A db fs with rich searching of metadata requires the orderly and accurate entry of said metadata. You can't get organisation out of nothing - you are just asking people to be organised in a slightly different manner.
An organised person can already work effectively in a filesystem with current tools. The fact that they are organised is the key.
A disorganised person is not helped as their metadata will be erratic or absent. In fact might they now have the capability to be even more disorganised?
As I see it this is not solving an organisational problem as much as shifting the interface to the problem. I do not believe it to be either an easier or better way to organise personal data. Conversely I do not believe it to be inherently worse either. It's just different.
"Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants"
I realise that SCO is using the presence of identical comments as an indicator of copying rather than suing over the comments themselves, but it may mean that the comments cannot count towards the amount of code aparrently 'stolen'. But then this only matters if it comes down to a quantitative arguement (ie, 3% similarity is ok, but 5% means you're a thief).
The sooner our brains are extracted at birth and put into a safe place with wireless access to remote bodies the better.
Heh. I'd spend my money on old 'spares or repairs' to make a 'crash' body I could go have some fun with at weekends without harming my 'sunday best' body;)
'Course, the NSA/FBI/CIA/Nestle would have a backdoor into your body as an anti-terrorism measure.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform
you of your infringement on our patent. We
patented 'Stupidity' some time ago and feel that
your use of it infringes on our non-intellectual
property.
Section c) clearly states that "the process of
taking action wherby considered by your peers
to be akin to brainlessness" is a process wholy
owned by us.
We must therefore ask you to stop being stupid.
Now.
Why does anyone ever bother? Because they find it fun.
Why do some people renovate old cars? Do they believe that it'll really outperform a modern car?
No. They are having fun, damn the usefullness of it.
I would find it fun to poke around in the guts of the OS that I 'grew-up' on.
And to all those people saying "it's so old and unless, we have all this new stuff now, and the Amiga is sooo old."
Duh! That's _why_ we'd want it Open Sourced, then it can be altered to run on XYZ super hardware.
"Ohhh, but Linux is already there", yeah, and a few years back you could have said "why bother with Linux, Amiga is already there".
Do these people who ask such questions use anything old at all? Do they refuse to read old books because "they're so out of date, and they don't use modern book printing technology, and the paper is a bit yellow - so it must be useless".
The Amiga was based on Tripos, a unix-alike, which is why familier things like crypt() crop up in the kernel, which is why it had proper multitasking. It _was_ unix with a GUI. Yes - it does have some major holes compared to current OS's - big gaping holes ----- so what's the best way to fix them? Yes, finally, are you seeing the light, are you catching on -- the best way to fix it is to Open Source it. If it were perfect then what would be the point?
Yes, it's out of date, yes some people will find it fun to update it, and yes, some won't.
Could this 'story' have been any less informative about what UniCenter Management is? I had to go to their (slow, crashed netscape) web site and hunt about just to find out what the hell it was. Come on Hemos, put a bit of a description of it in the story (thus making me look a dolt in retrospect as people wonder why I'm moaning:)...
First priority - destroy the enemies communications infrastructure. Without this the enemy cannot effectively mount any large scale coherent strategy.
If they have done this it isn't about freedom of speech - it's simple warfare tactics. If the net is left open then they have a worldwide comms network available to them - i'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.
"Blah blah blah, eveyone should develop for Linux!"
"Blah blah blah, now that they do - they suck!"
This is really p*****g me off. ANY exposure of the name Linux on any high profile product is FANTASTIC NEWS - even if the support actually sucks. Other compnaies will see what they are doing and follow their lead. Competition then ensues, one day someone will take the extra step we all hope for.
Why do some advocates insist that if it's for Linux then it must be utterly free and open from day one, or they shoudn't bother? Have you no sense of history? - Openness *GROWS*, it doesn't magically appear!
I think this is top news (regardless of wether they achieve anything). PHB's and marketing exec's will take notice of this.
X runs on Linux. X (and whatever window manager) is the GUI.
Linux doesn't require X, and X doesn't require Linux. Just because it's packaged with every (?) distrib doesn't mean it's part of the OS, any more that MSPaint could be considered part of the Windows OS.
Thus Linux doesn't have a GUI, but it _can_ have a GUI.
Windows has a GUI, because windows _is_ the GUI (originally just a graphical DOS shell).
If you take this pernickity viewpoint (and any lawyer would) then he is correct.
It also happens to reinforce the fact that with Linux you have choice, with Windows you have Bill:)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not metadata - that's data embedded in the file. I already have tools to deal with those and they are more than adequate.
Where's the gain?
A db fs with rich searching of metadata requires the orderly and accurate entry of said metadata.
You can't get organisation out of nothing - you are just asking people to be organised in a slightly different manner.
