Basically, it says that MySQL is faster and more stable, and that PostgreSQL has transactions. Which is more important? How about a database that doesn't crash when you put a tiny bit of load onto it. I'll stick to MySQL, thank you, and the addition of Perl as a language for stored procedures will make it even better and more useful.
AtheOS is a wonderful hobbyist OS with a small team working on it over the Internet. Of course, the OS we all know and love was once in a similar position. Do you see some of those same developers, disenchanted with the growing popularity of Linux, moving over to AtheOS and similar projects, with the eventual goal of paralleling the success of Linux and acheiving World Domination?
Nope; you're allowed to make copies of stuff, and to borrow and copy stuff from other people. Canada's a socialist country, and that's what happens in socialist countries.
The Canadian tax is actually a good thing. It recognizes that people use CD-R's to copy CD's, and makes that legal. You pay the tax, suddenly you're allowed to make copies
Of course, I'm sure that's not what the RIAA wants. But it might be a good alternative to advocate. It's also used in many European countries.
Asynchronous cpu's have been around for several years. There are async ARM's available, IIRC. The advantages are usually less in speed and more in reduced power consumption (from the large clock line) and reduced radio interference, which can be important on mixed digital-analog devices like mobile phones.
Really, twice the speed of current devices isn't that impressive; Intel already has p4's operating that fast in their labs.
I think the reason is political. KDE has a loose policy where lots of developers contribute what they want and the kore team accepts whatever meets their standards and has a logical place in KDE.
GNOME on the other hand is an official GNU project and subject to the squabbles that accompany that official political role. The developers get into arguments a lot more and it is much less clear to developers if their work will be applauded or ignored. Under the circumstances, they do pretty well.
Even for paid developers, who is to say that Ximian, Sun and Red Hat want the same thing as RMS and the steering comittee.
I said (and I quote): "The only thing I hope is for an out of court settlement so we don't get a legal precedent on this sort of stupidity." Thus your main point is based on an interpretation of my writing that is blatantly contrary to the actual view taken. I have also not said the things that you attribute to me in your straw-dog attack.
A lie and a logical fallacy do not make a rational arguement. Please do try again, though.
mp3.com is going down fast. I'd try to get money out of them too, if I could. I wish the artists the best of luck. The only thing I hope for is an out of court settlement so we don't get a legal precedent on this sort of stupidity.
I'm finding it similarly bad. Be patient, though. They're fixing it as fast as they can. We're testing it in ways that they never anticipated, and at a faster rate.
They have to call it that because Bruce Perens is very significant in their Linux strategy. He calls it that, so thay have to as well, or else they piss him off.
Quite frankly, they probably get most of their non-technical information about Linux from him. If he called it Green-Cheesux, they would as well. While this is perhaps not a good example, I am happy that they are listening to their advisors from within the community.
Ulrich doesn't like gcc3 and is rejecting all patches that would allow glibc to build under it. He's got to iron this out with the gcc folks, but this is unlikely to happen in the next several point releases.
That's what happens when something stagnates long enough. It gets replaced by something else that is better. Note that this would not happen to Microsoft; they keep adding new value to their product faster than it can be replicated by someone else. That way they prevent competitors from copying them and stealing their market.
EGCS was never remerged as you say; it became the main development branch, and gcc 2.8 was merged into it.
I won't argue with the rest. You're somewhat correct in the difficulty in maintaining these, but you overestimate the role of the FSF here. Perhaps you should re-read Ulrich Drepper's rant if you want a better idea of reality.
I don't know where newlib comes from, but it is currently hosted at sources.redhat.com, and the maintainer is Jeff Johnston, a Red Hat employee. emacs is as you say, but the text editor from hell is hardly a key operating system component. The other things you mention are important to form a complete system, but small relative to the other things that do not come from the FSF.
Yes, Stallman wrote the original gcc. He also wrote the original gdb. There's not much original code left in there, and what does remain is slowly being migrated out in an effort to turn gcc into a modern compiler.
And by GNU, I mean code that belongs to the FSF and was written for the FSF, as opposed to being written for fun or for commercial interests, then contributed to the FSF as well.
Most of Cygwin comes from two parts: the Cygwin library (replaces glibc) and gcc. The library was written by Cygnus (and is now maintained by Red Hat) and does not originate with the GNU project. The gcc used comes from egcs (as does modern gcc), which was forked a long time ago after Stallman installed a bonehead maintainer. It is true GNU software, but most of the code is from non-GNU sources. The GNU tools are all replacements for proprietary UNIX versions that are also available under proprietary and BSD licenses.
If you take out glibc, gcc and gdb (because the sources are not primarily from the GNU project, even though they were donated to it) you find that GNU software actually plays only a minor part in a normal Linux system.
This isn't a sign of the superiority of Java or the inferiority of C++. It's just a sign that C++ is way overextended, from the systems and large applications realms into the realm of multi-tiered applications with database backends. There, efficiency and bend-over-backward flexibility are much less important than fully featured libraries and short development cycles are much more important. I'm surprised that VB is suffering, though. That's a product with a place where it is clearly the best. In my Perl niche, I can feel Java squeezing in at times, but I'm pretty safe. C++ still has way too much of the market for me to worry.
