Six internal Ethernets provide 100 megabits of capacity each 2 OCI2s provide 1.2 gigabits of capacity to the Internet Runs on Compaq Proliant 5000s and 5500s, with 4 Pentium Pro processors and 512 megabytes (MB) of RAM each.
Software
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0 (IIS)Microsoft Index Server 2.0 Microsoft SQL Server 7 Other Microsoft tools and applications
Powerful Solutions
www.microsoft.com started out as a single box beneath a developer's desk in 1994, handling about a million hits a day. That seems almost laughable now. A sleek data center in Redmond, Wash., receives more than 228 million hits a day while data centers in London and Tokyo shoulder the international load of about 12 million daily hits. How has the site handled its explosive growth while keeping its hardware to a minimum? How does it administer one of the largest databases in the world? How does it manage the challenges of a decentralized publishing environment? How does it come close to achieving 100 percent site availability? The answers lie in the strength of its software, according to site architects. The whole shebang runs on Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, IIS 4.0, and SQL 7.0. "Our site showcases Microsoft technology," says systems operations manager Todd Weeks. "We prove every day that we can run one of the largest sites in the world 100 percent off of Microsoft technology."
The Challenge
Not only is www.microsoft.com an enormous site with hundreds of thousands of pages of content. Not only does it receive millions of hits a day. Not only has its growth been unrelenting. Those are some of the easy challenges, site architects say. One of the most interesting challenges is that www.microsoft.com functions within a decentralized publishing environment. More than 300 writers and developers working in more than 51 locations around the world provide information for the site. These content providers are able to update their sites within the www.microsoft.com umbrella as often as eight times a day. In fact, 5 percent to 6 percent of the site is updated every day. The complexity of that publishing environment is daunting when you consider that each of the 29 content servers in Redmond contains the nearly 300,000 pages of information that comprise www.microsoft.com. But the end result is that the information on www.microsoft.com is as current and up-to-date as possible. A team of about eight people staffs three shifts around the clock to ensure www.microsoft.com stays up and running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. "Our goal is to make the site available to users 99.8 percent of the time," Weeks says. So how do we reach that lofty goal of 99.8 percent availability? (The 0.2 percent down time is required for routine maintenance.)
First, the Hardware
The physical architecture behind www.microsoft.com seems surprisingly modest. Twenty-nine servers host general Web content; 25 servers host SQL, 6 respond to site searches; 3 service download requests along with another 30 in distributed data centers; and 3 host FTP content. Additional servers overseas handle some of the international load.
Did you count all of that? That's 96 Compaq Reliant 5000s & 5500s (Quad Pentium Pro boxes with 512Mb RAM) running www.microsoft.com using NT, IIS, Index Server, and SQL Server.
This machine is a P6/200 with 1GB of memory & 1/2 terabyte of RAID 5. The operating system is FreeBSD. Should you wish to get your own copy of FreeBSD, see the pub/FreeBSD directory or visit http://www.freebsd.org for more information. FreeBSD on CDROM can be ordered using the WEB at http://www.cdrom.com/titles/os/freebsd.htm or by sending email to orders@cdrom.com.
Now, which site do you suppose has set more download records?
How many times does the "Linux Community Inc." need to tell these people that Apache wasn't ment for speed!? Why is Apache designated as the One True web server? Benchmarking static Apache vs. static IIS is pointless. Any programmer worth his salt could cook up a few dozen lines of code that would outperform both servers on pure static content.
They should benchmark how many dynamic perl generated pages NT can vomit out:)
Does anybody know how compatible this thing will run 95? When the beta came out, IIRC it didn't do DirectX/accelerated video stuff, so video games didn't work, and we all know that video games are the only thing worth keeping 95 around for:)
Re:How does the GPL infect a code tree?
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but this has been my take on the GPL. Some people have told me my logic is wrong, but either their logic was wrong or my head is too think to absorb the backwards IPO laws that we have.
