Actually, one bug that really irritates me since enigma is out is that you can't have reverse sorted by date threaded messages in the newsreader. They've been talking about it endlessly, but it'd be great to have a fix sooner or later.
Get PGP encryption into Mozilla
on
Can GnuPG Deliver?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you have a bugzilla account, head on over to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22687 and vote for what is probably the singles most popular bug there is. They need a framework which allows folks to plug in something like GPG at will. Plenty of work went into trying to get somewhere without any luck.
Ya, I went ahead and got basic service partly because of the "Instant ISO's". So imagine my surprise when the last beta never showed up, and when I went to check the instant ISO page there was nothing on there yet for this one either.
Let's suppose for a second that people who are paying monthly fees for support actually use Redhat, perhaps on a server farm even. And therefore, out of the universe of RedHat users, are probably going to be interested in doing some testing of the beta's as they come out.
I complained about this before, but it's good to see it on Slashdot.
The response I got was "Oh, wait. Pensacola is only in Beta, it cannot be downloaded through RHN." to quote the email.
Folks need to realize at least historically, those Instant downloads were a) actually not very fast at all, and b) didn't carry beta isos and c) might not actually be up until the rest of the world has gotten them and it's trivial to pull from a mirror.
I'm hoping this will change. It's simple to do, and folks paying are likely to appreciate it. And while I may think it's neat, telling your boss you couldn't download the RedHat beta from RedHat (who you pay thousands to) and instead had to download it from some server in Belgium is going to raise a few eyebrows.
Casting this as censhorship damages the credibility of those truly fighting for free speech. Write verio, the eff, and John and let's see if power to the people can get this guy off the net.
I was an eff member, but no more. You're money is going to pay for idiots like this. It's been said before, but this is not censorship, and casting it as such is damaging to folks truly fighting for free speech.
Cancel those memberships.
John Gilmore has every right to run an open mail relay.
Verio has every right not to sell Internet service to people who want to use it to run open mail relays.
John Gilmore has no right to demand Internet service form Verio.
Why do all the fanboys who swallow stuff that has yet to actually prove worthwhile in the real world mod comments lauding this stuff up?
It reminds me of all the graphics chip makers, computer chip makers, heck, even zeosync with their incredible breakthroughs. 90% of the time, when anyone takes a hard look at it it turns out to be a waste of time and money.
So, before proclaiming this the "next generation over Google" why not check to make sure google hasn't already thought of it and discarded the idea. Or that it won't lead to stupid circular clusters, 90% of the time I'm not interested in partner sites, but competitior sites. Is slashdot in the Microsoft cluster?
And above all, stop the judgement calls like "this is the next generation" unless you've got some special insight and qualification to make that call.
Re:I hope MPEG-4 fails
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 2
Hip hip hooray for this. There was a great peice out a while back about creating a video API from SGI, and the lesson was, KISS. Couldn't agree more, and in this case, MPEG-4 is a pipedream. Christ, by the time they need to use facial data there'll be a far more appropriate standard.
Give us good video, synced sound with a standard and open source format, and allow user defined synced bytestreams that won't break older players even if they don't understand the stream, and leave it at that.
Folks like Apple should just use their patent portfolio and money to get this basic video codec out there in open source format.
My switch blinks steadily when I'm doing 100 Mbit switched transfers. There is NOTHING that can be determined from this 2 baud blinking. They're probably talking about old analog modems which run slow and tie the LED right to the TX and RX lines.
I'd refuse to certify Soyo motherboards, period. Before crying "fire" and "panic" which I already see happening, realize that these boards are so flaky they should be avoided at all costs!
And perceptive readers will notice that we are getting the usual single, EXTREMLY biased side of the story. It's the classic slashdot BS. Don't swallow stupid vendor crap hook line and sinker every time folks. Sometimes vendors conviently forget to mention crucial parts of the story. Folks paying attention to the tech area should take claims by one side in a debate with more than a grain of salt. Christ, look at Kazza/Morpheus. You'd think editors would be even more careful.