An organised person can already work effectively in a filesystem with current tools. The fact that they are organised is the key.
A disorganised person is not helped as their metadata will be erratic or absent. In fact might they now have the capability to be even more disorganised?
As I see it this is not solving an organisational problem as much as shifting the interface to the problem. I do not believe it to be either an easier or better way to organise personal data. Conversely I do not believe it to be inherently worse either. It's just different.
Where's the gain?
Whilst not necessarily cheaper these are good suppliers of smaller sized components (both UK based)...
http://www.mini-itx.com/store
http://www.linitx.com
Is it just coincidence that it's been since Sitefinder went active? Could it be that it broke googles broken link code?
The sooner our brains are extracted at birth and put into a safe place with wireless access to remote bodies the better.
;)
Heh. I'd spend my money on old 'spares or repairs' to make a 'crash' body I could go have some fun with at weekends without harming my 'sunday best' body
'Course, the NSA/FBI/CIA/Nestle would have a backdoor into your body as an anti-terrorism measure.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform
you of your infringement on our patent. We
patented 'Stupidity' some time ago and feel that
your use of it infringes on our non-intellectual
property.
Section c) clearly states that "the process of
taking action wherby considered by your peers
to be akin to brainlessness" is a process wholy
owned by us.
We must therefore ask you to stop being stupid.
Now.
The story makes out that distribution of copyright
material over the net is a new threat caused by
these programs.
What the hell?
Last time I checked, FTP could do that too, ohh,
and that little thing called http, but that'll
never catch on....
Duh!
We've had WebCams for ages, how about someone
doing a WebNose?
Why bother?
Why does anyone ever bother? Because they find it fun.
Why do some people renovate old cars? Do they believe that it'll really outperform a modern car?
No. They are having fun, damn the usefullness of it.
I would find it fun to poke around in the guts of the OS that I 'grew-up' on.
And to all those people saying "it's so old and unless, we have all this new stuff now, and the Amiga is sooo old."
Duh! That's _why_ we'd want it Open Sourced, then it can be altered to run on XYZ super hardware.
"Ohhh, but Linux is already there", yeah, and a few years back you could have said "why bother with Linux, Amiga is already there".
Do these people who ask such questions use anything old at all? Do they refuse to read old books because "they're so out of date, and they don't use modern book printing technology, and the paper is a bit yellow - so it must be useless".
The Amiga was based on Tripos, a unix-alike, which is why familier things like crypt() crop up in the kernel, which is why it had proper multitasking. It _was_ unix with a GUI. Yes - it does have some major holes compared to current OS's - big gaping holes ----- so what's the best way to fix them? Yes, finally, are you seeing the light, are you catching on -- the best way to fix it is to Open Source it. If it were perfect then what would be the point?
Yes, it's out of date, yes some people will find it fun to update it, and yes, some won't.
Err, rant, rave, etc.
Could this 'story' have been any less informative about what UniCenter Management is? I had to go to their (slow, crashed netscape) web site and hunt about just to find out what the hell it was. Come on Hemos, put a bit of a description of it in the story (thus making me look a dolt in retrospect as people wonder why I'm moaning :) ...
First priority - destroy the enemies communications infrastructure. Without this the enemy cannot effectively mount any large scale coherent strategy.
If they have done this it isn't about freedom of speech - it's simple warfare tactics. If the net is left open then they have a worldwide comms network available to them - i'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.
"[Sundry Drivel Deleted] ... Grow up, there is more to this life than just the dollar sign."
:)
ROTFL. For the sake of the people who encounter you on a daily basis, I hope you're trolling
"Blah blah blah, eveyone should develop for Linux!"
"Blah blah blah, now that they do - they suck!"
This is really p*****g me off. ANY exposure of the name Linux on any high profile product is FANTASTIC NEWS - even if the support actually sucks. Other compnaies will see what they are doing and follow their lead. Competition then ensues, one day someone will take the extra step we all hope for.
Why do some advocates insist that if it's for Linux then it must be utterly free and open from day one, or they shoudn't bother? Have you no sense of history? - Openness *GROWS*, it doesn't magically appear!
I think this is top news (regardless of wether they achieve anything). PHB's and marketing exec's will take notice of this.
X runs on Linux. X (and whatever window manager)
:)
is the GUI.
Linux doesn't require X, and X doesn't require
Linux. Just because it's packaged with
every (?) distrib doesn't mean it's part of the
OS, any more that MSPaint could be considered
part of the Windows OS.
Thus Linux doesn't have a GUI, but it _can_ have
a GUI.
Windows has a GUI, because windows _is_ the GUI
(originally just a graphical DOS shell).
If you take this pernickity viewpoint (and
any lawyer would) then he is correct.
It also happens to reinforce the fact that with
Linux you have choice, with Windows you have
Bill