Yes, these may be the only money makers, but Bill et al. have a very paranoid need to be everywhere: desktop, server, cellphone, tv set, entertainment unit, music player, VoIP, etc...
...and with good reason. Remember the browser war? If they had not forced their way in there, MS mightn't even exist today (yes, sounds all "the sky is falling", but its quite feasible).
MS has seen that cracks in the platform wall at all can (and will) flood their field and essentially wipe them out. Netscape/IE, Java/.NET, Unix/NT, Palm/PPC, etc... If they lose on one front, then a whack of non-MS solutions can flood in and things like interoperability and open source software will allow people to migrate away from MS.
Paranoid schizophrenia? Yes, absolutely....but seems quite justified. They've been burned by ignoring fronts in the past.
When Netscape first came on the scene, no one would have considered how important the web would become. Who can say that MP3 players, gaming consoles (!!!), cell phones, etc...won't play a similar role? Look at how predominant the Blackberry has become.
One project i've seen working at other in the telecom field is people taking an open source SIP stack and improving greatly on it for foundation of their company voip network.
Modification for your own use is completely valid and legal. You only need to provide source code to whomever/whatever you provide the modified product to.
Or google not releasing their code modifications to the linux OS that powers their datacenter machines.
Google is not distributing the resultant product (modified OS) to any external entities. If they do, they need to provide the source code to that entity.
If I sell my personal computer which has bunch of OSS applications installed, i would be forced to remove the applications in order not violate the redistribution part of the GPL license agreement or allow away for other people to get the project.
What utter nonesense. You would be force to remove the applications if you (a) did not provide the source code or (b) somehow restricted the purchaser from getting access to the source code. If you haven't modified the docs or license that came with the installed apps, it is almost certain that the purchaser will have all the information they need to have the freedom to use the software.
If I sell my purhcased redhat cd, under the agreement i'm in violation of the GPL without allowing away for other people to get the source.
Money has nothing to do with it. If you give someone a GPL'ed application (whether you purchased it or not), and don't provide them access to the source code then you are violating the GPL.
You, the distributor, cannot restrict their access to the source code nor restrict them from redistributing the source code. That is all.
GPL is so flawed, which is how mysql ab makes their money.
This is so wrong. MySQL AB has a dual-license model, with the GPL being one license.
...decide to agree to the terms of the GPL and *choose* to open their source as a result.
Just because we're picking nits....
They would actually only need to *choose* to offer the source code to those who have received binaries of the product (as well as *not* restrict those people from re-redistributing the source).
They do not need to "open" the source to the general public.
"We are only doing POSIX as a checkbox, so we can get government contracts..."
Thus a few years later, MS is getting sued because of a landed US Fed Gov't contract (DoD, I believe) where the RFP called for a POSIX-based solution.
A bunch of other POSIX "experts" get together while the trial is going on and decide they can implement this thing. They form Softway Systems, producing Interix, and get acquired by MS.
MS at the time had an SFU (Services for Unix) pack that included MKS tools.
Somewhat interesting (though not surprising) is that some of the principals at Softway are former MKS employees.
the mountain of disk seeks required if access paterns to the database are random.
No database application (or RDBMS) worth its weight is going to be doing "random data access"...and if the access truly is random, then the filesystem will be much *less* efficient than an RDBMS will be.
RDBMS's have things such as caches (dynamically sizing ones even), indexes, and clustered indexes to reduce the impact from applications that seek "random" data. But the overwhelming majority of applications do in fact have a pattern to their access.
Also, the size of a given database is usually irrelevant. Typical applications only access "recent" data, with batch systems or other reporting mechanisms generating reports against data outside of that "recent" portion. The "recent" data is typically sitting in cache.
He lies or is completely out to lunch about the "facts"
...
But of all his faults, his biggest is that he's too brash. The people who criticize him without too much reasoning often do so because they simply dislike the way that he pushes his "ideas" through.
I don't dislike him for having ideas (though I don't like the majority of them), and I don't dislike him for being strong. But I do dislike him for the way he uses his power.
I liked Clinton, though to be brutally honest, he did a terrible job on most fronts. But he had a great way of making people feel good about what he was doing (or at least said he was going to do). When he pushed his weight around, it was all behind the scenes. Heck, Clinton was a better republican than either of the Bushes when it comes to cutting government spending and reducing aid programs.
GW just doesn't have finess. Very few of the "radical right" do.
This kind of politics may play well in some parts of the US, or even during spike periods (e.g. around elections and "hot-button" issues...though often on irrelevant issues)...but it often divides that country. And for "foreigners" (like me), it often pits many who would have little-to-no opinion of "Americans" to be rather upset with them.
One of the problems that people in the proprietary s/w industry have with trying to "get" F/OSS is the whole concept of "profit".