Anyways, let's get a little more confirmation from the mobo makers such as Tyan/Abit/MSI etc.
PLEASE can we get some even borderline fact checking. The GPL -DOES NOT- require source code to be distributed, merely available, which it seems to be.
STOP with this rediculous everything is a GPL violation if you havn't actually read the gpl.
This isn't copyright law extended, but about the nicest version of copyright you'll ever see.
If you don't want to use my code FOR FREE, then you can write your own, otherwise you have to agree to the terms I license it under, which says, anything you link must also be open source. Simple. Folks need to remember that the GPL makes good sense even from a moral standpoint, in addition to a legal one.
Do you even get a CHOICE about using Adobe code? Do you even get to SEE Apple's midi playback mechanisim? Not a chance!
So how in the world does a license which gives you MORE rights then you would EVER have under copyright law, "restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law".
Especially if that license gives you the choice to use the software FOR FREE, to change the source code FOR FREE, to fix bugs, and distribute THOSE changes, FOR FREE, without even having to say thanks, or deal with an army of lawyers.
And folks forget, the license protects you from things like Oracle's stunts, whose license PROHIBITS you from even properly reviewing their product without getting permission from them.
So give us all a break. You should try licensing something that is not under the GPL sometime, you'll be signing a 40 page document that costs a small fortune (literally, source code access costs incredible amounts) that you'll have to hire a lawyer to understand.
Personally, I'll take the CHOICE to deceide what I want to do over no choice at all.
"MS controls the standard regardless of what the ECMA does. The worst the ECMA could do is refuse to allow MicroSoft to call their implementation C# which would have little effect because the general concensus is the.Net is a Microsoft thing not an ECMA thing."
This is a judgement call, but I basically disagree. First off, I think Microsoft will continue to support the CURRENT standard very well no matter what, if only for backwards compatability on Windows. This makes it safe to develop to that standard, confident it will run on Windows as well.
It happens to be that the cool infrastructre parts of Mono are those very parts least likely to change. Class libs are much more likely to change, but very few of them are submitted to start with.
Java has shown folks like writing cross platform stuff. C# as is is pretty complete as a language.
The question, what happens when microsoft extends C# and fails to submit to the ECMA. Folks still interested in writing cross platform code will probably be able to do it if they want, which is what I care about. Extensions in core libs don't matter becuase they are not submitted (and can be standardized presumably without microsoft submiting anyways). Infrastructure is unlikely to change.
It is definatly going to be interesting to see if go-mono.net survives unscathed. That is the clear threat, and Microsoft has to have some legal ammo up its sleave.
I do think by making C# a true standard, they have a chance with their market share (and if they don't blow it by going legal crazy) to really move us from previous C/C++ standards to a Java like standard but actually standardized. That's a real step forward.
Unless the ECMA has a good history that they are reluctant to lose (I happen to think the ECMA is a bit weak). It means that you can say, this is ECMA standard C# or ANSI standard C, and at some point being able to say that matters more than being able to say, my C is better than your's.
Initially, Microsoft could clearly make it more important to be compatible with Microsoft, but I think in short order, the standard C# will matter because it will be a base on linux and windows.
ECMA going bad is a concern, but it is less likely to go bad in Microsofts favor as Sun is likely to go bad in Suns favor, so it adds a buffering layer.
w3c does patent disclosure which I think is critically important for example and standards are stronger the more it matters to folks. JEDEC now has incredibly strict disclosure requirements so that folks can standardize on SDRAM for example feeling pretty safe in doing so.
I think it is useful to ask, just how badly can Sun/Microsoft/GPL'ed software screw you if they do go bad? A lot of GPL'ed software allows the FSF to screw them if they went bad, by up-licensing to a BSD style perhaps. Unlikely but possible.
OpenGFS we see exactly good guys gone bad happening, and it has happend in a bunch of other areas as well.
This is I think an interesting decision. Here's my take on it.
OSI basically publishes an opinion, that folks can trust or not as they see fit. We trust their opinion because they have a set of principles and mailing list that makes those opinions valuable for others.
