It's text. Gzip/Bzip2/Compress/(pk)zip will all do a decent job. If you are using C++, the following library may be useful. http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/compgeom/gzstream/. Basically, it implements an igzstream and ogzstream which look and act like normal C++ IO streams, but automagically gzip (or gunzip) the data.
I know for a fact that the Portland (Willsonville) Oregon Fry's has a variety of sizes of jumper. They are a good resource, if you happen to have one in your area.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how 14,000 posts to 100 message boards is anything but harrasment. If it were a single web page, or a couple of groups sure. I'd also require some convincing that their accusations were even honest. It sounds like they were frustrated and spammed a bunch of message boards with some inflamitory bull shit.
I have to object to the wording for the/. article. What is so wrong with trying to make money? It pays for my home, our school, doctors, roads, day care, etc. I have no problem with the RIAA, Microsoft, or anyone else trying to make money. More power to them. What I object to are some of the inappropriate ways in which they try to do so (read: abuse of monoplies). It hurts the consumers, and stifles progress because other smaller groups can only compete when the playing field is level.
Re:More eclectic, less practical...
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 1
Convenience. Certain problems are easier to express with a different paradigm (oo vs imperative vs functional, etc). Even concepts within a language class have benefit (e.g. polymorphisim and overloading in oo languages). What I see Larry spending a lot of his time on does nothing to change this. It just gives programmers multiple ways to say (a > 10 && a 20). I say BFD to that. Pick a reasonable syntax and go with it, unless there is a compelling reason to change (so far I haven't seen any reasons more compelling than I'm lazy, let me type it this way instead).
More eclectic, less practical...
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Before I begin, I know that Perl is Larry's baby and he can do with it what he likes. But I wouldn't be so vocal about this if I didn't care.;-) That said...
Maybe it is just me, but the more and more I see what is going on in the perl world, the less and less I want to have anything do with it. The whole
hyper-operator conecpt is a good example. My thoughs? Just use a fscking for loop. That is what they were designed to do. Larry seems to be going through *great* pains to include as many bizzare syntactic short cuts as you can reasonably string characters on the keyboard to represent. This is not terribly innovative.
It's starting to diverge from "Practical extraction and report(ing) language"
and towards "pathetically Eclectic rubbish lister". Personally, I aim a little more towards practical. That was what made it so popular to begin with. Make difficult things easy and hard thing possible was a nice concept. Perl 5 did that well. IMNSHO, Perl 6 seems to be making 100 ways to do the same simple thing all so the developer can opt to use the method with the verbosity level he/she desire, and not making the hard things any easier.
Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but there is a flaw in your logic.
Metcalf's Law was that the value of a network rises in proportion to the square of the number of nodes. Sun's decision to use GNOME will raise the number of nodes using GNOME technologies - hence, GNOME will be more valuable than KDE.
This assumes that the square of the nodes in the "Gnome network" after Suns annoucement is "more valuable" than the square of the number of nodes in the "KDE network." Last time I checked, Sun was big in the server and high-end workstation arena, not desktop space which is what Nautilus is targeting. You also assume that comercial software targeting GNOME has much of any effect on the KDE developer base. This is just absurd. Consider for a moment...
The GIMP
Linux kernel
Apache
... Just a very few examples of OSS that has done quite well for themselves for years w/o much/any support from the comerical sector.
For example, Apple has completely re-written Display Postscript and created Quartz to be Adobe-free (to avoid paying licencing fees) for Mac OS X. No patent infringement there.
Rewriting an application does NOT NOT NOT NOT get around patent laws. Once someone has a patent on a technologgy, they control any and all implementations of said technology. If they have only copyrighed their source, they have no say over re-implementations, unless someone cut-and-pasted code straight out of Adobe's code base.
Why is it that so many people don't take the 1/2 seconds thought it takes to realize that sticking your childrens heads in the preverbial sand does not solve the problem. The only solution that is likely to work is to let your children see porno and hate speach and whatever else you find objectionable and talk to them about it. Tell them why it is bad. Give them a good solid foundation of moral reasoning skills. Take the time to talk to your chilren. Don't pretent like the problems in our society don't exist.
Is it just me, but what happens when someone breaks in to your car/house/whatever and steals your phisical copy of a song/album you legally purchased? They upload it to Napster. You get the legal bills when the RIAA takes you to court.
