Why do you have this burning need to feel validated?
I don't. All of my arguments are simply refuting the myth that 1st world countries have something that 3rd world countries don't. Since I posted the original question - noone - not one person, has been able to give me an adequate answer.
In general, third world countries have less economic and political influence
I'll grant you that, but that answer is not good enough given the original question. If 3rd world countries had no political or economic influence at all, it would have been an acceptable answer. As it stands, it is not acceptable.
Sure, you may have one telephone in whatever backwater asspimple country you're in
2 land lines, one digital leased line, and 2 cellular phones. And that's just me, not the whole country. Most of the telephone exchanges in South Africa are digital, and the cellular networks (GSM) are extensive and cover most of the country, and there are multiple cellular providers.
Nobody's saying third world countries don't have televisions, they just don't have one in every hut.
Comparitively few people in South Africa live in huts. Yes, there is poverty, poorly built houses, etc but you get that in a lot of countries. To all the naysayers who say whites are the only people in South Africa with money, take note that in 2000 the number of blacks earning middle to upper class salaries exceeded the number of whites earning the same.
The chip on your shoulder is some sort of need to prove that third world as just as important as the first world
This is floating off topic. I asked what the 1st world has that the 3rd world doesn't. Sidetracking and throwing out personal insults is just wasting time.
probably based on personal feelings of inadequacy
Not at all. I asked what the 1st world has that the 3rd world doesn't, and you've been sidetracking, name-calling and time-wasting ever since.
What you're doing right now, on the international stage of Slashdot, is showing all of us just how smart South Africans are. I may be showing everyone how pompous Americans are, but they already knew that.:)
I don't think all Americans are pompous. I actually like most Americans I've met, especially those from the south. I don't even think you're pompous. Ignorant, but not pompous. Everyone raves about how great the US is. Sure, it's great. But when I've been there, I've looked past the greatness. All I see is the wasted potential of what the US could have been. In that respect, the US is similar to a lot of other countries, including South Africa.
Alright, replace "1st world country" with "decent place to actually live in and be proud of."
In what way? Why do you feel it's a better place to live than anywhere else in the world? Have you been anywhere else in the world?
Oh yeah, that pretty much rules out the rest of the fucking world.
Maybe you should visit the rest of the world before saying this.
So we can, logically, break the world up into USA and not-USA.
Yes, you could. I don't know what difference it would make, though.
The difference: we have more money, bigger guns, actual rights, better looking and hornier women, and if we don't fucking own you now, it's just a matter of time.
More money - true, but also higher debts and more volatile markets.
Bigger guns - well, that may be true, but it's yet to be seen how effective they really are, and what this has to do with the topic at hand - which is, what do 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries do not. You haven't mentioned a single thing so far. Sorry.
Better looking and hornier women. That's a statement that's difficult to back up. There are bound to be some ugly women in every country, some pretty women in every country, as well as some horny and not so horny.
Actual rights - what "actual rights" do you have in the U.S that I don't have here?
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I seem to have offended you and I'm sorry about that.
I am still waiting for a reply that points out a specific thing that 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't. One of the more serious answers, "Money", isn't good enough, either. True, 3rd world countries might have less money than 1st world countries, but I didn't ask "what do 3rd world countries have less of than 1st world countries?", I asked "what do 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't?".
The Paved roads replier claimed to be a troll, and I did suspect that, despite what he may or may not think. The reason I answered seriously is because troll or not, some other people who might be reading might have believed his troll that 3rd world countries do not have paved roads.
Please provide specific examples of what 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries do not. That is all I'm asking. I'm not trying to insult you or suggest that you have an evil agenda.
You claimed that 3rd world countries lack nuclear weapons/devices. Clearly this is not the case, so that is an invalid point, whether it was sarcasm or not. (and if you note my previous message, I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic, so now who has trouble picking up on things?)
Only the USA has Michael Jackson. According to this logic, only the USA could be considered a 1st world country.
Nukes.
South Africa did have an advanced nuclear programme in the 1970s, including nuclear weapons.
Microsoft. The ability to explot the third world in order to have cheaper Nikes. God bless America.
I can see the rest of your post is sarcasm, which is a good thing, since way too many Americans take themselves too seriously. But your first two points regarding 3rd world countries are not valid.
had have said "not as many paved roads", perhaps you might have had some kind of point... not much of a strong one, but a valid one nonetheless. Implying that there are no paved roads in South Africa is kind of stupid though, since about 60% *are* paved, i.e all urban and suburban areas.
Re qualifications, I also have a degree in Ecology, but that's hardly relevant since I've moved into the computing industry. Talking about relevance, what does this have to do with the current thread anyway? Seems that the age old theory that when people run out of fact-based arguments, they turn to personal insults. This seems to be the case here.