Sun is the designer of a language, Java which they have not standardized or really made open source. Their history is also poor, they've welched on past statements, with credit that's taken as an indication they are more likely to welch in the future.
Most importantly however, "TCK license is required (not optional) when performing an independent implementation", and it is not clear to me that Sun doesn't have some patent schemes up it's sleave. With sun you are not simply taking an opinion, you are betting your product and pocketbook.
So yeah, either could go bad, but we only care if Sun does, because they can do real damage.
Perhaps check the law as well? It's very clear, slander is actionable for damages, and has a clear and specific legal meaning. Before running around claiming slander, perhaps have a clue about what it means (though if English is your second language I understand, just consider flaming less).
The question of Java trademark usage is orthoganal to the question of whether community source == open source. It does not, and you are trying to confuse the issue.
OSI exists to protect everyone from folks trying to pretend to be open source.
Sun's community source exists only to protect itself.
"all SUN wants is that the term "Java" not to be used on fully non-comptible products"
Have you even CHECKED to see if JBoss is "fully non-compatible".
Petrus, you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE about what you are talking about, even on this totally tangential stuff. PLEASE, before opening your mouth again, READ the JBoss/Jakarta mailing lists and Apache's position paper.
What JBoss and others want to be TESTED and SHOWN to be totally, 100% compatible. Please provide evidence they are totally non-compatible.
There's a saying you should consider. Better keep quiet and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Slander is a legal term, and under current US law puts me in legal (and therefore financial) jeopardy. And this, simply for stating my opinion.
I think you'll find that in the open source world, folks enjoy the right to have their own opinions, free of the legal armwaving and hassle that folks like yourself, and plenty of big corporations employ. Open source is not simply about free software, it also is concerned with freedom.
You also happen to be wrong: Unless you see a license listed as OSI approved, it is unlikely to be really open source. Folks need to remember:
Shared Source != Open Source Community Source != Open Source
There are incredibly important distinctions between these.
Notice which term appears in that URL you are bandying about: http://www.sun.com/software/communitysourc e/
And the Mozilla code base? Check your timelines.
Respond to folks who start claiming things are slander or defamation is usually a waste of time I've found. That kind of approach is bogus in almost any situation, but on mailing lists and places like Slashdot it is really sad to see. If you think you have a case for slander I'd advise you to hire a lawyer and sue. Otherwise, why not post elsewhere.
Re:URGENT: MASSIVE MOZILLA SECURITY HOLE FOUND!!
on
GNOME 2.0 Beta
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Interesting how easy it is to get around filters and fake the domain. Scary for cross site scripting vulnerabilities.
We see companies who promise open source (as sun did for years) or open souce friendliness (as they still do) without actually changing anything in terms of licensing. This has happened to tons of projects, not just with Java. The fact is, listening to the Java Lobby claim something will be an open standard does not make it so. We have standards bodies and the OSI for a reason. Unless it is submitted to one of them or licensed with an OSI license, caveat emptor.
This comes as absolutly no suprise to me, and I actually don't have huge amounts of sympathy for Apache, after all, Sun appears to be well within their legal rights.
Despite the anti-microsoft zealots out there, Sun is not the knight in shining armor, but a company that has very cleverly exploited open souce development without being open source, and one which I am convinced would pull every closed source trick in the book in a hot minute if they thought it would benefit them.
It is staggering, the Apache group has been doing huge amounts of work to make Java a standard, ignoring the fact that the only J2EE Java standard comes from Sun.
I for one have steared clear of Java for precisely this reason, if it is not a standard there are some clear business reasons why you want to avoid it unless you like having the rug pulled out from under you periodically.
Reading this and the folks getting themselves into a lather reminds me of how long I've been around slashdot, I'm starting to feel old.
Someday someone is going to give a tour of the seven wonders of slashdot, and this 800+ moderation point comment will be on that tour. Wonder what the other six might be.
I've been following performance results for 2.0, and wanted to let folks know that it doesn't seem clear to me that there is this huge performance gain waiting to happen.