I agree entirely that it's the parent's responsbility to monitor what his or her child is viewing.
I think that we all are willing to concede that point.
However, the library provides access in various ways which are necessarily anonymous.
Such as?? The only thing that comes to mind is browsing books on the shelf. That, however, is not what we're debating.
There are no "book filters" attached to the library card, so why should there be internet filters?
I know that at least one video renal place had such a system in place. Parents could add their children to their account, but there was a flag indicating that the child was restricted from renting rated R movies. It was quite simple.
Yes, it is the parents responisbility to set appropriate (relatively speaking) limits for their children. But, as a previous poster said, technological measures to aid parents are an ok thing.
Don't think I am pro-censorware. I am 110% against what is happening in Holland, MI. I feel that the people advocating the censorware are reactionary (against a problem they don't even know for sure exists). They are praying on parents (legitimate) fears to push their agenda through.
However, I would not find a problem with a volentary system. Card readers at each computer would read that users code, look them up in a database, and enable/disable the censoring as appropriate.
A system such as that would not force anyone to do anything they didn't want. It aids parents who feel strongly about restricing what their children see. It doesn't force all library patrons to take part in the censorship.
Such a system would be very feasible and not violate 1st amendment rights. A previous poster took issue with the actual difficulty of such a task, but I feel that they did not think things through either.
Barcode/magnetic readers are already availably. I've personaly used barcode readers for PC's. They are very simple. All the appliation has to do is look up that person's ID in a database and query a simple 1-bit flag that determines whether or not that user wants filtering. Adjust proxy settings depending on that flag, and you're done.
Yes, I realize that any techincally savy person could easily bypass such a system by manually readjusing proxy settings, but most users don't have such knowledge, and those that do could find other loopholes.
In a situation like this you don't have to make it impossible, just impracticle. People will take the path of least resistence 99% of the time.
I agree with the sentiment. However, the MPAA has far deeper pockets (and far thicker skulls) than eToys. I suspect we have a hell of a lot of work ahead.
After they left, there was a lot of talk in the community that the product would be opensourced, but there was also a lot of talk that it would just be orphaned. Now, for open source advocates, they think it's a wonderful thing, but a lot of people that I know who still actually have to support these environments believe that this is the beginning of the end for any real support from Inprise.
This is a Good Thing for open source advocates AND people who "actually have to support these environments...." At least it ensures SOME sort of path they can persue for support (be it the InterBase using community, or hacking the code themselves). They may not be the most desireable options for current users, but it is better than just having the code round-filed and the product not supported at all.
Like I said, it's embarrassing to see all the cheering over this here -- Inprise isn't making some bold move here, they're just giving away code that they were about to toss into the garbage.
In what way is it embarrasing?? I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. First, there is the old saying "one mans garbage is another mans treasure." Second, having the code available is always a good thing. Maybe it will be 99% useless. Maybe it won't. We won't know till we see the source. Maybe it is well writen, solid code. They just couldn't market it well enough to make headway against the other DB biggies. Know one will know till we get the source. Your bitterness seems rather premature.
For InterBase users, it's like getting a consolation prize ("Well, at least they didn't kill it."), and for the rah rah crowd here, it's like celebrating being handed some refuse that was about to be thrown out (forgetting, of course, that there's a reason why InterBase was on its last legs in the first place, and it wasn't 'cause it was closed source). Yippee.
I don't know about you, but I'd take the consolation prize over nothing any day of the week. Face reality. They just couldn't make $$ with it. Tell me what you would do in their situation.
Jay Vaughan, who says that "the rest of us [will] take over their product and continue to enhance and improve it in true OpenSource fashion": What, you mean like Mozilla? What is it, almost two years late now? For a browser??
Yes, for a browser. First off, it is was re-written from scratch. Second, a modern browser is not exactly a trivial bit of code. Third, they've been working on more that "just a browser" (Bugzilla, Tinderbox, Grendle, MathML, EMail, Composer, etc...)
Besides, I recall that after the flop of Mozilla
I hardly call something that recieved such positive commenting in the/. Beanie 2k "Most Improved" discussion a flop. Where have you been the last few months? They have come a hell of a long way. Maybe you should take a peek at the current Mozilla before sticking your foot too far in your mouth.
It sounds to me like you are just disgruntled about the fact that Borland/Inprise couldn't make InterBase a success and venting frustration.