The only legal power that the GPL really has is copyright law. The biggest problem with the GPL is that it places restrictions that it doesn't have the legal grounds under copyright law to do. As an example, consider GPL'd libraries. Linking your proprietary program with one is certainly considered fair usage, and legally the GPL would fail in this instance. It imposes un-enforcable restrictions similiar to the Windows EULA, and they only thing Microsoft could really do to you for violating it is void your warranty, and that's about all the FSF could do to you for violating the non-copyright-law-enforcable parts of the GPL. Cutting and pasting copyrighted GPL'd source code is a different story though...
I wonder how long it will be before somebody creates an insulated wire mesh vest that sends a lethal voltage back across the same ionized channel. Liquid latex would definately have some advantages as well.
Of course, sitting on top of a tin can full of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, lighting a match behind it, and riding it all the way to the moon was sci-fi at one point in time.
A) To encode the entire complexity of the universe into some kind of machine would require a 'database' that was as complex as the universe itself. The only way this machine could exist is if it were outside of our own universe, making it not observable.
B) If we could magically put that machine in our universe so that we could prove that we had no free will, in order to completely simulate the real universe, there would have to be a 'simulated' machine that was 'simulatiing' that universe, and so on. Infinite recursion.
C) If that is your definition of God, then the first commandment would be Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal. Regardless of A) and B) it is what makes simulating the universe impossible. There is in fact, according to all scientific observations, an inherent randomness to the universe. I really hope you don't believe that randomness == God. If that's God giving us free will, then Los Vegas is heaven.
1) Humans are already capable of improving ourselves and you don't see our complexity and intelligence growing exponentially. You are mixing levels by assuming that an intelligent machine is necessarily good at machine-type things.
My point is that we don't understand how we think because a neural network is molded through an evolutionary process. We will understand it one day, but we don't now. If and when an AI does have this understanding, because it's a machine, it has the ability to rewire each neural pathway or add more processing speed, where as we would need something like nanotech and gene splicing to do it to ourselves. And even if we had the technology to do it, we don't have the knowledge. When we or machines get to that point, evolutionary advancement will give way to intelligently designed advancement. For example, if the machine wasn't creative enough to come up with the solution to a complex problem it could simply rewire it's neurons so that it was more creative. This isn't the same as our own growth through learning because learning is an evolutionary process of changing neural pathways. I just hope that we get to that point before AI does. Then AI would be a lot less dangerous to us.
They are definately worth $30. I just wish GGI/Mesa/X would all finally merge. Actually all we need is KGIcon finished and merged with the kernel proper. The rest will just magically appear.
Once AI reaches the point where it can redesign and improve apon itself, there is no stopping it. It's complexity and intelligence will grow exponentially. How many hours after it gets to that point do you think it will take for the machine to determine we are a waste of resources and are not nessassary in the grand scheme of evolutionary advancement? How long do you think it will be before it feels threatened by the barbaric, fear-driven human race?
Ask the Japanese, especially the ones living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if they think the discovery of nuclear fission has advanced the quality of life for humanity.
Do you really think AI is a Good Thing to be researching right now? What are you if machines are doing the thinking for you? It's pretty ironic that people like RMS are pushing for free software in order to ultimately improve humanity and the quality of life, but at the same time studying artificial intelligence over at MIT.
Some people think we can't possibly create something so complex, but we can, and we aren't very far from doing it. We create other intelligent beings, children, all the time. They don't start out intelligent; they start off as a clean slate and grow into it.
I don't see how people can use unix and depend on a mouse at the same time. Unix is based on efficiency. You seriously want me to lift my hand off of the keyboard, put it on the mouse, click a button, then move my hand back to the keyboard a thousand times a day? I can barely stand to take my hand of my vi keys to move it over to the arrow keys, let alone the mouse. It's extremely productive to know all of those keyboard shortcuts. It's the one true way. Use your brain, not your muscles.
eBay in itself is overpriced. Auctions are only good for the buyers when there are few buyers compared to goods. More buyers drive the price up. I find it amazing that eBay's stock is skyrocketing like it is. Who the hell would want to buy something at an auction where the entire connected community is biding? It is a nice place to sell stuff though. It's to the point where you can buy something new at the store, auction it on eBay, and make a profit.
