MySQL is not just GPL - there are two licenses, MySQL and GPL, and they can drop GPL whenever they want. Although that could cause more trouble with the EU, because they've done some promises regarding the free version.
Anyway the promises were quite unclear so there were rumors the free version won't get the fixes as often as the commercial version, some of the features will be missing etc. And AFAIK there are parts that are not GPL-licensed at all, so the sources are not available (most notably unit tests, which makes forking much more difficult), but I may be wrong.
Why do you think the PostgreSQL user management is complicated to setup? Unless needed, it can be just as simple as MySQL, just put the "host" lines to pg_hba.conf.
And have you seen pgadmin (http://pgadmin.org)? That's a very nice console app. And just like there's phpMyAdmin, there's a phpPgAdmin with about the same functionality. So you don't have to use the scripts at all.
And the stuff about template databases is complete rubbish. PostgreSQL had "CREATE DATABASE" command just like MySQL and other databases (and CREATE USER, CREATE SCHEMA,...). There's no need to mess with the template databases directly, you don't even need to know about their existence.
I hear this (that PostgreSQL is hard to admin) all the time, and most of the time it's from users who are used to do it in a different (potentially perverse) way. For example I've always struggled with user management in MySQL, I've always found it a bit crappy, enigmatic and error-pronee, but they're used to it. But PostgreSQL is administered in a different way, so it's obviously bad.
I'm not saying it's 100% perfect, but I find it quite sensible.
You know, I live in Central Europe and 20 years ago we had a communism here. But I've seen enough capitalism to understand that no one is going to give you anything for free and everyone is fighting for his interests in the first place. I'm not saying it's unfair - I find it much better than the communist hypocrisy.
But I find it constantly funny how people sign a contract and then expect the other side (Amazon, Groupon, their bank,...) will prefere their interests before it's own. For example that Groupon will schedule the coupons to the least busy times (i.e. when there's not enough customers) or that the bank employee will give them unbiased advices about their money.
It's clear most of the 100.000 buyers were not really interested in the app. I guess 95% just noticed there's a free app and downloaded it. The other 5% might be considering buying the app for the original money and this was just the final push. That's a 5000 potential customers, and if only 20% actually bought the app that's 1000 customers.
Is it enough or not? I have no idea, but the app seems quite nice so there's chance they'd buy it anyway. The problem is they got 100.000 customers, 0 paying customers and they have to support 100.000 customers. Which is a problem because the application needs a running server. With a device-only app it'd be a annoying decision, but having to support customers that gave you $0 actually makes it a bit more expensive.
PS: Yes, I've made up most of the numbers. No, I don't have any reliable stats.
In several other posts here is described how Amazon changed their distribution agreement (i.e. a contract with developers). Most developers are unaware of the change, just like the users who buy the apps - all believe the developers will get 20% even for free apps.
Yes, it's not as if Amazon put adverts saying 20% goes to the developers.
The article does not mention which kind of SSDs they've used, or have I missed something? That might be very interesting, especially when it comes to reliability. It's often claimed the SSDs are more reliable than traditional drives, but accrding to this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html that's not really true.
The article definitely mentions a contract, and yes - it's their fault they signed it. But it's not the main topic of the article. They're not whining about signing the contract, they're just pointing out that the common perception that developers are getting 20% even for free apps is false, because there're back-door deals in play. And what impact it had on their business.
Misleading wording? The first e-mail from Amazon is quite clear and they've even confirmed that (after the devs sent them a bit rude e-mail)? English is not my native language, but I see no misleading wording in that.
Well, yeah - they've accepted the deal, there's no argument about that. They're just pointing out how bad move that was, and that even although Amazon suggests the developers will get 20% (so that the buyers think they've supported the developers). Which is not true, because Amazon did a back-door deal with most of the developers so they've actually get 0%.
You mean you need a lawyer for everything? washing a car, eating a donut, doing basic math etc.?
Becaue the article is not about law or signing a contract. It's about the fact that Amazon describes the promotion as "20% for the developers" but in reality they make deals with the developers so that they pay them 0%. Yes, both sides obviously have enough brain cells to be responsible for their actions, so it's their fault they've signed the deal. But the article is not a whining about this - it's a warning to the other developers and to the public that those 20% is just a virtual reality.
Which is exactly the stuff the article is NOT about.
The article is about the fact that Amazon advertises that they're paying 20% for each app in "Free App Of The Day" promotion, but in fact they're paying 0% because they've made a deal behind the curtains. Yes, they've accepted the deal, no argument about that.
The really sad thing is they probably could sell this app for a long time, they'd continuously get small amounts of money from it and maybe the app would grow over time (good supported app is worth the money). But now they have nothing, because everyone interested already has the app, so they probably won't get even the small amount of money from it.
