Serving pageviews (SELECTs) is one thing, the things I listed are another. Considering Yahoo! used to use flatfiles and BDB, I'd say MySQL was a step up in organization without being overpowered.
It's not about sucking, it's about features. MySQL has the least, so it's at the bottom of the barrel when people go shopping based on features they need.
Because it's not a "real" database. Sacrifices too many features to be fast.
Because of this list: http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
Because it's pawned off as an Oracle or DB2 replacement when it's not. There are instances where a database isn't using all the features of DB2 and in that case, MySQL or Postgres could be used, but that does not make it a "DB2 replacement."
Because data corruption used to be the nom de guerre until InnoDB. There are still skeptics.
Because there are no views.
Somewhere (yes, I know not providing it makes this argument looks stupid. I honestly couldn't find it, since I didn't know which one said it or what precisely it said) there's a good quote about one of the MySQL founders saying something like "PRIMARY KEY is the same as a UNIQUE." This lack of understanding is not appreciated by actual database administrators... See http://www.phpfreaks.com/postgresqlmanual/page/key s.html
The software was demoed and handed out at WWDC 2004. I installed it and did the exact same thing Steve did and guess what, it worked exactly the same. In fact, if you sign up for ADC select (or, if you went to WWDC), you can download the updated software seed that runs even faster.
The only gullibility that's going on is you thinking Apple is full of lies and deceit just like Microsoft....
It's probably safe to get a PowerBook now. Might not be upgrade-safe, since the new one came out a while back, but I'd say they identified all the problems and have fixed them. I got mine in June, which apparently was the best time, since I avoided the battery issue as well.
Apple puts the latest and greatest out as soon as they can make enough of them. This is obviously problematic since the product hasn't gone through as much Q&A as something that you test for a couple months before sending off to the assembly line. The pressure points on the AlBook are a symptom of this, as they only show up after extended use. I think it would be safe to say when they see a critical mass of returns/complains on a common problem, they admit their messup, like you said. They're cool like that.
Note the date ranges of the books in question. The books outside of the range don't have this problem. That's probably because somebody noticed a potential problem and when the line went under review, retooled it to fix a potential problem before it got out of hand.
Now, you're probably thinking "well why didn't they recall them right then and there." That's because it doesn't make any business sense to make a recall on something you *think* is a problem. Once the returns (most of which were under warranty, since the latest date is July 03) start to build up, then it's time to get a replacement operation into gear. Otherwise, it could have been an isolated incident that an engineer observed and would have been a waste to automatically do a recall.
Some will say that the time to do a recall is far overdue. This is debatable, since if you claimed it under warranty, only people who exhibited the problem in the last 3 months were out of luck. Yes, that's still a quite a bit of time. But they still fixed it, no? I'd say, from the number of recalls that Apple does do, that they're committed to solving the major problems with their products, even the ones out of warranty (iBook especially).
Speaking of the iBook, the problems with the logic board were bizarre and hard to replicate. It could be perfectly fine for an entire year and then screw up tomorrow. Two friends of mine with iBooks spontaneously developed distinctly different problems that were due to the logic board. Because of that, tracking down the problem probably took more time, and the problem propagated to more than one revision of the iBook. But hey, Apple finally found it and replaced everybody's board, even the ones out of warranty. They even *expanded* it after they discovered problems outside the date range. They're doing the same thing for this AlBook recall. How can that be poor commitment to quality?
Compare this to other manufacturers.... does anybody else get screen time as much as Apple for recalls? No. Why is this? Maybe because people expect PCs to screw up? Blame HW problems on Windows? Companies never admit failure and quietly replace anything under warranty? Sony wouldn't even admit that there could possibly be a problem with the fans on a Vaio I was working on for work. The fans just stopped coming on, overheating the laptop (Pentium 4 heatmonger!), and crashing the computer. Their solution? After returning it to Circuit City and waiting a month, they bypassed the heat sensing circuitry and wired the fans to go full-blast all the time. Oh yeah, that's quality....
Apple recalls get headlines *because* they have a commitment to quality. Don't let them dissuade you.
When I say "draw your own conclusions," I meant "determine for yourself the reason why Microsoft used this license," not anything nefarious about Microsoft or the license.
IMHO, they did it because MS Legal told them they needed to consider the fact that Microsoft thinks software patents are really important. What "consider" entails can be varying.
a) downsample to some pathetic bitrate. No thanks, I'll stick with 25Mbps b) deal with crappy interframe compression compared to DV c) lose more data than DV on the cuts d) find an editor that will actually edit MPEG. FCP and Premiere don't do it natively. Got something else in mind that doesn't re-encode the stream when you save it?
