So Oracle bought Innobase. How will this effect MySQL?
For starters, MySQL AB still has a commercial license to distribute InnoDB. That means they can do it until the license expires. Then, there is this GPL thing. Even if Oracle kills InnoDB after the license has expired, MySQL can still continue to distribute GPL'ed version of it.
A big player such as IBM just may decide to buy MySQL AB tomorrow. MySQL is a nice database engine in widespread use and IBM definitely has sufficient DB expertise to polish it further. It can be used to chip away at Oracle's user base from below, while IBM's DB2 competes from the high end.
I love Linux, but often people who swear by it have never seen the pain of a truly heavily loaded Linux box. It's much better now that a lot of sweat has gone into the scheduler.
One word: Google.
A lot of people making strange noises about Linux, esp. with regards to reliablity and scalibility forget that Google runs on Linux. I strongly doubt that the computing environment at Crest Electronics is as demanding as Google. What does this say about the CTO?
What the Gnome developers should do next is to concentrate on the basic elements. Making the code cleaner and faster. Make the interface more customizable. Make the file manager more functional and friendlier.
Right now, they are just doing too many things at once. Sure, there are Evolution users, but most people use Firefox and Thunderbird nowadays. Who needs yet another video player or CD ripper? It's more important to have a good CD burner - right now I still need to resort to the command line to blank a CD-RW. I sometimes have problems connecting to Samaba servers via Nautilus, the use of the mount command is required.
So, focus on the basics and make them better. Don't reinvent the wheel.
There surely is a lot of hype and hot air surrounding this, but ultimately it only comes down to having something to uniquely identify an individual. So why use something we are (fingerprints or retina scans) instead of something we know or have (passwords, passphases, and tokens)?
This is particularly true when crytographic research goes on in public, while this biometric stuff is closed and proprietary. Can we tell how secure the protocols and algorithms are? Not a chance. Given that it is highly likely that this proprietary stuff is way less secure than public stuff that has been subjected to all sorts of attacks, I don't see why these devices should be trusted.
600 ft/min is not the correct unit to use here. Foot is a measurement of length, not of volume, so it has zero meaning here. It's not telling you how big the volume is being moved out the door every minute, folks.
When you see something bogus like this, it is a very good sign that the "news" item is hot air.
The document format was completely incompatable with MS Word. Sure, the text would transfer fine, and simple styles would remain if you were lucky (bold, italics... anything HTML 1.0 compatable) but if you tried to do anything even remotely fancy, everything went to pot.
Hello? Is there anybody in there? The OOo document format of course is not compatible with MS Word. Did you just come from Mars or something? SXW is compressed XML, while DOC is proprietary binary.
So MS Word cannot read SXW, big deal. I let you on in a little secret - OOo can write to DOC format. Yes, you read it right. I have no idea which version you used, but the one I am using exports DOC format just fine. About 95% - 99% of formatting is preserved. Yes, it is not 100%, but it has never been 100% between any two MS Word or MS Office version, either. So I can't see anybody complaining here.
I have entirely no clue what parent's author used, it doesn't have anything to do with reality.
The people who come up with ideas like military lasers are actually smart enough to have thought of things like mirrored surfaces on enemy missiles. They wouldn't have put all that time, effort, and money into the project if it could be stopped by such a simple countermeasure.
Who are you kidding? After seeing how the whole "Missile Shield" works - remember that thing is deployed - this sort of confidence comes across as totally unfounded.
On another front, there were lots of talks about deploying lasers mounted on planes and even vehicles several years back, and nothing ever came out of all that hot air. So I will believe it when I see it works
Companies whose business doesn't fall within technology employ about 90% of the IT people in the US. Frankly, a CS degree is overkill. In some ways, this type of job is more akin to positions of "skilled craftsman" of yesteryear. Yeah, I can use a set of tools to build you a piece of furniture, but don't bother we with figuring out what metals/alloys will go into making the tools themselves, that make the furniture.
