Having read the first fifty or so comments, I am surprised by how many people have missed one of the main points which is that in spite of volumes of evidence to the contrary, Microsoft is still basically insisting that they "did nothing wrong", in spite of the fact that very few of the "findings of fact" upon which Judge Jackson based his decision are really in dispute.
So when the NYT reports that Microsoft thinks they got a bad decision because the judge didn't understand the technical, I am inclined to remind M$ that the specific reason they lost is that Judge J. was not only probably the most clued in judge they could have had the misfortune to come to trial with, and he gave them every chance to settle the anti-trust litigation -- and they, not he, blew every chance they had to get a better outcome for their company.
Also, AFAICT (as far as I can tell, if you're new to/., IRC, etc.) Microsof still continues to use 90% of the same unfair business practices which the Sherman acts prohibit (tying, etc.), and aren't really interested in changing the way they do business in the future.
And as a measure of whether or not their monopoly power has a negative effect on consumers: witness the rise in OEM cost for the basic x86 OS, for example -- rising from a few dollars back in the MS-DOS days, $20-40 during the early Windows days, to (last time I sold a system -- about a year ago -- I'm doing software exclusively now), $100 or more.
Which is why (on those rare days when I have extra time, like today), I work on Open Source projects or training other corporate folks in the OpenSource model of IT development. I may not be the loudest Open Source proponent, nor the most articulate, but I do know one thing: the best software choices for the future aren't centered around M$, because of the exact issues that I feel Judge Jackson correctly nailed M$ for.
...which (IIRC) at least five of the big six recording companies were caught doing, at least Amazon is trying to compete and be profitable within the bounds of the law, such as it is. Maybe they were trying to drive the prices up, maybe down, but in any case, at least free enterprise competition (and the oft-maligned free press) did their jobs and forced the correction.
Of course, like many others here, I'd be willing to assist Amazon in their drive toward profitability. By my last count, they've lost at least $300 in sales which went to a competitor (Barnes and Noble, if you must know) which would have been theirs without the boycott currently in effect, so multiply that by the number of folks not willing to buy until the time Amazon drops "one-click" patent nonsense.
I wonder the following: is it possible that larger software companies are unwilling to release their main products on Linux because they're worried they won't be able to make money?
I think the problem you are looking at has more to do with the idea of critical mass than the "give me everything for free" mentality common to a certain segment of the Open Source community.
It takes a certain amount of development capital to build up the foundational pieces for a modern GUI, and Linux is just reaching that point with Gnome and KDE. With the foundations built, however, it becomes progressively easier to deploy the kind of advanced applications which power users and corporations are willing to shell out the bigger bucks for. It also requires a "critical mass" of users willing to shell out the money to make the more advanced development possible.
So perhaps it's a chicken and the egg type thing -- is it "if you build it we will come..." or is it "we'll build it if you'll come..." ??
Agreement with 90% of your comments, especially insuring high quality in software. The only area where we disagree (which is where I turn "zealot mode on"), is that closed proprietary programming has constraints that make it inherently more difficult to program well. 90% of the projects I have worked on that were based on open source code have succeeded, where the percentage of closed source projects is right about where the industry predicts it would be -- around 35%. By the way, my definition of "success" in software projects is "on time, on budget, feature definitions met, with low maintenance for the release."
It isn't Quicken, but its close enough for most of us...
Z'okay that it's not a clone of Quicken, because (--Open Source Zealot Mode On--) GNUCash comes with source code. Has the eyes of the world to search out bugs, suggest features, etc. Forkable at will. And the best reason to use it and help with the development process? The completed product(s) can't be closed and taken proprietary, so I can count on being able to have/fix the latest and greatest version(s) without the chains to corporate America.
So I would expect that in a few years, Intuit will be saying, "Well, it's not GNU Cash, but it's still pretty good, and if you buy it, we make money because we're such nice people..."
Exactly right, and your commentary is excellent. Which is where the DCMA and UCITA are both flawed -- they try to criminalize access to the information on media which has been bought and paid for by the consumer unless it is in the copyright holder's "blessed" interest.
So even if Apogee is simply trying to protect their marks in the digital realm (which is understandable and legal under current law), to use UCITA or the DCMA as their legal foundation makes whatever they want to accomplish highly suspect.
For example, what about the case where I place a scanned photo of an unopened Apogee game box (complete with logos, marks, etc.) next to a nastily worded review, written with the express purpose of trashing the Apogee marks in relation to the game. Since it was a photo of their product, which I haven't opened (maybe I played the game on a friend's computer?), what law did I violate?
My point is that both UCITA and DCMA are slippery slope legislative pieces that when you get down to it, infringe on free speech.
The whole copying controversy including MP3, Napster, and even the DeCSS/DVD fight comes down to one issue: analog duplication (with the accompanying degradations for every generation of the copy), vs. digital copying which is perfect in every generation.
