Kernel development was set back while kernel developers spent time writing version control systems. And there are plenty of non-kernel developers who have effectively been denied a useful tool that you admit hasn't yet been fully replaced with a open source alternative.
It is clear that you know little of either kernel development or version control. Linus does hardly any kernel development these days, he mainly integrates the work of others. The work of others did not stop, or even slow down. In the few weeks it took Linus and a bunch of helpers, mostly not kernel developers, to put together a workable replacement for BitKeeper, kernel development just kept on moving at its usual pace. When Git was ready, that work was integrated, there was no slowdown at all. As for non-kernel developers, well how about them? They now have a fine selection of fine new, free tools that can never be withdrawn or have the licence terms continuously fiddled as happened with BitKeeper. And as for your straw man about fully replacing BitKeeper, why should we bother? We only ever needed to replace BitKeeper in open source projects. That has been fully successful.
At some level we have Tridge to thank for this burst of activity in open source version control development, though it was Larry McVoy who actually took the idiotic step of pulling the free BitKeeper license. So thanks Larry.
The extent of your cluelessness is breathtaking. Please do everybody a favor and at least try to know something about what you are talking about before you blather more ok?
And with good reason. Look at the situation now: Trigdell forced Linus and others to do a lot of work to replace the functionality BitKeeper provded, and for what? What use is Trigdell's reverse engineering work now?
Please get a clue. Larry McVoy is gone and his disruptive influence with it. We have several great new open source version control systems as a direct result of this change, set to surpass BitKeeper in every way in the near future. Tridge's work has been nothing but good for the community. You sound petty by gainsaying it.
Oh, and Tridge's code remains a good tool for liberating captive history from old BitKeeper archives.
not communicating with China [is what will happen to you if you don't start using 80v6
And to support this, you provide a google search that turns up, ah, just 33 hits on china+ipv6, including some nonhits. Doesn't that present a problem for your argument?
Last time I read a rant like that, it was from someone in upper management with a preconceived but dangerously incomplete notion of how something complex was supposed to work. I'm very, very glad that IPv6 is an alternative to IPv4 and not an extension to it
But naturally, unlike that someone from upper management, your opinion is not based on any preconceived but dangerously incomplete notion, hmm?
So why exactly are you sure that it was a great idea to replace ipv4 entirely instead of extending it?
"The point is without real data behind what was deployed, how it was deployed, the benefits of the deployment, etc... you can't really determine if Linux makes sense for Creative."
You can now. Avoiding this one black eye alone would have been well worth the price of admission.
If indeed there is a price. Manufacturing process control software is arguably less expensive to develop and deploy with Linux than Windows, and Linux can do the same work using fewer machines, giving you your choice of lower cost or better machines.
Which Microsoft employee modded that down as redundant?
The point is without real data behind what was deployed, how it was deployed, the benefits of the deployment, etc... you can't really determine if Linux makes sense for Creative.
You can now. Avoiding this one black eye alone would have been well worth the price of admission.
If indeed there is a price. Manufacturing process control software is arguably less expensive to develop and deploy with Linux than Windows, and Linux can do the same work using fewer machines, giving you your choice of lower cost or better machines.
when an otherwise publicity-savvy company steps forward to fight for something which is not only stupid but also wildly unpopular, there's got to be some explanation
How about: Microsoft has plans to sell an anti-spam serivce.
Whether this "Mambo Foundation" will simply "fork" each of the successive releases by these folks and sell it as their own
which would be entirely fair...
thereby reducing their R&D budget to nearly zero
You underestimate the steadily increasing cost of merging against a diverging code base. Or if it is to be an identical code base, then the reason for not using the original is what, exactly?
Note that Miro or its proxy foundation will not own the exclusive copyright any more if they take outside code without obtaining copyright assignments, which they are highly unlikely to obtain under the circumstances. Basically, they have taken aim at their own foot and blown it off. Developers were willing to assign copyright in the past, now Miro has lost that nice little perk forever.
Of course nothing stops Miro from continuing in business selling the outside code under their Mambo brand. They just won't be setting the development agenda, and won't be able to do dual license deals without taking the full cost of development on themselves.
the reason this is designed this way is because this struct is specific to the binary format of memory blocks shared between the client dll and server engine
It is dodgy C though. The part above the line should be in its own struct and declared "packed" if the compiler supports this (gcc does).
let me know when google starts offering a dividend
Paying out its capital when a company is in the middle of an exponential growth spike would be monumentally stupid, both for the company and for its shareholders.
lowering the share price and lowering the value of the company are different. There is nothing illegal about issuing shares to bring down the share price - it's just not very sensible
Hogwash. Issuing shares is a neutral event in terms of share valuation. The company ends up with more shares, but it also has more money, which increases the value of the company. Assuming the shares where fairly priced, divide the new value of the company by the new number of shares and what do you get? Why, the same number as before the issue.
