I just have one thought, related to your statement that "literally billions of dollars lost each year" to software piracy. Is that really true? Think about it. A college student who literally has an NEGATIVE income (counting the accumulation of debt against any income), maybe has enought spending money to buy pizza and a couple of beers once a week. Do you really thing that the pirated $800 Drawing Suite that he's using to learn about graphics design would have been purchased if he couldn't pirate it?
I've "borrowed" games to play that I would never have shelled out 40 dollars for, but might have payed $15 for just the cd and jewel case. The idea that every copy of a program/file is a sale that would have been made is complete hooey.
So if X is part of the Linux OS, and I don't install X on my webserver, then what am I running my web server on? And if the webserver + cgi = total OS configuration interface, then is Apache part of the OS?
I must disagree here. I have looked at the Libertarian party, and have been able to summ it's philosophies up in a simple statement: "Do not interfere with my right to do what I want unless I am interfering with the rights of others to do as they see fit." So if I want to stand on my head in my front yard, I can, but if I stand on my head in the middle of the street, I'm arrested.
The OS/FSF/etc. movement is completely compatible with this. "Don't restrict my right to be private! (encription laws).", "I will not be forced to use a piece of software just because everyone else is (including the government)". I can re-distribute this code, with my modifications, so long as I give credit for the work that others have put into it, and I don't try to close-source the work of others.
If ESR were trying to associate the OSS movement with a party that focuses on Abortion rights, fear of THEM(tm), or other ways of reducing individual rights, then I might agree with you. Libertarians would make sure that the GNU software licence is always legal, that everyone can use encryption on anything they want, that the gov't can't sieze computer equipment and store it for years on a mere allegation.
You might as well get upset when an OSS evagelist talks about Science in the same breath as Linux.
Actually, your first point is incorrect (unless drive design has changed radically in the last couple of years). Here's an excerpt from my post (the rest is located above, concerning the topic postion on the disk).
snippet begins------------------------
The variable density of the data storage on platters makes the rotational velocity moot. On the outermost tracks, data is less dense than on the inner tracks. The image of the subdivision of a platter into sectors is a pizza cut perfectly into slices, and then concentric circles are cut through the slices.
Each sector (the individual pieces of pizza from the above illustration) is able to contain the SAME number of bits of info, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS ON THE DISK. This is done to make the rate of reading and writing from/to the disks a constant no matter where on the physical platter you are. --------------------end snippet
The variable density of the data storage on platters makes the rotational velocity moot. On the outermost tracks, data is less dense than on the inner tracks. The image of the subdivision of a platter into sectors is a pizza cut perfectly into slices, and then concentric circles are cut through the slices.
Each sector (the individual pieces of pizza from the above illustration) is able to contain the SAME number of bits of info, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS ON THE DISK. This is done to make the rate of reading and writing from/to the disks a constant no matter where on the physical platter you are.
There IS a reason that putting the swap partition on the outter most sector increased performance...
Because sectors are almost allways numbered starting on the outermost tracks of a partition, if you have only 2 partitions then you can optimize the swap performance. The first partition would be swap (note this if for smaller disks, where the/boot stuff is under the max cyl # barrier) and the rest would be application file system. When you install the OS, programs and data fill the partion from the outtermost tracks inward, which will be closest to the swap partition. As a result, the drive heads will never have to travel further than from the innermost sector containing data.
This will not be all that effective however, if you have multiple partions that are all accessed frequently. If you have/usr and/usr/local on separate file systems, for instance, and you use programs/data installed in both directories equally frequently, then placing a swap partition between the other two partions is actually the better way to go.
The assumption that rotational velocity has anything to do with it is wrong; the placement of the swap partion is correct for basic partitioning scheams.
Yes, they'll check out the "positive" results to see if they're faked, but what about the negative results? I've seen a lot of posts on this subject saying that it's a waste of time. Suppose someone wants to sabotage the project (just in case they're wrong) by sending negative results at a fast pace in an attempt at preventing others from doing a legitimate scan of the data?
Every packet sent back to them should be verified, not just the "good" ones.
Well, that seemed to take a lot of work, and you were already familiar with linux from the sound of things. None the less, it shows what you can do if your IT staff has the freedom to change things that they think need to be changed. You get a lot of hard work out of them for the same $$'s.