Don't get me wrong by the way-- I'm all for downloading music and movies in a digital format, with one critical condition attached to it: that the artist and/or company representing the artist has put it up or given permission for distribution via the source where I download it.
Which IMHO may even include charging me for the download. Anything else isn't fair to the artist/company.
"...give users the ability to remove their own comments, maybe with a karma penalty or something"
Sorry, no can do because of a little database principle known as "referential integrity." Let me explain: the comments are threaded, so if you remove your comment and I have replied to it, where's my comment supposed to link to? Nowhere, so it's orphaned. The practical effect is that if I posted a comment and didn't like how the commentary below mine went, I could orphan an entire thread. Similarly, deleting a moderated post would orphan the "moderations" done to the record.
However, the idea could be improved by saying "allow a user to delete his/her own unmoderated post if it has no other comments linked to it." Without diving back into the v1.03 code base, I'm not sure if it is possible or if the folks at/. would like to implement your suggestion, but as with everything else -- it has to be done with alot of though as to to other effects.
I don't understand the complaint. AFAICT (as far as I can tell, they released the source code, will continue to release the code, etc., so I don't see how they have "left the community", so to say. Please elucidate...
Quoting you: "He's mostly come off as evasive and ill-prepared."
Vehement disagreement, at least in the documents which I have read. The article listed at the top of this thread is by far the most incisive summary about why the DeCSS court case in front of Judge Kaplan is so damned important, and in the "interesting item", although he got a bit long winded and apparently loud some times, he was exactly on point -- wanting the injunction reversed because of First Amendment issues, and failing that, to argue for speedy depositions (which the movie companies are trying to evade), in order to get the case in front of the Supreme Court by fall.
This is a man on a mission, focused, angry, and ready to do battle on behalf of the constitutional issues raised by the DCMA and DeCSS.
Because the Progressive Policy Institute is the think tank policy group behind the Democratic Leadership Council. Not that I support Napster, but the DCMA needs to be trashed, not extended.
Just my opinion, but I think Andover and/. should tell Microsoft to go to hell. Apparently they haven't heard of the fair use doctrine, didn't notice how many posters consistently pointed out that trying to bypass the copyright was essentially illegal, etc. etc., and this disclaimer that all comments belong to the posters and the rest belongs to/.
It's not like Rob, Hemos, Roblimo, etc. posted the bypass information, etc. Geez, what's next? Is the RIAA going to try to sue Slashdot for all of the comments in stories on MP3.com and Napster? Is the MPAA going to sue/. for all of the comments and stories about the deCSS court cases?
In case anyone wonders why we continually rant that the DCMA and it's evil cousin UCITA must be defeated in order to maintain our freedoms, just think about Microsoft's legal pressuring of Slashdot for a minute. And then realize that Microsoft was and is a major player in terms of the soft money which got the DCMA passed in the first place and is shelling out big bucks to try to make sure that UCITA goes through as well.
Conclusion: Microsoft doesn't care about your freedom. Which is why I don't give a damn about what happens to Microsoft in the future. One final thought: Maybe we should forward copies of the better/. commentary on the corruption of the Kerebos protocols to Judge Jackson...give him another reason to tear them to bits.
I agree that Open Source rewrites the business model, but as an insider at a level between the PHB's and the entry level coders (I am coding 60% of the time, managing about 40% of the time), the changes are not "who the people are", it's what they do. To say that the "business suits" are being forced out isn't true -- they are just being forced to become much more technologically literate and involved in how the hardware and software we use affects the business.
So the suits are becoming analysts who are expected to be progressively more involved in charting the technological direction of a company or department within a company. Certainly, this tilts the business model away from "what can I sell?" to "how do I most profitably serve my important customers?".
As other posters have noted, the idea that "the Suits" are the cause of all software/IT problems isn't accurate. Poor project definition, scope, and follow through testing are what causes buggy, bloated software, and those are the responsibility of the tech leads and IT managers.
If a tech lead assigns an underskilled coder, allows code to get through into a release without thorough design and testing, allows milestones to be missed, etc., or if an IT manager agrees to a feature which can't be produced with any kind of quality in a timely manner, the "suits" won't know it until it is too late, so it's kind of hard to lay the blame anywhere but on ourselves when it happens.
Where Open Source changes the model is that with a "release early, release often, open up the development process to early review" type of mentality, better decisions can be made up front -- resulting in less bugs, less boat, and there's no such thing as a premature release. Witness Mozilla, for example. Anything before Mozilla declares itself as a "gold version" is premature in some ways, but I've been using the browser component to do some of my work for a couple of months now. But the "suits" in charge had to change how they thought of things in order to let Mozilla happen.
One poster noted that "As a programmer, my natural inclination is to reject management forces. But I have come to the inescapable conclusion that software development is a process that must be managed, on some level, as an organized task." Exactly true.