College degrees are a crock of shit. Have you ever been to an ad infested college event? How many credit card ads did you have to pull out of your newly purchased over-priced text books? Have you ever counted how much money tuition costs you and multiplied that by the number of students in your class and then by the number of classes you took? Have you ever counted how many teachers that you've had that actually taught instead of just going over the course material? To me it just seemed like a commerical venture aimed at making people feel better about themselves because they had degrees. To me, a degree is just a status symbol.
I dropped out. As with every other purchase I make, I analyzed the product and how much money it costs. The conclusion; The education I was getting wasn't worth the money.
You go to school to learn, correct? If you learn better from books than you do from clueless teachers, wouldn't you be a fool to go to school? I didn't care that I wasn't getting a degree. I knew that nobody else would care either, at least nobody else that had a smidgen of intelligence. A degree is piece of paper, not a measure of your education or intelligence. It's more of a measure of how well you are at institutionalized learning and taking tests.
Don't get me wrong. Some universities can teach you a lot more than you could teach yourself by opening you to different view points, new thought processes, etc. But it's not really the university that helps you learn more than you could on your own; it's peer review, and you can get that anywhere.
AFAIK, you can legally examine GPL'd code and create a proprietary product that is similiar. It all depends on how the phrase "based on [gpl'd code]" is interpreted as explained in the derivative works section of the GPL. If you look at how apache works and create a proprietary web server, is it a GPL violation? Hell no. It only is a violation if you use GPL'd code. Variable name changes and small algorithmic changes are AFAIK derivative works also. You can only use the basic idea and generic algorithms. How you define "basic" and "generic" is up to the judge though. Ultimately it requires faith, since a developer could independently come up with the same code as in a GPL'd counterpart. How many different ways do you really write a for() loop?;) How hard is a simple web server to write? If you wrote a web server that was supposed to perform on par with Apache, don't you think it's insides would start to look like Apache's, due to the fact that they perform the same function.
With 6 billion talking monkeys on this planet, you'd think their would be more defects than there are. That's a very low error rate. The crime rate is marginally higher than it used to be. There are just a hell of a lot more crimes being commited simply because there are a hell of a lot more people to commit them.
For those not in the United States, let me explain that we are a gun crazy society because our government was founded in paranoia. Our laws are written such that if our government gets out of hand we can take it over by force if necessary. A fellow from Australia explained that Americans waste their time trying to figure out why this happened instead of taking steps to prevent things like this. He explained that due to a violent crime involving semi-automatic weapons in australia, semi-automatic weapons are very hard to come by now. That logic is flawed though. Those kids could just have easily broken the main gas line and exploded the school, drove a car through the cafeteria, used a knife, etc. The tool used doesn't matter. Even if I was anti-gun, I still wouldn't want them to ban guns because of crimes like these. It wouldn't do anything to solve the problem. The tools would just change.
The problem with distributions like Redhat is that they force a standard on you: the directory structure. I wouldn't have such a problem with Redhat if they would support the LSB. The directory structure gives Redhat a way to muscle the other distributions around. It might not seem like much, but Redhat wouldn't be able to pull crap like "Redhat Linux Certification" without that structure.
The majority of non-natives that I was exposed to were from the middle east, not that I'm try to stereotype programmers from the middle east; This has just been my personal experience.
Bright people are few and far between, no matter what part of the world you look at.
I hate to sound racist or anything, this is just my personal experience. Of all of the non-natives that I've dealt with, only a very small few were competent programmers. The rest wrote pure crap code. Mountains of it that I had to debug and rewrite after their contracts expired because it didn't work. These guys had Masters Degrees in C.S. (obtained in his native country), but their code was just horrible. I'm a C.S. drop out, but I know my code is a lot better than theirs was. They would come to me with *basic* questions about things like linked lists and syntax questions.
