What if Wal-Mart crushed the competition in your small town and now you have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart? Complain to all of the idiots in your small town that chose to shop there. Wal-Mart doesn't clsoe small businesses. The customers do.
I'm an owner of a small business with a corresponding super store. I do everything I can to differentiate myself and make it better than said superstore. It's working.
And, I just got finished looking at this guy's web page, and he has a graph showing "percentage of bandwidth", and he continues by saying that he has to charge because bandwidth is now more than 70%. Again, what in the hell is he talking about? 70% of what? I think that this guy should seriously consider some basic English classes.
What are these micropayments for, exactly? I read the whole damn thing, and I couldn't find any information about what exactly the fucking point is.
Also, I wouldn't exactly call it "viable" since the transaction fees on many $10 purchases (of what, I still have no idea) will generally be quite large. That's part of the reason why subscriptions for anything get cheaper the longer of period of time they're for.
You patheitc, pandering kid. Get a clue. Nobody cares about some AC's inane ramblings. Go away. Begging for hits doesn't help. You're the worst of/. troll, and the worst in the porn industry. You're the kind of trash that gives all of us bad named.
Wow. So instead of moving my mouse "up" to the tabs, I instead move it "down" to the taskbar? or even have to press TWO buttons at the same time? Whoa. That is serious. I can see where tabs in the browser can save several nanoseconds, while taking up valuable screen real estate. Impressive.
Another benefit is stored procedures. Although abused to include procedural logic in the database, they can help keep database logic out of your application and generally help much along the same lines as views:
While I appreciate the SQL 101 in your post (note sarcasm), I disagree. Languages like PL/SQL are largely designed to hold procedural logic and provide excellent performance.
I've seen projects literally ruined by OO zealots who simply refused to use the database for what it was for. They'd do a "select *" and put a wrapper around it, and object(ify?) the whole damn chunk of data. I've seen this happen in several different projects, despite my protesting. Suffice to say each project done like that flopped due to 1. Very difficult to maintain code and 2. Serious performance problems. It actually caused the collapse of a 80+ person company in one instance. The project didn't make it to the key customers in time due to this shitty architecture.
It means that what you said about losing granularity isn't true. Personally, I didn't like XPath, and I used the other XML engine that came with 8.x, but the effect is the same. You have the same storage, security, redundancy, etc. of the rest of your data, and you still have whatever granuality you'd like.
As a former DB developer, I can say that if my DBA did this, he's be eating through a straw. Before my sandbox is updated, I *need* to know what is going to be updated and when. Whether it's a schema change or a data change, a change like that mid-way through development is a serious decision, and shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Also, I should have some input as to what is updated. A DBA shouldn't have complete control over the schema. The DBA and developers need to work together to work out an ideal schema. Ideally, it's msotly worked out *before* any coding is done. DB objects should not be done on the fly in msot cases.
Teh car was a major advantage because it allowed people to go relative long distances at relatively high speeds, carrying a relatively heavyier load. By contrast, the Segway goes much shorter distances, much more slowly, carrying much less. I hardly see this as an "advance".
The very point of a license is to restrict use. If I had a lump of random code sitting on my computer, I don't need a license to grant me the ability to compile it, sell it, give it away, print it out and eat it, etc. I don't sit around saying, "jeez, I wish I had a license so I could use this code". I just use it.
There's definitely something fishy going on. Not saying what sales are, having some bizarre delay between ordering and shipping, only selling a limited quantity. I wouldn't buy shit from a company like this. They sound more like Amway thana "real" company offering "real" products. To me, it seems like the company is nothing but a PR generating machine, and a really shady one at that.
Hey, if you want to live in a city in apartments that feel like stacked animal cages, that's your right. I live in the country on a gorgeous several acre tract, and I wouldn't trade it for a loud, smelly, cramped, stressful, expensive city for a million bucks. Just because you happen to like city "life" doesn't make it the one "right" way to live. I happen to think that most city dwellers live miserable existences.
He said: "On the other, other hand, most corporations of Microsoft's size actually pay very little in the way of tax,"
And that's not true. They pay about 4 billion a year in income tax alone, never mind all of the various employment taxes they pay. He was arguing that GPL'ed software helps out the gov't more, and I was pointing out that the largest software company that works with GPL software paid out less tax then many of us do in a year!! So, it's not true that private corporations "pay very little in the way of tax". They actually pay a hell of a lot of tax, even without the comparison to companies like RedHat which pay next to nothing because they have virtually no profit.
Actually if you *really* have a life, you don't, "check email, send email, surf the web, etc from a cell phone" at all. Most of us are just too busy for these toys.
