PostgreSQL is currently expanding both upwards towards Oracle and DB2, while concurrently expanding downwards towards MySQL. On the other end, SQLite is rapidly putting upwards pressure on MySQL. We find that both of these alternatives have a much friendlier licensing scheme than MySQL, and both have features and quality that MySQL currently lacks.
Err... while I buy the fact that pgsql (as a BSD licensed product) has friendlier licensing than MySQL (GPL with commercial licenses available), SQLite is also GPL, and I don't see any mention of commercial license availability on their site, so I'd say their licensing is *less* friendly.
Certainly I interpreted it that you could make one physical and one virtual installation of each licensed copy. Not 100% sure that's the correct interpretation, but at least where I am, in a business-consumer contract, any ambiguity will be resolved by a court in favour of the consumer.:)
Actually, ignore the posted session transcript, it's a double stage redirect:
jules@vengeance:~/public_html/sb2WorkArea/newadmin > telnet secunia.com 80 Trying 213.150.41.226... Connected to secunia.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET/ie_redir_test_1 HTTP/1.1 Host: secunia.com Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:32:32 GMT Server: Apache Location: mhtml:http://secunia.com/ie_redir_test_2 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html
0
Connection closed by foreign host. jules@vengeance:~/public_html/sb2WorkArea/newadmin > telnet secunia.com 80 Trying 213.150.41.226... Connected to secunia.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET/ie_redir_test_2 HTTP/1.1 Host: secunia.com Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:33:04 GMT Server: Apache Location: http://news.google.com/ Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html
That's not actually what they're doing. Try connecting to that address. Here's what you get:
Trying 213.150.41.226... Connected to secunia.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET/ie_redir_test_1 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.secunia.com Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:30:39 GMT Server: Apache location: http://secunia.com/ie_redir_test_1 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html
0
They're sending an HTTP redirect, and the browser's following it. It will then send the cookies for the redirected URL to the server, and the server will return data expecting it to go into its own security context. This does allow data stealing.
Either way, it's going to really suck when people need to run a one or more instances of Vista Ultimate in a VM (yes, Ultimate can run in a VM) for testing and staging but quickly run out of licenses on the local activation server.
The volume licensing EULA specifically allows for VM usage (one VM per machine only), so I'd expect the licensing server knows about this and can deal with it.
Windpower is also reasonable here. Somplace on the net there's instructions for building a 5 kilowatt one out of disk drive magents and an airplane propellor (but I've lost track of if and am too lazy at the moment to spend some quality time with google looking for it).
Probably not the site you're refering to, but there's a lot of good wind-power stuff at otherpower.com.
Can you explain this British law in layman's terms? Is copying a program into RAM an infringement, or is it not? And how do the text and the case law support it?
Yes, it is. Making a copy is an infringement other than in specific cases outlined; the case for temporary copies that are essential for the use of the work specifically excludes computer programs.
The only case I'm aware of that made reference to it was one that involved mod chips for PS2s. The mod chips caused a copy of the game to be made in RAM during loading, and it was held that this copy was infringing in the case of a parallel import game because the license with the games stated they were only intended for use in a specific region. I'm afraid I don't have a reference to the case with me, but it has been mentioned here before.
Solar power is extremely expensive, and power is generally the single largest cost in operating a data center (bandwidth, server leases, and even the cost of A-grade real estate in an urban core like New York City are small compared to power costs).
Solar power is expensive in terms of up-front cost. Long term, it's really rather cheap. Based on an operating life of 50 years (which is reasonable if you can afford the space for slightly less efficient panels, and google like to put their datacentres in out-of-the-way places, I hear) you'd be looking at about 6 cents (US) per kilowatt hour. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
That is fortunate, because it isn't even clear that solar panels are carbon neutral, much less carbon negative, over their operating lifetime.
Bullshit. This *may* have been true for early generations, but even then its doubtful because of the long lifetime of most solar cells. Advocates for traditional energy often understate the lifetime of a solar cell by treating the length of time it takes for output to drop off by 5% as if it were the complete lifetime of the cell, whereas in most cases cells will continue operating well beyond this point.