I am going to disagree with this. Software systems aren't furniture, they are more like complex mechanical systems. You can't get technicians to design cars. Designing a car requires much more than wielding some metal sheets together and slap an engine on top. By the same logic, you can't get "skilled craftsmen" to design software systems. Doing so requires a completely different set of skills and knowledge.
Something which requires you to execute a script on the computer is not a virus.
Huh? Are you saying all those nice viruses that come with e-mail messages aren't viruses? Afterall, they all require an uninformed user to execute them on a Wintel box.
I mean, if you're teaching the system or providing help desk support, you're dealing with two different beasts when walking a user through KDE vs. through Gnome.
If you are teaching how to use the Linux Desktop or working in technical support, chances are you know which windowing manager you are dealing with. I am quite certain that, within any organization, the desktop is standardized, so there is no doubt at any moment on this issue.
I will preface this post by saying that I have +20 years of computing experience as both a developer and administrator.
Red flag coming up right here...
Mac OS X is all the UNIX you could want with a simply brilliantly designed, fully featured, and consistent user interface, exceptional ease of use and administration with an excellent unified package management system. Everything you always wish you could have had on UNIX is now here on Mac OS X. Absolutely brilliant.
So it has a decent GUI, good. Is it exceptionally easy to use? Lets see. How many steps does it take to assign a static IP to a wireless connection? My experience is the task isn't simpler than with, say, Gnome. Is it easier for me to install a package by compiling from the source tarball? No. It takes just as many clicks to bring up a Web browser. So what's all this hollahop for?
Don't forget, a GUI makes it easier to do simple things and harder to do complicated things.
If you bash on Mac OS X it is because you have never used it before or you are too afraid to admit it kicks Linux's ass on the desktop. Linux zeolots are afraid to admit that Linux on the desktop sucks.
No it doesn't. The most you can assert is the GUIs for Linux sucks - which of course is very subjective, since I don't see the OSX GUI the masterpiece of work many claimed it to be. At any rate, I don't like the way Gnome and KDE is trying to imitate Explorer either - they should do something innovate. However that's another story.
I can assure you that, if you place a total newbie in front of a Mac, she will have entirely no clue what to do. You need to guide her just the same. There is as much a learning curve as using another GUI.
Parent's author displays a distinct lack of knowledge while claiming years of expertise...
The government wants those additional tax dollars from the Microsofts and EAs and 20th Century Foxes and Capitol records of the world.
Then I am afraid you will be rudely disappointed. Was there a year in the not so distant past that MS did not need to pay any taxes at all? For what you think they hire divisions of accountants? Besides, didn't Mr GWB cut back on taxes?
While the expenditures come out of the taxpayers pockets, the increase in sales - if there is any - goes into the coffers of these companies, then proceed to go to the "top executives" and then the shareholders. $1 going in will not be $1 coming out, it will be much, much, less. Even somebody who hasn't taken Economics 101 can tell you this is a totally stupid way to go about it, if increasing tax dollars is your goal.
Whether you and I like it or not, the fact is that intellectual property is one of the US's largest exports and the income that it brings into this this country plays a major role in the quality of life we enjoy.
First of all do not confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Anybody who uses the term "intellectual property" is either confused or intentionally deceiving. I will give you benefits of doubt here.
At any rate, even if there is some form of increase in sales, how does it increase your quality of life? Unless you are one of them execs, the money never makes it into your pocket, or the overall economy as a whole. As I pointed out, any such effort will drain more resources than it puts in, resulting in a net loss.
Of course, that "90%" bit is serious bogus crap. I don't think they went around asking people how much of their stuff is copied, instead, they just pull some crap from their collective rectum. It's the same shit when RIAA was claiming they lost billions of $$$ to illegal copying and filesharing.
There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.
