Without hearing any Database 'noise' coming from Redhat (in the form of hiring/partnerships etc.), it seems like a strange announcment.
I find it hard to believe that they wrote their own from scratch. My personal preference is that they used PostgreSQL as a base, and went from there.
If thats what they did, then look out GreatBridge!
Bill Gates said: According to research firm IDC, Linux accounted for 27 percent of new worldwide operating-system licenses in 2000, and Microsoft's Windows captured 41 percent of new licenses.
SourceSafe ate a few binary documents at my old place of business.
I helped them institute CVS using WinCVS as a front end GUI. When dealing with Word docs, etc, it was impossible to view diffs between different versions, but thats the way it was with SourceSafe as well.
I wrote a small document and some tcl scripts to help people. You can find them at my site.
To get the answer with more no more that one response more than there are number of hats...
1. Assume 3 hats (works with any number)
2. First person looks at other peoples hats, and says "I see two red hats, therefor mine must be blue"
3. Second person looks at all other hats, and says "I see two red hats, and person 1 saw two red hats, therefor my hat is red"
4. Third person looks and sees two red hats, and repeats person two's phrase.
5. First person hears all the phrases, and concludes that his guess is wrong, and changes it to red.
Works for any combination of red and blue hats, and any number of people.
Re:Working in such an env., 10GB+, NT/UNIX clients
on
Clearcase vs. CVS?
·
· Score: 1
We are thinking of installing CVS here, since Visual Source Safe has actually corrupted files for us. The only problem I'm having with convincing management is..
1) CVS's storage of binary files.
2) I prefer to put CVS on a Unix server, and they want it on NT.
If I put it on a unix server, is there a problem with put the repository on an NT server via a samba share?
For a lot of small projects, the labour is already done, with no compensation. The only method of compensationleft, without adding an excess of new labour, is to charge for copies of the software.
As for the first comment... work on GPL software is usually done by individuals, who can then re-publish the work with their new features. Another person can then take that code, and add there own bit, etc. How is this different than the original proposal, except for the fact that the original developer wants some control over the source?
Okay, so hypothetically, I have some software I wrote. I want to get paid for all of my hard work, yet I don't mind giving the source away to people that purchase the software from me.
But, 1) I don't want them to be able to give the source or binaries to others. 2) I want them to be able modify source for thier own use. 3) I want them to return any mods to me, for possible inclusion into the next release.
In return, 1) I promise to never charge for an upgrade that they contributed to. 2) will list them as contributors. 3) If I 'go under' the software becomes GPL. 4) will continue to give source.
I also want he software to be free for 'Open Source' projects, and $$$ for 'Closed Source' projects.
What type of license would cover this?
Does this make me scum for not going GPL (or otherwise)?
I think that layer 4 switching is the way to go. Automatic load balancing between multiple servers. Server failover support (if a server goes down, it no longer gets requests).
We will be evaluating some shortly... we'll see how it goes.
My twin brother and I have tested a similar product in Comdex, 2 - 3 years ago. We are identical twins, but 'cultivate' a different look with different hairstyles.
The system shown at Comdex could not be fooled by us, even when we came back the next day, with 'swapped' looks (I looked like my bro did the day before, etc).
A company I used to work for in the past has been burned by this as well. The contract did not stipulate any interim deliverables (for testing), or even that the program had to work. I then had to fix the software, a 4 month, 12 hour a day, 6 days a week (no paid overtime) process.
In my view, the fault was twofold..
1) shitty contractors 2) shitty contract created by management.
The article says that they plan to use the Linux kernel. Theres no mention of using any of the GNU programs or X or anything like that, just the kernel. So, it may not even run standard Linux binaries.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it hard to believe that they wrote their own from scratch. My personal preference is that they used PostgreSQL as a base, and went from there. If thats what they did, then look out GreatBridge!
Licenses? Hmmm, news to me....
Trye http://www.mvis.com, as indicated in the main text.
I helped them institute CVS using WinCVS as a front end GUI. When dealing with Word docs, etc, it was impossible to view diffs between different versions, but thats the way it was with SourceSafe as well.