Folks seem to be missing sheer idiocy and irony of this.
We have a CLASSIC boss who just wants to be buzzword compliant. I mean, look at that list. Reminds me of all the.bombs (and I assume this company is now on that shortlist) who could fill endless pages with buzzwords sometimes without actually knowing a thing about anything.
So make *SURE* your boss who is making these technical decisions really has the CS degree he has to have to make them.
There are countless books out there on doing it right. Some key points are:
- Reuse knowladge of your team.
- If you think starting from scratch with 300 buzzwords will make a better product, think again.
- Reuse work that has gone before. If you've listed every major language and found they don't have what you want, perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps folks who designed Java/C# actually thought for a few minutes before they designed the language.
- Boss can make the decisions about goals, money etc. Make sure the folks making the technical decisions are stakeholders (ie, have to live with it). Why is the boss making this vs the lead developer. He'd better be the guy who'll be coding the most.
- If you specify the tool you're going to use before laying out the problem, if you pick a hammer you'd better hope the problem is nailing nails and not playing Bach.
- Give standardized/open source languages a shot (C++/C#/etc) before propriatery (Java etc). - They've renamed Ask Slashdot to Ask to Be Called a Fool. Why? Because folks posting in tend to be. You'll get great advice though, especially with respect to programming/development.
Sounds like this company is virtually certain to built the garganutan pile of multi-inheritance pile of crap folks who end up having to maintain will loathe. I happen to dislike multi-inheritance except for a relatively limited arena of problems. That's just a personal opinon though.
Robert Love has another patch that I'm hoping to see make it into the kernel. For systems in headless situations with large entropy reqs, this is pretty much make or break.
Slashdot Mirror
Popularity as determined by number of votes...
Actually, one bug that really irritates me since enigma is out is that you can't have reverse sorted by date threaded messages in the newsreader. They've been talking about it endlessly, but it'd be great to have a fix sooner or later.
If you have a bugzilla account, head on over to
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22687 and vote for what is probably the singles most popular bug there is. They need a framework which allows folks to plug in something like GPG at will. Plenty of work went into trying to get somewhere without any luck.
Anyone actually able to download from those links right now. It just hangs forever for me.
- AZ
Ya, I went ahead and got basic service partly because of the "Instant ISO's". So imagine my surprise when the last beta never showed up, and when I went to check the instant ISO page there was nothing on there yet for this one either.
Let's suppose for a second that people who are paying monthly fees for support actually use Redhat, perhaps on a server farm even. And therefore, out of the universe of RedHat users, are probably going to be interested in doing some testing of the beta's as they come out.
I complained about this before, but it's good to see it on Slashdot.
The response I got was "Oh, wait. Pensacola is only in Beta, it cannot be downloaded through RHN." to quote the email.
Folks need to realize at least historically, those Instant downloads were a) actually not very fast at all, and b) didn't carry beta isos and c) might not actually be up until the rest of the world has gotten them and it's trivial to pull from a mirror.
I'm hoping this will change. It's simple to do, and folks paying are likely to appreciate it. And while I may think it's neat, telling your boss you couldn't download the RedHat beta from RedHat (who you pay thousands to) and instead had to download it from some server in Belgium is going to raise a few eyebrows.
Looking for a MicroATX mobo that does the above, along with a MicroATX case that doesn't have three inches of plastic sticking off the front.
EFF Member...
Casting this as censhorship damages the credibility of those truly fighting for free speech. Write verio, the eff, and John and let's see if power to the people can get this guy off the net.
I was an eff member, but no more. You're money is going to pay for idiots like this. It's been said before, but this is not censorship, and casting it as such is damaging to folks truly fighting for free speech.
Cancel those memberships.
John Gilmore has every right to run an open mail relay.
Verio has every right not to sell Internet service to people who want to use it to run open mail relays.
John Gilmore has no right to demand Internet service form Verio.
Why do all the fanboys who swallow stuff that has yet to actually prove worthwhile in the real world mod comments lauding this stuff up?
