Since you cannot patent a naturally occuring object, anyone who could reverse engineer the selection process would be able to produce these cells
Nope. While they can't patent a naturally occuring object (I think), they most definately can patent the selection process. Reverse Engineering would definately still be a violation of the patent. Now if they could come up with a *different* process that could still extract the cells in question, that *might* not be a violation of the patent (depending on the exact wording of the patent and the similarities between the processes).
Reverse engineering allows you to get around trade secrets, not patents.
LDAP and SQL are considerably different beasts for different purposes. What you propose is basically to say that screwdrivers make decent pry bars, so why ever buy a pry bar?
Here is some information comparing LDAP and SQL from the OpenLDAP FAQ:
http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/378.html
And here is some from an old usenet post. It's specifically talking about why Netscape's LDAP server uses it's own database instead of a RDBMS, but it has lots of good information about how directory services and RDBMS's differ and why one does not make a good substitute for the other.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ldap+compariso n+ sql&selm=36AD06E4.F7362E47%40netscape.com&rnum=9
They are related via DSML [dsml.org], and there's an open source suite of software that I wrote for working with directory information as XML here [dsmltools.org].
Exactly. The links you've included (looks like good stuff by the way), definately show how LDAP and XML can be used well together.
They are mutually independant technologies. They can be used together to complement one another, but to talk about replacing XML with LDAP or LDAP with XML (as the previous poster did) is just plain silly.
>Yes, there are people using LDAP, there are even people using X.500 - but more or less these >technologies have not altered IT thinking in the dramatic way they were positioned. Arguably the >XML-based approach of web services is more timely -
XML is a file format (or metaformat), not a directory service like LDAP. The two technologies are orthogonal.
>its hard to make an argument of listing >another protocol on an isolated port to provide a >solitary service
<sarcasm> Yeah that's a great idea! Let's run everything over port 80! </sarcasm>
>There also doesn't appear to be much corporate interest - Microsoft has moved its mindshare >strategies to web services, leaving the only big backer of LDAP being Novell - not really a key >industry player at this point.
Hello?? Active Directory is LDAP based. Admittedly it's LDAP with the usual "embrace and extend" twists like proprietary Kerberos extensions and slightly non-standard schemas, but LDAP none the less.
>I don't know if it needs to be an SQL database, but it needs to be some system that will let you >update the zone files dynamically and instantaneously.
Like Dynamic Updates? (See RFC2136 - http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?lo c=RFC&letsgo=2136&type=ftp)
I'm using dynamic updates with Bind 9.1. Works great.
I'd say to find a consulting company that works with the open source program your interested in. If possible, start by finding out if any of the developers on the project do consulting. If not, see if they can recommend someone.
Untrue. You don't need a CCIE, just a CCO (Cisco Connection Online) login to cisco's web site. Buy a support contract for 1 of your routers and you can download any damned IOS you want!
When I used to do NT admin work, I found Perl to be pretty handy. Unix admins have been using Perl and other scripting languages to automate repetative tasks for years. NT admins by and large don't seem to be very familier with the concept, but it is doable.
GNU Cfengine is another great sysadmin tool that's also has an NT version. If you administer a lot of systems (Unix or NT) this a fantastic tool to have. Your fellow NT admins will be completely befuddled trying to figure you how you installed that latest IIS patch to 50 machines before lunch!
Firewalls are another good place to start introducing some free software. I frigging LOVE OpenBSD with IPF (or the new PF) packet filter as a firewall.
Start will small changes like these. They won't require any user training or major changes for your end user. They also won't require much buy in from management. And they'll make it easier to put more free software into place later. When the inevitable objections to a larger, more visible free software related project comes up, you can confidently inform the objector that the company has been using free software for years!
Lisp doesn't seem to get the "mind share" and media attention that some programming languages (C, Java, Perl) do. You don't see a lot of books and articles about Lisp and, with the obvious exceptions of Emacs and Sawfish, most people would have trouble naming major applications written in Lisp.
Why do you think Lisp doesn't get mentioned more in the computer press?