What can we expect from a journalist anyway? He probably gets paid by the number of words he writes, and I bet he can fit a very very very very very very very very very large number of words in when he needs to.:-)
All of the defendants should counter sue the parents for not raising him correctly, pointing out that the parents should have been a bigger influence on him and that they have the sole responsibility of the media he sees. I guess you can't expect much else from the great Bible belt of America, the same place that rips out the pages explaining the Big Bang in the science text books. They might as well put Satan on their list of defendants.
These people are perfect examples of why we need a law that states that you need at least a certain IQ before you can become a parent.
If my kid did this, I would probably be really upset and think irrationally. I would probably get pissed off and want to blame somebody. But because I'd want to doesn't mean I'd think it was correct and actually try to do it. People that act without thinking are dangerous. Maybe they should be locked up along with the kid before they lose their lawsuit and start blowing up federal buildings and holywood studios.
The worst thing is that they will probably win a settlement.
That's exactly right. The only reason a proprietary software vendor would want to go open source is if it would boost the sale of a complimentary product. As an example, Apple makes their money on hardware sales. The OS is really a loss of revenue. Another example would be Netscape. They were already giving the browser away. They made their money on server sales. Doing work on the browser was a loss of revenue, but it did help support their server. They certainly didn't lose any money by giving away mozilla; In fact their was a big potential that giving away the source to the browser would increase their server sales. Unfortunately for Netscape, another open source project called Apache steam rolled right over all of the proprietary web servers.
The companies that are going open source aren't software vendors. That would be corporate suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
The pure humor of it all...
From behind the scenes of www.microsoft.com
Hardware
Six internal Ethernets provide 100 megabits of capacity each
2 OCI2s provide 1.2 gigabits of capacity to the Internet
Runs on Compaq Proliant 5000s and 5500s, with 4 Pentium Pro processors and 512 megabytes (MB) of RAM each.
Software
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0
Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0 (IIS)Microsoft Index Server 2.0
Microsoft SQL Server 7
Other Microsoft tools and applications
Powerful Solutions
www.microsoft.com started out as a single box beneath a developer's desk in 1994, handling about a million hits a
day. That seems almost laughable now. A sleek data center in Redmond, Wash., receives more than 228 million
hits a day while data centers in London and Tokyo shoulder the international load of about 12 million daily hits.
How has the site handled its explosive growth while keeping its hardware to a minimum? How does it administer
one of the largest databases in the world? How does it manage the challenges of a decentralized publishing
environment? How does it come close to achieving 100 percent site availability? The answers lie in the
strength of its software, according to site architects. The whole shebang runs on Microsoft Windows NT 4.0,
IIS 4.0, and SQL 7.0. "Our site showcases Microsoft technology," says systems operations manager Todd
Weeks. "We prove every day that we can run one of the largest sites in the world 100 percent off of
Microsoft technology."
The Challenge
Not only is www.microsoft.com an enormous site with hundreds of thousands of pages of content. Not only
does it receive millions of hits a day. Not only has its growth been unrelenting. Those are some of the
easy challenges, site architects say. One of the most interesting challenges is that www.microsoft.com
functions within a decentralized publishing environment. More than 300 writers and developers working in more
than 51 locations around the world provide information for the site. These content providers are able to update
their sites within the www.microsoft.com umbrella as often as eight times a day. In fact, 5 percent to 6
percent of the site is updated every day. The complexity of that publishing environment is daunting
when you consider that each of the 29 content servers in Redmond contains the nearly 300,000 pages of
information that comprise www.microsoft.com. But the end result is that the information on www.microsoft.com
is as current and up-to-date as possible. A team of about eight people staffs three shifts around the clock
to ensure www.microsoft.com stays up and running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. "Our goal is to make the
site available to users 99.8 percent of the time," Weeks says. So how do we reach that lofty goal of 99.8
percent availability? (The 0.2 percent down time is required for routine maintenance.)