I guess it is theoretically possible to decouple Explorer (the Windows GUI) from the underlying OS, or to decouple IE from everything else. Although in practice, it is probably not possible for anybody other than Microsoft to even contemplate such a feat.
There is a difference. Microsoft has more lawyers. Wasn't M$ sued by the government, M$ lost, and was ordered to split into 2 seperate companies? What happened? Appeal, appeal, appeal. And wait for a new administration, and new attorney general.
They appealed only once, and was largely unsuccessful. MS asked the appellate court to dismiss the case, but the court agreed with Judge Jackson that MS had been Bad. The appellate court was only unhappy with Judge Jackson's attitude towards MS near the end - to be fair, who wouldn't? At any rate, the case was sent back to a district court to decide on the remedies. Then Lord Ashcroft got into power and settled with MS.
I've built my own vehicle simulations in MATLAB and shown that their studies are total BS.
Perhaps you will be so kind as to write up at article with data you collected, and paste a link here so we can see which party is actually right? The UCS is an environment friendly group, but I can't recall seeing them called liars and/or fakers elsewhere.
1. permanent read/write random-access storage that doesn't spin
They already had this many moons ago - it is called Bubble Memory. Check some old computer magazines that came out in the early 1980's, Byte is a good one. Anyway, they thought this new gadget would be the end of the clunky, noisy, heavy, easily-damaged HDD. But istead, HDD wiped out Bubble Memory because capacity mattered.
1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.
I don't understand why anybody suggests this. This is not only a bad idea, it is atrocious. It runs completely contrary to the basic tenets of software engineering and makes security a nightmare. It needed to be shot repeatedly in the head, and anybody who suggests this needed to have his brain examined. It is that simple.
I am worried about all these things (device drivers, file systems, etc.) that are creeping into the Linux kernel. Most of them can remain in userspace - sure, you will take a hit in performance. But to paraphrase Andy Tanenbaum, if you are willing to handle Java, the slowdown of having these services in userspace is nothing in comparsion.
The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install and to connect to the Internet.
First, I submit that "Windows is relatively simple to install" is just a myth. Not only it is a myth but one that is contrary to reality. In fact, anybody who could make such a statement a) has never installed Windows (any version) in his life b) has never installed a recent Linux distro (Fedora Core 4 is a good example) in his life or c) is simply a MS fanboi. Anybody who has done a clean installation of Windows XP (say) and RH FC4 (say) knows that FC4 installs much easier and faster than XP. (Okay, not quite, if your computer has some esoteric hardware, but this simply is not the case for corporate desktops).
Second, it is not easier to connect to the Internet using Windows than using Linux. However, this should be a non-issue in corporate environment because the Average American doesn't need to touch any networking issue. All he has to do is turn on the computer and go.
Snooze. The MS fanboi are really out in force FUD'ing. Even blaming the victims.
Windows is of course the problem with security - ask Bruce Schneier, say. Everybody who has a clue about computer security knows that the fundamental rule to secure a system is to make sure every component is clearly defined, then make each one as secure as possible. So what did Microsoft do? They went ahead and mingled code. Hm, yes. Good move, that.
A system is only as secure as the weakest component. You can put as many locks on your windows as you want, but unless you remember to lock the door to your house all these other measures are utterly useless.
Even RH can install additional language support for years. In Windows (even XP) you can't for example input Chinese unless you change the language setting. You can input English under Chinese, but not the other way around.
#2 They didn't introduce a new UI element, they just learned how to make existing ones match the page.
It's nice and all... but how could a user tell wether a bunch of stars are just a bunch of stars or are actually checkboxes in disguise? Nielson is correct that Web surfing is a collective experience. Each individual website does not, and should not, standalone. Mucking with what users are accustomed to at your own peril.
Slashdot Mirror
So Oracle bought Innobase. How will this effect MySQL?
For starters, MySQL AB still has a commercial license to distribute InnoDB. That means they can do it until the license expires. Then, there is this GPL thing. Even if Oracle kills InnoDB after the license has expired, MySQL can still continue to distribute GPL'ed version of it.