It reminds me of all the graphics chip makers, computer chip makers, heck, even zeosync with their incredible breakthroughs. 90% of the time, when anyone takes a hard look at it it turns out to be a waste of time and money.
So, before proclaiming this the "next generation over Google" why not check to make sure google hasn't already thought of it and discarded the idea. Or that it won't lead to stupid circular clusters, 90% of the time I'm not interested in partner sites, but competitior sites. Is slashdot in the Microsoft cluster?
And above all, stop the judgement calls like "this is the next generation" unless you've got some special insight and qualification to make that call.
Hip hip hooray for this. There was a great peice out a while back about creating a video API from SGI, and the lesson was, KISS. Couldn't agree more, and in this case, MPEG-4 is a pipedream. Christ, by the time they need to use facial data there'll be a far more appropriate standard.
Give us good video, synced sound with a standard and open source format, and allow user defined synced bytestreams that won't break older players even if they don't understand the stream, and leave it at that.
Folks like Apple should just use their patent portfolio and money to get this basic video codec out there in open source format.
My switch blinks steadily when I'm doing 100 Mbit switched transfers. There is NOTHING that can be determined from this 2 baud blinking. They're probably talking about old analog modems which run slow and tie the LED right to the TX and RX lines.
I'd refuse to certify Soyo motherboards, period.
Before crying "fire" and "panic" which I already see happening, realize that these boards are so flaky they should be avoided at all costs!
And perceptive readers will notice that we are getting the usual single, EXTREMLY biased side of the story. It's the classic slashdot BS. Don't swallow stupid vendor crap hook line and sinker every time folks. Sometimes vendors conviently forget to mention crucial parts of the story. Folks paying attention to the tech area should take claims by one side in a debate with more than a grain of salt. Christ, look at Kazza/Morpheus. You'd think editors would be even more careful.
Anyways, let's get a little more confirmation from the mobo makers such as Tyan/Abit/MSI etc.
PLEASE can we get some even borderline fact checking. The GPL -DOES NOT- require source code to be distributed, merely available, which it seems to be.
STOP with this rediculous everything is a GPL violation if you havn't actually read the gpl.
This isn't copyright law extended, but about the nicest version of copyright you'll ever see.
If you don't want to use my code FOR FREE, then you can write your own, otherwise you have to agree to the terms I license it under, which says, anything you link must also be open source. Simple. Folks need to remember that the GPL makes good sense even from a moral standpoint, in addition to a legal one.
Do you even get a CHOICE about using Adobe code? Do you even get to SEE Apple's midi playback mechanisim? Not a chance!
So how in the world does a license which gives you MORE rights then you would EVER have under copyright law, "restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law".
Especially if that license gives you the choice to use the software FOR FREE, to change the source code FOR FREE, to fix bugs, and distribute THOSE changes, FOR FREE, without even having to say thanks, or deal with an army of lawyers.
And folks forget, the license protects you from things like Oracle's stunts, whose license PROHIBITS you from even properly reviewing their product without getting permission from them.
So give us all a break. You should try licensing something that is not under the GPL sometime, you'll be signing a 40 page document that costs a small fortune (literally, source code access costs incredible amounts) that you'll have to hire a lawyer to understand.
Personally, I'll take the CHOICE to deceide what I want to do over no choice at all.
"MS controls the standard regardless of what the ECMA does. The worst the ECMA could do is refuse to allow MicroSoft to call their implementation C# which would have little effect because the general concensus is the .Net is a Microsoft thing not an ECMA thing."
This is a judgement call, but I basically disagree. First off, I think Microsoft will continue to support the CURRENT standard very well no matter what, if only for backwards compatability on Windows. This makes it safe to develop to that standard, confident it will run on Windows as well.
It happens to be that the cool infrastructre parts of Mono are those very parts least likely to change. Class libs are much more likely to change, but very few of them are submitted to start with.
Java has shown folks like writing cross platform stuff. C# as is is pretty complete as a language.