This would be more true if solar panels lasted longer, but sadly they slowly degenerate over time. I believe replacement is suggested after 25 years, at which point they have - assuming present energy prices - rarely paid for themselves.
1. Replacement is suggested after 25 years, if (and only if) space is at a premium. Over the lifetime, output drops off slowly. After 25 years, output is typically around 85-90% of the original output. If you have the space for it, you just add more panels to make up for the lost capacity. If you don't, you replace them (and sell your used panels to somebody who has more space than you do). 2. Even if they did only last 25 years, they cost around USD$6-7000 per peak KW. Over that 25 years, you can expect them to produce about an average of roughly a quarter of their peak output, so.25*25*365*24 = 54750KWh. This comes to a price of 12 cents per kilowatt hour. I don't know about you, but I pay substantially more than that for my electricity.
One square meter of solar panel is typically good for 130 watts at peak, but only about 655 watt hours per day, or 27 watts averaged over 24 hours. In other words, the average power is about 20% of the peak.
Google are talking about using this for their offices, not their datacenters. Hence it's likely to only be needed around 10 hours per day, during daylight hours. I'd expect average power to be about 80% of peak.
A typical price for a good solar panel today is about $1000 for 160 watts peak.
That's probably a good price for a 160W panel, but IIRC lower output panels get you more W/$.
Batteries, inverters, and installation extra.
It wouldn't be hard for a company with google's resources to arrange for their computers to be run on DC power. This is almost certainly both more efficient and cheaper than using inverters.
Even assuming exponential dropoff, you'd have to multiply this figure by 4 before output drops to half as much power as the cells produced when they were first manufactured.
Did we cross the threshold of solar panel arrays giving off more power before the MTBF than it takes to create them?
As I understand it the MTBF of solar panels is so high, the notion that this could possible be true is absurd. Lifetime of a solar panel is often quoted as some low figure (10 years for older ones, 20 for more modern designs), but what's normally quoted is the time it will take until output drops by 5%. Even assuming exponential dropoff, you'd have to multiply this figure by 4 before output drops to half as much power as the cells produced when they were first manufactured.
These guys have some experience working with old solar panels.
That's great, I am really proud of them for using an alternative energy source (especially in such a sunny area) but most of their energy usage is those data centers and servers, not their employees. They purposefully did not give a % of total energy saved because it probably would have been on the order of 0.1-5%, which would have revealed the ridiculous amount of energy they actually use.
The latest estimate I'm aware of is that their datacenters contain around 450,000 machines (NYT, June 06), which are dual processor Xeons, probably consuming around 300W each => 135MW of server farm, not including aircon, lighting, switches & routers, etc.
Your claim is 50% incorrect. His claim is incorrect for people in the USA. He isn't, and I'm not. Here's the relevant law for me:
28A Making of temporary copies Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable - (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance.
Note that while transient copies *are* allowed, transient copies of computer programs are specifically exempted. I don't know why not, but they are.
And I quote from the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
28A Making of temporary copies Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable - (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance.
(The poster you're replying to isn't in the US; don't assume all countries have the same laws)
28A Making of temporary copies Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable - (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance.
The GPL isn't a contract. There is nothing to agree to.
I'm not sure that this is true. If I distribute copies of a GPL program, I have to agree not to impose any terms and conditions over and above the GPL requirements on the recipient, and I have to agree to provide source code upon request.
In Ireland, the Constitution says that 'The State guarantees liberty for [The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions], subject to public order and morality.'
That's rather ambiguous, but of course it has to be interpreted in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:
ARTICLE 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Morality, as such, isn't an issue. "[P]rotection of [...] morals" is the only thing that is listed that's appropriate, which covers a lot less than "morality" does. It becomes the same thing as the British test for obscenity: if exposure to the material is reasonably likely to "deprave" (i.e. corrupt a viewer's moral standards) the government has a right to censor it. Otherwise it doesn't.