First, the Hardware
The physical architecture behind www.microsoft.com seems surprisingly modest. Twenty-nine servers host
general Web content; 25 servers host SQL, 6 respond to site searches; 3 service download requests along
with another 30 in distributed data centers; and 3 host FTP content. Additional servers overseas handle
some of the international load.
Did you count all of that? That's 96 Compaq Reliant 5000s & 5500s (Quad Pentium Pro boxes with 512Mb RAM) running
www.microsoft.com using NT, IIS, Index Server, and SQL Server.
Standard
This machine is a P6/200 with 1GB of memory & 1/2 terabyte of RAID 5.
The operating system is FreeBSD. Should you wish to get your own copy of
FreeBSD, see the pub/FreeBSD directory or visit http://www.freebsd.org
for more information. FreeBSD on CDROM can be ordered using the WEB at
http://www.cdrom.com/titles/os/freebsd.htm or by sending email to
orders@cdrom.com.
Now, which site do you suppose has set more download records?
http://www.apache.org/docs/misc/perf-tuning.html
"Apache is a general webserver, which is designed to be correct first, and fast second."
That is the first sentence in the performance tuning document.
How many times does the "Linux Community Inc." need to tell these people that Apache wasn't ment for speed!? Why is Apache designated as the One True web server? Benchmarking static Apache vs. static IIS is pointless. Any programmer worth his salt could cook up a few dozen lines of code that would outperform both servers on pure static content.
:)
They should benchmark how many dynamic perl generated pages NT can vomit out
Does anybody know how compatible this thing will run 95? When the beta came out, IIRC it didn't do DirectX/accelerated video stuff, so video games didn't work, and we all know that video games are the only thing worth keeping 95 around for :)
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but this has been my take on the GPL. Some people have told me my logic is wrong, but either their logic was wrong or my head is too think to absorb the backwards IPO laws that we have.
The only legal power that the GPL really has is copyright law. The biggest problem with the GPL is that it places restrictions that it doesn't have the legal grounds under copyright law to do. As an example, consider GPL'd libraries. Linking your proprietary program with one is certainly considered fair usage, and legally the GPL would fail in this instance. It imposes un-enforcable restrictions similiar to the Windows EULA, and they only thing Microsoft could really do to you for violating it is void your warranty, and that's about all the FSF could do to you for violating the non-copyright-law-enforcable parts of the GPL. Cutting and pasting copyrighted GPL'd source code is a different story though...
I wonder how long it will be before somebody creates an insulated wire mesh vest that sends a lethal voltage back across the same ionized channel. Liquid latex would definately have some advantages as well.
ROFL :)
Of course, sitting on top of a tin can full of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, lighting a match behind it, and riding it all the way to the moon was sci-fi at one point in time.
Josh
Well, I wouldn't want GGI merged, just KGIcon. Unix abstracts all other hardware, why leave video cards in userspace?
A) To encode the entire complexity of the universe into some kind of machine would require a 'database' that was as complex as the universe itself. The only way this machine could exist is if it were outside of our own universe, making it not observable.
B) If we could magically put that machine in our universe so that we could prove that we had no free will, in order to completely simulate the real universe, there would have to be a 'simulated' machine that was 'simulatiing' that universe, and so on. Infinite recursion.
C) If that is your definition of God, then the first commandment would be Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal. Regardless of A) and B) it is what makes simulating the universe impossible. There is in fact, according to all scientific observations, an inherent randomness to the universe. I really hope you don't believe that randomness == God. If that's God giving us free will, then Los Vegas is heaven.
1) Humans are already capable of improving ourselves and you don't see our complexity and intelligence growing exponentially. You are mixing levels by assuming that an intelligent machine is necessarily good at machine-type things.