The only question is, are the shares fairly valued at the time of the issue? According to the growth rate, I'd say so. It's hard to interpret this move as anything other than a sensible decision to add more capital to a wildly successful business formula.
Google's price per revenues is about 16 based on last quarter's results. That is to say, for every dollar you invest, you get about 7 cents of annual sales. Even if every single nickel of revenue became profit (that is, they had 100% margins), the P/E would be 16.
Investors must be expecting pretty amazing growth for this company for a long, long time, as it maintains its profit margins all the while.
At these prices, no wonder they're making a stock offering. Time for investors to run screaming naked into the hills.
You overlooked the 98% annual revenue growth. As I understand it, the size of Google's original IPO was reduced in preference to further lowering the price. After waiting a year, Google demonstrates impressive fundamentals and commands 3 times the price for the same shares. Beyond brilliant, I say.
"It raises the question. Begging the question means something completely different."
Not any more, Poindexter. The definition has changed. Languages have a tendency to do that
I suppose that you think "nukular" is now part of the language as well. Incorrect usage of debating terms merely marks you as someone who never learned about logic, and can't be bothered to pay attention to those who did. Try "invites" or "raises" next time.
I think it reinforces the idea that people create exploits by reverse engineering patches
Professional crackers do not release their exploits, they use them for profit. This may reinforce the idea that the second tier of crackers writes their exploits after shown how. Thus forcing Microsoft to do something.
Maybe, just maybe, 90% of the market isn't completely wrong. Maybe the most successful company in history makes products that are slightly better than what amateurs put together in their spare time.
Nice troll. Maybe the company in question is a convicted monopolist that has so far kept control of a majority of the market by illegal means. Oh wait, it is not a maybe, it is established fact.
Maybe the products of this monopolist are actually slightly worse than what can be had for free. Maybe monopolizing tactics, including contractual tying, control of OEMs through cooperative advertising budgets (thinly disguised preferential pricing) and tying through technical means is really the main thing that keeps this monopolist's market share from eroding faster than it already is.
And maybe the developers putting together the competing products and offering them for free are not amateurs.
And maybe you are a Microsoft employee. Maybe you are getting worried.
They made the switch to OpenOffice *5* years ago. You don't think that's enough time to give something a shot and evaluate it?
There's a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I too started using OpenOffice about 5 years ago. Compatibility with MSFT formats was shaky. For the last year or two it's been great, arguably better at supporting Microsoft's own formats from earlier generations than Microsoft's products.
Not to mention free. So I am having trouble believing the stated reasons for this organization becoming a closed Microsoft shop.
upon seeing this article, I was going to post the same thing. There's something seriously wrong with a console who's only claim to fame is emulation. It seems like a better deal to me to just buy the console it emulates. But then again, I'm not a software pirate.
Bitter, are we? No, that is far from the main claim to fame. The Linux SDK ranks well ahead of that (think third-party apps) and you have to admit, the unit looks lovely, the specs are lovely. If it comes out for less than $300 they won't be able to keep them on the shelves.
The biggest reason that Linux is going to take over in the embedded space is because you don't have to pay the Microsoft Tax.
I believe that is only the second or third reason. The number one reason is that there are no restrictions whatsoever on how you use or modify the code, other than the high-minded requirement to share your changes as others have shared theirs. Another leading reason is that the code is just darn good and packed with an amazing number of options. Yet another reason is that you do not have to accept any stripsearch-type contract with Microsoft. Yet another reason is that you can be sure that your code platform will never be end-of-lifed on you, there will never be a forced upgrade.
Saving the license fees is just the icing on the cake.
Slashdot Mirror
Kernel development was set back while kernel developers spent time writing version control systems. And there are plenty of non-kernel developers who have effectively been denied a useful tool that you admit hasn't yet been fully replaced with a open source alternative.
It is clear that you know little of either kernel development or version control. Linus does hardly any kernel development these days, he mainly integrates the work of others. The work of others did not stop, or even slow down. In the few weeks it took Linus and a bunch of helpers, mostly not kernel developers, to put together a workable replacement for BitKeeper, kernel development just kept on moving at its usual pace. When Git was ready, that work was integrated, there was no slowdown at all. As for non-kernel developers, well how about them? They now have a fine selection of fine new, free tools that can never be withdrawn or have the licence terms continuously fiddled as happened with BitKeeper. And as for your straw man about fully replacing BitKeeper, why should we bother? We only ever needed to replace BitKeeper in open source projects. That has been fully successful.