A big player such as IBM just may decide to buy MySQL AB tomorrow. MySQL is a nice database engine in widespread use and IBM definitely has sufficient DB expertise to polish it further. It can be used to chip away at Oracle's user base from below, while IBM's DB2 competes from the high end.
I love Linux, but often people who swear by it have never seen the pain of a truly heavily loaded Linux box. It's much better now that a lot of sweat has gone into the scheduler.
One word: Google.
A lot of people making strange noises about Linux, esp. with regards to reliablity and scalibility forget that Google runs on Linux. I strongly doubt that the computing environment at Crest Electronics is as demanding as Google. What does this say about the CTO?
What the Gnome developers should do next is to concentrate on the basic elements. Making the code cleaner and faster. Make the interface more customizable. Make the file manager more functional and friendlier.
Right now, they are just doing too many things at once. Sure, there are Evolution users, but most people use Firefox and Thunderbird nowadays. Who needs yet another video player or CD ripper? It's more important to have a good CD burner - right now I still need to resort to the command line to blank a CD-RW. I sometimes have problems connecting to Samaba servers via Nautilus, the use of the mount command is required.
So, focus on the basics and make them better. Don't reinvent the wheel.
There surely is a lot of hype and hot air surrounding this, but ultimately it only comes down to having something to uniquely identify an individual. So why use something we are (fingerprints or retina scans) instead of something we know or have (passwords, passphases, and tokens)?
This is particularly true when crytographic research goes on in public, while this biometric stuff is closed and proprietary. Can we tell how secure the protocols and algorithms are? Not a chance. Given that it is highly likely that this proprietary stuff is way less secure than public stuff that has been subjected to all sorts of attacks, I don't see why these devices should be trusted.
600 ft/min is not the correct unit to use here. Foot is a measurement of length, not of volume, so it has zero meaning here. It's not telling you how big the volume is being moved out the door every minute, folks.
When you see something bogus like this, it is a very good sign that the "news" item is hot air.
The document format was completely incompatable with MS Word. Sure, the text would transfer fine, and simple styles would remain if you were lucky (bold, italics... anything HTML 1.0 compatable) but if you tried to do anything even remotely fancy, everything went to pot.
Hello? Is there anybody in there? The OOo document format of course is not compatible with MS Word. Did you just come from Mars or something? SXW is compressed XML, while DOC is proprietary binary.
So MS Word cannot read SXW, big deal. I let you on in a little secret - OOo can write to DOC format. Yes, you read it right. I have no idea which version you used, but the one I am using exports DOC format just fine. About 95% - 99% of formatting is preserved. Yes, it is not 100%, but it has never been 100% between any two MS Word or MS Office version, either. So I can't see anybody complaining here.
I have entirely no clue what parent's author used, it doesn't have anything to do with reality.
I am amused. How do you plot a unique graph on a single data point? You could have an infinite number of curves going through it.
Drawing conclusion on one single fact borders on the insane.
The people who come up with ideas like military lasers are actually smart enough to have thought of things like mirrored surfaces on enemy missiles. They wouldn't have put all that time, effort, and money into the project if it could be stopped by such a simple countermeasure.
Who are you kidding? After seeing how the whole "Missile Shield" works - remember that thing is deployed - this sort of confidence comes across as totally unfounded.
On another front, there were lots of talks about deploying lasers mounted on planes and even vehicles several years back, and nothing ever came out of all that hot air. So I will believe it when I see it works
Companies whose business doesn't fall within technology employ about 90% of the IT people in the US. Frankly, a CS degree is overkill. In some ways, this type of job is more akin to positions of "skilled craftsman" of yesteryear. Yeah, I can use a set of tools to build you a piece of furniture, but don't bother we with figuring out what metals/alloys will go into making the tools themselves, that make the furniture.