Similarly, can you tell us about any major applications written in Lisp, or any great Lisp success stories?
If you don't mind making your IPaq quite a bit bigger, you can get a piggyback module that accepts PCMCIA cards. One of the guys I work with has a PCMCIA 802.11b network card on his IPaq. It's pretty cool. He can roam around the office and still get e-mail, surf, whatever.
Bind has supported IPv6 records since version 4.9.4 (which is pretty damn old). DNS isn't the problem with IPv6. It's really getting the IPS's and backbone providers to bother implimenting IPv6.
Read the GPL sometime. Requiring a registration to download isn't a GPL violation. As long as they provide source to anyone who gets binaries and they don't try to add any restrictions on re-distribution and modification they're not in violation.
Ah yes, you are so correct. If only we could all get along like the closed source folks do.
Everytime I see Bill Gates, Larry Elison, and Steve Jobs give each other big hugs and slobbery kisses at their many public appearences together, I know that the open source community can never equal their amazing co-operation and unity.
Fat chance of that. To use BGP you'll need your own block of IP's. *Not* IP's your ISP assigned, but an actual IP block you own. These are pretty damn hard to get a hold of these days. You'll also need to get a BGP AS (Autonomous System) number. Your unlikely to get an AS number assigned to a private individual or even small company.
You might want to look into Squeak. Part of their project goal appears to be the realization of Alan Kays original DynaBook idea, which was envisioned to be "a computer designed in such a way that people of all ages and walks of life can mold and channel its power to their own needs." (In fact, Alan Kay is part of the core Squeak development team).
Squeak is based around a very portable and graphical Smalltalk environment. Squeak is GPL'd and available for a wide variety of platforms including MAC, Windows, and Linux.
Here's a quote about Squeak stolen from the squeakland.org web site:
Squeak Is An Idea Processor For Children Of All Ages!... an instrument whose music is ideas...
We all know what a word processor is, but what is an idea processor? Of course, we can play with some ideas and express them in a word processor, but a lot of important ideas need more, for example: art, music, math and science. And some of these ideas really need a "dynamic medium for creative thought": music, animation, and many areas of science.
Squeak aims to have "no threshold", in that many five year olds can explore ideas in it; and "no ceiling": its range includes all of the things that can be done with computers. When five year olds learn English, they are starting to learn the language of Shakespeare and Feynman. Their journey through the next decade will enrich their vocabulary, ideas about people and the world, and give them stronger ways to structure ideas in language. In a similar fashion, the language learned by the five year olds to do simple projects in Squeak is also the language used by the experts to make 3D graphics engines and get things to happen on the Internet.
All the projects done in Squeak are directly transmittable to others over the Internet. Users can chat (by text or voice), send and receive email, exchange objects by dragging and dropping, and multiple users can share a project to interact in real time. Each time a project is created there is an opportunity to set up a new interest group that can provide mutual assitance and kudos.
Here are some links about using Squeak in education.
>The cost of software is one of the lowest cost points for corporations.
For most applications that's undeniably true. This guys best bet is to focus on the flexibility and customizability of most Open Source programs.
On the other hand, I do know a lot of Unix shops who use quite a bit of Linux and BSD precisely because of it's low (free) cost. They still use commercial Unix's like Solaris, but they use Linux and BSD for think like print servers, internal DNS servers, etc. Linux and BSD are also handy for inexpensively giving each of thier developers thier own individual Unix box!
Bullshit. I work for a division of a fortune 100 company. We use lots of Open Source software including Linux.
We *also* use a lot of proprietary software, including Windows NT, AIX, Solaris, and Novell.
We use whatever we think works best for each particular situation. Some Open Source programs have compelling advantages, including price, customizability, and (for some programs, like OpenBSD) security.
Will this guys paper convince CEOs and CIOs to drop all of thier proprietary software? Hell no. But it might make help them to understand what their tech staff already knows. Open Source programs *can* sometimes be a valuable addition to any IT departments "bag of tricks".
>Actually, it is "open source." It is not, however, "free."
Wrong! According to the Open Source Initiative's definition "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) .
