That's not what they said. What they said was that they considered modules to be data not code and thus not covered by the GPLed i.e. no linking occurred. An explicit statement from the copyright holder that action X is not a copyright violation is a very strong endorsement. Better yet of course would be an explicit written and signed license permitting it, but the statements could and would be considered by the court in a lawsuit.
I'm seeing the same 30 characters for Teradata and Sybase. When I look at the 2008 SQL standard (last version I own) I get totally lost in the notation and I'm just not that motivated, I'm going to take their word for it. As for everyone else that matters I'd say those two matter.
As for it being big enough. Table names can have synonyms and be accessed functionally via. PLSQL. Oracle itself tends to use table names like X12A with another table that uses a descriptor. If you want documentation Oracle provides a means for documentation.
In any case This issue certainly isn't a huge constraint with Oracle. My point is that they are tremendous innovators whether one particular limitation annoys you doesn't change that.
No they aren't. The AC was wrong. It is a lousy GPL test case since the people with standing to sue Revolution have multiple times already said they don't think what they are doing is a violation of the GPL.
The R core team indicated that in their opinion any module code was just data for the GPL-R engine. Also those modules in theory could work with S. So given that Revolution publishes their changes to base R, I think it is a stretch to say they are a GPL violation.
Oracle invented the commercially viable relational database. That's not a small innovation. Oracle has consistently pushed the database world with new technologies that really did make a difference on computation speeds.
Lately Oracle has been one of the few vendors to have a a broad range of large enterprise software designed to work together.
Just to add, Microsoft cooperates with lots of projects like this. They are comfortable with this model.
However, Revolution Analytics has lots of the stuff that makes large computations viable like multithreaded / big data parallel R. And that wasn't GNU.
They aren't selling anything. It is hard to argue a trademark if a transaction has never taken place. Also WhatsApp Plus tries pretty hard to make it clear they aren't the "official client". If WhatsApp Plus were selling then they might be in trouble.
That was a good history. Netscape didn't believe in standards at all. Microsoft believed in flexible standards. A real belief in standards was the Open Source community: Mozilla Suite, Konq, Galeon...
How is WhatsApps living in a word of dozens of major and hundreds of available chat applications having a "monopoly"? A comparison might be something more like A&P not selling WholeFood's brand generics.
People today are using applications like streaming video to their television that use a substantial chunk of their bandwidth for hours. The percentage of available bandwidth used has gone up quite substantially in the last decade.
No it doesn't average out. Certainly there are higher and lower users but the mean usage is quite high.
Deleware is depends a great deal where exactly and when exactly. I wouldn't judge the USA telco by Delaware it is an exception in many ways because of its proximity to major cities, government cheapness and the rural aspects.
I know. I've had this fight a million times here about how Verizon / AT&T / TimeWarner... are not making nearly the money people think they are. And no your $50 / mo does not cover what 2 Gb/sec of peer2peer would cost to provide....
It is worse than that. Regulation on copper meant that different companies had to own different parts of the process. For commercial competition exists so there isn't the same regulation. For home / small business the carriers are regulated monopolies.
SharePoint has versioning for Office documents. Git can't meaningfully do that.
I agree the heavy office users tend to love SharePoint. My experience it is clerical. I've seen it be used heavily for Sales for example where PowerPoint versioning matters (huge collections of decks) or contract management systems are being used. For developers I've seen it used for project documentation (not program documentation). Though the heaviest users are developers who develop for Excel / Office extensions.
You are absolutely correct far more useful information shows up with the ribbon than with the menus. The number of menu items increased with the ribbons. Of course what Microsoft really needs to do is make the ribbon even more context sensitive and thus have many times more options than they did with standard menus and really take advantage of the medium. And I suspect that will happen with SharePoint and Azure's web enabled interconnections so that every web application managed though Azure can connect into the office suites.
Lots of their customers use SharePoint which is a rather large innovation as compared with what your talking about in terms of Office Suites in areas like collaboration. SharePoint is very much like what CVS or GIT provide programmers but even richer.
Things haven't stayed the same, but where they changed the most is in areas that their bottom rung of users don't notice. By linking more tightly with SharePoint they can easily show how far ahead Office is of the other office suites.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what they said. What they said was that they considered modules to be data not code and thus not covered by the GPLed i.e. no linking occurred. An explicit statement from the copyright holder that action X is not a copyright violation is a very strong endorsement. Better yet of course would be an explicit written and signed license permitting it, but the statements could and would be considered by the court in a lawsuit.
I'm seeing the same 30 characters for Teradata and Sybase. When I look at the 2008 SQL standard (last version I own) I get totally lost in the notation and I'm just not that motivated, I'm going to take their word for it. As for everyone else that matters I'd say those two matter.