My point is that we don't understand how we think because a neural network is molded through an evolutionary process. We will understand it one day, but we don't now. If and when an AI does have this understanding, because it's a machine, it has the ability to rewire each neural pathway or add more processing speed, where as we would need something like nanotech and gene splicing to do it to ourselves. And even if we had the technology to do it, we don't have the knowledge. When we or machines get to that point, evolutionary advancement will give way to intelligently designed advancement. For example, if the machine wasn't creative enough to come up with the solution to a complex problem it could simply rewire it's neurons so that it was more creative. This isn't the same as our own growth through learning because learning is an evolutionary process of changing neural pathways. I just hope that we get to that point before AI does. Then AI would be a lot less dangerous to us.
They are definately worth $30. I just wish GGI/Mesa/X would all finally merge. Actually all we need is KGIcon finished and merged with the kernel proper. The rest will just magically appear.
Once AI reaches the point where it can redesign and improve apon itself, there is no stopping it. It's complexity and intelligence will grow exponentially. How many hours after it gets to that point do you think it will take for the machine to determine we are a waste of resources and are not nessassary in the grand scheme of evolutionary advancement? How long do you think it will be before it feels threatened by the barbaric, fear-driven human race?
Ask the Japanese, especially the ones living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if they think the discovery of nuclear fission has advanced the quality of life for humanity.
Do you really think AI is a Good Thing to be researching right now? What are you if machines are doing the thinking for you? It's pretty ironic that people like RMS are pushing for free software in order to ultimately improve humanity and the quality of life, but at the same time studying artificial intelligence over at MIT.
Some people think we can't possibly create something so complex, but we can, and we aren't very far from doing it. We create other intelligent beings, children, all the time. They don't start out intelligent; they start off as a clean slate and grow into it.
Moving on won't help anything. Don't forget about it just because it's not entertaining you anymore.
Some *broken* apps depend on arrow key usage. Sorry for being ambigious.
That definately needs to be added to the jargon file :)
I don't see how people can use unix and depend on a mouse at the same time. Unix is based on efficiency. You seriously want me to lift my hand off of the keyboard, put it on the mouse, click a button, then move my hand back to the keyboard a thousand times a day? I can barely stand to take my hand of my vi keys to move it over to the arrow keys, let alone the mouse. It's extremely productive to know all of those keyboard shortcuts. It's the one true way. Use your brain, not your muscles.
eBay in itself is overpriced. Auctions are only good for the buyers when there are few buyers compared to goods. More buyers drive the price up. I find it amazing that eBay's stock is skyrocketing like it is. Who the hell would want to buy something at an auction where the entire connected community is biding? It is a nice place to sell stuff though. It's to the point where you can buy something new at the store, auction it on eBay, and make a profit.
College degrees are a crock of shit. Have you ever been to an ad infested college event? How many credit card ads did you have to pull out of your newly purchased over-priced text books? Have you ever counted how much money tuition costs you and multiplied that by the number of students in your class and then by the number of classes you took? Have you ever counted how many teachers that you've had that actually taught instead of just going over the course material? To me it just seemed like a commerical venture aimed at making people feel better about themselves because they had degrees. To me, a degree is just a status symbol.
I dropped out. As with every other purchase I make, I analyzed the product and how much money it costs. The conclusion; The education I was getting wasn't worth the money.
You go to school to learn, correct? If you learn better from books than you do from clueless teachers, wouldn't you be a fool to go to school? I didn't care that I wasn't getting a degree. I knew that nobody else would care either, at least nobody else that had a smidgen of intelligence. A degree is piece of paper, not a measure of your education or intelligence. It's more of a measure of how well you are at institutionalized learning and taking tests.
Don't get me wrong. Some universities can teach you a lot more than you could teach yourself by opening you to different view points, new thought processes, etc. But it's not really the university that helps you learn more than you could on your own; it's peer review, and you can get that anywhere.