>Darren Reed raises some good points on his >behalf. If one wants to create a piece of >software, and then give it to the open source >community, nobody should go to tell him that he >should release it under some particular license.
If the software in question is released under a closed license that nothing has really been given to the open source community.
When a license says that distributing modified version is not allowed, THAT is indeed a closed source license.
>All Reed wants to do is to make sure that he >holds the strings in IPFilter development.
Isn't that all that Microsoft wants to do? Hold the strings in Windows and Office development?:-)
I'm hoping that with Darren's most recent clairification that this whole issue is over.
>I also think that Darren Reed has a right to >license HIS code anyway that he damn well pleases.
Agreed. However, Theo also has a right to license HIS project however he damn well pleases and to set standards for inclusion into his project. Darren Reed's last "clarification" said that distributing modified version of IPF was not allowd. That's very much contrary to the stated goals of the OpenBSD project. Theo would have been a hypocrite *not* to pull IPF from OpenBSD.
>I think the point is that if there is no benefit to the capitalist pigs of the world
Your still not paying any attention are you? You keep talking about why Free Software/Open Source is bad for Software Companies. What I'm trying to explain to you is that there are a hell of a lot of people writing software internally for companies that have no intention of ever selling software. Software is not their business, but they need software to run their business.
Almost every sizable company in the world is employing programmers to write software. Non-programmer IT folk ( like me) are also writing internal software to support their employers IT operations.
Some of these companies are realizing that open sourcing some of this internal software is a win/win situation. They can share the burden/expense of updating/maintaining the software with other people.
>Where's the money to make this machine go?
Duh! The salaries of the folks already being paid to write software internally!
So to repeat your question.. Where is the benefit to the capitalist pigs of the world? Simple. These "capitalist pigs" are already paying lots of people to develop custom software to support the operation of their business. Open Sourcing that software lets you share some of the burden with other people. (including other capitalist pigs!). The end result: It cost you less to develop/maintain your custom software.
Open Source may not be a great revenue generator, but it can be a great cost saver! Capitalist Pigs love revenue generators, but they also are quite fond of ways to save costs!
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. While they can't patent a naturally occuring object (I think), they most definately can patent the selection process. Reverse Engineering would definately still be a violation of the patent. Now if they could come up with a *different* process that could still extract the cells in question, that *might* not be a violation of the patent (depending on the exact wording of the patent and the similarities between the processes).
Reverse engineering allows you to get around trade secrets, not patents.
LDAP and SQL are considerably different beasts for different purposes. What you propose is basically to say that screwdrivers make decent pry bars, so why ever buy a pry bar?
o n+ sql&selm=36AD06E4.F7362E47%40netscape.com&rnum=9
Here is some information comparing LDAP and SQL from the OpenLDAP FAQ:
http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/378.html
And here is some from an old usenet post. It's specifically talking about why Netscape's LDAP server uses it's own database instead of a RDBMS, but it has lots of good information about how directory services and RDBMS's differ and why one does not make a good substitute for the other.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ldap+comparis
Exactly. The links you've included (looks like good stuff by the way), definately show how LDAP and XML can be used well together.
They are mutually independant technologies. They can be used together to complement one another, but to talk about replacing XML with LDAP or LDAP with XML (as the previous poster did) is just plain silly.
>Yes, there are people using LDAP, there are even people using X.500 - but more or less these >technologies have not altered IT thinking in the dramatic way they were positioned. Arguably the >XML-based approach of web services is more timely -
XML is a file format (or metaformat), not a directory service like LDAP. The two technologies are orthogonal.
>its hard to make an argument of listing >another protocol on an isolated port to provide a >solitary service
<sarcasm> Yeah that's a great idea! Let's run everything over port 80! </sarcasm>
>There also doesn't appear to be much corporate interest - Microsoft has moved its mindshare >strategies to web services, leaving the only big backer of LDAP being Novell - not really a key >industry player at this point.
Hello?? Active Directory is LDAP based. Admittedly it's LDAP with the usual "embrace and extend" twists like proprietary Kerberos extensions and slightly non-standard schemas, but LDAP none the less.
