I thought he was using a.308, not a.223, but the point is the same: He was probably very far away, not using subsonic ammo..223s move really fast (~3200fps). Making them subsonic makes them ineffective (since they don't have a lot of mass, then need a lot of velocity). I don't think they even make subsonic.223 rounds. He might be using a silencer, but again, this is only slightly practical since it slows the bullet down somewhat, and can affect accuracy. You'd have to get closer to the target either way. I don't know if you'd have to get so close that you'd be louder than if you simply stayed very far away and used normal rounds. Even a subsonic round, or one coming out of a silenced weapon makes a noise (I've shot both, but not together; and they were pistol rounds, not rifle rounds, but still...).
No, I think he's just got a lot of "stuff" around him (grass, bushes, etc) and is pretty far off. Cities are loud places, much more so than out in the woods. You'd be very surprised how quiet even a big hunting rifle is from a couple hundred yards off. And sound can echo off things fairly effectively in a city (although I've never shot a gun in a city, I've shot quite a few of them in the country, so I'm partially guessing here). If the victim was hit a second or two before the shot was heard, that confuses things even more. You'd pretty much have to see the impact to know where it came from.
Whatever he's using, I can't think of a fate bad enough for this guy. There's a special place in Hell for those who shoot women and children in the back. I just hope he's found soon.
That's a real small bullet, about as big as a.22 we all grew up with. In order for it to be lethal, it needs to be shot at about 1000 mps (Mach 3 ish).
For anyone curious, the.223 is about the same diameter as a.22 LR, but there the similarity ends. The.223 weighs in between 50 and 64 grains and travels at 2700-3300 fps. I think the.223 NATO round is 55 grains and moves at like 3100 fps. A.22 LR is 40 grains and travels at around 1050 fps. I might be a little off in my numbers, so don't quote me. The two are night and day as far as lethality and ballistics go, however.
It's probably a disaffected, over intellectual loner in high school or college with an M-14 or a bolt action.223 hunting rifle with a scope, who's taking out his feeling of inadequacy and powerlessness against random people. Needless to say, he's never been laid, either.
The M14 is.308, not.223. You mean a Mini14.
But I get your point. Feet first into the mulcher is too good a fate for this ass clown. Shooting old men and children and women. In the back. I'm having a hard time coming up with suitable retribution...
-B
Only the worst are left behind when ideas fail
on
Web Hospices?
·
· Score: 2
A while ago, I spent a few months at a dying web startup, and, as I looked at the costs of running such an operation, I realized that a tremendous synergy could be achieved by consolidating multiple dying web startups into one umbrella organization.
I've worked for two failed start-ups since 1994, both of which did things relating to the Internet and hosting. In that time, I've also worked for a Fortune 500 company and a state government. I've known many people who have worked for various organizations, failed or otherwise. I've seen quite a range of workplaces. Your idea will not work.
First off, you assume safety in numbers. This is not the case. If you were CEO of a struggling dotcom, barely keeping afloat, would you like a pets.com to merge with you? A company that tries to make a profit shipping products which have margins so slim that double bagging erases profit? Would that help you or hurt you? There is no economy of scale in failed ideas.
Secondly, I've seen and had to deal with what happens when you try to bring different companies' technologies together under one roof. You want to set something up where everyone can use the same database servers, right? One company uses Windows 2000, one uses NT, one uses HP-UX, one uses Linux. You want them to use to the same web server? One uses IIS, one uses Websphere, one Apache, and so on and so on. You would need to have technical staff able to setup and administer these one-offs. In fact, you'd have a whole company with one-offs. Everything would be an emergency (I've seen this in action; it's not pretty), everything would be custom fit, nothing can be re-used. There's a reason Henry Ford became rich by employing standardized parts on an assembly line and his competitors who built each unit from scratch, by hand, have been completely forgotten. You might be able to get away with using the same physical Net connection(s) and rack hardware/floorspace, but that is about it.
The third reason why your idea won't work involves personalities. When a company starts dying, people leave (and get laid off) in pretty well defined stages. I can't quantify those stages, but I can say they exist as fact since I've seen and experienced them first- and second-hand many times.
The first to leave are the flighty ones that are always looking for greener pastures even in good times. These people never drank your koolaid and felt little loyalty. You were a paycheck and they'd have likely left even if your comapny hadn't tanked. The second group to leave are ones that would like to stick it out, but since they have families and such, they feel the need to protect their personal future. "No hard feelings, but I can't take IOUs two pay periods in a row..." Good, solid workers who make up the bulk of the company (and will might even remember it fondly). The third group to leave are those who thought they'd get rich off the company, or move up in the company once it got real big. These are the ones that take loans against their homes and advances on their credit cards for the company's sake. They bought into the company's dream, and had impressive titles to match their impressive hopes. The 25 year-old CTOs and VPs you heard a lot about a couple years back were in this group (but were not the sole members by any means).