At some level we have Tridge to thank for this burst of activity in open source version control development, though it was Larry McVoy who actually took the idiotic step of pulling the free BitKeeper license. So thanks Larry.
The extent of your cluelessness is breathtaking. Please do everybody a favor and at least try to know something about what you are talking about before you blather more ok?
And with good reason. Look at the situation now: Trigdell forced Linus and others to do a lot of work to replace the functionality BitKeeper provded, and for what? What use is Trigdell's reverse engineering work now?
Please get a clue. Larry McVoy is gone and his disruptive influence with it. We have several great new open source version control systems as a direct result of this change, set to surpass BitKeeper in every way in the near future. Tridge's work has been nothing but good for the community. You sound petty by gainsaying it.
Oh, and Tridge's code remains a good tool for liberating captive history from old BitKeeper archives.
not communicating with China [is what will happen to you if you don't start using 80v6
And to support this, you provide a google search that turns up, ah, just 33 hits on china+ipv6, including some nonhits. Doesn't that present a problem for your argument?
Last time I read a rant like that, it was from someone in upper management with a preconceived but dangerously incomplete notion of how something complex was supposed to work. I'm very, very glad that IPv6 is an alternative to IPv4 and not an extension to it
But naturally, unlike that someone from upper management, your opinion is not based on any preconceived but dangerously incomplete notion, hmm?
So why exactly are you sure that it was a great idea to replace ipv4 entirely instead of extending it?
"The point is without real data behind what was deployed, how it was deployed, the benefits of the deployment, etc... you can't really determine if Linux makes sense for Creative."
You can now. Avoiding this one black eye alone would have been well worth the price of admission.
If indeed there is a price. Manufacturing process control software is arguably less expensive to develop and deploy with Linux than Windows, and Linux can do the same work using fewer machines, giving you your choice of lower cost or better machines.
Which Microsoft employee modded that down as redundant?
The point is without real data behind what was deployed, how it was deployed, the benefits of the deployment, etc... you can't really determine if Linux makes sense for Creative.
You can now. Avoiding this one black eye alone would have been well worth the price of admission.
If indeed there is a price. Manufacturing process control software is arguably less expensive to develop and deploy with Linux than Windows, and Linux can do the same work using fewer machines, giving you your choice of lower cost or better machines.
Who said it would be "merging". I'm saying just fork every god damn release, clean, unmodified, and change a thing or two to make it look legitimate
What do you mean, "look legitimate"? It is legitimate, so long as they don't go filing off anybody's copyright notices.
when an otherwise publicity-savvy company steps forward to fight for something which is not only stupid but also wildly unpopular, there's got to be some explanation
How about: Microsoft has plans to sell an anti-spam serivce.
Whether this "Mambo Foundation" will simply "fork" each of the successive releases by these folks and sell it as their own
which would be entirely fair...
thereby reducing their R&D budget to nearly zero
You underestimate the steadily increasing cost of merging against a diverging code base. Or if it is to be an identical code base, then the reason for not using the original is what, exactly?
Note that Miro or its proxy foundation will not own the exclusive copyright any more if they take outside code without obtaining copyright assignments, which they are highly unlikely to obtain under the circumstances. Basically, they have taken aim at their own foot and blown it off. Developers were willing to assign copyright in the past, now Miro has lost that nice little perk forever.
Of course nothing stops Miro from continuing in business selling the outside code under their Mambo brand. They just won't be setting the development agenda, and won't be able to do dual license deals without taking the full cost of development on themselves.
kids, it's the true power the developers have in the open source projects... now for the next lesson: sales
Open source companies sell packaging and services, not code. And your point is?
It is sad this this has become so high profile. They're just airing their dirty laundry and it is not necessary
Evidently you did not read the interview.
the reason this is designed this way is because this struct is specific to the binary format of memory blocks shared between the client dll and server engine
It is dodgy C though. The part above the line should be in its own struct and declared "packed" if the compiler supports this (gcc does).
I think that Google is a great company, but I cannot see how their insane stock price is justified... check out their P/E ratio!
...how on earth do they plan to make any MONEY?
And while you're doing that, don't forget to check out the $4.48 billion of revenue and 98% annual growth rate.