Yes, with F/OSS you can make a profit (e.g. Red Hat). But if one gets their head out of the "please the stockholders"-space, then hopefully you can appreciate the concept of "earning a comfortable living".
Small firms of talented individuals could easily make enough money to live comfortably and using F/OSS software would help them be much more competitive and MUCH more flexible than outfits that insist on using software with built-in "profit margins".
The main model behind these kinds of companies is to build custom solutions. This is where the majority of software is anyways (not shrinkwrap wares), so there is lots of opportunity. The fact that you don't necessarily end up with a generalized product likely doesn't matter if you aren't out to make a bunch of VCs millions upon their millions.
As someone else who has been in the industry a long time, I find that only a very small amount of code actually needs to be optimized in the method you mention above.
The biggest problem I run into are programmers who "know the compiler" so much that they make impossible to decypher all-in-one-if-statement code blobs.
Write the damn code in a clear and precise way. Compile and run it. If performance is an issue (which for the majority of s/w it is not), then profile the code and make sure you know where the problem is.
Then, and only then, should the programmer consider rewriting code for optimization. And even then, often it is the algorithm that needs to be fixed, not the fact that the compiler's optimization is missing something obvious. These compiler thingies tend to to be pretty decent these days.
One of my favourite quotes I share with new grads as they come on-board with their fancy compiler theory classes under belt:
In "Literate Programming," Donald Knuth wrote "We should forget about small efficiencies, about 97% of the time. Premature optimization is the root of all evil."
Attention passengers awaiting ComAir flight 5884, destination Cinncinati Ohio. The pilot and co-pilot regret to inform you that due to a 16-bit numerical overflow in our scheduling system, departure of this flight is being further delayed from our regular list of excuses.
Please continue waiting. We will misinform you regularly as we make up various status reports. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to keep them to yourselves.
Again, we apologize for the delay. I will be leaving for the day now, going home to have dinner with my family, but please do make yourselves comfortable here in these plastic chairs we kindly provide you at no extra charge.
Oh, and one last announcement: If you are a computer programmer, please identify yourself to any of our staff members so that we may have security keep an eye on you.
The biggest complain about Outlook is the lack of multiple hotmail account support.
I can think of a few gaping holes that I would consider a much bigger complaint than the lack of support for multiple lousy free-but-encumbered accounts.
Personally, I think RHES it's always way out of date, especially since it's still running a 2.4 kernel.
The point to RHES is to run enterprise applications. These are apps that are developed or have evolved over years, and are meant to run with stability for years to come. There is no need to run on bleeding-edge releases (or even stitches-still-in releases).
2.6 has not been out for a year yet. Heck kernel.org just started running its website on 2.6 in May! And you want me to move my critical enterprise apps over to it? Millions of $$$ are dependent on these systems.
Thanks, I'll take a widely used and stable 2.4 (currently.21) on my system. Call me when your kernel has been field tested for a year.
Only real webmasters get subpoenaed by the FBI. If you haven't been subpoenaed lately, take a good hard look at your website...it has become meanlingless.
except Sybase maybe, which it apparently is based off of
There is no apparently about it. MS SQL Server is a direct branch from the Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise (formerly Sybase SQL Server) code, the result of a partnership gone differently than hoped for by one of the two parties involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, these may be the only money makers, but Bill et al. have a very paranoid need to be everywhere: desktop, server, cellphone, tv set, entertainment unit, music player, VoIP, etc...
...and with good reason. Remember the browser war? If they had not forced their way in there, MS mightn't even exist today (yes, sounds all "the sky is falling", but its quite feasible).
MS has seen that cracks in the platform wall at all can (and will) flood their field and essentially wipe them out. Netscape/IE, Java/.NET, Unix/NT, Palm/PPC, etc... If they lose on one front, then a whack of non-MS solutions can flood in and things like interoperability and open source software will allow people to migrate away from MS.
Paranoid schizophrenia? Yes, absolutely....but seems quite justified. They've been burned by ignoring fronts in the past.
When Netscape first came on the scene, no one would have considered how important the web would become. Who can say that MP3 players, gaming consoles (!!!), cell phones, etc...won't play a similar role? Look at how predominant the Blackberry has become.
What utter nonesense. You would be force to remove the applications if you (a) did not provide the source code or (b) somehow restricted the purchaser from getting access to the source code. If you haven't modified the docs or license that came with the installed apps, it is almost certain that the purchaser will have all the information they need to have the freedom to use the software.
Money has nothing to do with it. If you give someone a GPL'ed application (whether you purchased it or not), and don't provide them access to the source code then you are violating the GPL.
You, the distributor, cannot restrict their access to the source code nor restrict them from redistributing the source code. That is all.
This is so wrong. MySQL AB has a dual-license model, with the GPL being one license.
Just because we're picking nits....
They would actually only need to *choose* to offer the source code to those who have received binaries of the product (as well as *not* restrict those people from re-redistributing the source).