The question, what happens when microsoft extends C# and fails to submit to the ECMA. Folks still interested in writing cross platform code will probably be able to do it if they want, which is what I care about. Extensions in core libs don't matter becuase they are not submitted (and can be standardized presumably without microsoft submiting anyways). Infrastructure is unlikely to change.
It is definatly going to be interesting to see if go-mono.net survives unscathed. That is the clear threat, and Microsoft has to have some legal ammo up its sleave.
I do think by making C# a true standard, they have a chance with their market share (and if they don't blow it by going legal crazy) to really move us from previous C/C++ standards to a Java like standard but actually standardized. That's a real step forward.
Unless the ECMA has a good history that they are reluctant to lose (I happen to think the ECMA is a bit weak). It means that you can say, this is ECMA standard C# or ANSI standard C, and at some point being able to say that matters more than being able to say, my C is better than your's.
Initially, Microsoft could clearly make it more important to be compatible with Microsoft, but I think in short order, the standard C# will matter because it will be a base on linux and windows.
ECMA going bad is a concern, but it is less likely to go bad in Microsofts favor as Sun is likely to go bad in Suns favor, so it adds a buffering layer.
w3c does patent disclosure which I think is critically important for example and standards are stronger the more it matters to folks. JEDEC now has incredibly strict disclosure requirements so that folks can standardize on SDRAM for example feeling pretty safe in doing so.
I think it is useful to ask, just how badly can Sun/Microsoft/GPL'ed software screw you if they do go bad? A lot of GPL'ed software allows the FSF to screw them if they went bad, by up-licensing to a BSD style perhaps. Unlikely but possible.
OpenGFS we see exactly good guys gone bad happening, and it has happend in a bunch of other areas as well.
This is I think an interesting decision. Here's my take on it.
OSI basically publishes an opinion, that folks can trust or not as they see fit. We trust their opinion because they have a set of principles and mailing list that makes those opinions valuable for others.
Sun is the designer of a language, Java which they have not standardized or really made open source. Their history is also poor, they've welched on past statements, with credit that's taken as an indication they are more likely to welch in the future.
Most importantly however, "TCK license is required (not optional) when performing an independent implementation", and it is not clear to me that Sun doesn't have some patent schemes up it's sleave. With sun you are not simply taking an opinion, you are betting your product and pocketbook.
So yeah, either could go bad, but we only care if Sun does, because they can do real damage.
Perhaps check the law as well? It's very clear, slander is actionable for damages, and has a clear and specific legal meaning. Before running around claiming slander, perhaps have a clue about what it means (though if English is your second language I understand, just consider flaming less).
The question of Java trademark usage is orthoganal to the question of whether community source == open source. It does not, and you are trying to confuse the issue.
OSI exists to protect everyone from folks trying to pretend to be open source.
Sun's community source exists only to protect itself.
"all SUN wants is that the term "Java" not to be used on fully non-comptible products"
Have you even CHECKED to see if JBoss is "fully non-compatible".
Petrus, you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE about what you are talking about, even on this totally tangential stuff. PLEASE, before opening your mouth again, READ the JBoss/Jakarta mailing lists and Apache's position paper.
What JBoss and others want to be TESTED and SHOWN to be totally, 100% compatible. Please provide evidence they are totally non-compatible.
There's a saying you should consider. Better keep quiet and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Petrus
c e/
Slander is a legal term, and under current US law puts me in legal (and therefore financial) jeopardy. And this, simply for stating my opinion.
I think you'll find that in the open source world, folks enjoy the right to have their own opinions, free of the legal armwaving and hassle that folks like yourself, and plenty of big corporations employ. Open source is not simply about free software, it also is concerned with freedom.
You also happen to be wrong: Unless you see a license listed as OSI approved, it is unlikely to be really open source. Folks need to remember:
Shared Source != Open Source
Community Source != Open Source
There are incredibly important distinctions between these.
Notice which term appears in that URL you are bandying about:
http://www.sun.com/software/communitysour
And the Mozilla code base? Check your timelines.