Imagine a burglar who comes to your house. A pitbull growling in the dark - that's already pretty scary. A glowing growling pitbull, that's super-scary.
Exactly. It's funny how many users still believe they're the actual customers. They're not, actually they're the commodity that is sold to the actual customers - advertising companies etc.
Google+ is not a message board, it's a social network. The nice thing is that you can decide who you trust - if you don't trust Bugs Bunny, you're free to do so and you don't have to let him write on your wall. That's a big difference compared to regular message boards where everyone can post messages everywhere. If I know and trust someone with a nickname DarthVader007 (and maybe I know him in person), why not to trust him?
And they actually require to use a real name, not just an 'account name' - you should read Google+ common name policy (http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271, the link is in the article). The policy clearly states you have to use "full first and last name in a single language" and it has to be your name, not just some random first and last name. There's not a single word about an account name, so the title is absolutely correct.
I really am not sure how Google "prevents creating pseudonyms from one convenient account" - AFAIK you need a google account, the Google+ account is 1:1 linked to it. You really can't create multiple Google+ accounts for a single google account. You can create multiple google accounts and then one Google+ account for each of them, but how is that related to the names? So how does the name policy prevent you from doing this? It doesn't.
And what if I'm from a country where some of rights (e.g. a free speech) are not available? I do have this privilege, but think about China, Burma, Libya and many other countries. This policy actually prevents people from these countries to speak freely, because publishing their real name linked to criticism of their government could mean a serious risk for them.
What really annoys me on this is the suspension of all the google services (including gmail with a lots of e-mails from the past), and quite unspecific "you've broken the terms" notices. So basically Google invites a bunch of beta testers, the people voluntarily help them to find and fix bugs and then they cancel their accounts without properly explaining why. What happened to the "don't be evil" motto?
If you read a ToS and you find a sentence with "on our sole discretion" in it, they own you. It's that simple. And it's not just about free services - e.g. Amazon AWS has this in their ToS too.
Slashdot Mirror
MySQL is not just GPL - there are two licenses, MySQL and GPL, and they can drop GPL whenever they want. Although that could cause more trouble with the EU, because they've done some promises regarding the free version.
Anyway the promises were quite unclear so there were rumors the free version won't get the fixes as often as the commercial version, some of the features will be missing etc. And AFAIK there are parts that are not GPL-licensed at all, so the sources are not available (most notably unit tests, which makes forking much more difficult), but I may be wrong.
Check http://pgadmin.org/ that's 'almost official' PostgreSQL GUI.
And if you need a web-based GUI, use phpPgAdmin (http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net).
Why do you think the PostgreSQL user management is complicated to setup? Unless needed, it can be just as simple as MySQL, just put the "host" lines to pg_hba.conf.
And have you seen pgadmin (http://pgadmin.org)? That's a very nice console app. And just like there's phpMyAdmin, there's a phpPgAdmin with about the same functionality. So you don't have to use the scripts at all.
And the stuff about template databases is complete rubbish. PostgreSQL had "CREATE DATABASE" command just like MySQL and other databases (and CREATE USER, CREATE SCHEMA, ...). There's no need to mess with the template databases directly, you don't even need to know about their existence.
I hear this (that PostgreSQL is hard to admin) all the time, and most of the time it's from users who are used to do it in a different (potentially perverse) way. For example I've always struggled with user management in MySQL, I've always found it a bit crappy, enigmatic and error-pronee, but they're used to it. But PostgreSQL is administered in a different way, so it's obviously bad.
I'm not saying it's 100% perfect, but I find it quite sensible.
You know, I live in Central Europe and 20 years ago we had a communism here. But I've seen enough capitalism to understand that no one is going to give you anything for free and everyone is fighting for his interests in the first place. I'm not saying it's unfair - I find it much better than the communist hypocrisy.
But I find it constantly funny how people sign a contract and then expect the other side (Amazon, Groupon, their bank, ...) will prefere their interests before it's own. For example that Groupon will schedule the coupons to the least busy times (i.e. when there's not enough customers) or that the bank employee will give them unbiased advices about their money.
Yes and no at the same time.
It's clear most of the 100.000 buyers were not really interested in the app. I guess 95% just noticed there's a free app and downloaded it. The other 5% might be considering buying the app for the original money and this was just the final push. That's a 5000 potential customers, and if only 20% actually bought the app that's 1000 customers.
Is it enough or not? I have no idea, but the app seems quite nice so there's chance they'd buy it anyway. The problem is they got 100.000 customers, 0 paying customers and they have to support 100.000 customers. Which is a problem because the application needs a running server. With a device-only app it'd be a annoying decision, but having to support customers that gave you $0 actually makes it a bit more expensive.
PS: Yes, I've made up most of the numbers. No, I don't have any reliable stats.
20% of the list price (set by the developer) is not nothing.