Who does that leave? Founders, initial investors, and those that came in very early (and probably worked very hard early on). This is upper management, usually, and might even include one or two technical people. By and large, however, these are the folks who have made business plans and sold investors on ideas by using fanciful, meaningless graphs printed on glossy paper, not technical merits. They knew enough buzzwords to get them in the door, or fake technical acumen. They have insane amounts of stock options, and were all hoping to cash in. Depending on their proclivities they will either do anything to save "The Company" (moral, ethical or otherwise) or they will try to make things right by cutting a few corners or trying new things (moral, ethical or otherwise). These are the ones that wanted to get rich off the backs of others. It was their turn to make it big, and their "Vision" which was to succeed and make them rich and powerful. Their baby was going to grow up into Something Big.
Their baby has genetic defects, however, and is dying slowly of a wasting disease. This makes them angry, bitter, spiteful parents. They wanted their baby to be in the World Series, or win a Nobel Prize, but instead they get to watch it take the little bus to school all its short life. They gave birth to the runt of the litter. Their simple-minded and feeble offspring cannot survive on its own. It's not fair. They turn evil. It was not their idea that failed. It was not their mis-management that failed. It was 9/11, or market conditions, or a competitor's dirty tricks, or that one supplier who wouldn't extend them just a little more credit which they needed in order to "take it to the next level". It was something or someone else which failed, not them. Not their ideas or their personalities or the mishandling of the company, no.
These are the last people around when a company dies. They are not nice or happy people. They don't have good personality traits in the best of times and at the worst or times can turn on those around them like a rabid Rottweiler. These are people who will backstab and then fire their own family members if it means even getting one more chance at a small round of funding (I've personally seen this happen -- twice).
So your idea is that these people all get together, with the goals of making their ideas work by becoming a unit. By combining their strengths, they can overcome the redundancies that killed their businesses. They can all get together and learn from each other's mistakes. They can not repeat history together, and avoid the pitfalls others have encountered. Is that about right? It will never work.
There will be several people who feel they should run the show, decide direction, forge new alliances, etc. There will be several people who steal the ideas of other members of the co-op and use them to try to get rich. There will be people who see the successes of another unit and decide to move into their territory. There will be people who try to headhunt from within other units. There will be people who use the whole co-op to claim their unit is larger than it really is, or that it does more than it really does. Once one unit gets a taste of success, it'll do everything it can to shrug off the other members. There will be those who will lie, cheat and steal to get ahead. Business is, after all, business.
You may say that I have a cyincal view of the world, and I might indeed, but what I say is true. Ask someone who has been in a commune what they think of altruistic ideals. You'll find that nearly all of them discovered that the only person who really thought the commune was a good idea what the leader/founder of the commune. I know what you propose is completely different from a commune, but the point remains that there will always be people who seek to gain at the expense of others no matter what it takes. Getting these types together will not help any of them (or you), collectively or separately.
If the goal is to simply get away from Windows while still maintaining functionality, and you're just a hack user, I would recommend Mac OS X. If you don't have the money to buy new hardware...then I don't know what to tell you.
I buy all the parts for a brand new system every five years. About every 12-18 months during that span, I upgrade the hardware and software piecemeal. What I upgrade and when depends on my needs. Games or a new kind of CPU seem to be the most common reason. Although I grant that gaming probably wouldn't be as much of an issue on a Mac.
The trouble with paying for Apple hardware and software is that you will always have to pay for Apple hardware and software. I buy high-end components and build my own systems. Everything "just works" fine for me. If Apple decides to change a EULA in Mac OS X what happens? If iTunes or the iPod incorporate DRM crap, what does everyone do? If they release a system that can't be sufficiently upgraded, what then? None of the cost-of-ownership stuff I've seen covers having to replace an aging iMac.
I don't want to start a flamefest or a religious war, but for me the right OS is Linux (and Win98 for games). You make a good point, however. Mac OS X passes the "Mom Test" with flying colors.
If you are trying to install something and you find you need to use (rpm -i --force foo.rpm), you're sure to screw something up, or something's already been screwed up.
There are exceptions to every blanket statement, I guess. The Opera 6.x RPMs need --force on my system because I'm missing a Tk library which the RPM requires (for what I don't know). I don't want to install said libraries, so I use --force when installing Opera via RPM. Everything's fine.
This isn't so much about attribution as it is about promoting the idea of free software.
Surely there are better ways to promote, ah, err... "GPL'ed Software" than to be obstinately divisive. Not all software must be Free/free. The stuff in my truck surely isn't and yet I continue to happily send my payments off. My DVD player is most certainly not Free (as in speech or umbrellas), yet I watch movies on it. Demanding what amounts to reparations in naming conventions after happily contributing to "Linux" smacks of whining, not promotion. It strikes me as disruptive and slightly childish.
The BSD folks, etc., don't have the same sort of political platform - GNU does, and it's one that's important to our future.
I'm not sure everyone who uses Open Source/Software Livre would necessarily want to be associated with those politics, Bruce. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian; voting takes me like 3 seconds (punch everything marked "L"). I believe in liberty and freedom like nobody's business. But you can't paint an entire demographic with the same political brush without getting a few runs. I agree that it's important to promote "non-closed" software, but I don't think heavy-handedness is what's called for.
Doesn't mean better at all. You probably wouldn't want to use one without the other, unless you are using an embedded Linux with smaller non- GNU alternatives to the basic utilities.
