respect the whole mozilla team and their efforts. However, Firefox is by no means perfect, merely the (far) lesser of two evils.
The problem with open source, as it is most often used in modern parlance, is that you don't just allow people access to your inner workings. You wind up giving away all of your software for free. At least, that's true if you're talking about open source in the Apache/BSD/GPL sense.
Most likely this is because if you gave source only to your customers, they wouldn't be in a position to do much with it anyways... For example, many years ago the company I work for used to give source to all of their customers for software they purchased, but it was never called "open source".
It certainly would be interesting to see modern companies give out source without also providing those products for free to anyone who asks, but it doesn't appear a common business practice. (Not that giving away code doesn't work in many situations, just that it is a pretty big leap to take from a more proprietary model where you expect to use the copyright system to extract a bit of remuneration...)
In summary, the Wayback Machine will block end-users from accessing anything that is in your current robots.txt file. If you remove the restriction from your robots.txt, it will re-enable access, but only if it had archived the page in the first place.
That's pretty cool. I wish more software behaved in a manner that well thought out.
They had a system where it was actually more difficult for everyone in the world to gain in certain skills based on how popular they were, or how many other people were also trying to gain at that skill at the same time.
Think if it kind of like the WoW PvP ladder, but for every single skill. You had to compete with the entire realm just to gain another.1% on your stat sheet.
UO did some other pretty revolutionary stuff too. For instance, all items, weapons and other goods decayed when used. Sure, you could get them repaired, but they'd still eventually wear out to the point they weren't worth repairing any more. A similar system kept mages in check. Every single spell cast required massive amounts of reagents, also in limited supply. This meant mages might well be the most powerful class in the game, but it came at an extremely high monetary cost.
This meant you might be able to slice down a town full of wood-cutters, miners, blacksmiths and herb-gathers as an archer-mage, but you'd be begging them later on to sell you enough goods to keep yourself equipped. (At least, that's how it was supposed to work in theory)
Um... There's this browser called IE, I'll assume you're familiar with its history.
Microsoft can obviously support a standard, extend that standard, and then refuse to fully support future versions of the standard in favor of their proprietary extensions. If they hadn't dropped the security ball and stopped development for a while around IE 6, they'd probably have a monopoly on web-browsers *and* operating systems right now. (Some would argue they do anyways, but the browser war appears to be coming back into full swing.)
Heck, the whole push for a "standard" is a huge win for Microsoft in that they've fought that battle before (and quite often won, Java being the only exception that springs to mind).
What makes you think the ODF standard is any different than all the others. From what I see it looks a lot like w3c stuff like HTML, and not nearly as controlled as Java was. (Sun's clenched fist is what beat Microsoft down on that front and I don't see equivalent protections in ODF.)
Word being able to load/save ODF format is not the same as Word fully supporting ODF with every fancy new MS-fanboy collaborative feature enabled. (Or even every fancy new ODF-fanboy feature enabled)
Perhaps there exists an untapped market in teeny tiny baby supplies for these really small children. A playpen made out of a ring of hydrogen atoms and an amoeba for a pet.
Are you daft? What do you think Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is??!!
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Absolutely not!!! I insist they not be murdered, but I'm no charity, go find someone else to raise it!"
Should read: Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Absolutely not!!! You mixed the sperm and egg to create that embryo, you're responsible for it!"
Or at least, I think that's a scenario a lot of us worry about. Embryos being created specifically to be harvested and then discarded as medical waste. Sure, scientists may throw out a lot of fancy terms to explain why that isn't what's actually happening, but by and large that's exactly what is likely to happen because it's the cheapest and easiest.
Which is precisely the point. Most works make their money in the first year after release to a given market (if not less time).
The only reason to build a portfolio beyond that is to stifle future innovation by competitors. (At least the only reason I can see... Also there's the "It's mine! I wanna keep it!! Waaa!! syndrome)
People put locks on their own property for their own purposes. Things like credit card strips and encryption keys are a bit more complicated, but they at least represent some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement between parties.
DRM is one group putting locks on another group's property with no more consent than a spammer gets before sending an email.
You can argue all day about how copyrighted works are "licensed" and therefore "anything goes" but it just doesn't hold water. The only way any kind of license agreement gets any legal traction is by first claiming that copyrighted works are borrowed, leased, loaned, rented etc but never bought. However, if you look at the in-store or on-line transaction involved in aquiring a copyrighted work or license, it is very clear that a purchase has taken place.
If copyrighted works are purchased, then DRM is corporations locking up private citizen's possessions in order to obtain more control.
If copyrighted works are "only for license" then copyright is a rediculous and unconstitutional monopoly. (Basically a legal agreement where only one side gets represented...)
The Sony root-kit is one example. Of course, we also have other negative terms for such software like "malware", "spyware" and even "adware".