But the result of the OSS mentality has another more profound and valuable side effect: once management has a good experience with "release early release often, review early," they start looking at their own business processes -- and when the mentality really takes hold, all company processes become open to peer review and the cruftiness in the company structures and business models get exposed and eliminated. Result: a quicker moving, effective, and efficient business unit which is ready to respond proactively to emerging market forces instead of just trying to react to them while under fire from better equipped competition.
Okay fine, but what about us non-BSD Users?
on
IPv6 Over OpenBSD
·
· Score: 3
Fortunately, one of the main IPv6 sites (ipv6.com) has these handy setup instructions for other OS's such as Solaris, AIX, Linux, etc.
Caveat: as I am only a Linux user at home and stuck on WinNT at work, and have not even tried connecting to a 6 bone yet or doing IPv6 tunneling with IPv4, I can't vouch for how well the instructions work, but they look right, AFAICT.
While I like the idea and the initials [FSG, next item after FSF in the Jargon File, perhaps?;-)] I wonder if the new group will actually be able to do what they say they are trying to, which is to accelerate the use and acceptance of open source technologies through the application, development and promotion of interoperability standards for open source development.
I mean, sure, they've got a bucket full of endorsements from some of the big players, but since when does adding members to a group speed up the decision making process? I mean, each of the major Linuxes have a financial interest in their own success, even if it's at the expense of the others, right?
That said, I supported the idea of the LSB, and think this is a good thing, but is this any closer to something like a W3C decision making body than it's two predecessors? I also wonder how the FSG's members propose to deal with applications for non-Intel processors. If software is written for an x86 Linux, and is "FSG compliant", does that mean it should be recompilable for Linux PPC, etc.? My other (probably dumb) question is that if I write something that works on a distribution that is supposed to be "FSG compliant", but don't have the various distributions to test it on, how am I supposed to be able to get my software tested and certified?
Re:MySQL can be made to rock, with a little help.
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
Excellent points, a couple of which worth further discussion, I think:
Subqueries:
I completely forgot to mention this -- which is my pet peeve about MySQL by the way. I hope that the MySQL development team reads/., because the lack of sub-selects is in my mind the single major reason to avoid MySQL as an option.
Stored Procedures... you wrote: The only overhead for stored procedures is when you create and save them. After that the code is stored 'compiled' and optimised by the database engine. True. But that doesn't include the overhead already in the database which allows the stored procedures to be loaded, processed, and used. From my rather limited reading of the tests comparing Oracle, etc. to MySQL, I believe (perhaps wrongly ?) that this subsystem is what boggs down the bigger RDBMS's in terms of single CPU speed. I would love someone more expert than me to verify/disprove that belief, by the way.
Being an expert at flatfile-style DBMS is a useful trait. However, you should try some real RDB programming -- your life will be much easier, and you will be a happier individual.Well, gotcha there. I use Oracle about 40% of the time, SQL Server about 20% of the time, and MySQL about 40% of the time. So I am a) fairly happy, b) expert at flatfile and somewhat expert at RDBMS databases, and c) knowledgable enough to use the right tool for the job.
I guess my main point should have been, don't dismiss MySQL if you don't need the horsepower and don't have the time or money to waste on in-house staff to support your bigger fatter RDBMS.
MySQL can be made to rock, with a little help.
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 2
Every time this discussion comes up (MySQL vs. Oracle, etc.), everybody focuses on the lack of certain features (transactions being the main one, others usually include replication, triggers, stored procedures, and journaling).
The soapbox I always climb on is that all of those features are still available, just not at the RDBMS level. Between 1985 and 1996 (roughly), I was writing client server applications with tools not nearly as powerful as we have today -- to work with ISAM, dBase/Foxpro, and B-Trieve type tables. I've created modules that did database replication, transactions, server-internal processes called by client apps (doing the same kinds of things that stored procedures and triggers), and I would wager that all of my code which did those kinds of things looks a hell of a lot like the code which does those things inside Oracle, DB-2, Informix, etc.
In more simple terms, here's the progression inside the database:
A certain type of data request is made for which a trigger has been set
When the "trigger" is pulled, i.e., that type of data request is made, code within the database is launched
Code within the database performs some useful function, which may include actions which cause other triggers to be fired, etc.
Code within the database returns values as defined by the trigger/stored procedure.
Okay, (as an example), you want to do the same thing with a web server enabled with PHP and a MySQL back end? Here goes:
PHP code on the web server tests for a certain type of data request.
When that data request is made, the web server calls another PHP module which has been programmed to do the same thing the stored procedure did.
This new code performs some useful action, which may include calling other modules to do useful functions
These functions interact with the database, doing the same things their stored procedure counterparts would do, an return data/return codes to the calling program.
What are the differences?
First, PHP is obviously not as fast as the PL/C code inside an Oracle database, etc.
Second I (the programmer) have to work a little bit harder to make things work efficiently, and
very importantly, I only incur the processing overhead for "stored procedures", in the specific application modules that need it -- not throughout the database.