... want uncompressed signal so they can do more than dumb stuff like record TV and play it back.
Some people, like myself, want uncompressed video so we can load it into a editor, chop out all the commercials, and encode it with DivX or Ogg Theora or something else. Or write it out to a DVD. Now they don't have to Fast Forward through the commercials.
Here's another thing some people like to do. Hook up their VCR to the capture card, put in some old VHS tapes, and start recording. Then they can edit it, arrange the clips, and write it back to a DVD so it doesn't get degraded. The Macintosh is amazingly good at this sort of thing, particularly with DV cameras (if you don't have one, use a Formac Studio TVR).
Anyway, you can't do any of these things with MPEG, because most editors don't do MPEG editing. Final Cut Pro and Premiere don't even do it (I've tried with v3 and v6 respectively). Why? Because it's lossy!
Uncompressed, non-lossy video is good, particularly in open formats. Just because it doesn't suit your application doesn't make it any less cool.
There's not enough money to be made in tailoring a computer to pander to you. It would cannabalize their high margin G5 sales. Entry level is covered with the iMac and eMac. "I am not an idiot" entry level is not covered directy by Apple, but by Resellers and eBay. You seem to already have figured this out with your "older macs", so why bitch?
The computer that's just a step below premium is the PowerMac G4 and you can get it from
MacMall over the phone (international) for $1,299.
Sorry Apple won't cater directly to you, but it's not like they have a role reversal with Dell. When the sales show the need to diversify, Apple will. Look at the avalable power book models!
A zeroconf DHCP server could do fancier things such as preventing a rogue DHCP server from taking over (see previous Apple security article).
You seem to be confusing zeroconf as a replacement for something more "sophisticated" such as a directory service. This is not the case. A network admin benefits from rendezvous in the following way:
* A machine, new from the box, goes online * Rendezvous detects the DHCP server and Open Directory (Apple) server on the subnet * The machine connects to the directory server and receives its configuration from the directory after the user provides credentials. * The machine is now configured and can access all resources in the enterprise. No network administrator intervention was required.
Zeroconf merely helps computers find the higher-powered services you're demanding. This is how Apple is leveraging the technology.
If your WAN is not subnetted over those slow links, I would think that you shouldn't have designed the network that way to begin with. Seems like it's just asking for trouble. If you *have* to have them talk to each other, the Directory Server can do that by making the disparaging services visible to both sides and rendezvous can help your machine find it.
zeroconf enabled DHCP server can point you in the right direction. Zeroconf outside of local networks makes no sense. When you ask for all the local printers, you don't want to get every one on the entire frickin internet.
For enterprise wide networks, you zeroconf/rendezvous acquire a DHCP server and a Directory server. From there, they will point you to the rest of the services in your enterprise *outside* of your local network.
Correct multicast switching is not a problem. Do you personally mess with something that intentionally messes up the broadcast address in TCP/IP?
Seriously, if KDE is so big and fat, then why isn't it being stripped down? If the libraries and recycleable components are taking up too much RAM, why isn't anybody pairing them down to "lean and mean" pieces.
Is it because this development isn't sexy? If so, I'll say that's BS. When the Firefox RC came out the other day, the first thing I wanted to know was if:
A) the installer was smaller B) the RAM footprint was below the 18-30MB that it usually runs at
(and if they fixed leakage... why is it when I close all my tabs I don't get back to 18MB anymore?)
That kind of stuff is cool. Making an iTunes ripoff just because it's "new to Linux" isn't.
However, the guy was running Oracle and Tomcat. I think he needs the high power. The PowerEdge 1750 at 3.06GHz isn't really in the same league due to the 533 FSB and DDR266. True it's about 1.5K less than the Xserve, but you try to ratchet the speed up to compensate for the limitations and match the Xserve (3.2GHz if Apple's benchmarks are to be believed), the price comes back in line.
Don't forget the Xenon isn't 64-bit either.
It's what you're comfortable with. Personally, I think it's close enough that IT managers can make whatever decision they want.
For me, it's OS X and FreeBSD (provides improved software compatibility with OS X over Linux) on the old x86 machines. I can't stand the constant programming interface and name changes (/dev => defvs => udev) on Linux either. Let's not even go into the ide-scsi module. That's neither here nor there, though...