1. This is a very early _LIMITED_ Beta. According to the FAQ, there will be a larger second beta. I presume this means that we all will be able to take it for a test drive.
2. Were any of us whining what we couldn't see their code as it was being developed? I don't think so. This is not any different.
3. Corel is probably expecting (and will likely recieve) a large response when they make Corel Linux publicly available. It is in everyone best interests if the project is kept organized and orderly. Letting a small group of outside people help them work through the rough spots will help ensure there is no fiasco when the full public release comes.
4. In case you haven't noticed yet, Bruce Perens has been talking with them personally. He says that they are listening/receptive. You can count on him to let us know if they stop being responsive.
5. Corel will look out for Corel first. The rest of us are second. I agree with this attitude completely. I don't expect them to turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, but given the choice, they'll look out for #1.
Is it just me, or are big companies (IBM, M$ for example) having a hard time not competing with themselves.
NT Embedded v.s. CE, NT WS, NT Server NT WS v.s. Windows 9x.
IBM is backing competing *NIX variants for IA-64.
This whole "Thin Server Appliance" is not a "Thin Server" issue is crazy, as well. What is the difference? And why would anyone want to buy a stripped down version of NT? What would it come with? An empty hard disk.
WinNT can't compete with Linux as is, so what makes the think that a stripped down version can? In an enterprise (I hate using busswords, forgive me) situation, support costs will be comperable. Actual software/licence costs are dramitically different. Linux is much more scalable than NT. You can throw in, or cut out just about anything you want. Just try to get rid of the NT GUI??
Why not run a poll to see what the community thinks of the current system? Personally, I like things the way they are now.
The 400 moderator system seems to be doing well. The real issue is rotating that batch of 400. Trying to up the number would be an interesting experiment, but seems a little unnecesary. It would raise the administrative overhead (both in terms of CPU time, and Rob time). IMHO, it would not add that much to the experience.
I've noticed that setting my threshold at 2 is just about ideal. Off topic posts have not been a problem. Neither have inaccurate, or well intended but not-so-useful posts. Maybe a few good posts may get passed by, but if that is a real concern for you, don't use moderation.
-------------- Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else.
Slashdot Mirror
It's text. Gzip/Bzip2/Compress/(pk)zip will all do a decent job. If you are using C++, the following library may be useful. http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/compgeom/gzstream/. Basically, it implements an igzstream and ogzstream which look and act like normal C++ IO streams, but automagically gzip (or gunzip) the data.
I know for a fact that the Portland (Willsonville) Oregon Fry's has a variety of sizes of jumper. They are a good resource, if you happen to have one in your area.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how 14,000 posts to 100 message boards is anything but harrasment. If it were a single web page, or a couple of groups sure. I'd also require some convincing that their accusations were even honest. It sounds like they were frustrated and spammed a bunch of message boards with some inflamitory bull shit.
I have to object to the wording for the /. article. What is so wrong with trying to make money? It pays for my home, our school, doctors, roads, day care, etc. I have no problem with the RIAA, Microsoft, or anyone else trying to make money. More power to them. What I object to are some of the inappropriate ways in which they try to do so (read: abuse of monoplies). It hurts the consumers, and stifles progress because other smaller groups can only compete when the playing field is level.
Convenience. Certain problems are easier to express with a different paradigm (oo vs imperative vs functional, etc). Even concepts within a language class have benefit (e.g. polymorphisim and overloading in oo languages). What I see Larry spending a lot of his time on does nothing to change this. It just gives programmers multiple ways to say (a > 10 && a 20). I say BFD to that. Pick a reasonable syntax and go with it, unless there is a compelling reason to change (so far I haven't seen any reasons more compelling than I'm lazy, let me type it this way instead).
Before I begin, I know that Perl is Larry's baby and he can do with it what he likes. But I wouldn't be so vocal about this if I didn't care. ;-) That said...
Maybe it is just me, but the more and more I see what is going on in the perl world, the less and less I want to have anything do with it. The whole
hyper-operator conecpt is a good example. My thoughs? Just use a fscking for loop. That is what they were designed to do. Larry seems to be going through *great* pains to include as many bizzare syntactic short cuts as you can reasonably string characters on the keyboard to represent. This is not terribly innovative.