Of course, the point that much of DRM is not evil without the legal elements is well taken. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Technological Protection Measures, by themselves, are not necessarily evil.
Other than e-penis, why would anyone (today) with the status of 64 bit software as it stands want to use a 64 bit OS / drivers / programs.
Because they're faster.
Several parallelizeable operations can be done faster using a 64-bit architecture than a 32-bit architecture. While it is a bit silly to run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit architecture or to buy a 64-bit architecture and forever run it on a 32-bit OS, 64-bit programs on a 64-bit OS will outperform their counterparts in several important instances. Once we have 64-bit optimized programs it'll be silly not to be running a 64-bit processor...
You do have the right to do whatever you want with whatever hardware you buy. You know that, right?
Mind decrypting a DVD for me and posting on the internet about what you did, how you did it, and where you keep the result? Better yet, also post a tool that will help me do it too...
Heck, I probably wouldn't even visit the bank during the same session for fear of some kind of redirect spyware that they tried to sneak into the session.
But assuming it is free and/or open source how exactly would you limit availability to it??!!
Ok you didn't bother to check your facts before telling everyone how wonderful the ODF plugin is.
I suppose in your mind asking a simple question is spouting off about how great something is...
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which two web-sites I got confused after a quick googling, and why that might be a likely mistake...
As to expecting open source tools from people prominently pushing "openness"... How could I be so naive?
Wow, I hadn't realized (till reading more posts and your response) that this thing isn't available and hadn't even been talked about before that article. And, on further reading I'm beginning to wonder about this OpenDocument Fellowship.
Where is this "ODF plugin for Office" even listed on their activities page?
These guys are accepting donations to promote "openness" while their principles are off writing what appears to be proprietary software? That kind of turns my stomach. Even if this ODF plugin for Office were just vaporware, they're still baldly lieing to the community.
Either way my opinion of the OpenDocument Fellowship just dropped quite a few rungs.
Where can I get onna dem der plug-ins? I just did a quick google and I don't see any download links.
Sorry but "we've developed... (but won't offer any downloads)" and "we don't see a problem with compatibility..." don't sit well in an open community. Especially considering how much trouble I've had getting my girlfriend's Office files imported and exported from OpenOffice. Groklaw wants me to believe there's some brand new technology one guy wrote in a year, in a vacuum, that beats the pants off what is currently available in the community?
My only concern is that it appears the plugin is not going to be made widely available
Um... Since no one bothers to back up their words with links, I don't really know which "plugin" you're talking about, nor what it can/can't do. But assuming it is free and/or open source how exactly would you limit availability to it??!!
Given that Bush has repeatedly and persistently held himself to be above the law, suggesting that would be an excercise in redundancy.
Well, when (and if) he's wrong about Congress overstepping the constitution, it's really the judicial branch's job to fix that. (There's a reason a 3-way balance of power was chosen in this country, 2-legged tripods don't stand up very long...)
I'll start to worry he's trying to become a king when he's not gone in 2008.
mainly, i think, to reach the widest segment of the population.
I disagree.
The priorities are: #1: Control use of content. #2: Reach the widest possible audience given #1.
There are already plenty of available formats and players both free (common) and DRM (controlled). Having a client that is both common *and* controlled (at least to the degree of not allowing local storage) is new. Other formats (like Real) have failed more because they've completely ignored all customer concerns (by becoming adware/spyware) than because customers are unwilling to use DRM software.
Slashdot Mirror
Here here!
I can certainly see the need (or usefulness) to store wholly unparsed snapshots of external XML (or other) data in binary or text fields. Or even, to store pre-computed XML to be externally emitted later. However, it makes no sense to keep internally parsed data and structure in anything but basic/native database data types if you're going to the trouble of using an RDBMS in the first place.
Heck, you may even duplicate the data (an evil in itself) by storing both parsed values split into columns and external values aggregated into XML for the same record. My excuse for the evil portion of data duplication being that on the input side is "keeping a record of what was input" and on the output side is "caching or pre-caching for performance reasons", or even "keeping a record of exactly what was output". The presumption being that it's always possible for a parsing or emitting error to occur and recording pre-parsed and post emitted data, in addition to the internal structures, helps in diagnosing such problems when they occur.
Actually... Keeping both copies (fully or partially indexed and raw XML) might be something you could even sell in your situation. Of course, I still totally agree that using XML in an internally/controlled environment where you're doing RDBMS is a huge mistake. (XML is best for interfacing externally!!)
Perhaps the reality is that the primary difference between proprietary and OSS developers is that the former has to take full responsiblity for their work and the latter can pass the buck.
Na, buck-passing is an innate human trait. I don't think there's a software developer alive who hasn't done it. At least not an experienced one.