I think here we get to the meat of the issue. If I use my MP3 streamer home applicance which runs an "embedded Linux" kernel, am I running "Linux"? What if I use an iPaq which has like a couple GNU utils on it? Am I then using "GNU/Linux"? Now what about my Gateway/AOL Touchpad (which I actually own, BTW, so this is less than hypothetical)? It runs Midori's Linux distribution, without which I don't think I'd be able to make use of the hardware. It's not embedded Linux, it has a few GNU utils (but by no means even close to all; it only has a 32MB CF card for its OS and apps), so is is "GNU/Linux" or "Midori/Linux"? Then there's all my desktop/server machines...
See what I'm getting at? Where does one stop? And why? If asked, I'd say that my MP3 player, my PDA, my touchscreen home appliance and my workstation all run Linux. I'd label the OS just "Linux", without having to think about attirbution. That's a slippery slope, a path down which one cannot travel before getting mired in the mud of always giving credit or risk slighting the next contributor to wander along and complain.
I'm just going to say "Linux", just like I say "Solaris". It's far simpler. Everyone knows who GNU is, and what they have done, without this hackneyed branding scheme or whatever it is.
But the request is to acknowledge that GNU has contributed more.
Committing a voluntary act doesn't entitle you to reparations later. They willingly contributed, and now ask to be recognized. That's fair. However, my original point (I actually did read the FAQ before posting, and now wish I would have mentioned it -- if only to make my point more distinct) is that the place at which one stops with attributions (and demands for attributions) is completely arbitrary and left unanswered by the FAQ. GNU claims that anyone can say anything they want. So what would they say if the KDE folks had a FAQ asking recognition by calling it KDE/Linux? What about my Midori machine from above? Does GNU have any right at all to contribute merrily all these years and then demand that an entire range of work change based on its views?
And actually the reason they are making that request and asking for that acknowledgement is to expose people to their ideology.
There are those that don't believe in the GNU ideology. I'm one of them. I think Software Livre is a good idea, sure, but I'm not going to give up Opera for it. I won't give up games. I won't give up all the stuff I own with embedded, non-Free/free software in them. I will pay for software and I flatly refuse as absurd the notion that all software should be Free/free.
Like I said ealier, my Linux machines all talk to the Linux kernel, and since I'm not going to give props to Midori, Perl, X, XMMS, whomever, then I won't give credit at all. It's just not a feasible proposition. I feel bad that GNU people feel left out, but since I use Open and Free and free software, I have the right to disagree.
Hey, thanks for asking a question that is specifically answered in the FAQ.
Hey, thanks for the personal attack without providing anything meaningful to the discussion. My question isn't answered in the FAQ (which I did read). It's mentioned, but it's not answered.
The FAQ says: "Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point, you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it."
OK? You read that too before bitching at me, right? So my questions (which were to Perens specifically, BTW) remain asked: Where does one stop? Is there really a compelling reason to advocate ignoring many groups in favor of one? Do people use GNU stuff more than KDE or X or even Perl?
The FAQ merely says "GNU is the most important secondary component, so we should include it" and Perens advocates using it as well. My point was that the threshold shouldn't be there, so why bother using it?
My day isn't complete until I read a post that took longer to write that it would have taken to actually read the linked article, and never would have been written if the poster had done so.
My day's not complete until someone takes the time out of their busy day to whine about how a discussion board shouldn't be used for a discussion.
But what about everything else that I use on my box? Sure, I use the GNU utils and libs and compiler along with the Linux kernel, but I also use XFree86 as well. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that on my personal desktop machines, what get the most "workout" is X. So why disparage the generous contibution they've made by leaving them out? Now I use an OS called XFree86/GNU/Linux.
But why stop there? I also use KDE extensively. That's in the user's face a lot as well. It's what everyone sees. What a newbie might think is the OS. Why leave them out? My dekstop machines wouldn't be very useful to me without KDE (or any other WM). So now I need KDE/XFree86/GNU/Linux.
I use "The Computers Formally Known As Red Hat and Gentoo" for servers as well. That's a web server and a database typically. I even run these on my "workstations" as low-end test machines. I couldn't get on without Apache and MySQL (and/or PostgreSQL, but we'll simplify). So I need to call it MySQL/Apache/XFree86/GNU/Linux.
Oh wait. Perl and PHP. I can't forget those. Perl/PHP/MySQL/Apache/XFree86/GNU/Linux is what I call my OS now. What about the work Red Hat nas put into my desktop OS? I should mention them as well...
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Ok, so that's all more than slightly contrived. But it illustrates a point: where does one stop with the attributions? I realize that most of the heavy lifting is done by the wonderful work the GNU people have done, and I know that 'Linux' wouldn't be where it is today without all that stuff. But are the GNU utils the tail or the dog? Which wags which? Without the Linux kernel, I couldn't use the "OS". I can use gcc on Solaris, but I can't use the Linux kernel there. Is everything in/bin in "user space", or is it more "core"? Will the kernel work without the GNU stuff? Is the kernel the OS, or are the utils the OS? Does kernel32 or command.com makes Windows the "Windows OS"?
My point is that everything's resting on the kernel. The kernel is called Linux. It's a simple name, with recognition. It's in use. It works. I'm afraid in this case, instead of being part of the solution I'm going to have to remain part of the precipitate.