Hell, I do twice that (more on a good day), and every one is completely database generated. There's something really fucked up about those stats in that article.
OK, maybe not anything, but ownership is generally defined as the ability to sell all or part of a thing. link. You can't own what you can't sell. It's impossible. Linux is under a LICENSE that RESTRICTS what you can do. Windows and Linxu both are licensed out, but not sold, to users.
Oh, so where can I BUY and OWN my own copy of Linux, then? Ownership implies that you can do whatever you want with a product. I don't know of a version of Linux that you can bundle up and package and resell without including the source. By the very definition of ownership, you also DO NOT own Linux.
RFG's study, "Total Cost of Ownership for Linux Web Servers in the Enterprise," compares the TCO of Linux to Solaris and Windows. Robinson compared the cost of "processing units"--the number of servers that would be required to process 100,000 hits per day, and tracked the costs over three years. Linux supporter IBM commissioned the RFG research for the study paper.
Robinson compared Red Hat Linux 7.3 running Apache to Solaris running Apache, and to Windows running IIS. The comparison was all on x86 architecture, using a relatively small sample of 14 companies running mission-critical Web servers. The study found that Windows needed an average of 7.6 servers for a processing unit, Linux needed 7.4, and Solaris needed 2.2.
My Windows boxes require 0.5 servers for a "processing unit". This article is bullshit. Normally, I wouldn't take into account anecodtal evidence, but their results are so completely out of whack, I just have to call bullshit. Being off a bit is one thing, but being off by a multiple of 15 is another.
On the other, other hand, most corporations of Microsoft's size actually pay very little in the way of tax, and will employ embrace-and-extend strategies given half the chance. Eventually, this screws over the state and therefore the people as a whole.
This is outright wrong, or a complete lie.
In the quarters ending Nov 30, 2001, Feb 28, 2002, May 31, 2002, and Aug 31, 2002, Microsoft paid $4,423,000,000 in tax. Redhat paid exactly $61,000.
Slashdot Mirror
What if Wal-Mart crushed the competition in your small town and now you have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart?
Complain to all of the idiots in your small town that chose to shop there. Wal-Mart doesn't clsoe small businesses. The customers do.
I'm an owner of a small business with a corresponding super store. I do everything I can to differentiate myself and make it better than said superstore. It's working.
And, I just got finished looking at this guy's web page, and he has a graph showing "percentage of bandwidth", and he continues by saying that he has to charge because bandwidth is now more than 70%. Again, what in the hell is he talking about? 70% of what? I think that this guy should seriously consider some basic English classes.
What are these micropayments for, exactly? I read the whole damn thing, and I couldn't find any information about what exactly the fucking point is.
Also, I wouldn't exactly call it "viable" since the transaction fees on many $10 purchases (of what, I still have no idea) will generally be quite large. That's part of the reason why subscriptions for anything get cheaper the longer of period of time they're for.
AND it works with Gnaughty!
Damn, you mean my site doesn't let this program for leeches work? Jeez, that's a real shame.
If you want the best porn, ad-free, you have to buy it. Fuck off, leech.
You patheitc, pandering kid. Get a clue. Nobody cares about some AC's inane ramblings. Go away. Begging for hits doesn't help. You're the worst of /. troll, and the worst in the porn industry. You're the kind of trash that gives all of us bad named.
Well, Slashdot can devastate my site with traffic whenever they'd like.
Wow. So instead of moving my mouse "up" to the tabs, I instead move it "down" to the taskbar? or even have to press TWO buttons at the same time? Whoa. That is serious. I can see where tabs in the browser can save several nanoseconds, while taking up valuable screen real estate. Impressive.
I think that the appropriate place for your review of various "borwsers" is maybe in your journal. It's completely unrelated to this discussion.
Another benefit is stored procedures. Although abused to include procedural logic in the database, they can help keep database logic out of your application and generally help much along the same lines as views:
While I appreciate the SQL 101 in your post (note sarcasm), I disagree. Languages like PL/SQL are largely designed to hold procedural logic and provide excellent performance.
I've seen projects literally ruined by OO zealots who simply refused to use the database for what it was for. They'd do a "select *" and put a wrapper around it, and object(ify?) the whole damn chunk of data. I've seen this happen in several different projects, despite my protesting. Suffice to say each project done like that flopped due to 1. Very difficult to maintain code and 2. Serious performance problems. It actually caused the collapse of a 80+ person company in one instance. The project didn't make it to the key customers in time due to this shitty architecture.