AFAIK, you can legally examine GPL'd code and create a proprietary product that is similiar. It all depends on how the phrase "based on [gpl'd code]" is interpreted as explained in the derivative works section of the GPL. If you look at how apache works and create a proprietary web server, is it a GPL violation? Hell no. It only is a violation if you use GPL'd code. Variable name changes and small algorithmic changes are AFAIK derivative works also. You can only use the basic idea and generic algorithms. How you define "basic" and "generic" is up to the judge though. Ultimately it requires faith, since a developer could independently come up with the same code as in a GPL'd counterpart. How many different ways do you really write a for() loop?
With 6 billion talking monkeys on this planet, you'd think their would be more defects than there are. That's a very low error rate. The crime rate is marginally higher than it used to be. There are just a hell of a lot more crimes being commited simply because there are a hell of a lot more people to commit them.
For those not in the United States, let me explain that we are a gun crazy society because our government was founded in paranoia. Our laws are written such that if our government gets out of hand we can take it over by force if necessary. A fellow from Australia explained that Americans waste their time trying to figure out why this happened instead of taking steps to prevent things like this. He explained that due to a violent crime involving semi-automatic weapons in australia, semi-automatic weapons are very hard to come by now. That logic is flawed though. Those kids could just have easily broken the main gas line and exploded the school, drove a car through the cafeteria, used a knife, etc. The tool used doesn't matter. Even if I was anti-gun, I still wouldn't want them to ban guns because of crimes like these. It wouldn't do anything to solve the problem. The tools would just change.
The problem with distributions like Redhat is that they force a standard on you: the directory structure. I wouldn't have such a problem with Redhat if they would support the LSB. The directory structure gives Redhat a way to muscle the other distributions around. It might not seem like much, but Redhat wouldn't be able to pull crap like "Redhat Linux Certification" without that structure.
The majority of non-natives that I was exposed to were from the middle east, not that I'm try to stereotype programmers from the middle east; This has just been my personal experience.
Bright people are few and far between, no matter what part of the world you look at.
I hate to sound racist or anything, this is just my personal experience. Of all of the non-natives that I've dealt with, only a very small few were competent programmers. The rest wrote pure crap code. Mountains of it that I had to debug and rewrite after their contracts expired because it didn't work. These guys had Masters Degrees in C.S. (obtained in his native country), but their code was just horrible. I'm a C.S. drop out, but I know my code is a lot better than theirs was. They would come to me with *basic* questions about things like linked lists and syntax questions.
:-)
What can we expect from a journalist anyway? He probably gets paid by the number of words he writes, and I bet he can fit a very very very very very very very very very large number of words in when he needs to.
All of the defendants should counter sue the parents for not raising him correctly, pointing out that the parents should have been a bigger influence on him and that they have the sole responsibility of the media he sees. I guess you can't expect much else from the great Bible belt of America, the same place that rips out the pages explaining the Big Bang in the science text books. They might as well put Satan on their list of defendants.
These people are perfect examples of why we need a law that states that you need at least a certain IQ before you can become a parent.
If my kid did this, I would probably be really upset and think irrationally. I would probably get pissed off and want to blame somebody. But because I'd want to doesn't mean I'd think it was correct and actually try to do it. People that act without thinking are dangerous. Maybe they should be locked up along with the kid before they lose their lawsuit and start blowing up federal buildings and holywood studios.
The worst thing is that they will probably win a settlement.
That's exactly right. The only reason a proprietary software vendor would want to go open source is if it would boost the sale of a complimentary product. As an example, Apple makes their money on hardware sales. The OS is really a loss of revenue. Another example would be Netscape. They were already giving the browser away. They made their money on server sales. Doing work on the browser was a loss of revenue, but it did help support their server. They certainly didn't lose any money by giving away mozilla; In fact their was a big potential that giving away the source to the browser would increase their server sales. Unfortunately for Netscape, another open source project called Apache steam rolled right over all of the proprietary web servers.
The companies that are going open source aren't software vendors. That would be corporate suicide.