As for it being big enough. Table names can have synonyms and be accessed functionally via. PLSQL. Oracle itself tends to use table names like X12A with another table that uses a descriptor. If you want documentation Oracle provides a means for documentation.
In any case This issue certainly isn't a huge constraint with Oracle. My point is that they are tremendous innovators whether one particular limitation annoys you doesn't change that.
No they aren't. The AC was wrong. It is a lousy GPL test case since the people with standing to sue Revolution have multiple times already said they don't think what they are doing is a violation of the GPL.
The R core team indicated that in their opinion any module code was just data for the GPL-R engine. Also those modules in theory could work with S. So given that Revolution publishes their changes to base R, I think it is a stretch to say they are a GPL violation.
That's not Oracle that's ANSI/ISO SQL Standard. Complain to them. Though 30 characters seems pretty long to me.
This isn't fluff. Though I can see why Dropbox just cares about the results.
You asked for a complex application with good quality source from Facebook. Presto is one notable example.
Oracle invented the commercially viable relational database. That's not a small innovation.
Oracle has consistently pushed the database world with new technologies that really did make a difference on computation speeds.
Lately Oracle has been one of the few vendors to have a a broad range of large enterprise software designed to work together.
Just to add, Microsoft cooperates with lots of projects like this. They are comfortable with this model.
However, Revolution Analytics has lots of the stuff that makes large computations viable like multithreaded / big data parallel R. And that wasn't GNU.
Logitech also makes their quite excellent ones: http://smile.amazon.com/Logite...
Facebook has done releases. To pick one that's pretty good: http://prestodb.io/
What legal action? "We don't want to sell our service to people using it in ways we don't approve of so we aren't."
They aren't selling anything. It is hard to argue a trademark if a transaction has never taken place. Also WhatsApp Plus tries pretty hard to make it clear they aren't the "official client". If WhatsApp Plus were selling then they might be in trouble.
That was a good history. Netscape didn't believe in standards at all. Microsoft believed in flexible standards. A real belief in standards was the Open Source community: Mozilla Suite, Konq, Galeon...
How is WhatsApps living in a word of dozens of major and hundreds of available chat applications having a "monopoly"? A comparison might be something more like A&P not selling WholeFood's brand generics.
And if it doesn't have that code on January 25th what stops it from having that code on January 26th? They can't certify anything.
People today are using applications like streaming video to their television that use a substantial chunk of their bandwidth for hours. The percentage of available bandwidth used has gone up quite substantially in the last decade.
No it doesn't average out. Certainly there are higher and lower users but the mean usage is quite high.
Deleware is depends a great deal where exactly and when exactly. I wouldn't judge the USA telco by Delaware it is an exception in many ways because of its proximity to major cities, government cheapness and the rural aspects.
I know. I've had this fight a million times here about how Verizon / AT&T / TimeWarner... are not making nearly the money people think they are. And no your $50 / mo does not cover what 2 Gb/sec of peer2peer would cost to provide....
Your sarcasm is well warranted.
It is worse than that. Regulation on copper meant that different companies had to own different parts of the process. For commercial competition exists so there isn't the same regulation. For home / small business the carriers are regulated monopolies.
SharePoint has versioning for Office documents. Git can't meaningfully do that.
I agree the heavy office users tend to love SharePoint. My experience it is clerical. I've seen it be used heavily for Sales for example where PowerPoint versioning matters (huge collections of decks) or contract management systems are being used. For developers I've seen it used for project documentation (not program documentation). Though the heaviest users are developers who develop for Excel / Office extensions.
No they are continuing to make phones and likely tablets with long battery life. But they aren't going to be on as long an upgrade cycle as computers.
Billy -
You are absolutely correct far more useful information shows up with the ribbon than with the menus. The number of menu items increased with the ribbons. Of course what Microsoft really needs to do is make the ribbon even more context sensitive and thus have many times more options than they did with standard menus and really take advantage of the medium. And I suspect that will happen with SharePoint and Azure's web enabled interconnections so that every web application managed though Azure can connect into the office suites.
Lots of their customers use SharePoint which is a rather large innovation as compared with what your talking about in terms of Office Suites in areas like collaboration. SharePoint is very much like what CVS or GIT provide programmers but even richer.
Things haven't stayed the same, but where they changed the most is in areas that their bottom rung of users don't notice. By linking more tightly with SharePoint they can easily show how far ahead Office is of the other office suites.
No the recent videos are higher end. More complex, betted editing and longer. That substantially raises costs.
Absolutely agree. We had lots of people going into STEM when the wages went back up. Congress has aggressively been involved in wage suppression