How about the bug I constantly get where copy/paste/shift-end/shift-home quits working in text boxes much like this slashdot submission form on a random basis? (Which I, ironically, just encoutenered as I popped to a different window to search for the bug...)
Sometimes it appears to be a selection issue and goes away when I change browser windows, other times I have to completely kill all instances of firefox to get it working again...
Running on Windows Server 2003, default theme, no extensions.
This same (or a similar) bug has cropped up in various releases since early Mozilla betas.
Note: a quick search for this bug indicates it may have been fixed.
Alas, I'm running 1.0.5.6 and don't appear to have any spyware on this machine!
A final thought: Don't take this to mean I dislike Firefox, or the dev team as a whole, I love the fact that I can browse with Firefox and not have to constantly worry that my computer will be compromised by some ActiveX content I don't even want. Further I greatly respect the whole mozilla team and their efforts. However, Firefox is by no means perfect, merely the (far) lesser of two evils.
The problem with open source, as it is most often used in modern parlance, is that you don't just allow people access to your inner workings. You wind up giving away all of your software for free. At least, that's true if you're talking about open source in the Apache/BSD/GPL sense.
Most likely this is because if you gave source only to your customers, they wouldn't be in a position to do much with it anyways... For example, many years ago the company I work for used to give source to all of their customers for software they purchased, but it was never called "open source".
It certainly would be interesting to see modern companies give out source without also providing those products for free to anyone who asks, but it doesn't appear a common business practice. (Not that giving away code doesn't work in many situations, just that it is a pretty big leap to take from a more proprietary model where you expect to use the copyright system to extract a bit of remuneration...)
In summary, the Wayback Machine will block end-users from accessing anything that is in your current robots.txt file. If you remove the restriction from your robots.txt, it will re-enable access, but only if it had archived the page in the first place.
That's pretty cool. I wish more software behaved in a manner that well thought out.
Have you played Ultima Online?
.1% on your stat sheet.
They had a system where it was actually more difficult for everyone in the world to gain in certain skills based on how popular they were, or how many other people were also trying to gain at that skill at the same time.
Think if it kind of like the WoW PvP ladder, but for every single skill. You had to compete with the entire realm just to gain another
UO did some other pretty revolutionary stuff too. For instance, all items, weapons and other goods decayed when used. Sure, you could get them repaired, but they'd still eventually wear out to the point they weren't worth repairing any more. A similar system kept mages in check. Every single spell cast required massive amounts of reagents, also in limited supply. This meant mages might well be the most powerful class in the game, but it came at an extremely high monetary cost.
This meant you might be able to slice down a town full of wood-cutters, miners, blacksmiths and herb-gathers as an archer-mage, but you'd be begging them later on to sell you enough goods to keep yourself equipped. (At least, that's how it was supposed to work in theory)
but their social and business structures for the most part do not need items like printers or other trinkets.
Eh?? They don't need printers? Don't they write checks, store files and need directions?
Um... There's this browser called IE, I'll assume you're familiar with its history.
Microsoft can obviously support a standard, extend that standard, and then refuse to fully support future versions of the standard in favor of their proprietary extensions. If they hadn't dropped the security ball and stopped development for a while around IE 6, they'd probably have a monopoly on web-browsers *and* operating systems right now. (Some would argue they do anyways, but the browser war appears to be coming back into full swing.)
Heck, the whole push for a "standard" is a huge win for Microsoft in that they've fought that battle before (and quite often won, Java being the only exception that springs to mind).
What makes you think the ODF standard is any different than all the others. From what I see it looks a lot like w3c stuff like HTML, and not nearly as controlled as Java was. (Sun's clenched fist is what beat Microsoft down on that front and I don't see equivalent protections in ODF.)
Word being able to load/save ODF format is not the same as Word fully supporting ODF with every fancy new MS-fanboy collaborative feature enabled. (Or even every fancy new ODF-fanboy feature enabled)
Perhaps there exists an untapped market in teeny tiny baby supplies for these really small children. A playpen made out of a ring of hydrogen atoms and an amoeba for a pet.
Are you daft? What do you think Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is??!!
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Absolutely not!!! I insist they not be murdered, but I'm no charity, go find someone else to raise it!"
Should read:
Right Wing Right-to-Life Zealot: "Absolutely not!!! You mixed the sperm and egg to create that embryo, you're responsible for it!"
Or at least, I think that's a scenario a lot of us worry about. Embryos being created specifically to be harvested and then discarded as medical waste. Sure, scientists may throw out a lot of fancy terms to explain why that isn't what's actually happening, but by and large that's exactly what is likely to happen because it's the cheapest and easiest.
(at least in theory).
Which is precisely the point. Most works make their money in the first year after release to a given market (if not less time).
The only reason to build a portfolio beyond that is to stifle future innovation by competitors. (At least the only reason I can see... Also there's the "It's mine! I wanna keep it!! Waaa!! syndrome)
People put locks on their own property for their own purposes. Things like credit card strips and encryption keys are a bit more complicated, but they at least represent some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement between parties.