Since chkrootkit normally uses lots of stuff that usually lives in/bin (strings, ps, ls, find, etc), make extra sure that you use the '-p <directory>' flag when you run it. That tells chkrootkit to look for the binaries it needs in directory instead of wherever they are found in your path. Before you can do this, however, you need to (from a fresh, known-to-be-clean install) either copy all the needed binaries to a CD-R or to a partition re-mounted as read-only. A real paranoid would re-compile static versions of those utils and then use those. YMMV.
It does very little good to check for a rootkit when all the good GNU stuff in/bin has been trojaned...
Why is "DESKTOP" capitalized? Is it an acronym? While I'm asking, why is ANYWHERE in all caps? SUITE is as well. Why the caps? Is it to make the product names stand out? If so, they do so far too much; it makes the web site hard to read. Not that this is an interview or anything, just curious...
I like the thinly-velied advertisements, mostly. I saw an ad for this show (and something in one of my wife's entertainment mags) that mentioned the show, but only had it in the back of my mind that I had to find out when it aired so I could watch it. This reminded me and I'm gonna carve out some time to veg in front of the tube tonight.
But really, who cares if it is is an advertisement or not? It's information that some people here in this site's demographic wanted/could use/would like to have. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't mind advertisements when they're targeted properly and aren't obnoxious.
But you didn't quite do that, although calling MySQL a DBM file is a bit hostile
Well, I was overgeneralizing, sure. I remember building an used car auction web site in like 1995 where we actually had to think about which "storage system" to use: mSQL, DBM files, or CSV files. When MySQL and the DBI stuff came out later on, I thought I was in heaven. But I've always had it in the back of my head that as long as MySQL is treated like a way to get data via really fast SELECTs, then there should be any problems using it. Not that it can't be used for more than that, don't get me wrong.
So assuming we're being reasonable, here is what each side basically knows (and exaggerates) about the other.
I think you've said it very well, and summed up the two nicely.
And the PostgreSQL fans do have a good point in one area: a lot of things Web developers do in code are supposed to be done in the database.
Well, I've always gone by the theory that if there are lots of people much smarter than me who do things with optimizations in mind, I try not to re-invent that wheel. I'll do stuff in SQL whenever possible. So if I really need something like transactions, then I'm probably better off letting PostgreSQL handle than rather than roll my own in code. It can be done, but there's not very many compelling reasons to do it.
One other thing to consider is the tools and help you get with MySQL over the others. There's lot of code and tools built around MySQL, and that can be a deciding factor as well. And not everyone needs ACID-complinace every time.
So there, I've praised and pissed on both databases. What bothers me most about the usual criticisms is how outdated those criticisms are. Try the databases now. They're both kicking serious ass.
They are indeed. I've used both, and liked both. Having the right tool for the job means having a choice. Each is completely capable in its own right, even for non-web applications. I wouldn't put the DMV or like Farmer's Insurance behind a MySQL database. But would I do a dental office with it? You bet. Choice is good.
I just had a client that needed a database larger than MySQL could capably handle (3 million records.) Since their budget was tight, I went ahead and recommended Postgres. Oh! Whoops! Postgres doesn't run natively on Windows.
I've had MySQL databases with more than 3 million records. Many more, in fact. MySQL works fine if the databases are designed properly. Are you sure that you spec'ed out the job properly? Are you familiar with MySQL? You weren't sure what the client needed before you bid the job? What?
I've heard people swear on their souls that Postgre can stand up to MySQL, I look forward to finding out if this is really true. If it stands on it's own as a truly competitive product, congratulations to the Postgre guys. If however it's drawbacks are real, this could very well crush it forever.
Without sounding like I'm flamebaiting you, have you used many databases in your career? Do you know from experience the pros and cons of each? What drawbacks are you talking about? PostgreSQL is in a completely different class than MySQL. One is meant to be a full-fledged RDBMS, the other is meant to act as a super fast, network-aware DBM file on steroids. Each has their place, and they are more complementary than not. They can exist together, but you should never try to use one in place of the other. Get both, test both. Find the right tool for the job without listening to fanboy hype.
I had read the dead tree article a couple days ago. A friend and I were talking about trademark laws recently. Hilarity ensues.
I know what USPTO stands for.
The solution is to charge for patents what they cost to grant, and then hire competent examiners. Less patent applications equals fewer bogus/frivolous patents. Maybe. Perhaps there might be some technical solution to finding prior art, I don't know.
FWIW, I could care less about the RIAA/MPAA. Consumers will pay for whatever they shovel regardless of how long they can exclusively shovel it. Abusive patents, which are sometimes enforced "retroactively", hurt industry and consumers at a deeper level. Absurd patents in a rabidly litigious society are much worse than some sweat shop making bootleg Mickey Mouse ears, IMO.
Now Milton, we're going to have you move down to Storage B. Yeah... Get yourself a flashlight and a pry bar and go through all those old file cabinets. We, ah, need to find the work order to destroy Earth. Yeah, we've had some complaints that the paperwork has been too hard to find... Yeah...
Oh, and Milton? I'm going to need to have you come in on second and third shift too. Yeah... We had to "let go" of some people via the airlock, see, and we kind of have to play catch-up, M'kay?