Comparing an Xserve to an equal x86 product is about on par nowadays, even considering the software. The key factor is that support is included & cheap for the Xserve while it's probably plenty extra for something "esoteric" like Debian. Lots of vendors won't "by default" support a machine that is running unsupported software.
This book combined with "Learning Cocoa with Objective-C" and AppKiDo is invaluable for a novice Objective-C programmer.
However...
Complete knowledge of the AppKit and the Foundation is essential to writing good Cocoa programs (To a lesser extent CoreFoundation (horribly documented!) and Carbon). There are plenty of objects I found post-facto that would have made my life easier had I known they existed. I have yet to find a single book that does this well.
Currently, the best way to start developing (and gain the kit knowledge) in Cocoa is to read these two books and then just try and develop a program, all the while stopping and searching AppKiDo for useful objects that you think may exist.
"Unfortunately, Carbon doesn't have the ability to recognize a middle mouse click"
Is completely false.
As this developer page shows, Carbon can handle 65,535 buttons. The problem is, as you would know if you poked around in bugzilla, mouse events don't use Carbon Events (here's the filed bug for rewriting them). At least be correct in your knowledge of the situation next time.:)
Jeremy Allison aka Samba developer extraordinaire.
"I'm sorry about the hotfix. Anything I can do to help there?"
- Robert Scoble
"Thanks for the offer of help but we've already fixed it. You messed up because you didn't test interop with Samba. Your companies idea of interop is "works with Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and XP". You've *never* tested third party interoperability - you just don't give a damn. It's in your financial interest to make sure it doesn't work."
-Jeremy Allison
I agree with a previous anonymous coward. Guy is a shill.
This isn't new. It doesn't look like Microsoft was ever in talks with these people. I'd guess they didn't sue them because they didn't want to get their butt handed to them by a company that gives out 1.9 billion like candy.
Slashdot Mirror
Serving pageviews (SELECTs) is one thing, the things I listed are another. Considering Yahoo! used to use flatfiles and BDB, I'd say MySQL was a step up in organization without being overpowered.
It's not about sucking, it's about features. MySQL has the least, so it's at the bottom of the barrel when people go shopping based on features they need.
(from what I've read and observed)
y s.html
Because it's not a "real" database. Sacrifices too many features to be fast.
Because of this list: http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
Because it's pawned off as an Oracle or DB2 replacement when it's not. There are instances where a database isn't using all the features of DB2 and in that case, MySQL or Postgres could be used, but that does not make it a "DB2 replacement."
Because data corruption used to be the nom de guerre until InnoDB. There are still skeptics.
Because there are no views.
Somewhere (yes, I know not providing it makes this argument looks stupid. I honestly couldn't find it, since I didn't know which one said it or what precisely it said) there's a good quote about one of the MySQL founders saying something like "PRIMARY KEY is the same as a UNIQUE." This lack of understanding is not appreciated by actual database administrators... See http://www.phpfreaks.com/postgresqlmanual/page/ke
new 15" 1.5 with everything
The software was demoed and handed out at WWDC 2004. I installed it and did the exact same thing Steve did and guess what, it worked exactly the same. In fact, if you sign up for ADC select (or, if you went to WWDC), you can download the updated software seed that runs even faster.
The only gullibility that's going on is you thinking Apple is full of lies and deceit just like Microsoft....
It's probably safe to get a PowerBook now. Might not be upgrade-safe, since the new one came out a while back, but I'd say they identified all the problems and have fixed them. I got mine in June, which apparently was the best time, since I avoided the battery issue as well.
Apple puts the latest and greatest out as soon as they can make enough of them. This is obviously problematic since the product hasn't gone through as much Q&A as something that you test for a couple months before sending off to the assembly line. The pressure points on the AlBook are a symptom of this, as they only show up after extended use. I think it would be safe to say when they see a critical mass of returns/complains on a common problem, they admit their messup, like you said. They're cool like that.
Note the date ranges of the books in question. The books outside of the range don't have this problem. That's probably because somebody noticed a potential problem and when the line went under review, retooled it to fix a potential problem before it got out of hand.
Now, you're probably thinking "well why didn't they recall them right then and there." That's because it doesn't make any business sense to make a recall on something you *think* is a problem. Once the returns (most of which were under warranty, since the latest date is July 03) start to build up, then it's time to get a replacement operation into gear. Otherwise, it could have been an isolated incident that an engineer observed and would have been a waste to automatically do a recall.