It's starting to diverge from "Practical extraction and report(ing) language"
and towards "pathetically Eclectic rubbish lister". Personally, I aim a little more towards practical. That was what made it so popular to begin with. Make difficult things easy and hard thing possible was a nice concept. Perl 5 did that well. IMNSHO, Perl 6 seems to be making 100 ways to do the same simple thing all so the developer can opt to use the method with the verbosity level he/she desire, and not making the hard things any easier.
</rant>
Metcalf's Law was that the value of a network rises in proportion to the square of the number of nodes. Sun's decision to use GNOME will raise the number of nodes using GNOME technologies - hence, GNOME will be more valuable than KDE.
This assumes that the square of the nodes in the "Gnome network" after Suns annoucement is "more valuable" than the square of the number of nodes in the "KDE network." Last time I checked, Sun was big in the server and high-end workstation arena, not desktop space which is what Nautilus is targeting. You also assume that comercial software targeting GNOME has much of any effect on the KDE developer base. This is just absurd. Consider for a moment...
OK. How many times does it need to be said.
For example, Apple has completely re-written Display Postscript and created Quartz to be Adobe-free (to avoid paying licencing fees) for Mac OS X. No patent infringement there.
Rewriting an application does NOT NOT NOT NOT get around patent laws. Once someone has a patent on a technologgy, they control any and all implementations of said technology. If they have only copyrighed their source, they have no say over re-implementations, unless someone cut-and-pasted code straight out of Adobe's code base.
Why is it that so many people don't take the 1/2 seconds thought it takes to realize that sticking your childrens heads in the preverbial sand does not solve the problem. The only solution that is likely to work is to let your children see porno and hate speach and whatever else you find objectionable and talk to them about it. Tell them why it is bad. Give them a good solid foundation of moral reasoning skills. Take the time to talk to your chilren. Don't pretent like the problems in our society don't exist.
Is it just me, but what happens when someone breaks in to your car/house/whatever and steals your phisical copy of a song/album you legally purchased? They upload it to Napster. You get the legal bills when the RIAA takes you to court.
I agree entirely that it's the parent's responsbility to monitor what his or her child is viewing.
I think that we all are willing to concede that point.
However, the library provides access in various ways which are necessarily anonymous.
Such as?? The only thing that comes to mind is browsing books on the shelf. That, however, is not what we're debating.
There are no "book filters" attached to the library card, so why should there be internet filters?
I know that at least one video renal place had such a system in place. Parents could add their children to their account, but there was a flag indicating that the child was restricted from renting rated R movies. It was quite simple.
Yes, it is the parents responisbility to set appropriate (relatively speaking) limits for their children. But, as a previous poster said, technological measures to aid parents are an ok thing.
Don't think I am pro-censorware. I am 110% against what is happening in Holland, MI. I feel that the people advocating the censorware are reactionary (against a problem they don't even know for sure exists). They are praying on parents (legitimate) fears to push their agenda through.
However, I would not find a problem with a volentary system. Card readers at each computer would read that users code, look them up in a database, and enable/disable the censoring as appropriate.
A system such as that would not force anyone to do anything they didn't want. It aids parents who feel strongly about restricing what their children see. It doesn't force all library patrons to take part in the censorship.
Such a system would be very feasible and not violate 1st amendment rights. A previous poster took issue with the actual difficulty of such a task, but I feel that they did not think things through either.
Barcode/magnetic readers are already availably. I've personaly used barcode readers for PC's. They are very simple. All the appliation has to do is look up that person's ID in a database and query a simple 1-bit flag that determines whether or not that user wants filtering. Adjust proxy settings depending on that flag, and you're done.
Yes, I realize that any techincally savy person could easily bypass such a system by manually readjusing proxy settings, but most users don't have such knowledge, and those that do could find other loopholes.
In a situation like this you don't have to make it impossible, just impracticle. People will take the path of least resistence 99% of the time.
I agree with the sentiment. However, the MPAA has far deeper pockets (and far thicker skulls) than eToys. I suspect we have a hell of a lot of work ahead.
After they left, there was a lot of talk in the community that the product would be opensourced, but there was also a lot of talk that it would just be orphaned. Now, for open source advocates, they think it's a wonderful thing, but a lot of people that I know who still actually have to support these environments believe that this is the beginning of the end for any real support from Inprise.
/. Beanie 2k "Most Improved" discussion a flop. Where have you been the last few months? They have come a hell of a long way. Maybe you should take a peek at the current Mozilla before sticking your foot too far in your mouth.