I'm thinking Dana Carvey should shoehorn himself into this role and redeem his "Master of Surprise".
I don't seem him being able to get past his own ego/personna. Dent was 1) British, and 2) didn't make silly child voices.
Robin Williams would probably be a better choice, though.
Arthur "Patch Adams" Dent we don't need. Again, Dent didn't make silly voices and mug for the camera. He cowered and wimpered and was a very small fish out of very large water. I wouldn't mind seeing Alan Cumming play Dent. He can "seem small" well enough I think.
Jim Carey as Zaphod would truly suck. I can't think of who would not suck, though.
Sure, I would use your network. And I'd filter your ads, too, so I didn't have to be distracted by the annoying flashing. (I paid for Opera -- on both Linux and Windows -- so that I could toggle off the "Show animated GIFs" and "Use plugins" options, and not have to see the built-in ads. I don't like flashing things when I'm trying to read.) I'd use your network and I wouldn't see your ads. I don't think the idea is a good one. You make more money papering the parking lots of large malls or putting out door hangers or something than you would through banner ads.
I have XP SP1, and the latest ATI drivers that support XP SP1.
...
So, not sure what the discussion is about over on the boards there, but unless folks who have the setup are posting, then it is a lot of uninformed discussion
If you mean that you have Windows XP, then the discussion there doesn't really apply to your setup. Everything on that site is about gaming in Linux, and they are talking about the issues with regards to the ATI drivers in Linux and the Linux version of the demo.
There's a huge discussion going on over at linuxgames.com about the new ATI cards, Nvidia stuff, and the new Unreal Tournament demo if anyone's curious. There's also a link to a great review of the demo from a linux perspective.
(I only skimmed through part of it, but it looks like if you have an ATI card, you may not have much luck with UT2K3.)
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer Defense Weapons. Those Assault Weapons are just too dangerous.
-B
No, I think he's just got a lot of "stuff" around him (grass, bushes, etc) and is pretty far off. Cities are loud places, much more so than out in the woods. You'd be very surprised how quiet even a big hunting rifle is from a couple hundred yards off. And sound can echo off things fairly effectively in a city (although I've never shot a gun in a city, I've shot quite a few of them in the country, so I'm partially guessing here). If the victim was hit a second or two before the shot was heard, that confuses things even more. You'd pretty much have to see the impact to know where it came from.
Whatever he's using, I can't think of a fate bad enough for this guy. There's a special place in Hell for those who shoot women and children in the back. I just hope he's found soon.
-B
For anyone curious, the .223 is about the same diameter as a .22 LR, but there the similarity ends. The .223 weighs in between 50 and 64 grains and travels at 2700-3300 fps. I think the .223 NATO round is 55 grains and moves at like 3100 fps. A .22 LR is 40 grains and travels at around 1050 fps. I might be a little off in my numbers, so don't quote me. The two are night and day as far as lethality and ballistics go, however.
It's probably a disaffected, over intellectual loner in high school or college with an M-14 or a bolt action .223 hunting rifle with a scope, who's taking out his feeling of inadequacy and powerlessness against random people. Needless to say, he's never been laid, either.
The M14 is .308, not .223. You mean a Mini14.
But I get your point. Feet first into the mulcher is too good a fate for this ass clown. Shooting old men and children and women. In the back. I'm having a hard time coming up with suitable retribution...
-B
I've worked for two failed start-ups since 1994, both of which did things relating to the Internet and hosting. In that time, I've also worked for a Fortune 500 company and a state government. I've known many people who have worked for various organizations, failed or otherwise. I've seen quite a range of workplaces. Your idea will not work.
First off, you assume safety in numbers. This is not the case. If you were CEO of a struggling dotcom, barely keeping afloat, would you like a pets.com to merge with you? A company that tries to make a profit shipping products which have margins so slim that double bagging erases profit? Would that help you or hurt you? There is no economy of scale in failed ideas.
Secondly, I've seen and had to deal with what happens when you try to bring different companies' technologies together under one roof. You want to set something up where everyone can use the same database servers, right? One company uses Windows 2000, one uses NT, one uses HP-UX, one uses Linux. You want them to use to the same web server? One uses IIS, one uses Websphere, one Apache, and so on and so on. You would need to have technical staff able to setup and administer these one-offs. In fact, you'd have a whole company with one-offs. Everything would be an emergency (I've seen this in action; it's not pretty), everything would be custom fit, nothing can be re-used. There's a reason Henry Ford became rich by employing standardized parts on an assembly line and his competitors who built each unit from scratch, by hand, have been completely forgotten. You might be able to get away with using the same physical Net connection(s) and rack hardware/floorspace, but that is about it.
The third reason why your idea won't work involves personalities. When a company starts dying, people leave (and get laid off) in pretty well defined stages. I can't quantify those stages, but I can say they exist as fact since I've seen and experienced them first- and second-hand many times.