Interesting, when I drove to work this morning I could have sworn I was driving on paved roads. If you can't provide a real argument, why bother posting a reply?
I've predicted this for a long time. The first generation of Amiga platforms were revolutionary, and blew away offerings from other personal computer manufacturers. In fact, it was only recently, with AGP systems, that modern PCs could even match the first Amiga (the A1000) in terms of graphics sync/performance.
The new generation of Amigas will be running on PPC-compatible hardware. (Even older Amgias can get extension boards with PPC chips on them, though), and will truly rock. It's been a while since we've seen a truly good mixture of hardware and software, working together well to build the ultimate platform. That was... hmm - the late 80s and early 90s. The Amiga. The x86 hardware has (and still does) prohibit the PC from reaching this level, and MacOS (up until MacOS X) has been a complete toy operating system.
Just when PCs and Macs are starting to catch up with the original Amiga, the new Amiga is getting ready to be unleashed.
Very timely, actually. Things could get interesting in the next few years.
I live a 3rd world country, namely South Africa. Could you please tell me, without resorting to childish name-calling or hyperbole, what 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't?
Someone mod this AC up. Not that all Buffy fans are wannabes, mind you, but Who is definitely a more nerd-centric series. This should be good, as long as they stay to true to the Dr. Who spirit that made the original series' so popular.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you. It's a fact that Solaris has traditionally been the one of staunchest Unix systems available, and its stability has been proven in data centers the world over.
However, in recent years, Linux on Sun hardware has improved to the point of actually been faster on Sun hardware than Solaris itself. Of course this doesn't hold true for 64-processor E-10000 systems, or other very high-end Sun systems, but for the average E-450 and E-250? What you don't seem to grasp is the fact that very few companies actually need the kind of power provided by ultra high-end hardware that Solaris performs best on. Yes, it does have its place and many companies will continue using that high-end Sun (and other corporations') hardware, but most companies just don't need it.
But if you want to serve a large enterprise system, you're going to need some big iron and big iron software.
These fees are not as expensive as having your network crash because some zealot thought he could set up an equivalent network in Linux instead of Solaris.
Yeah. Zealots like IBM who have ported Linux to their 370 Mainframes. how much bigger Iron do you need? I agree with you to a certain extent, Solaris is still the top Unix system available, but in some respects, Linux is already far ahead of it, for example, in terms of portability and flexibility. Solaris won't go away in a hurry, but Linux also has its place, as does *BSD and other systems.
Yes, it's true that a fresh, new game could be produced with an engine like this, and that would be a great thing. But...
A WarCraft clone could be very cool. With the added ability to hack the source and add your own content to the game, it would be awesome. Ultra-customizable games - that might also be a killer app.
Umm, no. Crowheads point stands. Any company that hires someone to write software for them, and then gives away the ip/code to the developer is being run by idiots
You've never done contract work, have you? If they have no use for the IP, then they have no reason to take it from the developer.
. There is no reason to allow this, especially the market being what it is nowadays
The market for what? Software? Didn't you read my last post? If they company is selling the software, then obviously they would be more concerned with IP rights and so on, but the fact is that most companies that hire contract workers are looking for specific peices of software to help them with their businesses, they are not looking to resell the software, software companies usually hire their own programmers to write software. Admittedly, there are probably some cases where specialist programmers are contracted to augment their own in-house skills, but there are a lot of companies whose business is not dealing in software (developing and selling), but who nevertheless need custom software to aid their businesses.
I would imagine it would be easier to convince them to open-source it than to allow oneself to own the ip, since if it's open-source at least they are assured of indefinite free access to it
You don't seem to know the difference between IP and source code. Source code files are instructions written in any number of programming languages used to create computer programs. IP is the rights on what to do with this source code. Unless the company is a software company, they would have little use for the IP. They might, at a stretch, want to keep the code, not for reselling, but for further customization, but if they aren't a software company, in other words, if software isn't their core business and they don't have in-houes programmers (presumably the case since they hired a contracter) they would need to hire a contracter to make any further changes anyway.
The only catch to this is if the developer has some remarkable leverage in negotiating that would persuade the client to give them the IP
With respect, I don't think you know exactly what you're talking about. Unless otherwise strictly specified in the contract, the IP goes into the hand of the developer. Programs written by contracters are generally used to serve a specific function, not to be a product in and of themselves that the client would use as a seperate, marketable product to resell to their own clients.
As for a company just giving it away to the developer with no compelling reason or significant balancing contribution by the developer, I would say you are talking about a very naive/incompetent business.
Again, with respect, I think that you should get some real-world experience of how companies operate before coming to this conclusion. If we were talking about employees of a certain company getting IP rights, I would agree. Contracting one company or individual to do work for another company is not the same scenario.
you don't know the difference between contracters and employees. Generally IP to software written by salaried employees is owned by the company, but software written by contracters usually isn't, for a pretty simple reason.