>I don't know if it needs to be an SQL database, but it needs to be some system that will let you >update the zone files dynamically and instantaneously.
o c=RFC&letsgo=2136&type=ftp)
Like Dynamic Updates? (See RFC2136 - http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcdoctype.pl?l
I'm using dynamic updates with Bind 9.1. Works great.
I'd say to find a consulting company that works with the open source program your interested in. If possible, start by finding out if any of the developers on the project do consulting. If not, see if they can recommend someone.
Untrue. You don't need a CCIE, just a CCO (Cisco Connection Online) login to cisco's web site. Buy a support contract for 1 of your routers and you can download any damned IOS you want!
When I used to do NT admin work, I found Perl to be pretty handy. Unix admins have been using Perl and other scripting languages to automate repetative tasks for years. NT admins by and large don't seem to be very familier with the concept, but it is doable.
GNU Cfengine is another great sysadmin tool that's also has an NT version. If you administer a lot of systems (Unix or NT) this a fantastic tool to have. Your fellow NT admins will be completely befuddled trying to figure you how you installed that latest IIS patch to 50 machines before lunch!
Firewalls are another good place to start introducing some free software. I frigging LOVE OpenBSD with IPF (or the new PF) packet filter as a firewall.
Start will small changes like these. They won't require any user training or major changes for your end user. They also won't require much buy in from management. And they'll make it easier to put more free software into place later. When the inevitable objections to a larger, more visible free software related project comes up, you can confidently inform the objector that the company has been using free software for years!
Most cool! Thanks for the links.
Lisp doesn't seem to get the "mind share" and media attention that some programming languages (C, Java, Perl) do. You don't see a lot of books and articles about Lisp and, with the obvious exceptions of Emacs and Sawfish, most people would have trouble naming major applications written in Lisp.
Why do you think Lisp doesn't get mentioned more in the computer press?
Similarly, can you tell us about any major applications written in Lisp, or any great Lisp success stories?
If you don't mind making your IPaq quite a bit bigger, you can get a piggyback module that accepts PCMCIA cards. One of the guys I work with has a PCMCIA 802.11b network card on his IPaq. It's pretty cool. He can roam around the office and still get e-mail, surf, whatever.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety "
Bind has supported IPv6 records since version 4.9.4 (which is pretty damn old). DNS isn't the problem with IPv6. It's really getting the IPS's and backbone providers to bother implimenting IPv6.
Cisco has support for IPv6 in the newer versions of IOS (12.1T and above I believe). Check the Cisco Web Site for more information.
Read the GPL sometime. Requiring a registration to download isn't a GPL violation. As long as they provide source to anyone who gets binaries and they don't try to add any restrictions on re-distribution and modification they're not in violation.
Ah yes, you are so correct. If only we could all get along like the closed source folks do.
Everytime I see Bill Gates, Larry Elison, and Steve Jobs give each other big hugs and slobbery kisses at their many public appearences together, I know that the open source community can never equal their amazing co-operation and unity.
Fat chance of that. To use BGP you'll need your own block of IP's. *Not* IP's your ISP assigned, but an actual IP block you own. These are pretty damn hard to get a hold of these days. You'll also need to get a BGP AS (Autonomous System) number. Your unlikely to get an AS number assigned to a private individual or even small company.
Squeak is based around a very portable and graphical Smalltalk environment. Squeak is GPL'd and available for a wide variety of platforms including MAC, Windows, and Linux.
Here's a quote about Squeak stolen from the squeakland.org web site:
Squeak Is An Idea Processor For Children Of All Ages! ... an instrument whose music is ideas ...
We all know what a word processor is, but what is an idea processor? Of course, we can play with some ideas and express them in a word processor, but a lot of important ideas need more, for example: art, music, math and science. And some of these ideas really need a "dynamic medium for creative thought": music, animation, and many areas of science.