Some will say that the time to do a recall is far overdue. This is debatable, since if you claimed it under warranty, only people who exhibited the problem in the last 3 months were out of luck. Yes, that's still a quite a bit of time. But they still fixed it, no? I'd say, from the number of recalls that Apple does do, that they're committed to solving the major problems with their products, even the ones out of warranty (iBook especially).
Speaking of the iBook, the problems with the logic board were bizarre and hard to replicate. It could be perfectly fine for an entire year and then screw up tomorrow. Two friends of mine with iBooks spontaneously developed distinctly different problems that were due to the logic board. Because of that, tracking down the problem probably took more time, and the problem propagated to more than one revision of the iBook. But hey, Apple finally found it and replaced everybody's board, even the ones out of warranty. They even *expanded* it after they discovered problems outside the date range. They're doing the same thing for this AlBook recall. How can that be poor commitment to quality?
Compare this to other manufacturers.... does anybody else get screen time as much as Apple for recalls? No. Why is this? Maybe because people expect PCs to screw up? Blame HW problems on Windows? Companies never admit failure and quietly replace anything under warranty? Sony wouldn't even admit that there could possibly be a problem with the fans on a Vaio I was working on for work. The fans just stopped coming on, overheating the laptop (Pentium 4 heatmonger!), and crashing the computer. Their solution? After returning it to Circuit City and waiting a month, they bypassed the heat sensing circuitry and wired the fans to go full-blast all the time. Oh yeah, that's quality....
Apple recalls get headlines *because* they have a commitment to quality. Don't let them dissuade you.
This one is not.
When I say "draw your own conclusions," I meant "determine for yourself the reason why Microsoft used this license," not anything nefarious about Microsoft or the license.
IMHO, they did it because MS Legal told them they needed to consider the fact that Microsoft thinks software patents are really important. What "consider" entails can be varying.
Sheesh, RTFA and click on the SF link.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
GPL Incompatible due to patent clauses. Draw your own conclusions...
Except with MPEG, I have to:
a) downsample to some pathetic bitrate. No thanks, I'll stick with 25Mbps
b) deal with crappy interframe compression compared to DV
c) lose more data than DV on the cuts
d) find an editor that will actually edit MPEG. FCP and Premiere don't do it natively. Got something else in mind that doesn't re-encode the stream when you save it?
But I can't find anything (or combination of things) that
A) Does that (with high quality, like 25Mbps)
B) Edits it too
C) Exports and Saves to something other things can read
So, DV might as well be a halfway solution. I mean, if it existed, it would be popular with amateur nitpicky videophiles and we'd hear about it, no?
... want uncompressed signal so they can do more than dumb stuff like record TV and play it back.
Some people, like myself, want uncompressed video so we can load it into a editor, chop out all the commercials, and encode it with DivX or Ogg Theora or something else. Or write it out to a DVD. Now they don't have to Fast Forward through the commercials.
Here's another thing some people like to do. Hook up their VCR to the capture card, put in some old VHS tapes, and start recording. Then they can edit it, arrange the clips, and write it back to a DVD so it doesn't get degraded. The Macintosh is amazingly good at this sort of thing, particularly with DV cameras (if you don't have one, use a Formac Studio TVR).
Anyway, you can't do any of these things with MPEG, because most editors don't do MPEG editing. Final Cut Pro and Premiere don't even do it (I've tried with v3 and v6 respectively). Why? Because it's lossy!
Uncompressed, non-lossy video is good, particularly in open formats. Just because it doesn't suit your application doesn't make it any less cool.
Does no-one remember back when Yoper went 1.0 and was on Slashdot? Seemed pretty suspicious if you ask me.
Since the site is slashdotted, it's hard to see if anything has changed in a year.
CDRWIN, IIRC
The computer that's just a step below premium is the PowerMac G4 and you can get it from MacMall over the phone (international) for $1,299.
Sorry Apple won't cater directly to you, but it's not like they have a role reversal with Dell. When the sales show the need to diversify, Apple will. Look at the avalable power book models!
A zeroconf DHCP server could do fancier things such as preventing a rogue DHCP server from taking over (see previous Apple security article).
You seem to be confusing zeroconf as a replacement for something more "sophisticated" such as a directory service. This is not the case. A network admin benefits from rendezvous in the following way:
* A machine, new from the box, goes online
* Rendezvous detects the DHCP server and Open Directory (Apple) server on the subnet
* The machine connects to the directory server and receives its configuration from the directory after the user provides credentials.
* The machine is now configured and can access all resources in the enterprise. No network administrator intervention was required.