IP to software is useless to a company that isn't planning to resell or profit directly from the software. Companies that hire contracters are usually looking for specific peices of software that will perform a specialized function, so they wouldn't have much use for the software IP, only for the software itself. Perhaps some contracters do hand over the IP rights as well, but most certainly don't.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to say that the guy doesn't know much about "real companies", when it actually seems he would be more justified in drawing that conclusion about you, if indeed your post was not a troll.
Rock solid and highly recommended.
on
Zope 2.5.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We are running Zope 2.5.0, and it is rock solid. The performance is excellent and the utility is amazing. It allows a totally modular setup, content management is a breeze, and this is useful when there's no central administrator for all aspects of the site (Graphics, logic and content can all be managed seperately, totally securely, all through a web-based interface or via WebDAV or FTP).
The setup starts with an LVS server, connected to an OpenBSD firewall, backended by three ZEO servers running on FreeBSD 4.4, one DB server (PostgreSQL 7.1.2) running on FreeBSD 4.4, and one central webserver running Apache 1.3.22 on Slackware 8.0, with OpenSSL 0.9.6 and Mod_ssl, with web proxying through the ZServer to the Apache box via virtual hosts. (Proxy Pass Reverse in Apache).
This combination of Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Postgres, Zope, and various other open source software packages, has been rock solid and a box has only ever gone down for hardware upgrades (RAM, HDD, etc) and software updates (kernel updates, etc).
Overall, I recommend Zope 100%, but be aware that a lot will depend on your total setup, particularly if you have high-demand sites that you want to implement.
One problem with embedded Linux solutions is that developers are compelled to release their modifications as per the GPL. Whether or not this is a good thing (and there are some very good reasons for both GPL-style and closed-source software, beyond the scope of this comment), some companies just don't enjoy the thought of having to release the source code for their embedded products.
Embedded BSD is the solution to that problem, and in fact various forms of embedded BSD have been around for a long time and are going strong. Perhaps if Linux changed its license from GPL to LGPL it might help in this situation, to gain more acceptance from the business community.
I used to be a big Linux advocate, unfortuantely it seems that Linux has been becoming more and more unstable. The hundreds of different distributions of Linux all have their pros and cons, but there is no centralised package or ports system. Want a package for Linux ? Ok, cool - DEB, RPM? RPM? That's the most popular. But don't try using a Mandrake RPM or a SuSE RPM on RedHat.
Linux has given up its usefulness for graphical installers and Windowesque gimmicks. The code bloat is unbelievable. Unless you roll out your own distribution or use a minimalist distribution like Slackware, the default installs for RedHat, Mandrake, etc are huge, Windows-like monstrosities.
So what?, I hear you say. Linux is stable and secure. Wrong again. The Lion worm proved that Linux is not as secure as one might believe. The fact that VMs get changed in the middle of a stable release branch (2.4.x) shows bad organization.
It took Linux years to overcome its awful filesystem problems, and now journalling filesystems are available. But speedwise, compared to the FreeBSD FFS, they are slow and cumbersome, and have yet to prove as reliable. FFS Softlinks are a few generations ahead of any journalling filesystem on the market.
FreeBSD is far better organized, the ports and packages collections are better synced and more reliable, the system is more stable and easier to understand. The firewall included with FreeBSD has been proven and has a far better track record than ipchains or iptables, the latter having security problems in its first week or release, the former having no stately inspection and being a complete mess due to its shell-script bound layout.
But Linux has more software than FreeBSD!, scream the Linux die-hards. What they fail to realize is that 99% of Linux software runs under FreeBSD. I haven't encountered a Linux program that didn't run under FreeBSD. Sure, I've heard reports by trolls that certain software doesn't work, but all the software I've tried works, in fact, even faster than the native Linux versions in most cases. To the VMWare troll: Yes, VMWare does work under FreeBSD.
FreeBSD vs Linux is a debate that won't ever be settled, but people who have used both generally prefer FreeBSD for mission-critical tasks. Those who claim that FreeBSD performs worse than Linux either haven't used FreeBSD or are trolls.
I won't say that FreeBSD is the best Unix variant on the market, but the best open source Unix variant? Yes. Solaris is still tops, but in terms of Free (Open Source) systems, FreeBSD is probably the best all-rounder. NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux all have their respective places, but overall, FreeBSD will probably take over most of the open source server market, at least in organizations with serious management.
AOL is making a good move by basing its next generation browser on Gecko/Mozilla.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.9 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.
My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 6 browser.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 256MB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional.
My conclusive results are as follows:
Loading
Mozilla 0.9.9 loaded 17% faster than IE 6 and 21% faster using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)
IE 6 loaded 5% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites
90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 6 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.