Which is why MySQL is my database of choice when I have one for damn near every project I do, including some large, enterprise size data sets. The key is, knowing when the other features of Oracle, SQL Server, etc. are more critical to the client than outright blazing speed for the majority of the database work to be done.
I don't know of low cost, highly fully integrated systems, and I have been looking at this issue (microcomputer controlled accessibility applied to the human dimmension -- via X10, etc.) since 1982.
A good friend of mine is nearly completely disabled by polio, but has enough hand control to steer her chair. Using a computer is too laborious, and even talking on the telephone is not as easy as it could be. So what's my idea of an integrated system for this person?
A quality, voice controlled browser (Mozilla + IN 3 would be fine, if that combo existed / worked well)
a script savvy plug in to the browser that could program and control a set of X10 modules (by voice),
a DSL Line that can be used as the basis for an in home/internet access system sort of like the Sprint ION.
Obviously the voice recognition is the key component, but are there/why aren't there browser based X10 controller programming methods out there?
Excellent points, especially in regard to the case of identity theft, which is in large part where this case originated. (your example 1).
My reading of the article is that basically the U.S. Supreme Court has held only that the ISP is not liable for the transmission of the offending information, which means that they have what is called "common carrier" status. I'm not sure whether the original lawsuit also contained a request for liability based on the network security issue(s). I'm reminded of the fiasco at Network Solutions not too long ago where hackers forged the email header information for a large number of websites and basically took control of those sites for a while. If I owned the registration on one of those sites, and libel or slandering material was published on those domains, I would very certainly have suffered damages to my reputation, etc. And I would hope that a court would find that if NSI didn't adequately secure my data (or offer higher security for my data to prevent the domain name piracy, which they do), that they are in part responsible for the damage.
Spam mail...I don't know if the courts need to necessarily get involved, because there are other technological ways of dealing with the problem, AKA the RBOC list. If the email services provided by yahoo, etc. don't shut off the flow of spam mail, they can get blocked in a hurry, right? Your question asked Shouldn't these ISP's and large companies be responsible for the information being sent through their network?No -- they can't be under the court opinion. But they can, have, and will continue to be made responsible by the 'Net community for the fact that spam is flowing through their networks. Which is why nearly all ISP's have a policy of cutting off the account(s) of anyone sending spam through their connections.
Final case: "It's just like having a gun... if your gun is taken and used in a homicide, you should be responsible for not taking the necessary precautions and preventing it from being used in a crime."
Depends. If I have the gun in my hand and I let you take it from me, shoot somebody, etc. I'm an accessory to the crime. Likewise, if I allow or assist someone who should not have access to firearms to gain that access, I can again be charged with violating the law. But if you burglarize my house, breaking into a gun cabinet, stealing the weapon, (and I report it to the police, etc.), if you murder someone, should I still be held liable because I didn't somehow prevent your original burglary crime, or store the guns in a 2000 lb. safe, etc.?
In your post, you stated that "Now the courts need to learn that this ought to apply to Websites too."
My opinion (non-lawyer) is that this is only partway true for several reasons, which are important to consider before making a blanket statement like the one above. Consider, first and foremost, web pages have been ruled "publications" under the law. This means that some of the liability laws which apply to more traditional forms of publication also apply to WWW publishing.
Let's consider the three ways an ISP can manage information flow to and from the WWW. The way I see it there are three cases, which I will offer opinions on, a person or company is acting as an ISP and:
(a) has a website or web sites of its own? I think that we would agree that the owned sites would be subject to libel and slander laws.
(b) access to the offending sites is via the Internet connections owned by the ISP, but the sites are hosted elsewhere. I think that we would also agree that in this case the ISP should be accorded common carrier status - it's just a transmission.
It's the third case (c)is the heart and soul of the battle (IMHO). If my reading of current law and decisions is correct, right now a hosted web site is much the same as a column in a newspaper. If the newspaper publishes information, it is obligated to either publish a retraction upon a libel or slander challenge or back the columnist. If they choose to back the columnist, they usually become party to the lawsuit for publishing the information. Likewise, if an ISP receives information about a hosted site that is considered libelous or slandering, they have to make a choice whether or not to continue "publishing" the site, or removing it from circulation, i.e. blocking access or removing it from the server(s).
I've got two windows open: one on Slashdot.org, the other on beta.slashdot.org. Granted, the beta servers are probably not getting the full load yet, but I loaded articles with comment counts in the 300-500 range and timed the differences in loading time (BTW, I'm on a not heavily burdened T-1 from work). Anyhoo, in all cases the articles loaded two to two and a half times faster.
2nd Try, server not found, then refreshed -- got an extremely fast load, so it looks like the guys are tweaking in the background.
Once the bugs are worked out, it looks like another round of kudos due to the/. techies. Good job, guys!!