First, Taco's comment about "new and better techniques" is ill-informed. This is an information-theoretic method, where the inclusion of hidden information alters the nature of the information in the original document. What this technique does not give you is any hint on how to extract the hidden information.
Second, I'm not sure how to react to this. I don't use steganography to hide information, nor do I encrypt my email normally. I guess it's good to know if the techniques used to do this are detectable or breakable, but if it was actually used on a large scale you can bet I'd be screaming, "Big Brother!!!"
Palm isn't the underdog yet. If it keeps releasing lackluster hardware that is equal to Windows Powered Devices only in price it soon will be, though. Could PalmBe be the answer? Along with some nice hardware upgrades, it could actually be competitive with WinCE, I think.
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
From what I understand, this means that although the GPL does not require you to contribute patents, if there are any patents that would encumber free distribution of the code or derivative works, you are not allowed to distribute the code. The effect is very similar to requiring a patent license, in that you can not enforce patents of your own against GPL'd works that you have distributed, nor distribute GPL'd works where redistribution would be encumbered by third-party patents.
Thanks for the info . That's very informative. Please do tell, though, what's the difference between a "spec" and a "specification" that makes it worth repeating?
I doubt corporations will resist this phenomenon. They want to make money off of wireless, and to do that they don't need the whole wireless spectrum. Sure they'd love to have it, but all they really need is a chunk to buy and force everyone else off of.
Instead what they will do to discourage this is they will point out, just as I will, that this is a precarious thing. It's a great anonymous platform for introducing worms and viruses into the wild, and a nice way to control a zombie army without worrying at all about being traced to your home IP. All this on top of a protocol that's as secure and solid as swiss cheese. Really, you'd have to be asking for trouble to do this.
Actually, some companies might object: the ones who have to deal with the repercussions of this, be they ISP's having to clean up the mess, or other companies (or governments) hit by guerilla network crackers. This is very unfortunate, but it's an old principle. It only takes one person to pee in the pool.
It's 2000x1500, but work is often done at 4000x3000 to preserve detail better. I get your point though, that digital video is Not Yet There, even for the lowest of the low in the film industry. George Lucas should start making cheap pornos, because that's about all his wonderful Sony digital camera is good for.
Well, my power supply gives a dinky 250 Watts. It usually gives problems in Windows when switching screen resolutions and when playing DVD's (for the DVD's in particular I've had varying luck with different driver revisions--some wouldn't play them at all, and others have problems only occasionally). For Linux, it's ok, but I've given up on trying to get their closed drivers to work; every time they just lock my computer hard.
I'm pretty sure it's a software problem because of variations caused by driver revisions. I wouldn't mind if I got a single set of stable drivers that don't "improve" performance on each release. I have the cheapest card I could by (TNT2M64), so I didn't ask for much. But I do need stability!
They have the worst drivers I've ever dealt with. Want to know why Windows is unstable? NVIDIA, all the time. Want to know why Linux is juas as unstable? NVIDIA, all the time. Their lousy crap-drivers crash constantly. I'm not going to claim ATI is better; I haven't had one of their products for a few years (I replaced my old one with an NVIDIA card because I heard that their drivers are better--big mistake). I just wish that these companies would focus on stability more than on performance. I don't mind taking a 20 fps hit on Quake 3, but I certainly do mind when I'm working on something and my computer crashes because of their incompetent driver team.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it says that MySQL is faster and more stable, and that PostgreSQL has transactions. Which is more important? How about a database that doesn't crash when you put a tiny bit of load onto it. I'll stick to MySQL, thank you, and the addition of Perl as a language for stored procedures will make it even better and more useful.
AtheOS is a wonderful hobbyist OS with a small team working on it over the Internet. Of course, the OS we all know and love was once in a similar position. Do you see some of those same developers, disenchanted with the growing popularity of Linux, moving over to AtheOS and similar projects, with the eventual goal of paralleling the success of Linux and acheiving World Domination?
Nope; you're allowed to make copies of stuff, and to borrow and copy stuff from other people. Canada's a socialist country, and that's what happens in socialist countries.
The Canadian tax is actually a good thing. It recognizes that people use CD-R's to copy CD's, and makes that legal. You pay the tax, suddenly you're allowed to make copies
Of course, I'm sure that's not what the RIAA wants. But it might be a good alternative to advocate. It's also used in many European countries.
Asynchronous cpu's have been around for several years. There are async ARM's available, IIRC. The advantages are usually less in speed and more in reduced power consumption (from the large clock line) and reduced radio interference, which can be important on mixed digital-analog devices like mobile phones.
Really, twice the speed of current devices isn't that impressive; Intel already has p4's operating that fast in their labs.
I think the reason is political. KDE has a loose policy where lots of developers contribute what they want and the kore team accepts whatever meets their standards and has a logical place in KDE.