Reliability
IE 6 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.
Mozilla did not crash during this test.
Conclusions
IE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
but it really shows itself when you consider all the time people expect you to put into Mozilla when you really just want something that works
Your true nature as a Microsoft troll is showing itself yet again.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.3 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.
My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 5.X browsers.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 128MB of RAM running Windows 98SE.
My conclusive results are as follows:
Loading
Mozilla 0.9.3 loaded 17% faster than IE 5.01 and 21% faster than IE 5.5 using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)
IE 5.01 and 5.5 loaded 31% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites
90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 5.5 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.
89% of sites viewed with IE 5.01 loaded correctly the first time. 7% of sites tested did not load properly due to a 128-bit encryption SSL bug in IE 5.01
Reliability
IE 5.01 crashed the system a total of 2 times. 50% of the time, IE 5.01 took down the system with it, claiming something to the effect of: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe", followed promptly by: "There was an internal error in Explorer.exe". The Task manager and Start Bar dissappeared and the system froze.
IE 5.5 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.
Mozilla did not crash during this test.
Conclusions
IE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
Forget about the part of the article dealing with a slite drop in Apache marketshare. Nothing at all to do with it.
True.
The huge, big point here is the thing about J2EE vs.NET - that's the focus moving forward. Where we really don't have any other answer but J2EE. dotGNU/Mono/whatever are going to come so damn late it won't matter.
So what? Java and.NET are both 80%-hype and 20%-actual usefulness (in the case of.NET, 20% vapourware....as for Java, I love it, but it's really not the answer to everything)...I think that the Mono project is so incredibly stupid that I have deleted GNOME off my hard disk on principle and have installed KDE 2.1.1.
Clusterable, component-based architecture is where it's heading, and PHP/modPERL/whatever ain't doing it NOW. The corp world has gone n-tier architecture, and other than using Apache to front-end WebLogic/WebSphere/whatever, most open source stuff is far behind.
Component-based, clusterable, n-tier, etc etc. Wow. A lot of buzzwords there. Luckily, there is an Open Source solution that is clusterable, object-orientated and object-based, has support for SOAP, XML, XML-RPC and is fully scalable (yes, it runs on any architecture with a C compiler and a Python port). It also integrates very easily with other systems and can practically be used and extended to do anything thanks to the source code being open. You know what I'm talking about - Zope.
Don't even WASTE your time whining about where they got their numbers on Apache - figure out what to do to address the big picture of web services. What do we got? Not much, JBoss is it as far as I know of for non-vaporware offerings. Tomcat is cool, but it only does servlets and JSP - Tomcat is NOT a bean container. Beans (way stupid, misleading name) are the componentized pieces of code that are needed to beat.NET.
Wow, you're either trolling here (congrats, +5 indicates a pretty good troll. Check out Zope. Zope products and ZClasses make pretty reusable code...this technology has been out since 1999. You obviously don't "know of" all that much. As for Apache's lost market share, well, I won't waste my time worrying about it - neither will anyone else that uses it. A lot of the people I've talked to running IIS have been thinking seriously about changing over to Apache in these last few weeks.
He nailed it on the head - The same way we've been harping about the world changing and rendering Microsoft irrelevant, the way the Open Source world does things is pretty much irrelevant and obsolete as well.
Yer losing me, Janeway...
His point about finishing the Open Source versions of j2EE (like way quickly now too) is pretty much the only way we are not going to fall behind. We don't have the time to architect some beautiful dream, we need to shit or get off the pot NOW, it's starting to stink in here!
I love Java. I'd be very happy if everyone started using it, but I thought I'd just point out that a lot if it IS hyped, and for some things, I actually prefer to use other systems. The great thing is that with complex systems, you aren't tied to one development tool or system. With stuff like Python out there (or Perl), you could write your system in a variety of languages and use glue components to tie them together into one coherent system. That's what I often do, and in fact, on the Intranet running at work, the setup looks something like this: An Apache/FreeBSD front end, with a Zope/FreeBSD server running behind it through ProxyPassReverse, and a Debian GNU/Linux box running the latest JDK behind it and running Tomcat.
IP law is a system of law describing what people can and cannot do over Internet Protocol-based networks. The MPAA and RIAA (Motion Picture Associaton of America and Recording Industry Artist's Association) decided that IP-based networks were a bad thing, since it became possible to transmit files over the networks containing copyrighted materials (data) without authorization.
The problem is that you can't really state that something like that is illegal, without making IP itself illegal. Take voice over IP (voIP) as an example. You could theoretically say something, a catch phrase, that is well known from a movie that the MPAA would consider copyrighted - would that then make voIP illegal ? No, of course not.