I am going to disagree with this. Software systems aren't furniture, they are more like complex mechanical systems. You can't get technicians to design cars. Designing a car requires much more than wielding some metal sheets together and slap an engine on top. By the same logic, you can't get "skilled craftsmen" to design software systems. Doing so requires a completely different set of skills and knowledge.
Something which requires you to execute a script on the computer is not a virus.
Huh? Are you saying all those nice viruses that come with e-mail messages aren't viruses? Afterall, they all require an uninformed user to execute them on a Wintel box.
As far as I know, Peter Norton wrote Norton Anti-Virus.
I mean, if you're teaching the system or providing help desk support, you're dealing with two different beasts when walking a user through KDE vs. through Gnome.
If you are teaching how to use the Linux Desktop or working in technical support, chances are you know which windowing manager you are dealing with. I am quite certain that, within any organization, the desktop is standardized, so there is no doubt at any moment on this issue.
I will preface this post by saying that I have +20 years of computing experience as both a developer and administrator.
Red flag coming up right here...
Mac OS X is all the UNIX you could want with a simply brilliantly designed, fully featured, and consistent user interface, exceptional ease of use and administration with an excellent unified package management system. Everything you always wish you could have had on UNIX is now here on Mac OS X. Absolutely brilliant.
So it has a decent GUI, good. Is it exceptionally easy to use? Lets see. How many steps does it take to assign a static IP to a wireless connection? My experience is the task isn't simpler than with, say, Gnome. Is it easier for me to install a package by compiling from the source tarball? No. It takes just as many clicks to bring up a Web browser. So what's all this hollahop for?
Don't forget, a GUI makes it easier to do simple things and harder to do complicated things.
If you bash on Mac OS X it is because you have never used it before or you are too afraid to admit it kicks Linux's ass on the desktop. Linux zeolots are afraid to admit that Linux on the desktop sucks.
No it doesn't. The most you can assert is the GUIs for Linux sucks - which of course is very subjective, since I don't see the OSX GUI the masterpiece of work many claimed it to be. At any rate, I don't like the way Gnome and KDE is trying to imitate Explorer either - they should do something innovate. However that's another story.
I can assure you that, if you place a total newbie in front of a Mac, she will have entirely no clue what to do. You need to guide her just the same. There is as much a learning curve as using another GUI.
Parent's author displays a distinct lack of knowledge while claiming years of expertise...
The government wants those additional tax dollars from the Microsofts and EAs and 20th Century Foxes and Capitol records of the world.
Then I am afraid you will be rudely disappointed. Was there a year in the not so distant past that MS did not need to pay any taxes at all? For what you think they hire divisions of accountants? Besides, didn't Mr GWB cut back on taxes?
While the expenditures come out of the taxpayers pockets, the increase in sales - if there is any - goes into the coffers of these companies, then proceed to go to the "top executives" and then the shareholders. $1 going in will not be $1 coming out, it will be much, much, less. Even somebody who hasn't taken Economics 101 can tell you this is a totally stupid way to go about it, if increasing tax dollars is your goal.
Whether you and I like it or not, the fact is that intellectual property is one of the US's largest exports and the income that it brings into this this country plays a major role in the quality of life we enjoy.
First of all do not confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Anybody who uses the term "intellectual property" is either confused or intentionally deceiving. I will give you benefits of doubt here.
At any rate, even if there is some form of increase in sales, how does it increase your quality of life? Unless you are one of them execs, the money never makes it into your pocket, or the overall economy as a whole. As I pointed out, any such effort will drain more resources than it puts in, resulting in a net loss.
Of course, that "90%" bit is serious bogus crap. I don't think they went around asking people how much of their stuff is copied, instead, they just pull some crap from their collective rectum. It's the same shit when RIAA was claiming they lost billions of $$$ to illegal copying and filesharing.
There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.