I wrote a small document and some tcl scripts to help people. You can find them at my site.
Darn, should have read the full article first. The problem that I initially heard allowed for communication.
My answer then changes back to an answer that I first gave a co-worker. Random probability of the coin toss is 50/50.
Look at all the other hats, and then conclude that yours is in the monirity of what you saw. Works for 4+ hats, but not for 3 hats.
ie:
To get the answer with more no more that one response more than there are number of hats...
1. Assume 3 hats (works with any number)
2. First person looks at other peoples hats, and says "I see two red hats, therefor mine must be blue"
3. Second person looks at all other hats, and says "I see two red hats, and person 1 saw two red hats, therefor my hat is red"
4. Third person looks and sees two red hats, and repeats person two's phrase.
5. First person hears all the phrases, and concludes that his guess is wrong, and changes it to red.
Works for any combination of red and blue hats, and any number of people.
We are thinking of installing CVS here, since Visual Source Safe has actually corrupted files for us. The only problem I'm having with convincing management is..
1) CVS's storage of binary files.
2) I prefer to put CVS on a Unix server, and they want it on NT.
If I put it on a unix server, is there a problem with put the repository on an NT server via a samba share?
Has anybody tried to use the Unix Frontpage systems? I'd rather not throw up an NT box just to do FrontPage stuff for my clients.
The last time I looked, Unix FrontPage was a major security risk.
I was about to say the same thing, but thought I'd read what other people had posted first, just in case.
I think that people have to remember the roots of Linux....Unix. If you forget your roots, and where you came from, you are bound to fail.
I agree. If companies don't learn from the community backlash, then maybe a harsher lesson is needed.
When will these people learn? I hope they are expecting a HUGE backlash from the community!
As for making money off of it... its GPL'd. How can a hacker make any money off of it?
As for the first comment... work on GPL software is usually done by individuals, who can then re-publish the work with their new features. Another person can then take that code, and add there own bit, etc. How is this different than the original proposal, except for the fact that the original developer wants some control over the source?
But,
1) I don't want them to be able to give the source or binaries to others.
2) I want them to be able modify source for thier own use.
3) I want them to return any mods to me, for possible inclusion into the next release.
In return,
1) I promise to never charge for an upgrade that they contributed to.
2) will list them as contributors.
3) If I 'go under' the software becomes GPL.
4) will continue to give source.
I also want he software to be free for 'Open Source' projects, and $$$ for 'Closed Source' projects.
What type of license would cover this?
Does this make me scum for not going GPL (or otherwise)?
Lets make sure we compare apples to apples. Oracle does more than MySQL. I'm not saying its better. I'm a postgres user myself.
I think that layer 4 switching is the way to go. Automatic load balancing between multiple servers. Server failover support (if a server goes down, it no longer gets requests).
We will be evaluating some shortly... we'll see how it goes.
Wine implements most of the Win32 API. Have you tried to compile your program under Linux with the Wine libs?
My twin brother and I have tested a similar product in Comdex, 2 - 3 years ago. We are identical twins, but 'cultivate' a different look with different hairstyles.
The system shown at Comdex could not be fooled by us, even when we came back the next day, with 'swapped' looks (I looked like my bro did the day before, etc).
Nifty stuff.
A company I used to work for in the past has been burned by this as well. The contract did not stipulate any interim deliverables (for testing), or even that the program had to work. I then had to fix the software, a 4 month, 12 hour a day, 6 days a week (no paid overtime) process.
In my view, the fault was twofold..
1) shitty contractors
2) shitty contract created by management.
Sure, almost everybody wants to become a self employed consultant/contractor, and stop working for 'the man'.
But, how does one go about getting the first few crucial contracts, BEFORE you have a contracting history to draw from?
The article says that they plan to use the Linux kernel. Theres no mention of using any of the GNU programs or X or anything like that, just the kernel. So, it may not even run standard Linux binaries.
I have to agree here. If someone can show me how to make money with Open Source/Free Software, then please tell me how. I can't figure it out.