So the RIAA and MPAA are really fighting a losing battle here. Even if they ban IP-based networks entirely, what about BBSes? Or even if they banned electronic communication entirely, what's stopping you from cutting CDs with copyrighted materials on them and swapping them with other CD cutters? They could try and ban CD-Rs, but there'll always be SOME way of getting information to people without paying the corporation which holds the rights to that information.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok serious answer...
Membership in the UN Security Council
Membership in the G7
Not all 1st world countries have these. Try again, please.
Now stop trolling.
I asked a question to which I have still to hear an adequate answer. That is all. Have a nice day.
Why do you have this burning need to feel validated?
I don't. All of my arguments are simply refuting the myth that 1st world countries have something that 3rd world countries don't. Since I posted the original question - noone - not one person, has been able to give me an adequate answer.
In general, third world countries have less economic and political influence
I'll grant you that, but that answer is not good enough given the original question. If 3rd world countries had no political or economic influence at all, it would have been an acceptable answer. As it stands, it is not acceptable.
Sure, you may have one telephone in whatever backwater asspimple country you're in
2 land lines, one digital leased line, and 2 cellular phones. And that's just me, not the whole country. Most of the telephone exchanges in South Africa are digital, and the cellular networks (GSM) are extensive and cover most of the country, and there are multiple cellular providers.
Nobody's saying third world countries don't have televisions, they just don't have one in every hut.
Comparitively few people in South Africa live in huts. Yes, there is poverty, poorly built houses, etc but you get that in a lot of countries. To all the naysayers who say whites are the only people in South Africa with money, take note that in 2000 the number of blacks earning middle to upper class salaries exceeded the number of whites earning the same.
The chip on your shoulder is some sort of need to prove that third world as just as important as the first world
This is floating off topic. I asked what the 1st world has that the 3rd world doesn't. Sidetracking and throwing out personal insults is just wasting time.
probably based on personal feelings of inadequacy
Not at all. I asked what the 1st world has that the 3rd world doesn't, and you've been sidetracking, name-calling and time-wasting ever since.
What you're doing right now, on the international stage of Slashdot, is showing all of us just how smart South Africans are. I may be showing everyone how pompous Americans are, but they already knew that. :)
I don't think all Americans are pompous. I actually like most Americans I've met, especially those from the south. I don't even think you're pompous. Ignorant, but not pompous. Everyone raves about how great the US is. Sure, it's great. But when I've been there, I've looked past the greatness. All I see is the wasted potential of what the US could have been. In that respect, the US is similar to a lot of other countries, including South Africa.
Alright, replace "1st world country" with "decent place to actually live in and be proud of."
In what way? Why do you feel it's a better place to live than anywhere else in the world? Have you been anywhere else in the world?
Oh yeah, that pretty much rules out the rest of the fucking world.
Maybe you should visit the rest of the world before saying this.
So we can, logically, break the world up into USA and not-USA.
Yes, you could. I don't know what difference it would make, though.
The difference: we have more money, bigger guns, actual rights, better looking and hornier women, and if we don't fucking own you now, it's just a matter of time.
More money - true, but also higher debts and more volatile markets.
Bigger guns - well, that may be true, but it's yet to be seen how effective they really are, and what this has to do with the topic at hand - which is, what do 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries do not. You haven't mentioned a single thing so far. Sorry.
Better looking and hornier women. That's a statement that's difficult to back up. There are bound to be some ugly women in every country, some pretty women in every country, as well as some horny and not so horny.
Actual rights - what "actual rights" do you have in the U.S that I don't have here?
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I seem to have offended you and I'm sorry about that.
I am still waiting for a reply that points out a specific thing that 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't. One of the more serious answers, "Money", isn't good enough, either. True, 3rd world countries might have less money than 1st world countries, but I didn't ask "what do 3rd world countries have less of than 1st world countries?", I asked "what do 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't?".The Paved roads replier claimed to be a troll, and I did suspect that, despite what he may or may not think. The reason I answered seriously is because troll or not, some other people who might be reading might have believed his troll that 3rd world countries do not have paved roads.
Please provide specific examples of what 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries do not. That is all I'm asking. I'm not trying to insult you or suggest that you have an evil agenda.
You claimed that 3rd world countries lack nuclear weapons/devices. Clearly this is not the case, so that is an invalid point, whether it was sarcasm or not. (and if you note my previous message, I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic, so now who has trouble picking up on things?)
A small percentage of people in the US have a lot of money. The rest take out loans and mortgages like everyone else in the world.
Michael Jackson.
Only the USA has Michael Jackson. According to this logic, only the USA could be considered a 1st world country.
Nukes.
South Africa did have an advanced nuclear programme in the 1970s, including nuclear weapons.
Microsoft. The ability to explot the third world in order to have cheaper Nikes. God bless America.