Respond to folks who start claiming things are slander or defamation is usually a waste of time I've found. That kind of approach is bogus in almost any situation, but on mailing lists and places like Slashdot it is really sad to see. If you think you have a case for slander I'd advise you to hire a lawyer and sue. Otherwise, why not post elsewhere.
Interesting how easy it is to get around filters and fake the domain. Scary for cross site scripting vulnerabilities.
We see companies who promise open source (as sun did for years) or open souce friendliness (as they still do) without actually changing anything in terms of licensing. This has happened to tons of projects, not just with Java. The fact is, listening to the Java Lobby claim something will be an open standard does not make it so. We have standards bodies and the OSI for a reason. Unless it is submitted to one of them or licensed with an OSI license, caveat emptor.
This comes as absolutly no suprise to me, and I actually don't have huge amounts of sympathy for Apache, after all, Sun appears to be well within their legal rights.
Despite the anti-microsoft zealots out there, Sun is not the knight in shining armor, but a company that has very cleverly exploited open souce development without being open source, and one which I am convinced would pull every closed source trick in the book in a hot minute if they thought it would benefit them.
It is staggering, the Apache group has been doing huge amounts of work to make Java a standard, ignoring the fact that the only J2EE Java standard comes from Sun.
I for one have steared clear of Java for precisely this reason, if it is not a standard there are some clear business reasons why you want to avoid it unless you like having the rug pulled out from under you periodically.
Couldn't agree more, stability and a low bug-count matter a lot for those with a bunch of servers to maintain and don't want to discount that.
But 1.3 seems to bear up great for me at least in those respects, and higher performance means fewer servers is always appealing.
The link to the story of the post of doom (from one of the ACs posting) is http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/1/17/21155/1564 .
Reading this and the folks getting themselves into a lather reminds me of how long I've been around slashdot, I'm starting to feel old.
Someday someone is going to give a tour of the seven wonders of slashdot, and this 800+ moderation point comment will be on that tour. Wonder what the other six might be.
I've been following performance results for 2.0, and wanted to let folks know that it doesn't seem clear to me that there is this huge performance gain waiting to happen.
l has some 2.x v. 1.x results.
http://webperf.org/a2/v29/Apache2_26-Nov-2001.htm
Love to hear the lowdown on performance advantages of the new Apache from someone in the know or someone who has done some actual testing.
Also, PHP/Apache perl/Apache integration are probably very high on many folks lists, what is the status of those two vis a vis apache?
Folks seem to be missing sheer idiocy and irony of this.
.bombs (and I assume this company is now on that shortlist) who could fill endless pages with buzzwords sometimes without actually knowing a thing about anything.
We have a CLASSIC boss who just wants to be buzzword compliant. I mean, look at that list. Reminds me of all the
So make *SURE* your boss who is making these technical decisions really has the CS degree he has to have to make them.
There are countless books out there on doing it right. Some key points are:
- Reuse knowladge of your team.
- If you think starting from scratch with 300 buzzwords will make a better product, think again.
- Reuse work that has gone before. If you've listed every major language and found they don't have what you want, perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps folks who designed Java/C# actually thought for a few minutes before they designed the language.
- Boss can make the decisions about goals, money etc. Make sure the folks making the technical decisions are stakeholders (ie, have to live with it). Why is the boss making this vs the lead developer. He'd better be the guy who'll be coding the most.
- If you specify the tool you're going to use before laying out the problem, if you pick a hammer you'd better hope the problem is nailing nails and not playing Bach.
- Give standardized/open source languages a shot (C++/C#/etc) before propriatery (Java etc). - They've renamed Ask Slashdot to Ask to Be Called a Fool. Why? Because folks posting in tend to be. You'll get great advice though, especially with respect to programming/development.
Sounds like this company is virtually certain to built the garganutan pile of multi-inheritance pile of crap folks who end up having to maintain will loathe. I happen to dislike multi-inheritance except for a relatively limited arena of problems. That's just a personal opinon though.
Robert Love has another patch that I'm hoping to see make it into the kernel. For systems in headless situations with large entropy reqs, this is pretty much make or break.
/ netdev-random/README-netdev-random
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
describes what it is all about