I guess it is theoretically possible to decouple Explorer (the Windows GUI) from the underlying OS, or to decouple IE from everything else. Although in practice, it is probably not possible for anybody other than Microsoft to even contemplate such a feat.
There is a difference. Microsoft has more lawyers. Wasn't M$ sued by the government, M$ lost, and was ordered to split into 2 seperate companies? What happened? Appeal, appeal, appeal. And wait for a new administration, and new attorney general.
They appealed only once, and was largely unsuccessful. MS asked the appellate court to dismiss the case, but the court agreed with Judge Jackson that MS had been Bad. The appellate court was only unhappy with Judge Jackson's attitude towards MS near the end - to be fair, who wouldn't? At any rate, the case was sent back to a district court to decide on the remedies. Then Lord Ashcroft got into power and settled with MS.
/. links to this rubbish so it gets more views. Same effect really.
I've built my own vehicle simulations in MATLAB and shown that their studies are total BS.
Perhaps you will be so kind as to write up at article with data you collected, and paste a link here so we can see which party is actually right? The UCS is an environment friendly group, but I can't recall seeing them called liars and/or fakers elsewhere.
1. permanent read/write random-access storage that doesn't spin
They already had this many moons ago - it is called Bubble Memory. Check some old computer magazines that came out in the early 1980's, Byte is a good one. Anyway, they thought this new gadget would be the end of the clunky, noisy, heavy, easily-damaged HDD. But istead, HDD wiped out Bubble Memory because capacity mattered.
1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.
I don't understand why anybody suggests this. This is not only a bad idea, it is atrocious. It runs completely contrary to the basic tenets of software engineering and makes security a nightmare. It needed to be shot repeatedly in the head, and anybody who suggests this needed to have his brain examined. It is that simple.
I am worried about all these things (device drivers, file systems, etc.) that are creeping into the Linux kernel. Most of them can remain in userspace - sure, you will take a hit in performance. But to paraphrase Andy Tanenbaum, if you are willing to handle Java, the slowdown of having these services in userspace is nothing in comparsion.
Only a fool would put all his eggs into one basket at this time.
In other words, only an idiot wants to be locked in by a single vendor.
The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install and to connect to the Internet.
First, I submit that "Windows is relatively simple to install" is just a myth. Not only it is a myth but one that is contrary to reality. In fact, anybody who could make such a statement a) has never installed Windows (any version) in his life b) has never installed a recent Linux distro (Fedora Core 4 is a good example) in his life or c) is simply a MS fanboi. Anybody who has done a clean installation of Windows XP (say) and RH FC4 (say) knows that FC4 installs much easier and faster than XP. (Okay, not quite, if your computer has some esoteric hardware, but this simply is not the case for corporate desktops).
Second, it is not easier to connect to the Internet using Windows than using Linux. However, this should be a non-issue in corporate environment because the Average American doesn't need to touch any networking issue. All he has to do is turn on the computer and go.
Snooze. The MS fanboi are really out in force FUD'ing. Even blaming the victims.
Windows is of course the problem with security - ask Bruce Schneier, say. Everybody who has a clue about computer security knows that the fundamental rule to secure a system is to make sure every component is clearly defined, then make each one as secure as possible. So what did Microsoft do? They went ahead and mingled code. Hm, yes. Good move, that.
A system is only as secure as the weakest component. You can put as many locks on your windows as you want, but unless you remember to lock the door to your house all these other measures are utterly useless.
That's not true.
Even RH can install additional language support for years. In Windows (even XP) you can't for example input Chinese unless you change the language setting. You can input English under Chinese, but not the other way around.
#2 They didn't introduce a new UI element, they just learned how to make existing ones match the page.
It's nice and all... but how could a user tell wether a bunch of stars are just a bunch of stars or are actually checkboxes in disguise? Nielson is correct that Web surfing is a collective experience. Each individual website does not, and should not, standalone. Mucking with what users are accustomed to at your own peril.