As I have been reading the posts, a thought occurred to me that no-one else seems to comment on, which is that Slashdot authors received about 20,000 emails in addition to the comments which were posted here, and if out of all of the comments and emails, they chose the top 200 or so for inclusion in a book, that means that any given person's chances of being quoted in the book are what, 1%? So inclusion in the book is quite an honor. Beyond that, Rob & Co. also went to the trouble of avoiding posts/emails from people who did not want to be quoted, made attempts to contact some of those who were, and made sure that the remaining posts/emails were quoted anonymously.
From the flames since yesterday, you'd think that we all got burned by some horrible corporate activity, when the fact is (IMO), we have been honored with a hardcopy version of our online world.
I can't speak for the rest of you, but I am going to a) vote with my checkbook, AKA buy the book, and (flame mode on) b)encourage those of you who have problems with how the book came to be to look inside yourselves and think about whether or not you ought to just maybe get a life. [Flame mode off]
"there is something mindless, isolating, lonely and arrogant about reading online."
Uh huh, right. That's like saying that reading itself is "mindless, isolating, lonely, and arrogant", because [at least last time I checked] it's kinda hard to either multitask while reading and/or loan someone the social use of my eyeballs.
The fact is, I can and often do learn more in a few hours of research on the 'Net than I could in weeks of research at every library within fifty miles of where I live (which is in a metro area, BTW). I can open up email conversations with researchers, cross check sources with other experts, read commentaries, engage in intelligent chat groups on tech subjects, even arrange to participate at in person seminars, etc.
In essense, then I am more engaged and less isolated than a lonely researcher plodding the halls of any library, and if I want to listen to my own favorite MP-3's at 90db, I can do so without wrecking another person's reading experience.
Maybe what this librarian sees is that the place where he works is fast becoming irrelevant except for historical research, and possibly even then.
If ye'd been readin' dis-a-here line-o-talk very well you-da known dat da ticket for RAMBUS eez much more eexpenseeve than da Greyhound, can'ta go uppa da hills very queek, and will probably go wheels up afore you get to CA.
, BTW, whatcha been smokin' and where can I get some?
Slashdot Mirror
So when the NYT reports that Microsoft thinks they got a bad decision because the judge didn't understand the technical, I am inclined to remind M$ that the specific reason they lost is that Judge J. was not only probably the most clued in judge they could have had the misfortune to come to trial with, and he gave them every chance to settle the anti-trust litigation -- and they, not he, blew every chance they had to get a better outcome for their company.
Also, AFAICT (as far as I can tell, if you're new to /., IRC, etc.) Microsof still continues to use 90% of the same unfair business practices which the Sherman acts prohibit (tying, etc.), and aren't really interested in changing the way they do business in the future.
And as a measure of whether or not their monopoly power has a negative effect on consumers: witness the rise in OEM cost for the basic x86 OS, for example -- rising from a few dollars back in the MS-DOS days, $20-40 during the early Windows days, to (last time I sold a system -- about a year ago -- I'm doing software exclusively now), $100 or more.
Which is why (on those rare days when I have extra time, like today), I work on Open Source projects or training other corporate folks in the OpenSource model of IT development. I may not be the loudest Open Source proponent, nor the most articulate, but I do know one thing: the best software choices for the future aren't centered around M$, because of the exact issues that I feel Judge Jackson correctly nailed M$ for.
Of course, like many others here, I'd be willing to assist Amazon in their drive toward profitability. By my last count, they've lost at least $300 in sales which went to a competitor (Barnes and Noble, if you must know) which would have been theirs without the boycott currently in effect, so multiply that by the number of folks not willing to buy until the time Amazon drops "one-click" patent nonsense.
I think the problem you are looking at has more to do with the idea of critical mass than the "give me everything for free" mentality common to a certain segment of the Open Source community.
It takes a certain amount of development capital to build up the foundational pieces for a modern GUI, and Linux is just reaching that point with Gnome and KDE. With the foundations built, however, it becomes progressively easier to deploy the kind of advanced applications which power users and corporations are willing to shell out the bigger bucks for. It also requires a "critical mass" of users willing to shell out the money to make the more advanced development possible.
So perhaps it's a chicken and the egg type thing -- is it "if you build it we will come..." or is it "we'll build it if you'll come..." ??
Agreement with 90% of your comments, especially insuring high quality in software. The only area where we disagree (which is where I turn "zealot mode on"), is that closed proprietary programming has constraints that make it inherently more difficult to program well. 90% of the projects I have worked on that were based on open source code have succeeded, where the percentage of closed source projects is right about where the industry predicts it would be -- around 35%. By the way, my definition of "success" in software projects is "on time, on budget, feature definitions met, with low maintenance for the release."
Z'okay that it's not a clone of Quicken, because (--Open Source Zealot Mode On--) GNUCash comes with source code. Has the eyes of the world to search out bugs, suggest features, etc. Forkable at will. And the best reason to use it and help with the development process? The completed product(s) can't be closed and taken proprietary, so I can count on being able to have/fix the latest and greatest version(s) without the chains to corporate America.