The first to leave are the flighty ones that are always looking for greener pastures even in good times. These people never drank your koolaid and felt little loyalty. You were a paycheck and they'd have likely left even if your comapny hadn't tanked. The second group to leave are ones that would like to stick it out, but since they have families and such, they feel the need to protect their personal future. "No hard feelings, but I can't take IOUs two pay periods in a row..." Good, solid workers who make up the bulk of the company (and will might even remember it fondly). The third group to leave are those who thought they'd get rich off the company, or move up in the company once it got real big. These are the ones that take loans against their homes and advances on their credit cards for the company's sake. They bought into the company's dream, and had impressive titles to match their impressive hopes. The 25 year-old CTOs and VPs you heard a lot about a couple years back were in this group (but were not the sole members by any means).
Who does that leave? Founders, initial investors, and those that came in very early (and probably worked very hard early on). This is upper management, usually, and might even include one or two technical people. By and large, however, these are the folks who have made business plans and sold investors on ideas by using fanciful, meaningless graphs printed on glossy paper, not technical merits. They knew enough buzzwords to get them in the door, or fake technical acumen. They have insane amounts of stock options, and were all hoping to cash in. Depending on their proclivities they will either do anything to save "The Company" (moral, ethical or otherwise) or they will try to make things right by cutting a few corners or trying new things (moral, ethical or otherwise). These are the ones that wanted to get rich off the backs of others. It was their turn to make it big, and their "Vision" which was to succeed and make them rich and powerful. Their baby was going to grow up into Something Big.
Their baby has genetic defects, however, and is dying slowly of a wasting disease. This makes them angry, bitter, spiteful parents. They wanted their baby to be in the World Series, or win a Nobel Prize, but instead they get to watch it take the little bus to school all its short life. They gave birth to the runt of the litter. Their simple-minded and feeble offspring cannot survive on its own. It's not fair. They turn evil. It was not their idea that failed. It was not their mis-management that failed. It was 9/11, or market conditions, or a competitor's dirty tricks, or that one supplier who wouldn't extend them just a little more credit which they needed in order to "take it to the next level". It was something or someone else which failed, not them. Not their ideas or their personalities or the mishandling of the company, no.
These are the last people around when a company dies. They are not nice or happy people. They don't have good personality traits in the best of times and at the worst or times can turn on those around them like a rabid Rottweiler. These are people who will backstab and then fire their own family members if it means even getting one more chance at a small round of funding (I've personally seen this happen -- twice).
So your idea is that these people all get together, with the goals of making their ideas work by becoming a unit. By combining their strengths, they can overcome the redundancies that killed their businesses. They can all get together and learn from each other's mistakes. They can not repeat history together, and avoid the pitfalls others have encountered. Is that about right? It will never work.
There will be several people who feel they should run the show, decide direction, forge new alliances, etc. There will be several people who steal the ideas of other members of the co-op and use them to try to get rich. There will be people who see the successes of another unit and decide to move into their territory. There will be people who try to headhunt from within other units. There will be people who use the whole co-op to claim their unit is larger than it really is, or that it does more than it really does. Once one unit gets a taste of success, it'll do everything it can to shrug off the other members. There will be those who will lie, cheat and steal to get ahead. Business is, after all, business.
You may say that I have a cyincal view of the world, and I might indeed, but what I say is true. Ask someone who has been in a commune what they think of altruistic ideals. You'll find that nearly all of them discovered that the only person who really thought the commune was a good idea what the leader/founder of the commune. I know what you propose is completely different from a commune, but the point remains that there will always be people who seek to gain at the expense of others no matter what it takes. Getting these types together will not help any of them (or you), collectively or separately.
-B
I buy all the parts for a brand new system every five years. About every 12-18 months during that span, I upgrade the hardware and software piecemeal. What I upgrade and when depends on my needs. Games or a new kind of CPU seem to be the most common reason. Although I grant that gaming probably wouldn't be as much of an issue on a Mac.
The trouble with paying for Apple hardware and software is that you will always have to pay for Apple hardware and software. I buy high-end components and build my own systems. Everything "just works" fine for me. If Apple decides to change a EULA in Mac OS X what happens? If iTunes or the iPod incorporate DRM crap, what does everyone do? If they release a system that can't be sufficiently upgraded, what then? None of the cost-of-ownership stuff I've seen covers having to replace an aging iMac.
I don't want to start a flamefest or a religious war, but for me the right OS is Linux (and Win98 for games). You make a good point, however. Mac OS X passes the "Mom Test" with flying colors.
-B
There are exceptions to every blanket statement, I guess. The Opera 6.x RPMs need --force on my system because I'm missing a Tk library which the RPM requires (for what I don't know). I don't want to install said libraries, so I use --force when installing Opera via RPM. Everything's fine.
-B
Surely there are better ways to promote, ah, err... "GPL'ed Software" than to be obstinately divisive. Not all software must be Free/free. The stuff in my truck surely isn't and yet I continue to happily send my payments off. My DVD player is most certainly not Free (as in speech or umbrellas), yet I watch movies on it. Demanding what amounts to reparations in naming conventions after happily contributing to "Linux" smacks of whining, not promotion. It strikes me as disruptive and slightly childish.
The BSD folks, etc., don't have the same sort of political platform - GNU does, and it's one that's important to our future.