I just have one comment on your whole article... YOU HAD A 486 IN 1985???!!! Can I borrow your time machine?
I guess if I steal a Ford Escort from the production lines of one of thier factories, I'd owe them a few hundred million for the development costs. This is absurd. If he had sold the source to a commpetitor, they might be able to claim damages, but all he did was created a copy. Most of these companies grant licences for the source code, which while expensive, it's definitely NOT a loss of the dev. cost.
Lawyers don't know squat about software. They just know how to twist the right analogies to impress judges.
I went to a SCO booth during a career fair in '97 at my college. I expressed my interest in learning about the company and what it might have to offer an experienced Linux User and Computer Systems Engineering Degree holder. She said, and I quote "We don't want students using Linux," and hands me a SCO CD. I never did install it, and after this "Fraud" crap, I think I'll use it as a coaster-- or burn it. Or maybe I'll send it back with a copy of this post.
I hear you brother! I'm currently re-implementing a program to interface with a DB in a very simple way. The totality of the files counts upwards from 14,000 lines (just a wc -l kind of count).
I estimate that when I'm finished with the project, I'll have roughtly 1 order of magnitude less than that. I.E. 1,400 lines, give or take a thousand or two.
I think I understand why the CDDB is being "licenced", even if I don't agree with how the company is going about it. They want/need money to support themselves, and the best way to do that is to draw attention to thier web site.
If this project succeeds, it'll need financial support for internet connections, servers, system administration, etc...
Add revenues aren't a bad way to go about it, and asking the developers "Pretty please, will you provide a button, plug this site in your About box or something?" sounds like a better approach than "YOU WILL DO THIS DAMNIT!" Maybe even make a deal with the advertisers to award developers for fully complying, like for every month that your player generates more than X hits, you get X gift certificates for CD's.
Many spray paints aren't suited to covering plastics. At a former place of employment, we sold black cases, but couldn't get decently priced cd-roms in black. So we removed the front plates and used the kind of spray paint that is used for model airplanes and cars on them. It worked perfectly, and took a lot of use before it started to wear through.
Slashdot Mirror
I just have one thought, related to your statement that "literally billions of dollars lost each year" to software piracy. Is that really true? Think about it. A college student who literally has an NEGATIVE income (counting the accumulation of debt against any income), maybe has enought spending money to buy pizza and a couple of beers once a week. Do you really thing that the pirated $800 Drawing Suite that he's using to learn about graphics design would have been purchased if he couldn't pirate it?
I've "borrowed" games to play that I would never have shelled out 40 dollars for, but might have payed $15 for just the cd and jewel case. The idea that every copy of a program/file is a sale that would have been made is complete hooey.
So if X is part of the Linux OS, and I don't install X on my webserver, then what am I running my web server on? And if the webserver + cgi = total OS configuration interface, then is Apache part of the OS?
I must disagree here. I have looked at the Libertarian party, and have been able to summ it's philosophies up in a simple statement: "Do not interfere with my right to do what I want unless I am interfering with the rights of others to do as they see fit." So if I want to stand on my head in my front yard, I can, but if I stand on my head in the middle of the street, I'm arrested.
The OS/FSF/etc. movement is completely compatible with this. "Don't restrict my right to be private! (encription laws).", "I will not be forced to use a piece of software just because everyone else is (including the government)". I can re-distribute this code, with my modifications, so long as I give credit for the work that others have put into it, and I don't try to close-source the work of others.
If ESR were trying to associate the OSS movement with a party that focuses on Abortion rights, fear of THEM(tm), or other ways of reducing individual rights, then I might agree with you. Libertarians would make sure that the GNU software licence is always legal, that everyone can use encryption on anything they want, that the gov't can't sieze computer equipment and store it for years on a mere allegation.
You might as well get upset when an OSS evagelist talks about Science in the same breath as Linux.
Actually, your first point is incorrect (unless drive design has changed radically in the last couple of years). Here's an excerpt from my post (the rest is located above, concerning the topic postion on the disk).
snippet begins------------------------
The variable density of the data storage on platters makes the rotational velocity moot. On the outermost tracks, data is less dense than on the inner tracks. The image of the subdivision of a platter into sectors is a pizza cut perfectly into slices, and then concentric circles are cut through the slices.