GNOME on the other hand is an official GNU project and subject to the squabbles that accompany that official political role. The developers get into arguments a lot more and it is much less clear to developers if their work will be applauded or ignored. Under the circumstances, they do pretty well.
Even for paid developers, who is to say that Ximian, Sun and Red Hat want the same thing as RMS and the steering comittee.
A lie and a logical fallacy do not make a rational arguement. Please do try again, though.
mp3.com is going down fast. I'd try to get money out of them too, if I could. I wish the artists the best of luck. The only thing I hope for is an out of court settlement so we don't get a legal precedent on this sort of stupidity.
I'm finding it similarly bad. Be patient, though. They're fixing it as fast as they can. We're testing it in ways that they never anticipated, and at a faster rate.
They have to call it that because Bruce Perens is very significant in their Linux strategy. He calls it that, so thay have to as well, or else they piss him off.
Quite frankly, they probably get most of their non-technical information about Linux from him. If he called it Green-Cheesux, they would as well. While this is perhaps not a good example, I am happy that they are listening to their advisors from within the community.
Ulrich doesn't like gcc3 and is rejecting all patches that would allow glibc to build under it. He's got to iron this out with the gcc folks, but this is unlikely to happen in the next several point releases.
That's what happens when something stagnates long enough. It gets replaced by something else that is better. Note that this would not happen to Microsoft; they keep adding new value to their product faster than it can be replicated by someone else. That way they prevent competitors from copying them and stealing their market.
EGCS was never remerged as you say; it became the main development branch, and gcc 2.8 was merged into it.
I won't argue with the rest. You're somewhat correct in the difficulty in maintaining these, but you overestimate the role of the FSF here. Perhaps you should re-read Ulrich Drepper's rant if you want a better idea of reality.
I don't know where newlib comes from, but it is currently hosted at sources.redhat.com, and the maintainer is Jeff Johnston, a Red Hat employee. emacs is as you say, but the text editor from hell is hardly a key operating system component. The other things you mention are important to form a complete system, but small relative to the other things that do not come from the FSF.
And by GNU, I mean code that belongs to the FSF and was written for the FSF, as opposed to being written for fun or for commercial interests, then contributed to the FSF as well.
If you take out glibc, gcc and gdb (because the sources are not primarily from the GNU project, even though they were donated to it) you find that GNU software actually plays only a minor part in a normal Linux system.
This isn't a sign of the superiority of Java or the inferiority of C++. It's just a sign that C++ is way overextended, from the systems and large applications realms into the realm of multi-tiered applications with database backends. There, efficiency and bend-over-backward flexibility are much less important than fully featured libraries and short development cycles are much more important. I'm surprised that VB is suffering, though. That's a product with a place where it is clearly the best. In my Perl niche, I can feel Java squeezing in at times, but I'm pretty safe. C++ still has way too much of the market for me to worry.
Second, I'm not sure how to react to this. I don't use steganography to hide information, nor do I encrypt my email normally. I guess it's good to know if the techniques used to do this are detectable or breakable, but if it was actually used on a large scale you can bet I'd be screaming, "Big Brother!!!"
Palm isn't the underdog yet. If it keeps releasing lackluster hardware that is equal to Windows Powered Devices only in price it soon will be, though. Could PalmBe be the answer? Along with some nice hardware upgrades, it could actually be competitive with WinCE, I think.
Thanks for the info . That's very informative. Please do tell, though, what's the difference between a "spec" and a "specification" that makes it worth repeating?
Instead what they will do to discourage this is they will point out, just as I will, that this is a precarious thing. It's a great anonymous platform for introducing worms and viruses into the wild, and a nice way to control a zombie army without worrying at all about being traced to your home IP. All this on top of a protocol that's as secure and solid as swiss cheese. Really, you'd have to be asking for trouble to do this.
Actually, some companies might object: the ones who have to deal with the repercussions of this, be they ISP's having to clean up the mess, or other companies (or governments) hit by guerilla network crackers. This is very unfortunate, but it's an old principle. It only takes one person to pee in the pool.
It's 2000x1500, but work is often done at 4000x3000 to preserve detail better. I get your point though, that digital video is Not Yet There, even for the lowest of the low in the film industry. George Lucas should start making cheap pornos, because that's about all his wonderful Sony digital camera is good for.
I'm pretty sure it's a software problem because of variations caused by driver revisions. I wouldn't mind if I got a single set of stable drivers that don't "improve" performance on each release. I have the cheapest card I could by (TNT2M64), so I didn't ask for much. But I do need stability!
They have the worst drivers I've ever dealt with. Want to know why Windows is unstable? NVIDIA, all the time. Want to know why Linux is juas as unstable? NVIDIA, all the time. Their lousy crap-drivers crash constantly. I'm not going to claim ATI is better; I haven't had one of their products for a few years (I replaced my old one with an NVIDIA card because I heard that their drivers are better--big mistake). I just wish that these companies would focus on stability more than on performance. I don't mind taking a 20 fps hit on Quake 3, but I certainly do mind when I'm working on something and my computer crashes because of their incompetent driver team.