I'm not sure everyone who uses Open Source/Software Livre would necessarily want to be associated with those politics, Bruce. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian; voting takes me like 3 seconds (punch everything marked "L"). I believe in liberty and freedom like nobody's business. But you can't paint an entire demographic with the same political brush without getting a few runs. I agree that it's important to promote "non-closed" software, but I don't think heavy-handedness is what's called for.
-B
I think here we get to the meat of the issue. If I use my MP3 streamer home applicance which runs an "embedded Linux" kernel, am I running "Linux"? What if I use an iPaq which has like a couple GNU utils on it? Am I then using "GNU/Linux"? Now what about my Gateway/AOL Touchpad (which I actually own, BTW, so this is less than hypothetical)? It runs Midori's Linux distribution, without which I don't think I'd be able to make use of the hardware. It's not embedded Linux, it has a few GNU utils (but by no means even close to all; it only has a 32MB CF card for its OS and apps), so is is "GNU/Linux" or "Midori/Linux"? Then there's all my desktop/server machines...
See what I'm getting at? Where does one stop? And why? If asked, I'd say that my MP3 player, my PDA, my touchscreen home appliance and my workstation all run Linux. I'd label the OS just "Linux", without having to think about attirbution. That's a slippery slope, a path down which one cannot travel before getting mired in the mud of always giving credit or risk slighting the next contributor to wander along and complain.
I'm just going to say "Linux", just like I say "Solaris". It's far simpler. Everyone knows who GNU is, and what they have done, without this hackneyed branding scheme or whatever it is.
But the request is to acknowledge that GNU has contributed more.
Committing a voluntary act doesn't entitle you to reparations later. They willingly contributed, and now ask to be recognized. That's fair. However, my original point (I actually did read the FAQ before posting, and now wish I would have mentioned it -- if only to make my point more distinct) is that the place at which one stops with attributions (and demands for attributions) is completely arbitrary and left unanswered by the FAQ. GNU claims that anyone can say anything they want. So what would they say if the KDE folks had a FAQ asking recognition by calling it KDE/Linux? What about my Midori machine from above? Does GNU have any right at all to contribute merrily all these years and then demand that an entire range of work change based on its views?
And actually the reason they are making that request and asking for that acknowledgement is to expose people to their ideology.
There are those that don't believe in the GNU ideology. I'm one of them. I think Software Livre is a good idea, sure, but I'm not going to give up Opera for it. I won't give up games. I won't give up all the stuff I own with embedded, non-Free/free software in them. I will pay for software and I flatly refuse as absurd the notion that all software should be Free/free.
Like I said ealier, my Linux machines all talk to the Linux kernel, and since I'm not going to give props to Midori, Perl, X, XMMS, whomever, then I won't give credit at all. It's just not a feasible proposition. I feel bad that GNU people feel left out, but since I use Open and Free and free software, I have the right to disagree.
-B
Wow. Now that I missed. Yeesh. I'm going to go back and re-read the whole darn thing again...
-B
Hey, thanks for the personal attack without providing anything meaningful to the discussion. My question isn't answered in the FAQ (which I did read). It's mentioned, but it's not answered.
The FAQ says: "Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point, you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it."
OK? You read that too before bitching at me, right? So my questions (which were to Perens specifically, BTW) remain asked: Where does one stop? Is there really a compelling reason to advocate ignoring many groups in favor of one? Do people use GNU stuff more than KDE or X or even Perl?
The FAQ merely says "GNU is the most important secondary component, so we should include it" and Perens advocates using it as well. My point was that the threshold shouldn't be there, so why bother using it?
My day isn't complete until I read a post that took longer to write that it would have taken to actually read the linked article, and never would have been written if the poster had done so.
My day's not complete until someone takes the time out of their busy day to whine about how a discussion board shouldn't be used for a discussion.
Thanks again.
Blow me.
-B
But what about everything else that I use on my box? Sure, I use the GNU utils and libs and compiler along with the Linux kernel, but I also use XFree86 as well. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that on my personal desktop machines, what get the most "workout" is X. So why disparage the generous contibution they've made by leaving them out? Now I use an OS called XFree86/GNU/Linux.
But why stop there? I also use KDE extensively. That's in the user's face a lot as well. It's what everyone sees. What a newbie might think is the OS. Why leave them out? My dekstop machines wouldn't be very useful to me without KDE (or any other WM). So now I need KDE/XFree86/GNU/Linux.
I use "The Computers Formally Known As Red Hat and Gentoo" for servers as well. That's a web server and a database typically. I even run these on my "workstations" as low-end test machines. I couldn't get on without Apache and MySQL (and/or PostgreSQL, but we'll simplify). So I need to call it MySQL/Apache/XFree86/GNU/Linux.
Oh wait. Perl and PHP. I can't forget those. Perl/PHP/MySQL/Apache/XFree86/GNU/Linux is what I call my OS now. What about the work Red Hat nas put into my desktop OS? I should mention them as well...
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Ok, so that's all more than slightly contrived. But it illustrates a point: where does one stop with the attributions? I realize that most of the heavy lifting is done by the wonderful work the GNU people have done, and I know that 'Linux' wouldn't be where it is today without all that stuff. But are the GNU utils the tail or the dog? Which wags which? Without the Linux kernel, I couldn't use the "OS". I can use gcc on Solaris, but I can't use the Linux kernel there. Is everything in /bin in "user space", or is it more "core"? Will the kernel work without the GNU stuff? Is the kernel the OS, or are the utils the OS? Does kernel32 or command.com makes Windows the "Windows OS"?