So I would expect that in a few years, Intuit will be saying, "Well, it's not GNU Cash, but it's still pretty good, and if you buy it, we make money because we're such nice people..."
Hmmm.. Questions come to mind...
- Do I have a copyright on the use of my encrypted image?
- If so, and somebody else steals part of my avatar, does the DCMA apply because it was encoded?
- And what about the human genome thing?
- If I'm encoded, does this mean that I can just be myself, without having to worry about the clone police anymore?, and finally
- Where did I put those antipsychotic meds yesterday...
The same answer for all these questions is... I don't know!!!So even if Apogee is simply trying to protect their marks in the digital realm (which is understandable and legal under current law), to use UCITA or the DCMA as their legal foundation makes whatever they want to accomplish highly suspect.
For example, what about the case where I place a scanned photo of an unopened Apogee game box (complete with logos, marks, etc.) next to a nastily worded review, written with the express purpose of trashing the Apogee marks in relation to the game. Since it was a photo of their product, which I haven't opened (maybe I played the game on a friend's computer?), what law did I violate?
My point is that both UCITA and DCMA are slippery slope legislative pieces that when you get down to it, infringe on free speech.
Don't get me wrong by the way-- I'm all for downloading music and movies in a digital format, with one critical condition attached to it: that the artist and/or company representing the artist has put it up or given permission for distribution via the source where I download it.
Which IMHO may even include charging me for the download. Anything else isn't fair to the artist/company.
Sorry, no can do because of a little database principle known as "referential integrity." Let me explain: the comments are threaded, so if you remove your comment and I have replied to it, where's my comment supposed to link to? Nowhere, so it's orphaned. The practical effect is that if I posted a comment and didn't like how the commentary below mine went, I could orphan an entire thread. Similarly, deleting a moderated post would orphan the "moderations" done to the record.
However, the idea could be improved by saying "allow a user to delete his/her own unmoderated post if it has no other comments linked to it." Without diving back into the v1.03 code base, I'm not sure if it is possible or if the folks at /. would like to implement your suggestion, but as with everything else -- it has to be done with alot of though as to to other effects.
I don't understand the complaint. AFAICT (as far as I can tell, they released the source code, will continue to release the code, etc., so I don't see how they have "left the community", so to say. Please elucidate...
Vehement disagreement, at least in the documents which I have read. The article listed at the top of this thread is by far the most incisive summary about why the DeCSS court case in front of Judge Kaplan is so damned important, and in the "interesting item", although he got a bit long winded and apparently loud some times, he was exactly on point -- wanting the injunction reversed because of First Amendment issues, and failing that, to argue for speedy depositions (which the movie companies are trying to evade), in order to get the case in front of the Supreme Court by fall.
This is a man on a mission, focused, angry, and ready to do battle on behalf of the constitutional issues raised by the DCMA and DeCSS.
Because the Progressive Policy Institute is the think tank policy group behind the Democratic Leadership Council. Not that I support Napster, but the DCMA needs to be trashed, not extended.
It's not like Rob, Hemos, Roblimo, etc. posted the bypass information, etc. Geez, what's next? Is the RIAA going to try to sue Slashdot for all of the comments in stories on MP3.com and Napster? Is the MPAA going to sue /. for all of the comments and stories about the deCSS court cases?
In case anyone wonders why we continually rant that the DCMA and it's evil cousin UCITA must be defeated in order to maintain our freedoms, just think about Microsoft's legal pressuring of Slashdot for a minute. And then realize that Microsoft was and is a major player in terms of the soft money which got the DCMA passed in the first place and is shelling out big bucks to try to make sure that UCITA goes through as well.
Conclusion: Microsoft doesn't care about your freedom. Which is why I don't give a damn about what happens to Microsoft in the future. One final thought: Maybe we should forward copies of the better /. commentary on the corruption of the Kerebos protocols to Judge Jackson...give him another reason to tear them to bits.
So the suits are becoming analysts who are expected to be progressively more involved in charting the technological direction of a company or department within a company. Certainly, this tilts the business model away from "what can I sell?" to "how do I most profitably serve my important customers?".
As other posters have noted, the idea that "the Suits" are the cause of all software/IT problems isn't accurate. Poor project definition, scope, and follow through testing are what causes buggy, bloated software, and those are the responsibility of the tech leads and IT managers.
If a tech lead assigns an underskilled coder, allows code to get through into a release without thorough design and testing, allows milestones to be missed, etc., or if an IT manager agrees to a feature which can't be produced with any kind of quality in a timely manner, the "suits" won't know it until it is too late, so it's kind of hard to lay the blame anywhere but on ourselves when it happens.