I can see the rest of your post is sarcasm, which is a good thing, since way too many Americans take themselves too seriously. But your first two points regarding 3rd world countries are not valid.
had have said "not as many paved roads", perhaps you might have had some kind of point... not much of a strong one, but a valid one nonetheless. Implying that there are no paved roads in South Africa is kind of stupid though, since about 60% *are* paved, i.e all urban and suburban areas.
Re qualifications, I also have a degree in Ecology, but that's hardly relevant since I've moved into the computing industry. Talking about relevance, what does this have to do with the current thread anyway? Seems that the age old theory that when people run out of fact-based arguments, they turn to personal insults. This seems to be the case here.
Have a nice day.
Interesting, when I drove to work this morning I could have sworn I was driving on paved roads. If you can't provide a real argument, why bother posting a reply?
I've predicted this for a long time. The first generation of Amiga platforms were revolutionary, and blew away offerings from other personal computer manufacturers. In fact, it was only recently, with AGP systems, that modern PCs could even match the first Amiga (the A1000) in terms of graphics sync/performance.
The new generation of Amigas will be running on PPC-compatible hardware. (Even older Amgias can get extension boards with PPC chips on them, though), and will truly rock. It's been a while since we've seen a truly good mixture of hardware and software, working together well to build the ultimate platform. That was... hmm - the late 80s and early 90s. The Amiga. The x86 hardware has (and still does) prohibit the PC from reaching this level, and MacOS (up until MacOS X) has been a complete toy operating system.
Just when PCs and Macs are starting to catch up with the original Amiga, the new Amiga is getting ready to be unleashed.
Very timely, actually. Things could get interesting in the next few years.
I live a 3rd world country, namely South Africa. Could you please tell me, without resorting to childish name-calling or hyperbole, what 1st world countries have that 3rd world countries don't?
Yep, and it would have the 5th highest national debt too, with the US remaining No 1. :)
Someone mod this AC up. Not that all Buffy fans are wannabes, mind you, but Who is definitely a more nerd-centric series. This should be good, as long as they stay to true to the Dr. Who spirit that made the original series' so popular.
But if you want to serve a large enterprise system, you're going to need some big iron and big iron software. These fees are not as expensive as having your network crash because some zealot thought he could set up an equivalent network in Linux instead of Solaris.
Yeah. Zealots like IBM who have ported Linux to their 370 Mainframes. how much bigger Iron do you need? I agree with you to a certain extent, Solaris is still the top Unix system available, but in some respects, Linux is already far ahead of it, for example, in terms of portability and flexibility. Solaris won't go away in a hurry, but Linux also has its place, as does *BSD and other systems.
Yes, it's true that a fresh, new game could be produced with an engine like this, and that would be a great thing. But...
A WarCraft clone could be very cool. With the added ability to hack the source and add your own content to the game, it would be awesome. Ultra-customizable games - that might also be a killer app.
Umm, no. Crowheads point stands. Any company that hires someone to write software for them, and then gives away the ip/code to the developer is being run by idiots
You've never done contract work, have you? If they have no use for the IP, then they have no reason to take it from the developer.
. There is no reason to allow this, especially the market being what it is nowadays
The market for what? Software? Didn't you read my last post? If they company is selling the software, then obviously they would be more concerned with IP rights and so on, but the fact is that most companies that hire contract workers are looking for specific peices of software to help them with their businesses, they are not looking to resell the software, software companies usually hire their own programmers to write software. Admittedly, there are probably some cases where specialist programmers are contracted to augment their own in-house skills, but there are a lot of companies whose business is not dealing in software (developing and selling), but who nevertheless need custom software to aid their businesses.
I would imagine it would be easier to convince them to open-source it than to allow oneself to own the ip, since if it's open-source at least they are assured of indefinite free access to it
You don't seem to know the difference between IP and source code. Source code files are instructions written in any number of programming languages used to create computer programs. IP is the rights on what to do with this source code. Unless the company is a software company, they would have little use for the IP. They might, at a stretch, want to keep the code, not for reselling, but for further customization, but if they aren't a software company, in other words, if software isn't their core business and they don't have in-houes programmers (presumably the case since they hired a contracter) they would need to hire a contracter to make any further changes anyway.
The only catch to this is if the developer has some remarkable leverage in negotiating that would persuade the client to give them the IP
With respect, I don't think you know exactly what you're talking about. Unless otherwise strictly specified in the contract, the IP goes into the hand of the developer. Programs written by contracters are generally used to serve a specific function, not to be a product in and of themselves that the client would use as a seperate, marketable product to resell to their own clients.
As for a company just giving it away to the developer with no compelling reason or significant balancing contribution by the developer, I would say you are talking about a very naive/incompetent business.