Squeak aims to have "no threshold", in that many five year olds can explore ideas in it; and "no ceiling": its range includes all of the things that can be done with computers. When five year olds learn English, they are starting to learn the language of Shakespeare and Feynman. Their journey through the next decade will enrich their vocabulary, ideas about people and the world, and give them stronger ways to structure ideas in language. In a similar fashion, the language learned by the five year olds to do simple projects in Squeak is also the language used by the experts to make 3D graphics engines and get things to happen on the Internet.
All the projects done in Squeak are directly transmittable to others over the Internet. Users can chat (by text or voice), send and receive email, exchange objects by dragging and dropping, and multiple users can share a project to interact in real time. Each time a project is created there is an opportunity to set up a new interest group that can provide mutual assitance and kudos.
Here are some links about using Squeak in education.
http://www.squeakland.org http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu:8888/squeakbook/upload>The cost of software is one of the lowest cost points for corporations.
For most applications that's undeniably true. This guys best bet is to focus on the flexibility and customizability of most Open Source programs.
On the other hand, I do know a lot of Unix shops who use quite a bit of Linux and BSD precisely because of it's low (free) cost. They still use commercial Unix's like Solaris, but they use Linux and BSD for think like print servers, internal DNS servers, etc. Linux and BSD are also handy for inexpensively giving each of thier developers thier own individual Unix box!
Bullshit. I work for a division of a fortune 100 company. We use lots of Open Source software including Linux.
We *also* use a lot of proprietary software, including Windows NT, AIX, Solaris, and Novell.
We use whatever we think works best for each particular situation. Some Open Source programs have compelling advantages, including price, customizability, and (for some programs, like OpenBSD) security.
Will this guys paper convince CEOs and CIOs to drop all of thier proprietary software? Hell no. But it might make help them to understand what their tech staff already knows. Open Source programs *can* sometimes be a valuable addition to any IT departments "bag of tricks".
Have you tried DMOZ? Google uses it for the Google Web Directory.
If you try it, I think you'll find it's pretty damn good.
>Actually, it is "open source." It is not, however, "free."
) .
Wrong! According to the Open Source Initiative's definition "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html
>Darren Reed raises some good points on his >behalf. If one wants to create a piece of >software, and then give it to the open source >community, nobody should go to tell him that he >should release it under some particular license.
:-)
If the software in question is released under a closed license that nothing has really been given to the open source community.
When a license says that distributing modified version is not allowed, THAT is indeed a closed source license.
>All Reed wants to do is to make sure that he >holds the strings in IPFilter development.
Isn't that all that Microsoft wants to do? Hold the strings in Windows and Office development?
I'm hoping that with Darren's most recent clairification that this whole issue is over.
>I also think that Darren Reed has a right to >license HIS code anyway that he damn well pleases.
Agreed. However, Theo also has a right to license HIS project however he damn well pleases and to set standards for inclusion into his project. Darren Reed's last "clarification" said that distributing modified version of IPF was not allowd. That's very much contrary to the stated goals of the OpenBSD project. Theo would have been a hypocrite *not* to pull IPF from OpenBSD.
>I think the point is that if there is no benefit to the capitalist pigs of the world
Your still not paying any attention are you? You keep talking about why Free Software/Open Source is bad for Software Companies. What I'm trying to explain to you is that there are a hell of a lot of people writing software internally for companies that have no intention of ever selling software. Software is not their business, but they need software to run their business.
Almost every sizable company in the world is employing programmers to write software. Non-programmer IT folk ( like me) are also writing internal software to support their employers IT operations.
Some of these companies are realizing that open sourcing some of this internal software is a win/win situation. They can share the burden/expense of updating/maintaining the software with other people.
>Where's the money to make this machine go?
Duh! The salaries of the folks already being paid to write software internally!
So to repeat your question.. Where is the benefit to the capitalist pigs of the world? Simple. These "capitalist pigs" are already paying lots of people to develop custom software to support the operation of their business. Open Sourcing that software lets you share some of the burden with other people. (including other capitalist pigs!). The end result: It cost you less to develop/maintain your custom software.
Open Source may not be a great revenue generator, but it can be a great cost saver! Capitalist Pigs love revenue generators, but they also are quite fond of ways to save costs!