Zeroconf merely helps computers find the higher-powered services you're demanding. This is how Apple is leveraging the technology.
If your WAN is not subnetted over those slow links, I would think that you shouldn't have designed the network that way to begin with. Seems like it's just asking for trouble. If you *have* to have them talk to each other, the Directory Server can do that by making the disparaging services visible to both sides and rendezvous can help your machine find it.
zeroconf enabled DHCP server can point you in the right direction. Zeroconf outside of local networks makes no sense. When you ask for all the local printers, you don't want to get every one on the entire frickin internet.
For enterprise wide networks, you zeroconf/rendezvous acquire a DHCP server and a Directory server. From there, they will point you to the rest of the services in your enterprise *outside* of your local network.
Correct multicast switching is not a problem. Do you personally mess with something that intentionally messes up the broadcast address in TCP/IP?
I wouldn't call UPNP "superior" by any stretch of the imagination.
Comparisons have been done. I'd rather have low traffic and better service separation vs the "use-http-for-everything" strategy.
what the hell is anyone doing about it!
Seriously, if KDE is so big and fat, then why isn't it being stripped down? If the libraries and recycleable components are taking up too much RAM, why isn't anybody pairing them down to "lean and mean" pieces.
Is it because this development isn't sexy? If so, I'll say that's BS. When the Firefox RC came out the other day, the first thing I wanted to know was if:
A) the installer was smaller
B) the RAM footprint was below the 18-30MB that it usually runs at
(and if they fixed leakage... why is it when I close all my tabs I don't get back to 18MB anymore?)
That kind of stuff is cool. Making an iTunes ripoff just because it's "new to Linux" isn't.
I agree; can't beat cheap dell servers.
However, the guy was running Oracle and Tomcat. I think he needs the high power. The PowerEdge 1750 at 3.06GHz isn't really in the same league due to the 533 FSB and DDR266. True it's about 1.5K less than the Xserve, but you try to ratchet the speed up to compensate for the limitations and match the Xserve (3.2GHz if Apple's benchmarks are to be believed), the price comes back in line.
Don't forget the Xenon isn't 64-bit either.
It's what you're comfortable with. Personally, I think it's close enough that IT managers can make whatever decision they want.
For me, it's OS X and FreeBSD (provides improved software compatibility with OS X over Linux) on the old x86 machines. I can't stand the constant programming interface and name changes (/dev => defvs => udev) on Linux either. Let's not even go into the ide-scsi module. That's neither here nor there, though...
Comparing an Xserve to an equal x86 product is about on par nowadays, even considering the software. The key factor is that support is included & cheap for the Xserve while it's probably plenty extra for something "esoteric" like Debian. Lots of vendors won't "by default" support a machine that is running unsupported software.
This book combined with "Learning Cocoa with Objective-C" and AppKiDo is invaluable for a novice Objective-C programmer.
However...
Complete knowledge of the AppKit and the Foundation is essential to writing good Cocoa programs (To a lesser extent CoreFoundation (horribly documented!) and Carbon). There are plenty of objects I found post-facto that would have made my life easier had I known they existed. I have yet to find a single book that does this well.
Currently, the best way to start developing (and gain the kit knowledge) in Cocoa is to read these two books and then just try and develop a program, all the while stopping and searching AppKiDo for useful objects that you think may exist.
but
:)
"Unfortunately, Carbon doesn't have the ability to recognize a middle mouse click"
Is completely false.
As this developer page shows, Carbon can handle 65,535 buttons. The problem is, as you would know if you poked around in bugzilla, mouse events don't use Carbon Events (here's the filed bug for rewriting them). At least be correct in your knowledge of the situation next time.
you buy used. :) good cars all those germans make.
Try owning one first.
l
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4/msgs/222262.phtm
Jeremy Allison aka Samba developer extraordinaire.
"I'm sorry about the hotfix. Anything I can do to help there?"
- Robert Scoble
"Thanks for the offer of help but we've already fixed it. You messed up because you didn't test interop with Samba. Your companies idea of interop is "works with Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and XP". You've *never* tested third party interoperability - you just don't give a damn. It's in your financial interest to make sure it doesn't work."
-Jeremy Allison
I agree with a previous anonymous coward. Guy is a shill.
... can turn up some more information about this
This isn't new. It doesn't look like Microsoft was ever in talks with these people. I'd guess they didn't sue them because they didn't want to get their butt handed to them by a company that gives out 1.9 billion like candy.