My point is that everything's resting on the kernel. The kernel is called Linux. It's a simple name, with recognition. It's in use. It works. I'm afraid in this case, instead of being part of the solution I'm going to have to remain part of the precipitate.
-B
It does very little good to check for a rootkit when all the good GNU stuff in /bin has been trojaned...
-B
-B
But really, who cares if it is is an advertisement or not? It's information that some people here in this site's demographic wanted/could use/would like to have. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't mind advertisements when they're targeted properly and aren't obnoxious.
-B
Well, I was overgeneralizing, sure. I remember building an used car auction web site in like 1995 where we actually had to think about which "storage system" to use: mSQL, DBM files, or CSV files. When MySQL and the DBI stuff came out later on, I thought I was in heaven. But I've always had it in the back of my head that as long as MySQL is treated like a way to get data via really fast SELECTs, then there should be any problems using it. Not that it can't be used for more than that, don't get me wrong.
So assuming we're being reasonable, here is what each side basically knows (and exaggerates) about the other.
I think you've said it very well, and summed up the two nicely.
And the PostgreSQL fans do have a good point in one area: a lot of things Web developers do in code are supposed to be done in the database.
Well, I've always gone by the theory that if there are lots of people much smarter than me who do things with optimizations in mind, I try not to re-invent that wheel. I'll do stuff in SQL whenever possible. So if I really need something like transactions, then I'm probably better off letting PostgreSQL handle than rather than roll my own in code. It can be done, but there's not very many compelling reasons to do it.
One other thing to consider is the tools and help you get with MySQL over the others. There's lot of code and tools built around MySQL, and that can be a deciding factor as well. And not everyone needs ACID-complinace every time.
So there, I've praised and pissed on both databases. What bothers me most about the usual criticisms is how outdated those criticisms are. Try the databases now. They're both kicking serious ass.
They are indeed. I've used both, and liked both. Having the right tool for the job means having a choice. Each is completely capable in its own right, even for non-web applications. I wouldn't put the DMV or like Farmer's Insurance behind a MySQL database. But would I do a dental office with it? You bet. Choice is good.
-B
I've had MySQL databases with more than 3 million records. Many more, in fact. MySQL works fine if the databases are designed properly. Are you sure that you spec'ed out the job properly? Are you familiar with MySQL? You weren't sure what the client needed before you bid the job? What?
You kinda sound like an MS shill is all...
-B
Without sounding like I'm flamebaiting you, have you used many databases in your career? Do you know from experience the pros and cons of each? What drawbacks are you talking about? PostgreSQL is in a completely different class than MySQL. One is meant to be a full-fledged RDBMS, the other is meant to act as a super fast, network-aware DBM file on steroids. Each has their place, and they are more complementary than not. They can exist together, but you should never try to use one in place of the other. Get both, test both. Find the right tool for the job without listening to fanboy hype.
Oh, wait. IHBT. Never mind...
-B
I know what USPTO stands for.
The solution is to charge for patents what they cost to grant, and then hire competent examiners. Less patent applications equals fewer bogus/frivolous patents. Maybe. Perhaps there might be some technical solution to finding prior art, I don't know.
FWIW, I could care less about the RIAA/MPAA. Consumers will pay for whatever they shovel regardless of how long they can exclusively shovel it. Abusive patents, which are sometimes enforced "retroactively", hurt industry and consumers at a deeper level. Absurd patents in a rabidly litigious society are much worse than some sweat shop making bootleg Mickey Mouse ears, IMO.
-B
-B
Oh, and Milton? I'm going to need to have you come in on second and third shift too. Yeah... We had to "let go" of some people via the airlock, see, and we kind of have to play catch-up, M'kay?
Thanks, Milton...
-B
I don't seem him being able to get past his own ego/personna. Dent was 1) British, and 2) didn't make silly child voices.
Robin Williams would probably be a better choice, though.
Arthur "Patch Adams" Dent we don't need. Again, Dent didn't make silly voices and mug for the camera. He cowered and wimpered and was a very small fish out of very large water. I wouldn't mind seeing Alan Cumming play Dent. He can "seem small" well enough I think.
Jim Carey as Zaphod would truly suck. I can't think of who would not suck, though.
How about Steven Root as the Vogon Captain? Every see Tripping the Rift?
The Rolling Stones(old and dead) would make a good Disaster Area, or perhaps The Who...(loud and louder)
I think you hit this one dead on.
-B
Slow news day?
-B
Google is always your friend.
-B
...
So, not sure what the discussion is about over on the boards there, but unless folks who have the setup are posting, then it is a lot of uninformed discussion
If you mean that you have Windows XP, then the discussion there doesn't really apply to your setup. Everything on that site is about gaming in Linux, and they are talking about the issues with regards to the ATI drivers in Linux and the Linux version of the demo.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
-B
(I only skimmed through part of it, but it looks like if you have an ATI card, you may not have much luck with UT2K3.)
-B