Again, with respect, I think that you should get some real-world experience of how companies operate before coming to this conclusion. If we were talking about employees of a certain company getting IP rights, I would agree. Contracting one company or individual to do work for another company is not the same scenario.
you don't know the difference between contracters and employees. Generally IP to software written by salaried employees is owned by the company, but software written by contracters usually isn't, for a pretty simple reason.
IP to software is useless to a company that isn't planning to resell or profit directly from the software. Companies that hire contracters are usually looking for specific peices of software that will perform a specialized function, so they wouldn't have much use for the software IP, only for the software itself. Perhaps some contracters do hand over the IP rights as well, but most certainly don't.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to say that the guy doesn't know much about "real companies", when it actually seems he would be more justified in drawing that conclusion about you, if indeed your post was not a troll.
We are running Zope 2.5.0, and it is rock solid. The performance is excellent and the utility is amazing. It allows a totally modular setup, content management is a breeze, and this is useful when there's no central administrator for all aspects of the site (Graphics, logic and content can all be managed seperately, totally securely, all through a web-based interface or via WebDAV or FTP).
The setup starts with an LVS server, connected to an OpenBSD firewall, backended by three ZEO servers running on FreeBSD 4.4, one DB server (PostgreSQL 7.1.2) running on FreeBSD 4.4, and one central webserver running Apache 1.3.22 on Slackware 8.0, with OpenSSL 0.9.6 and Mod_ssl, with web proxying through the ZServer to the Apache box via virtual hosts. (Proxy Pass Reverse in Apache).
This combination of Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Postgres, Zope, and various other open source software packages, has been rock solid and a box has only ever gone down for hardware upgrades (RAM, HDD, etc) and software updates (kernel updates, etc).
Overall, I recommend Zope 100%, but be aware that a lot will depend on your total setup, particularly if you have high-demand sites that you want to implement.
One problem with embedded Linux solutions is that developers are compelled to release their modifications as per the GPL. Whether or not this is a good thing (and there are some very good reasons for both GPL-style and closed-source software, beyond the scope of this comment), some companies just don't enjoy the thought of having to release the source code for their embedded products.
Embedded BSD is the solution to that problem, and in fact various forms of embedded BSD have been around for a long time and are going strong. Perhaps if Linux changed its license from GPL to LGPL it might help in this situation, to gain more acceptance from the business community.
I used to be a big Linux advocate, unfortuantely it seems that Linux has been becoming more and more unstable. The hundreds of different distributions of Linux all have their pros and cons, but there is no centralised package or ports system. Want a package for Linux ? Ok, cool - DEB, RPM? RPM? That's the most popular. But don't try using a Mandrake RPM or a SuSE RPM on RedHat.
Linux has given up its usefulness for graphical installers and Windowesque gimmicks. The code bloat is unbelievable. Unless you roll out your own distribution or use a minimalist distribution like Slackware, the default installs for RedHat, Mandrake, etc are huge, Windows-like monstrosities.
So what?, I hear you say. Linux is stable and secure. Wrong again. The Lion worm proved that Linux is not as secure as one might believe. The fact that VMs get changed in the middle of a stable release branch (2.4.x) shows bad organization.
It took Linux years to overcome its awful filesystem problems, and now journalling filesystems are available. But speedwise, compared to the FreeBSD FFS, they are slow and cumbersome, and have yet to prove as reliable. FFS Softlinks are a few generations ahead of any journalling filesystem on the market.
FreeBSD is far better organized, the ports and packages collections are better synced and more reliable, the system is more stable and easier to understand. The firewall included with FreeBSD has been proven and has a far better track record than ipchains or iptables, the latter having security problems in its first week or release, the former having no stately inspection and being a complete mess due to its shell-script bound layout.
But Linux has more software than FreeBSD!, scream the Linux die-hards. What they fail to realize is that 99% of Linux software runs under FreeBSD. I haven't encountered a Linux program that didn't run under FreeBSD. Sure, I've heard reports by trolls that certain software doesn't work, but all the software I've tried works, in fact, even faster than the native Linux versions in most cases. To the VMWare troll: Yes, VMWare does work under FreeBSD.
FreeBSD vs Linux is a debate that won't ever be settled, but people who have used both generally prefer FreeBSD for mission-critical tasks. Those who claim that FreeBSD performs worse than Linux either haven't used FreeBSD or are trolls.
I won't say that FreeBSD is the best Unix variant on the market, but the best open source Unix variant? Yes. Solaris is still tops, but in terms of Free (Open Source) systems, FreeBSD is probably the best all-rounder. NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux all have their respective places, but overall, FreeBSD will probably take over most of the open source server market, at least in organizations with serious management.
AOL is making a good move by basing its next generation browser on Gecko/Mozilla.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.9 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 6 browser.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 256MB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional. My conclusive results are as follows:Loading
Mozilla 0.9.9 loaded 17% faster than IE 6 and 21% faster using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)IE 6 loaded 5% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 6 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.Reliability
IE 6 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.Mozilla did not crash during this test.