Because that was how it worked - Amazon had the right to give it for free, but had to pay 20% of the list price to the developer.
Yes, but Nimbus is not a SSD manufacturer. I'd expect them to buy a lot of SSDs and then build the storage arrays from them.
In several other posts here is described how Amazon changed their distribution agreement (i.e. a contract with developers). Most developers are unaware of the change, just like the users who buy the apps - all believe the developers will get 20% even for free apps.
Yes, it's not as if Amazon put adverts saying 20% goes to the developers.
The article does not mention which kind of SSDs they've used, or have I missed something? That might be very interesting, especially when it comes to reliability. It's often claimed the SSDs are more reliable than traditional drives, but accrding to this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html that's not really true.
Because you won't get the IOPs or speeds you get with SSDs? SAS driver are still the traditional drives, so the random access is a pain.
The article definitely mentions a contract, and yes - it's their fault they signed it. But it's not the main topic of the article. They're not whining about signing the contract, they're just pointing out that the common perception that developers are getting 20% even for free apps is false, because there're back-door deals in play. And what impact it had on their business.
Misleading wording? The first e-mail from Amazon is quite clear and they've even confirmed that (after the devs sent them a bit rude e-mail)? English is not my native language, but I see no misleading wording in that.
Well, yeah - they've accepted the deal, there's no argument about that. They're just pointing out how bad move that was, and that even although Amazon suggests the developers will get 20% (so that the buyers think they've supported the developers). Which is not true, because Amazon did a back-door deal with most of the developers so they've actually get 0%.
You mean you need a lawyer for everything? washing a car, eating a donut, doing basic math etc.?
Becaue the article is not about law or signing a contract. It's about the fact that Amazon describes the promotion as "20% for the developers" but in reality they make deals with the developers so that they pay them 0%. Yes, both sides obviously have enough brain cells to be responsible for their actions, so it's their fault they've signed the deal. But the article is not a whining about this - it's a warning to the other developers and to the public that those 20% is just a virtual reality.
A lot. You should immediately rewrite your disk with random data.
Which is exactly the stuff the article is NOT about.
The article is about the fact that Amazon advertises that they're paying 20% for each app in "Free App Of The Day" promotion, but in fact they're paying 0% because they've made a deal behind the curtains. Yes, they've accepted the deal, no argument about that.
The really sad thing is they probably could sell this app for a long time, they'd continuously get small amounts of money from it and maybe the app would grow over time (good supported app is worth the money). But now they have nothing, because everyone interested already has the app, so they probably won't get even the small amount of money from it.
... especially my sense of reality. Can I sue them?
pseudonym != anonymous
Imagine a burglar who comes to your house. A pitbull growling in the dark - that's already pretty scary. A glowing growling pitbull, that's super-scary.
Exactly. It's funny how many users still believe they're the actual customers. They're not, actually they're the commodity that is sold to the actual customers - advertising companies etc.
Google+ is not a message board, it's a social network. The nice thing is that you can decide who you trust - if you don't trust Bugs Bunny, you're free to do so and you don't have to let him write on your wall. That's a big difference compared to regular message boards where everyone can post messages everywhere. If I know and trust someone with a nickname DarthVader007 (and maybe I know him in person), why not to trust him?
And they actually require to use a real name, not just an 'account name' - you should read Google+ common name policy (http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271, the link is in the article). The policy clearly states you have to use "full first and last name in a single language" and it has to be your name, not just some random first and last name. There's not a single word about an account name, so the title is absolutely correct.
I really am not sure how Google "prevents creating pseudonyms from one convenient account" - AFAIK you need a google account, the Google+ account is 1:1 linked to it. You really can't create multiple Google+ accounts for a single google account. You can create multiple google accounts and then one Google+ account for each of them, but how is that related to the names? So how does the name policy prevent you from doing this? It doesn't.
And what if I'm from a country where some of rights (e.g. a free speech) are not available? I do have this privilege, but think about China, Burma, Libya and many other countries. This policy actually prevents people from these countries to speak freely, because publishing their real name linked to criticism of their government could mean a serious risk for them.
What really annoys me on this is the suspension of all the google services (including gmail with a lots of e-mails from the past), and quite unspecific "you've broken the terms" notices. So basically Google invites a bunch of beta testers, the people voluntarily help them to find and fix bugs and then they cancel their accounts without properly explaining why. What happened to the "don't be evil" motto?
If you read a ToS and you find a sentence with "on our sole discretion" in it, they own you. It's that simple. And it's not just about free services - e.g. Amazon AWS has this in their ToS too.
Can't tell you why your account was locked, it's top secret. We would have to shoot you after telling you.
Oh my gosh, I'll show that to our customers on Monday. I bet we can switch all our apps to this language by Tuesday. It's so easy!