It's a hard judgement to make in many cases, but I'm pretty sure the word "porn" doesn't fall on the wrong side.
let me guess , you're some kid who's never been a victim of a serious crime and so have zero idea of how it feels to the victim or their familt?
'fraid not. I'm 30, and have been a victim of burglary (twice), fraud, and assault. Members of my family have also been victims of similar crimes. Admittedly, none of these are particularly serious, but I know how being a victim makes me feel, which means I know that the way I feel when I am a victim should not be taken into account in any way in the process of justice. I get very unreasonable, and I tend to make demands that are not sane or logical, and which looking back on them later I tend to regret.
Running stuff in a virtual machine could help bypass DRM and those bootloader issues. You can fiddle with stuff as much as you want, and at best the stuff stuck in your Matrix is going to have a bit of Deja Vu, or time dilation...
True. The fact that you can run your entire OS in a simulated environment with a virtual TCPM module that allows you to modify its state (and/or extract its private key) has always meant that the entire system isn't a secure DRM implementation. It just raises the bar slightly on how far you have to go to break the DRM.
Things aren't going to be safer. This is because DRM isn't being used to make things safer. DRM is being used to make the rich richer.
I think in the case of TCPM, a group of engineers used DRM as an excuse for selling something that actually will help make things safer. You see, even that virtual TCPM module won't get around using TCPM as a means of effective host-based access control, because the virtual TCPM module will have to have a different private key to the real one on a system. So useful stuff like automated sweeps of LANs to ensure there's no rootkits installed, etc, will still be possible. Only the DRM will be broken.
Slashdot Mirror
PostgreSQL is currently expanding both upwards towards Oracle and DB2, while concurrently expanding downwards towards MySQL. On the other end, SQLite is rapidly putting upwards pressure on MySQL. We find that both of these alternatives have a much friendlier licensing scheme than MySQL, and both have features and quality that MySQL currently lacks.
Err... while I buy the fact that pgsql (as a BSD licensed product) has friendlier licensing than MySQL (GPL with commercial licenses available), SQLite is also GPL, and I don't see any mention of commercial license availability on their site, so I'd say their licensing is *less* friendly.
Certainly I interpreted it that you could make one physical and one virtual installation of each licensed copy. Not 100% sure that's the correct interpretation, but at least where I am, in a business-consumer contract, any ambiguity will be resolved by a court in favour of the consumer. :)
Actually, ignore the posted session transcript, it's a double stage redirect:
n > telnet secunia.com 80 /ie_redir_test_1 HTTP/1.1
n > telnet secunia.com 80 /ie_redir_test_2 HTTP/1.1
jules@vengeance:~/public_html/sb2WorkArea/newadmi
Trying 213.150.41.226...
Connected to secunia.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET
Host: secunia.com
Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:32:32 GMT
Server: Apache
Location: mhtml:http://secunia.com/ie_redir_test_2
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html
0
Connection closed by foreign host.
jules@vengeance:~/public_html/sb2WorkArea/newadmi
Trying 213.150.41.226...
Connected to secunia.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET
Host: secunia.com
Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:33:04 GMT
Server: Apache
Location: http://news.google.com/
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html
0
Connection closed by foreign host.
Comments at end of post still apply, though.
That's not actually what they're doing. Try connecting to that address. Here's what you get:
/ie_redir_test_1 HTTP/1.1
Trying 213.150.41.226...
Connected to secunia.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET
Host: www.secunia.com
Connection: close
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:30:39 GMT
Server: Apache
location: http://secunia.com/ie_redir_test_1
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html
0
They're sending an HTTP redirect, and the browser's following it. It will then send the cookies for the redirected URL to the server, and the server will return data expecting it to go into its own security context. This does allow data stealing.
Even Firefox started with the old Netscape code base.
Mozilla was a complete rewrite. It was started by netscape, but when they realised they were unlikely to ever finish it they opened the source.