They do not need to "open" the source to the general public.
I would like to rat out various folks who offered me counterfeit copies of your "windows" product: these, and these, and these, and these, and .....
Stick it to 'em. And good luck!
Thus a few years later, MS is getting sued because of a landed US Fed Gov't contract (DoD, I believe) where the RFP called for a POSIX-based solution.
A bunch of other POSIX "experts" get together while the trial is going on and decide they can implement this thing. They form Softway Systems, producing Interix, and get acquired by MS.
MS at the time had an SFU (Services for Unix) pack that included MKS tools.
Somewhat interesting (though not surprising) is that some of the principals at Softway are former MKS employees.
What do you mean it doesn't exist? It appears twice (yes, twice!) in this movie review.
( or maybe "dont doit" for those nerds who will attempt to point out that don't is not a single word... )
No database application (or RDBMS) worth its weight is going to be doing "random data access"...and if the access truly is random, then the filesystem will be much *less* efficient than an RDBMS will be.
RDBMS's have things such as caches (dynamically sizing ones even), indexes, and clustered indexes to reduce the impact from applications that seek "random" data. But the overwhelming majority of applications do in fact have a pattern to their access.
Also, the size of a given database is usually irrelevant. Typical applications only access "recent" data, with batch systems or other reporting mechanisms generating reports against data outside of that "recent" portion. The "recent" data is typically sitting in cache.
Coincidence? I highly doubt it.
BTW: how many times was it that GWB was outside of the US prior to running for the whitehouse?
- The man can't do public speaking.
- He contradicts himself frequently
- He lies or is completely out to lunch about the "facts"
...
But of all his faults, his biggest is that he's too brash. The people who criticize him without too much reasoning often do so because they simply dislike the way that he pushes his "ideas" through.I don't dislike him for having ideas (though I don't like the majority of them), and I don't dislike him for being strong. But I do dislike him for the way he uses his power.
I liked Clinton, though to be brutally honest, he did a terrible job on most fronts. But he had a great way of making people feel good about what he was doing (or at least said he was going to do). When he pushed his weight around, it was all behind the scenes. Heck, Clinton was a better republican than either of the Bushes when it comes to cutting government spending and reducing aid programs.
GW just doesn't have finess. Very few of the "radical right" do.
This kind of politics may play well in some parts of the US, or even during spike periods (e.g. around elections and "hot-button" issues...though often on irrelevant issues)...but it often divides that country. And for "foreigners" (like me), it often pits many who would have little-to-no opinion of "Americans" to be rather upset with them.
Yes, with F/OSS you can make a profit (e.g. Red Hat). But if one gets their head out of the "please the stockholders"-space, then hopefully you can appreciate the concept of "earning a comfortable living".
Small firms of talented individuals could easily make enough money to live comfortably and using F/OSS software would help them be much more competitive and MUCH more flexible than outfits that insist on using software with built-in "profit margins".
The main model behind these kinds of companies is to build custom solutions. This is where the majority of software is anyways (not shrinkwrap wares), so there is lots of opportunity. The fact that you don't necessarily end up with a generalized product likely doesn't matter if you aren't out to make a bunch of VCs millions upon their millions.
The biggest problem I run into are programmers who "know the compiler" so much that they make impossible to decypher all-in-one-if-statement code blobs.
Write the damn code in a clear and precise way. Compile and run it. If performance is an issue (which for the majority of s/w it is not), then profile the code and make sure you know where the problem is.
Then, and only then, should the programmer consider rewriting code for optimization. And even then, often it is the algorithm that needs to be fixed, not the fact that the compiler's optimization is missing something obvious. These compiler thingies tend to to be pretty decent these days.
One of my favourite quotes I share with new grads as they come on-board with their fancy compiler theory classes under belt:
Honestly, does anyone reading /. have a clue what this sentence refers to??
What's a dior? Is it GPL'ed?
Are you saying that NASA gave us velcro? A simple search on the web seems to bring up a number of different sites stating a different history.
10 minute break? How can you even get started without it???
The point to RHES is to run enterprise applications. These are apps that are developed or have evolved over years, and are meant to run with stability for years to come. There is no need to run on bleeding-edge releases (or even stitches-still-in releases).
2.6 has not been out for a year yet. Heck kernel.org just started running its website on 2.6 in May! And you want me to move my critical enterprise apps over to it? Millions of $$$ are dependent on these systems.
Thanks, I'll take a widely used and stable 2.4 (currently .21) on my system. Call me when your kernel has been field tested for a year.
The only thing I could think of adding would be:
(though ASA doesn't support URLs for its output locationGive me your PHP/MySQL solution and I bet I can bring it to its knees with a few properly placed bad queries and/or data structures.
To make any conclusions about technologies based on your one example would be a crime (...though, this is /. after all...)