This is a Good Thing for open source advocates AND people who "actually have to support these environments...." At least it ensures SOME sort of path they can persue for support (be it the InterBase using community, or hacking the code themselves). They may not be the most desireable options for current users, but it is better than just having the code round-filed and the product not supported at all.
Like I said, it's embarrassing to see all the cheering over this here -- Inprise isn't making some bold move here, they're just giving away code that they were about to toss into the garbage.
In what way is it embarrasing?? I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. First, there is the old saying "one mans garbage is another mans treasure." Second, having the code available is always a good thing. Maybe it will be 99% useless. Maybe it won't. We won't know till we see the source. Maybe it is well writen, solid code. They just couldn't market it well enough to make headway against the other DB biggies. Know one will know till we get the source. Your bitterness seems rather premature.
For InterBase users, it's like getting a consolation prize ("Well, at least they didn't kill it."), and for the rah rah crowd here, it's like celebrating being handed some refuse that was about to be thrown out (forgetting, of course, that there's a reason why InterBase was on its last legs in the first place, and it wasn't 'cause it was closed source). Yippee.
I don't know about you, but I'd take the consolation prize over nothing any day of the week. Face reality. They just couldn't make $$ with it. Tell me what you would do in their situation.
Jay Vaughan, who says that "the rest of us [will] take over their product and continue to enhance and improve it in true OpenSource fashion": What, you mean like Mozilla? What is it, almost two years late now? For a browser??
Yes, for a browser. First off, it is was re-written from scratch. Second, a modern browser is not exactly a trivial bit of code. Third, they've been working on more that "just a browser" (Bugzilla, Tinderbox, Grendle, MathML, EMail, Composer, etc...)
Besides, I recall that after the flop of Mozilla
I hardly call something that recieved such positive commenting in the
It sounds to me like you are just disgruntled about the fact that Borland/Inprise couldn't make InterBase a success and venting frustration.
Everyone who has given a hand to an open source project deserves a great big pat on the back!
All contributions are worthwhile, be they documentation, bug fixes, new projects/features, or purely financial. Don't forget it is a team effort.
-Nick
What with Sun releasing a Java2 compliant JDK for Linux, what will happen to the Blackdown efforts in this area?
I disagree with you completely.
1. This is a very early _LIMITED_ Beta. According to the FAQ, there will be a larger second beta. I presume this means that we all will be able to take it for a test drive.
2. Were any of us whining what we couldn't see their code as it was being developed? I don't think so. This is not any different.
3. Corel is probably expecting (and will likely recieve) a large response when they make Corel Linux publicly available. It is in everyone best interests if the project is kept organized and orderly. Letting a small group of outside people help them work through the rough spots will help ensure there is no fiasco when the full public release comes.
4. In case you haven't noticed yet, Bruce Perens has been talking with them personally. He says that they are listening/receptive.
You can count on him to let us know if they stop being responsive.
5. Corel will look out for Corel first. The rest of us are second. I agree with this attitude completely. I don't expect them to turn a blind eye to the rest of the world, but given the choice, they'll look out for #1.
Is it just me, or are big companies (IBM, M$ for example) having a hard time not competing with themselves.
NT Embedded v.s. CE, NT WS, NT Server
NT WS v.s. Windows 9x.
IBM is backing competing *NIX variants for IA-64.
This whole "Thin Server Appliance" is not a "Thin Server" issue is crazy, as well. What is the difference? And why would anyone want to buy a stripped down version of NT? What would it come with? An empty hard disk.
WinNT can't compete with Linux as is, so what makes the think that a stripped down version can? In an enterprise (I hate using busswords, forgive me) situation, support costs will be comperable. Actual software/licence costs are dramitically different. Linux is much more scalable than NT. You can throw in, or cut out just about anything you want. Just try to get rid of the NT GUI??
Why not run a poll to see what the community thinks of the current system? Personally, I like things the way they are now.
The 400 moderator system seems to be doing well. The real issue is rotating that batch of 400. Trying to up the number would be an interesting experiment, but seems a little unnecesary. It would raise the administrative overhead (both in terms of CPU time, and Rob time). IMHO, it would not add that much to the experience.
I've noticed that setting my threshold at 2 is just about ideal. Off topic posts have not been a problem. Neither have inaccurate, or well intended but not-so-useful posts. Maybe a few good posts may get passed by, but if that is a real concern for you, don't use moderation.
--------------
Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else.