Either way, it's going to really suck when people need to run a one or more instances of Vista Ultimate in a VM (yes, Ultimate can run in a VM) for testing and staging but quickly run out of licenses on the local activation server.
The volume licensing EULA specifically allows for VM usage (one VM per machine only), so I'd expect the licensing server knows about this and can deal with it.
Windpower is also reasonable here. Somplace on the net there's instructions for building a 5 kilowatt one out of disk drive magents and an airplane propellor (but I've lost track of if and am too lazy at the moment to spend some quality time with google looking for it).
Probably not the site you're refering to, but there's a lot of good wind-power stuff at otherpower.com.
Can you explain this British law in layman's terms? Is copying a program into RAM an infringement, or is it not? And how do the text and the case law support it?
Yes, it is. Making a copy is an infringement other than in specific cases outlined; the case for temporary copies that are essential for the use of the work specifically excludes computer programs.
The only case I'm aware of that made reference to it was one that involved mod chips for PS2s. The mod chips caused a copy of the game to be made in RAM during loading, and it was held that this copy was infringing in the case of a parallel import game because the license with the games stated they were only intended for use in a specific region. I'm afraid I don't have a reference to the case with me, but it has been mentioned here before.
It should not be just about the money and cost saving, but about nature saving, resource saving, human saving.
Cost is often a reasonably good indicator of resource requirements. Scarce resources put costs up while common ones drive it down.
Solar power is extremely expensive, and power is generally the single largest cost in operating a data center (bandwidth, server leases, and even the cost of A-grade real estate in an urban core like New York City are small compared to power costs).
Solar power is expensive in terms of up-front cost. Long term, it's really rather cheap. Based on an operating life of 50 years (which is reasonable if you can afford the space for slightly less efficient panels, and google like to put their datacentres in out-of-the-way places, I hear) you'd be looking at about 6 cents (US) per kilowatt hour. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
That is fortunate, because it isn't even clear that solar panels are carbon neutral, much less carbon negative, over their operating lifetime.
Bullshit. This *may* have been true for early generations, but even then its doubtful because of the long lifetime of most solar cells. Advocates for traditional energy often understate the lifetime of a solar cell by treating the length of time it takes for output to drop off by 5% as if it were the complete lifetime of the cell, whereas in most cases cells will continue operating well beyond this point.
This would be more true if solar panels lasted longer, but sadly they slowly degenerate over time. I believe replacement is suggested after 25 years, at which point they have - assuming present energy prices - rarely paid for themselves.
.25*25*365*24 = 54750KWh. This comes to a price of 12 cents per kilowatt hour. I don't know about you, but I pay substantially more than that for my electricity.
1. Replacement is suggested after 25 years, if (and only if) space is at a premium. Over the lifetime, output drops off slowly. After 25 years, output is typically around 85-90% of the original output. If you have the space for it, you just add more panels to make up for the lost capacity. If you don't, you replace them (and sell your used panels to somebody who has more space than you do).
2. Even if they did only last 25 years, they cost around USD$6-7000 per peak KW. Over that 25 years, you can expect them to produce about an average of roughly a quarter of their peak output, so
One square meter of solar panel is typically good for 130 watts at peak, but only about 655 watt hours per day, or 27 watts averaged over 24 hours. In other words, the average power is about 20% of the peak.
Google are talking about using this for their offices, not their datacenters. Hence it's likely to only be needed around 10 hours per day, during daylight hours. I'd expect average power to be about 80% of peak.
A typical price for a good solar panel today is about $1000 for 160 watts peak.
That's probably a good price for a 160W panel, but IIRC lower output panels get you more W/$.
Batteries, inverters, and installation extra.
It wouldn't be hard for a company with google's resources to arrange for their computers to be run on DC power. This is almost certainly both more efficient and cheaper than using inverters.
Even assuming exponential dropoff, you'd have to multiply this figure by 4 before output drops to half as much power as the cells produced when they were first manufactured.
Erm.... 8. I can count.