Oh, you mean like the $1.73 billion they made last year?
let me know when google starts offering a dividend
Paying out its capital when a company is in the middle of an exponential growth spike would be monumentally stupid, both for the company and for its shareholders.
lowering the share price and lowering the value of the company are different. There is nothing illegal about issuing shares to bring down the share price - it's just not very sensible
Hogwash. Issuing shares is a neutral event in terms of share valuation. The company ends up with more shares, but it also has more money, which increases the value of the company. Assuming the shares where fairly priced, divide the new value of the company by the new number of shares and what do you get? Why, the same number as before the issue.
The only question is, are the shares fairly valued at the time of the issue? According to the growth rate, I'd say so. It's hard to interpret this move as anything other than a sensible decision to add more capital to a wildly successful business formula.
Google's price per revenues is about 16 based on last quarter's results. That is to say, for every dollar you invest, you get about 7 cents of annual sales. Even if every single nickel of revenue became profit (that is, they had 100% margins), the P/E would be 16.
Investors must be expecting pretty amazing growth for this company for a long, long time, as it maintains its profit margins all the while.
At these prices, no wonder they're making a stock offering. Time for investors to run screaming naked into the hills.
You overlooked the 98% annual revenue growth. As I understand it, the size of Google's original IPO was reduced in preference to further lowering the price. After waiting a year, Google demonstrates impressive fundamentals and commands 3 times the price for the same shares. Beyond brilliant, I say.
It's more like saying "You can trust us to keep our gun holsted, at least, while your gun's holstered too."
It's not. It's more like saying "You can trust us to our gun holstered even though we are convicted, unrepentant murderers."
"It raises the question. Begging the question means something completely different."
Not any more, Poindexter. The definition has changed. Languages have a tendency to do that
I suppose that you think "nukular" is now part of the language as well. Incorrect usage of debating terms merely marks you as someone who never learned about logic, and can't be bothered to pay attention to those who did. Try "invites" or "raises" next time.
I think it reinforces the idea that people create exploits by reverse engineering patches
Professional crackers do not release their exploits, they use them for profit. This may reinforce the idea that the second tier of crackers writes their exploits after shown how. Thus forcing Microsoft to do something.
MS was right on this one
You don't know that.
Maybe, just maybe, 90% of the market isn't completely wrong. Maybe the most successful company in history makes products that are slightly better than what amateurs put together in their spare time.
Nice troll. Maybe the company in question is a convicted monopolist that has so far kept control of a majority of the market by illegal means. Oh wait, it is not a maybe, it is established fact.
Maybe the products of this monopolist are actually slightly worse than what can be had for free. Maybe monopolizing tactics, including contractual tying, control of OEMs through cooperative advertising budgets (thinly disguised preferential pricing) and tying through technical means is really the main thing that keeps this monopolist's market share from eroding faster than it already is.
And maybe the developers putting together the competing products and offering them for free are not amateurs.
And maybe you are a Microsoft employee. Maybe you are getting worried.
It's a big old world of maybes, isn't it?
They made the switch to OpenOffice *5* years ago. You don't think that's enough time to give something a shot and evaluate it?
There's a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I too started using OpenOffice about 5 years ago. Compatibility with MSFT formats was shaky. For the last year or two it's been great, arguably better at supporting Microsoft's own formats from earlier generations than Microsoft's products.
Not to mention free. So I am having trouble believing the stated reasons for this organization becoming a closed Microsoft shop.
It won't have a keyboard. A shell without a keyboard is not too cool.
It has USB, so you can use a USB keyboard with it.
upon seeing this article, I was going to post the same thing. There's something seriously wrong with a console who's only claim to fame is emulation. It seems like a better deal to me to just buy the console it emulates. But then again, I'm not a software pirate.
Bitter, are we? No, that is far from the main claim to fame. The Linux SDK ranks well ahead of that (think third-party apps) and you have to admit, the unit looks lovely, the specs are lovely. If it comes out for less than $300 they won't be able to keep them on the shelves.
The biggest reason that Linux is going to take over in the embedded space is because you don't have to pay the Microsoft Tax.
I believe that is only the second or third reason. The number one reason is that there are no restrictions whatsoever on how you use or modify the code, other than the high-minded requirement to share your changes as others have shared theirs. Another leading reason is that the code is just darn good and packed with an amazing number of options. Yet another reason is that you do not have to accept any stripsearch-type contract with Microsoft. Yet another reason is that you can be sure that your code platform will never be end-of-lifed on you, there will never be a forced upgrade.
Saving the license fees is just the icing on the cake.
this little tidbit will slide right past the media as nothing but a footnote and a handful of slashdot comments
Not if it successfully freezes SCO's entire (ill-gotten) war chest.