DRM is one group putting locks on another group's property with no more consent than a spammer gets before sending an email.
You can argue all day about how copyrighted works are "licensed" and therefore "anything goes" but it just doesn't hold water. The only way any kind of license agreement gets any legal traction is by first claiming that copyrighted works are borrowed, leased, loaned, rented etc but never bought. However, if you look at the in-store or on-line transaction involved in aquiring a copyrighted work or license, it is very clear that a purchase has taken place.
If copyrighted works are purchased, then DRM is corporations locking up private citizen's possessions in order to obtain more control.
If copyrighted works are "only for license" then copyright is a rediculous and unconstitutional monopoly. (Basically a legal agreement where only one side gets represented...)
And did anyone else think that a spoofed BD+ update disc can be used to undo DRM in Blu-ray players? Seems like the door's open...
You mean a player that likely won't decrypt the latest discs? Don't forget the discs *are* encrypted.
Even without the benefit of law, DRM can be evil.
The Sony root-kit is one example. Of course, we also have other negative terms for such software like "malware", "spyware" and even "adware".
Of course, the point that much of DRM is not evil without the legal elements is well taken. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Technological Protection Measures, by themselves, are not necessarily evil.
How is this not Microsoft's fault? They can stop their OEM's from allowing Linux dual-boots, but they can't stop them bundling spyware and/or malware?
Other than e-penis, why would anyone (today) with the status of 64 bit software as it stands want to use a 64 bit OS / drivers / programs.
Because they're faster.
Several parallelizeable operations can be done faster using a 64-bit architecture than a 32-bit architecture. While it is a bit silly to run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit architecture or to buy a 64-bit architecture and forever run it on a 32-bit OS, 64-bit programs on a 64-bit OS will outperform their counterparts in several important instances. Once we have 64-bit optimized programs it'll be silly not to be running a 64-bit processor...
You do have the right to do whatever you want with whatever hardware you buy. You know that, right?
Mind decrypting a DVD for me and posting on the internet about what you did, how you did it, and where you keep the result? Better yet, also post a tool that will help me do it too...
Hell, 200$ was already stretching it for a birthday present and took a BIG deal of convincing.
Ya, but in 1984, $200 was worth about $400 today.
Heck, I probably wouldn't even visit the bank during the same session for fear of some kind of redirect spyware that they tried to sneak into the session.
Aren't you already hosed at this point?
I suppose in your mind asking a simple question is spouting off about how great something is...
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which two web-sites I got confused after a quick googling, and why that might be a likely mistake...
As to expecting open source tools from people prominently pushing "openness"... How could I be so naive?
Wow, I hadn't realized (till reading more posts and your response) that this thing isn't available and hadn't even been talked about before that article. And, on further reading I'm beginning to wonder about this OpenDocument Fellowship.
Where is this "ODF plugin for Office" even listed on their activities page?
These guys are accepting donations to promote "openness" while their principles are off writing what appears to be proprietary software? That kind of turns my stomach. Even if this ODF plugin for Office were just vaporware, they're still baldly lieing to the community.
Either way my opinion of the OpenDocument Fellowship just dropped quite a few rungs.
Where can I get onna dem der plug-ins? I just did a quick google and I don't see any download links.
Sorry but "we've developed... (but won't offer any downloads)" and "we don't see a problem with compatibility..." don't sit well in an open community. Especially considering how much trouble I've had getting my girlfriend's Office files imported and exported from OpenOffice. Groklaw wants me to believe there's some brand new technology one guy wrote in a year, in a vacuum, that beats the pants off what is currently available in the community?
Color me skeptic.
My only concern is that it appears the plugin is not going to be made widely available
Um... Since no one bothers to back up their words with links, I don't really know which "plugin" you're talking about, nor what it can/can't do. But assuming it is free and/or open source how exactly would you limit availability to it??!!
Given that Bush has repeatedly and persistently held himself to be above the law, suggesting that would be an excercise in redundancy.
Well, when (and if) he's wrong about Congress overstepping the constitution, it's really the judicial branch's job to fix that. (There's a reason a 3-way balance of power was chosen in this country, 2-legged tripods don't stand up very long...)
I'll start to worry he's trying to become a king when he's not gone in 2008.
mainly, i think, to reach the widest segment of the population.
I disagree.
The priorities are:
#1: Control use of content.
#2: Reach the widest possible audience given #1.
There are already plenty of available formats and players both free (common) and DRM (controlled). Having a client that is both common *and* controlled (at least to the degree of not allowing local storage) is new. Other formats (like Real) have failed more because they've completely ignored all customer concerns (by becoming adware/spyware) than because customers are unwilling to use DRM software.