Did we cross the threshold of solar panel arrays giving off more power before the MTBF than it takes to create them?
As I understand it the MTBF of solar panels is so high, the notion that this could possible be true is absurd. Lifetime of a solar panel is often quoted as some low figure (10 years for older ones, 20 for more modern designs), but what's normally quoted is the time it will take until output drops by 5%. Even assuming exponential dropoff, you'd have to multiply this figure by 4 before output drops to half as much power as the cells produced when they were first manufactured.
These guys have some experience working with old solar panels.
That's great, I am really proud of them for using an alternative energy source (especially in such a sunny area) but most of their energy usage is those data centers and servers, not their employees. They purposefully did not give a % of total energy saved because it probably would have been on the order of 0.1-5%, which would have revealed the ridiculous amount of energy they actually use.
The latest estimate I'm aware of is that their datacenters contain around 450,000 machines (NYT, June 06), which are dual processor Xeons, probably consuming around 300W each => 135MW of server farm, not including aircon, lighting, switches & routers, etc.
Your claim is 50% incorrect. His claim is incorrect for people in the USA. He isn't, and I'm not. Here's the relevant law for me:
Note that while transient copies *are* allowed, transient copies of computer programs are specifically exempted. I don't know why not, but they are.
(The poster you're replying to isn't in the US; don't assume all countries have the same laws)
Be aware that the user you're responding to is in the UK. The relevant law is the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as modified) whose equivalent section reads:
(Emphasis mine)
Implying otherwise violates the GPL.
No it doesn't. You're perfectly free to lie while distributing GPL software.
The GPL isn't a contract. There is nothing to agree to.
I'm not sure that this is true. If I distribute copies of a GPL program, I have to agree not to impose any terms and conditions over and above the GPL requirements on the recipient, and I have to agree to provide source code upon request.
That's rather ambiguous, but of course it has to be interpreted in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:
Morality, as such, isn't an issue. "[P]rotection of [...] morals" is the only thing that is listed that's appropriate, which covers a lot less than "morality" does. It becomes the same thing as the British test for obscenity: if exposure to the material is reasonably likely to "deprave" (i.e. corrupt a viewer's moral standards) the government has a right to censor it. Otherwise it doesn't.
It's a hard judgement to make in many cases, but I'm pretty sure the word "porn" doesn't fall on the wrong side.
let me guess , you're some kid who's never been a
victim of a serious crime and so have zero idea of how
it feels to the victim or their familt?
'fraid not. I'm 30, and have been a victim of burglary (twice), fraud, and assault. Members of my family have also been victims of similar crimes. Admittedly, none of these are particularly serious, but I know how being a victim makes me feel, which means I know that the way I feel when I am a victim should not be taken into account in any way in the process of justice. I get very unreasonable, and I tend to make demands that are not sane or logical, and which looking back on them later I tend to regret.
How about you?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/instlux
And how are you going to do that if the OS prohibits any I/O activity that go to that (those) disk sector(s)?
:)
By lodging an anti-trust complaint that the operating system prevents the installation of competitor's systems?
Running stuff in a virtual machine could help bypass DRM and those bootloader issues. You can fiddle with stuff as much as you want, and at best the stuff stuck in your Matrix is going to have a bit of Deja Vu, or time dilation...
True. The fact that you can run your entire OS in a simulated environment with a virtual TCPM module that allows you to modify its state (and/or extract its private key) has always meant that the entire system isn't a secure DRM implementation. It just raises the bar slightly on how far you have to go to break the DRM.
Things aren't going to be safer. This is because DRM isn't being used to make things safer. DRM is being used to make the rich richer.
I think in the case of TCPM, a group of engineers used DRM as an excuse for selling something that actually will help make things safer. You see, even that virtual TCPM module won't get around using TCPM as a means of effective host-based access control, because the virtual TCPM module will have to have a different private key to the real one on a system. So useful stuff like automated sweeps of LANs to ensure there's no rootkits installed, etc, will still be possible. Only the DRM will be broken.