ConclusionsIE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
This article says it all, really. AMD only have to compete on marketing grounds now. They'll have no problem winning a technical shootout.
Your true nature as a Microsoft troll is showing itself yet again.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.3 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.
My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 5.X browsers.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 128MB of RAM running Windows 98SE.
My conclusive results are as follows:
Loading
Mozilla 0.9.3 loaded 17% faster than IE 5.01 and 21% faster than IE 5.5 using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)
IE 5.01 and 5.5 loaded 31% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites
90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 5.5 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.
89% of sites viewed with IE 5.01 loaded correctly the first time. 7% of sites tested did not load properly due to a 128-bit encryption SSL bug in IE 5.01
Reliability
IE 5.01 crashed the system a total of 2 times. 50% of the time, IE 5.01 took down the system with it, claiming something to the effect of: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe", followed promptly by: "There was an internal error in Explorer.exe". The Task manager and Start Bar dissappeared and the system froze.
IE 5.5 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.
Mozilla did not crash during this test.
Conclusions
IE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
True.
The huge, big point here is the thing about J2EE vsSo what? Java and .NET are both 80%-hype and 20%-actual usefulness (in the case of .NET, 20% vapourware....as for Java, I love it, but it's really not the answer to everything)...I think that the Mono project is so incredibly stupid that I have deleted GNOME off my hard disk on principle and have installed KDE 2.1.1.
Clusterable, component-based architecture is where it's heading, and PHP/modPERL/whatever ain't doing it NOW. The corp world has gone n-tier architecture, and other than using Apache to front-end WebLogic/WebSphere/whatever, most open source stuff is far behind.Component-based, clusterable, n-tier, etc etc. Wow. A lot of buzzwords there. Luckily, there is an Open Source solution that is clusterable, object-orientated and object-based, has support for SOAP, XML, XML-RPC and is fully scalable (yes, it runs on any architecture with a C compiler and a Python port). It also integrates very easily with other systems and can practically be used and extended to do anything thanks to the source code being open. You know what I'm talking about - Zope.
Don't even WASTE your time whining about where they got their numbers on Apache - figure out what to do to address the big picture of web services. What do we got? Not much, JBoss is it as far as I know of for non-vaporware offerings. Tomcat is cool, but it only does servlets and JSP - Tomcat is NOT a bean container. Beans (way stupid, misleading name) are the componentized pieces of code that are needed to beatWow, you're either trolling here (congrats, +5 indicates a pretty good troll. Check out Zope. Zope products and ZClasses make pretty reusable code...this technology has been out since 1999. You obviously don't "know of" all that much. As for Apache's lost market share, well, I won't waste my time worrying about it - neither will anyone else that uses it. A lot of the people I've talked to running IIS have been thinking seriously about changing over to Apache in these last few weeks.
He nailed it on the head - The same way we've been harping about the world changing and rendering Microsoft irrelevant, the way the Open Source world does things is pretty much irrelevant and obsolete as well.Yer losing me, Janeway...
His point about finishing the Open Source versions of j2EE (like way quickly now too) is pretty much the only way we are not going to fall behind. We don't have the time to architect some beautiful dream, we need to shit or get off the pot NOW, it's starting to stink in here!I love Java. I'd be very happy if everyone started using it, but I thought I'd just point out that a lot if it IS hyped, and for some things, I actually prefer to use other systems. The great thing is that with complex systems, you aren't tied to one development tool or system. With stuff like Python out there (or Perl), you could write your system in a variety of languages and use glue components to tie them together into one coherent system. That's what I often do, and in fact, on the Intranet running at work, the setup looks something like this: An Apache/FreeBSD front end, with a Zope/FreeBSD server running behind it through ProxyPassReverse, and a Debian GNU/Linux box running the latest JDK behind it and running Tomcat.
IP law is a system of law describing what people can and cannot do over Internet Protocol-based networks. The MPAA and RIAA (Motion Picture Associaton of America and Recording Industry Artist's Association) decided that IP-based networks were a bad thing, since it became possible to transmit files over the networks containing copyrighted materials (data) without authorization.
The problem is that you can't really state that something like that is illegal, without making IP itself illegal. Take voice over IP (voIP) as an example. You could theoretically say something, a catch phrase, that is well known from a movie that the MPAA would consider copyrighted - would that then make voIP illegal ? No, of course not.So the RIAA and MPAA are really fighting a losing battle here. Even if they ban IP-based networks entirely, what about BBSes? Or even if they banned electronic communication entirely, what's stopping you from cutting CDs with copyrighted materials on them and swapping them with other CD cutters? They could try and ban CD-Rs, but there'll always be SOME way of getting information to people without paying the corporation which holds the rights to that information.