Where Open Source changes the model is that with a "release early, release often, open up the development process to early review" type of mentality, better decisions can be made up front -- resulting in less bugs, less boat, and there's no such thing as a premature release. Witness Mozilla, for example. Anything before Mozilla declares itself as a "gold version" is premature in some ways, but I've been using the browser component to do some of my work for a couple of months now. But the "suits" in charge had to change how they thought of things in order to let Mozilla happen.
One poster noted that "As a programmer, my natural inclination is to reject management forces. But I have come to the inescapable conclusion that software development is a process that must be managed, on some level, as an organized task." Exactly true.
But the result of the OSS mentality has another more profound and valuable side effect: once management has a good experience with "release early release often, review early," they start looking at their own business processes -- and when the mentality really takes hold, all company processes become open to peer review and the cruftiness in the company structures and business models get exposed and eliminated. Result: a quicker moving, effective, and efficient business unit which is ready to respond proactively to emerging market forces instead of just trying to react to them while under fire from better equipped competition.
Caveat: as I am only a Linux user at home and stuck on WinNT at work, and have not even tried connecting to a 6 bone yet or doing IPv6 tunneling with IPv4, I can't vouch for how well the instructions work, but they look right, AFAICT.
I mean, sure, they've got a bucket full of endorsements from some of the big players, but since when does adding members to a group speed up the decision making process? I mean, each of the major Linuxes have a financial interest in their own success, even if it's at the expense of the others, right?
That said, I supported the idea of the LSB, and think this is a good thing, but is this any closer to something like a W3C decision making body than it's two predecessors?
I also wonder how the FSG's members propose to deal with applications for non-Intel processors. If software is written for an x86 Linux, and is "FSG compliant", does that mean it should be recompilable for Linux PPC, etc.? My other (probably dumb) question is that if I write something that works on a distribution that is supposed to be "FSG compliant", but don't have the various distributions to test it on, how am I supposed to be able to get my software tested and certified?
- Subqueries:
- Stored Procedures... you wrote: The only overhead for stored procedures is when you create and save them. After that the code is stored 'compiled' and optimised by the database engine. True. But that doesn't include the overhead already in the database which allows the stored procedures to be loaded, processed, and used. From my rather limited reading of the tests comparing Oracle, etc. to MySQL, I believe (perhaps wrongly ?) that this subsystem is what boggs down the bigger RDBMS's in terms of single CPU speed. I would love someone more expert than me to verify/disprove that belief, by the way.
-
I guess my main point should have been, don't dismiss MySQL if you don't need the horsepower and don't have the time or money to waste on in-house staff to support your bigger fatter RDBMS.I completely forgot to mention this -- which is my pet peeve about MySQL by the way. I hope that the MySQL development team reads /., because the lack of sub-selects is in my mind the single major reason to avoid MySQL as an option.
Being an expert at flatfile-style DBMS is a useful trait. However, you should try some real RDB programming -- your life will be much easier, and you will be a happier individual.Well, gotcha there. I use Oracle about 40% of the time, SQL Server about 20% of the time, and MySQL about 40% of the time. So I am a) fairly happy, b) expert at flatfile and somewhat expert at RDBMS databases, and c) knowledgable enough to use the right tool for the job.
The soapbox I always climb on is that all of those features are still available, just not at the RDBMS level. Between 1985 and 1996 (roughly), I was writing client server applications with tools not nearly as powerful as we have today -- to work with ISAM, dBase/Foxpro, and B-Trieve type tables. I've created modules that did database replication, transactions, server-internal processes called by client apps (doing the same kinds of things that stored procedures and triggers), and I would wager that all of my code which did those kinds of things looks a hell of a lot like the code which does those things inside Oracle, DB-2, Informix, etc.
In more simple terms, here's the progression inside the database:
- A certain type of data request is made for which a trigger has been set
- When the "trigger" is pulled, i.e., that type of data request is made, code within the database is launched
- Code within the database performs some useful function, which may include actions which cause other triggers to be fired, etc.
- Code within the database returns values as defined by the trigger/stored procedure.
Okay, (as an example), you want to do the same thing with a web server enabled with PHP and a MySQL back end? Here goes:- PHP code on the web server tests for a certain type of data request.
- When that data request is made, the web server calls another PHP module which has been programmed to do the same thing the stored procedure did.
- This new code performs some useful action, which may include calling other modules to do useful functions
- These functions interact with the database, doing the same things their stored procedure counterparts would do, an return data/return codes to the calling program.
What are the differences?- First, PHP is obviously not as fast as the PL/C code inside an Oracle database, etc.
- Second I (the programmer) have to work a little bit harder to make things work efficiently, and
- very importantly, I only incur the processing overhead for "stored procedures", in the specific application modules that need it -- not throughout the database.
Which is why MySQL is my database of choice when I have one for damn near every project I do, including some large, enterprise size data sets. The key is, knowing when the other features of Oracle, SQL Server, etc. are more critical to the client than outright blazing speed for the majority of the database work to be done.A good friend of mine is nearly completely disabled by polio, but has enough hand control to steer her chair. Using a computer is too laborious, and even talking on the telephone is not as easy as it could be. So what's my idea of an integrated system for this person?