Each sector (the individual pieces of pizza from the above illustration) is able to contain the SAME number of bits of info, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS ON THE DISK. This is done to make the rate of reading and writing from/to the disks a constant no matter where on the physical platter you are.
--------------------end snippet
The variable density of the data storage on platters makes the rotational velocity moot. On the outermost tracks, data is less dense than on the inner tracks. The image of the subdivision of a platter into sectors is a pizza cut perfectly into slices, and then concentric circles are cut through the slices.
/boot stuff is under the max cyl # barrier) and the rest would be application file system. When you install the OS, programs and data fill the partion from the outtermost tracks inward, which will be closest to the swap partition. As a result, the drive heads will never have to travel further than from the innermost sector containing data.
/usr and /usr/local on separate file systems, for instance, and you use programs/data installed in both directories equally frequently, then placing a swap partition between the other two partions is actually the better way to go.
Each sector (the individual pieces of pizza from the above illustration) is able to contain the SAME number of bits of info, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS ON THE DISK. This is done to make the rate of reading and writing from/to the disks a constant no matter where on the physical platter you are.
There IS a reason that putting the swap partition on the outter most sector increased performance...
Because sectors are almost allways numbered starting on the outermost tracks of a partition, if you have only 2 partitions then you can optimize the swap performance. The first partition would be swap (note this if for smaller disks, where the
This will not be all that effective however, if you have multiple partions that are all accessed frequently. If you have
The assumption that rotational velocity has anything to do with it is wrong; the placement of the swap partion is correct for basic partitioning scheams.
Yes, they'll check out the "positive" results to see if they're faked, but what about the negative results? I've seen a lot of posts on this subject saying that it's a waste of time. Suppose someone wants to sabotage the project (just in case they're wrong) by sending negative results at a fast pace in an attempt at preventing others from doing a legitimate scan of the data?
Every packet sent back to them should be verified, not just the "good" ones.
Well, that seemed to take a lot of work, and you were already familiar with linux from the sound of things. None the less, it shows what you can do if your IT staff has the freedom to change things that they think need to be changed. You get a lot of hard work out of them for the same $$'s.
I just have one comment on your whole article... YOU HAD A 486 IN 1985???!!! Can I borrow your time machine?
I guess if I steal a Ford Escort from the production lines of one of thier factories, I'd owe them a few hundred million for the development costs. This is absurd. If he had sold the source to a commpetitor, they might be able to claim damages, but all he did was created a copy. Most of these companies grant licences for the source code, which while expensive, it's definitely NOT a loss of the dev. cost.
Lawyers don't know squat about software. They just know how to twist the right analogies to impress judges.
I went to a SCO booth during a career fair in '97 at my college. I expressed my interest in learning about the company and what it might have to offer an experienced Linux User and Computer Systems Engineering Degree holder. She said, and I quote "We don't want students using Linux," and hands me a SCO CD. I never did install it, and after this "Fraud" crap, I think I'll use it as a coaster-- or burn it. Or maybe I'll send it back with a copy of this post.
I hear you brother! I'm currently re-implementing a program to interface with a DB in a very simple way. The totality of the files counts upwards from 14,000 lines (just a wc -l kind of count).
I estimate that when I'm finished with the project, I'll have roughtly 1 order of magnitude less than that. I.E. 1,400 lines, give or take a thousand or two.
It FORCES all developers of software that accesses thier DB to display a logo, NOT use other sites in addition to thier own, etc...
/. for articles on CDDB
For more info, search
I think I understand why the CDDB is being "licenced", even if I don't agree with how the company is going about it. They want/need money to support themselves, and the best way to do that is to draw attention to thier web site.
If this project succeeds, it'll need financial support for internet connections, servers, system administration, etc...
Add revenues aren't a bad way to go about it, and asking the developers "Pretty please, will you provide a button, plug this site in your About box or something?" sounds like a better approach than "YOU WILL DO THIS DAMNIT!" Maybe even make a deal with the advertisers to award developers for fully complying, like for every month that your player generates more than X hits, you get X gift certificates for CD's.
It pays to be nice about things like this.
Many spray paints aren't suited to covering plastics. At a former place of employment, we sold black cases, but couldn't get decently priced cd-roms in black. So we removed the front plates and used the kind of spray paint that is used for model airplanes and cars on them. It worked perfectly, and took a lot of use before it started to wear through.