It means that what you said about losing granularity isn't true. Personally, I didn't like XPath, and I used the other XML engine that came with 8.x, but the effect is the same. You have the same storage, security, redundancy, etc. of the rest of your data, and you still have whatever granuality you'd like.
mmmmmmm...... clobs....
As a former DB developer, I can say that if my DBA did this, he's be eating through a straw. Before my sandbox is updated, I *need* to know what is going to be updated and when. Whether it's a schema change or a data change, a change like that mid-way through development is a serious decision, and shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
Also, I should have some input as to what is updated. A DBA shouldn't have complete control over the schema. The DBA and developers need to work together to work out an ideal schema. Ideally, it's msotly worked out *before* any coding is done. DB objects should not be done on the fly in msot cases.
Teh car was a major advantage because it allowed people to go relative long distances at relatively high speeds, carrying a relatively heavyier load. By contrast, the Segway goes much shorter distances, much more slowly, carrying much less. I hardly see this as an "advance".
The very point of a license is to restrict use. If I had a lump of random code sitting on my computer, I don't need a license to grant me the ability to compile it, sell it, give it away, print it out and eat it, etc. I don't sit around saying, "jeez, I wish I had a license so I could use this code". I just use it.
There's definitely something fishy going on. Not saying what sales are, having some bizarre delay between ordering and shipping, only selling a limited quantity. I wouldn't buy shit from a company like this. They sound more like Amway thana "real" company offering "real" products. To me, it seems like the company is nothing but a PR generating machine, and a really shady one at that.
Hey, if you want to live in a city in apartments that feel like stacked animal cages, that's your right. I live in the country on a gorgeous several acre tract, and I wouldn't trade it for a loud, smelly, cramped, stressful, expensive city for a million bucks. Just because you happen to like city "life" doesn't make it the one "right" way to live. I happen to think that most city dwellers live miserable existences.
He said: "On the other, other hand, most corporations of Microsoft's size actually pay very little in the way of tax,"
And that's not true. They pay about 4 billion a year in income tax alone, never mind all of the various employment taxes they pay. He was arguing that GPL'ed software helps out the gov't more, and I was pointing out that the largest software company that works with GPL software paid out less tax then many of us do in a year!! So, it's not true that private corporations "pay very little in the way of tax". They actually pay a hell of a lot of tax, even without the comparison to companies like RedHat which pay next to nothing because they have virtually no profit.
Actually if you *really* have a life, you don't, "check email, send email, surf the web, etc from a cell phone" at all. Most of us are just too busy for these toys.
Hell, I do twice that (more on a good day), and every one is completely database generated. There's something really fucked up about those stats in that article.
Head hunters kept me in clover for 6 years. Only the clueless work in IT as "permanent" employees.
OK, maybe not anything, but ownership is generally defined as the ability to sell all or part of a thing. link. You can't own what you can't sell. It's impossible. Linux is under a LICENSE that RESTRICTS what you can do. Windows and Linxu both are licensed out, but not sold, to users.
Oh, so where can I BUY and OWN my own copy of Linux, then? Ownership implies that you can do whatever you want with a product. I don't know of a version of Linux that you can bundle up and package and resell without including the source. By the very definition of ownership, you also DO NOT own Linux.
RFG's study, "Total Cost of Ownership for Linux Web Servers in the Enterprise," compares the TCO of Linux to Solaris and Windows. Robinson compared the cost of "processing units"--the number of servers that would be required to process 100,000 hits per day, and tracked the costs over three years. Linux supporter IBM commissioned the RFG research for the study paper.
Robinson compared Red Hat Linux 7.3 running Apache to Solaris running Apache, and to Windows running IIS. The comparison was all on x86 architecture, using a relatively small sample of 14 companies running mission-critical Web servers. The study found that Windows needed an average of 7.6 servers for a processing unit, Linux needed 7.4, and Solaris needed 2.2.
My Windows boxes require 0.5 servers for a "processing unit". This article is bullshit. Normally, I wouldn't take into account anecodtal evidence, but their results are so completely out of whack, I just have to call bullshit. Being off a bit is one thing, but being off by a multiple of 15 is another.
On the other, other hand, most corporations of Microsoft's size actually pay very little in the way of tax, and will employ embrace-and-extend strategies given half the chance. Eventually, this screws over the state and therefore the people as a whole.
This is outright wrong, or a complete lie.
In the quarters ending Nov 30, 2001, Feb 28, 2002, May 31, 2002, and Aug 31, 2002, Microsoft paid $4,423,000,000 in tax. Redhat paid exactly $61,000.
Why does ANYONE, least of all Microsoft, have the right to take someone else's source code for free and profit from it?
I dunno. Ask IBM. They may or may not be profiting from Linux.