- A quality, voice controlled browser (Mozilla + IN 3 would be fine, if that combo existed / worked well)
- a script savvy plug in to the browser that could program and control a set of X10 modules (by voice),
- a DSL Line that can be used as the basis for an in home/internet access system sort of like the Sprint ION.
Obviously the voice recognition is the key component, but are there/why aren't there browser based X10 controller programming methods out there?My reading of the article is that basically the U.S. Supreme Court has held only that the ISP is not liable for the transmission of the offending information, which means that they have what is called "common carrier" status. I'm not sure whether the original lawsuit also contained a request for liability based on the network security issue(s). I'm reminded of the fiasco at Network Solutions not too long ago where hackers forged the email header information for a large number of websites and basically took control of those sites for a while. If I owned the registration on one of those sites, and libel or slandering material was published on those domains, I would very certainly have suffered damages to my reputation, etc. And I would hope that a court would find that if NSI didn't adequately secure my data (or offer higher security for my data to prevent the domain name piracy, which they do), that they are in part responsible for the damage.
Spam mail...I don't know if the courts need to necessarily get involved, because there are other technological ways of dealing with the problem, AKA the RBOC list. If the email services provided by yahoo, etc. don't shut off the flow of spam mail, they can get blocked in a hurry, right? Your question asked Shouldn't these ISP's and large companies be responsible for the information being sent through their network?No -- they can't be under the court opinion. But they can, have, and will continue to be made responsible by the 'Net community for the fact that spam is flowing through their networks. Which is why nearly all ISP's have a policy of cutting off the account(s) of anyone sending spam through their connections.
Final case: "It's just like having a gun... if your gun is taken and used in a homicide, you should be responsible for not taking the necessary precautions and preventing it from being used in a crime."
Depends. If I have the gun in my hand and I let you take it from me, shoot somebody, etc. I'm an accessory to the crime. Likewise, if I allow or assist someone who should not have access to firearms to gain that access, I can again be charged with violating the law. But if you burglarize my house, breaking into a gun cabinet, stealing the weapon, (and I report it to the police, etc.), if you murder someone, should I still be held liable because I didn't somehow prevent your original burglary crime, or store the guns in a 2000 lb. safe, etc.?
My opinion (non-lawyer) is that this is only partway true for several reasons, which are important to consider before making a blanket statement like the one above. Consider, first and foremost, web pages have been ruled "publications" under the law. This means that some of the liability laws which apply to more traditional forms of publication also apply to WWW publishing.
Let's consider the three ways an ISP can manage information flow to and from the WWW. The way I see it there are three cases, which I will offer opinions on, a person or company is acting as an ISP and:
It's the third case (c)is the heart and soul of the battle (IMHO). If my reading of current law and decisions is correct, right now a hosted web site is much the same as a column in a newspaper. If the newspaper publishes information, it is obligated to either publish a retraction upon a libel or slander challenge or back the columnist. If they choose to back the columnist, they usually become party to the lawsuit for publishing the information. Likewise, if an ISP receives information about a hosted site that is considered libelous or slandering, they have to make a choice whether or not to continue "publishing" the site, or removing it from circulation, i.e. blocking access or removing it from the server(s).
Am I missing anything here?
2nd Try, server not found, then refreshed -- got an extremely fast load, so it looks like the guys are tweaking in the background.
Once the bugs are worked out, it looks like another round of kudos due to the /. techies. Good job, guys!!
From the flames since yesterday, you'd think that we all got burned by some horrible corporate activity, when the fact is (IMO), we have been honored with a hardcopy version of our online world.
I can't speak for the rest of you, but I am going to a) vote with my checkbook, AKA buy the book, and (flame mode on) b)encourage those of you who have problems with how the book came to be to look inside yourselves and think about whether or not you ought to just maybe get a life.
[Flame mode off]
The fact is, I can and often do learn more in a few hours of research on the 'Net than I could in weeks of research at every library within fifty miles of where I live (which is in a metro area, BTW). I can open up email conversations with researchers, cross check sources with other experts, read commentaries, engage in intelligent chat groups on tech subjects, even arrange to participate at in person seminars, etc.
In essense, then I am more engaged and less isolated than a lonely researcher plodding the halls of any library, and if I want to listen to my own favorite MP-3's at 90db, I can do so without wrecking another person's reading experience.
Maybe what this librarian sees is that the place where he works is fast becoming irrelevant except for historical research, and possibly even then.
If ye'd been readin' dis-a-here line-o-talk very well you-da known dat da ticket for RAMBUS eez much more eexpenseeve than da Greyhound, can'ta go uppa da hills very queek, and will probably go wheels up afore you get to CA.
, BTW, whatcha been smokin' and where can I get some?