Don't worry Bible also said: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Mathew 19:23-24)
BTW, Bono, Bill & Melinda Gates Are Persons of the Year. Why single out Bill?
We are not intentionally introducing "noise factors" or any other perturbations in the style the proposed theory suggests to affect near-term or long-term revenues.
I know it's not quite as exciting, but our model is pretty simple. We want our users to have the most relevant possible content, so we work really hard on an on-going basis to optimize end-user perceived quality. We want our advertisers to have a great return on their investment spent with us...
I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.
As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:
1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.
The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.
While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.
MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.
2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. Wh
"We need very efficient solar panels for the hydrogen economy to start."
If we have efficient solar panels, we should replace all those fossil fuels power plants first, and then replace those nuclear power plants. Hydrogen still have storage problems to solve.
The problem is a lot of people, journalist included, simply don't know what science is.
In short, it't about scientific method:
1. Characterization
2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
Read more from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi c_method
The music industry can make more than enough money from Live performance! Recorded music should be "free". (they can change for the media, but you can make copy). CD and internet P2P music swap should works like Radio, MTV etc as free publicity , advertisement for their real product, Live Performance!
This isn't really new idea. Open source software is free and programmer can still make money because business need programmer to customize software for their special need.
GPL kind of free software does NOT give you (the user) freedom. It force you to do thing their way. OTOH, Public domain give you freedom. No if and or but.
While I'm not saying that GPL kind of "freedom" is bad or anything. RMS surely have the right to promote his agenda and all. The point is GPL does not give YOU freedom.
They believe "Life begin at conception". Since cloning don't involve conception at all, there should be no problem right? OTOH, how come a lot of people again abortion also against cloning???
IMHO, the idea of "Life begin at conception" is dead! Anyone have better idea?
You can always serialize a set of objects into xml. Now, how to use that xml without the original code is left as an exercise for reader. In that case, most likely you need a bug for bug compatible MSOffice clone.
1. There is always the choice of using the old license, so a new GPL can only remove restrictions on the old code, never create more restrictions.
Users have the choice. You the author don't! May be I don't want less restrictions. Do you like BSD?
2. The FSF sends a contract to everyone who donates code, which guareentees that the code will remain free. The contract is almost as detailed about this as the GPL, and leave _very_ little room for changes.
Sure, but what kind of _free_? GPL vs BSD vs SCSL vs OSI vs Artistic vs MPL etc. Some people have very strong feeling against some of them. If you don't like say Artistic lic. but GPL v3 become Artistic-like. There is nothing you (the author) can do. The user can pick GPL v2 or v3. Can't terminate the lic. either!
If you feel strongly about the difference between GPL, BSD, MIT, SCSL, MPL etc licences, you should not use GPL as is. At lease specify GPL v2 only. FROM GPL v2: 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. So GPL v3+ could be something similar to SCSL or worse. Point is GPL v3+ can be anything! You, as author, have no control over it. Sure, you can release a new version of your software under another licence. There is no termination in GPL, therefore people can chose to use GPL v3+ on the existing version of your software even if you object to its terms!
If you are Bill G., do you know how to buy Linux? Buy RMS!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry Bible also said:
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Mathew 19:23-24)
BTW, Bono, Bill & Melinda Gates Are Persons of the Year. Why single out Bill?
google already answered that:
. html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051013
So I ran their conclusions by Jeff Huber at Google, who is in charge of engineering for AdWords. I asked a simple question: Is that what you were doing?
"In short, no," said Jeff.
We are not intentionally introducing "noise factors" or any other perturbations in the style the proposed theory suggests to affect near-term or long-term revenues.
I know it's not quite as exciting, but our model is pretty simple. We want our users to have the most relevant possible content, so we work really hard on an on-going basis to optimize end-user perceived quality. We want our advertisers to have a great return on their investment spent with us...
"..15000 @ 0.15 clicks per day he is paying $1500,- a day in advertising that is $547.500 per year.."
It was an experiment. Since he finish it in 36 days , it was an $50,000 experiment.
Are you suggest google will do something funny for $140??
I know google do send out a lot of checks for amount larger than that.
Like Cringely already pointed out: "...for most AdWords users who are probably making plenty of money from their campaigns otherwise -- as we now know from Nash -- they wouldn't be doing it at all."
In reality "invalid clicks" is a real problem for google. I can't tell what happened to your site. May be a friend being too helpful? Or enemy...
Paul
This is not the whole story! That Sept 22 article was old. People should read the follow up articles from October before comment?
. html. html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051006
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051013
Here is the message from 1992:
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!...@cs.vu. nl
From: a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: LINUX is obsolete
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Jan 92 12:12:50 GMT
Sender: n...@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Lines: 76
I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the
evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars,
revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.
As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:
1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.
The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.
While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.
MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.
2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. Wh
"There isn't any violation, technically, but IMHO the spirit of the GPL has been broken."
In that case, GPL is the one that is broken.
Paul
Remember EGCS was forked out of GCC 2.x. It was so much better that the "main line" GCC, EGCS become GCC 3.0.
"We need very efficient solar panels for the hydrogen economy to start."
If we have efficient solar panels, we should replace all those fossil fuels power plants first,
and then replace those nuclear power plants.
Hydrogen still have storage problems to solve.
The problem is a lot of people, journalist included, simply don't know what science is.
i c_method
In short, it't about scientific method:
1. Characterization
2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
Read more from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientif
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel /0408.3/0494.html
>Subject: silent semantic changes with reiser4
>From: Hans Reiser
>Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 13:32:17 EST
>I allowed myself to get talked out of a final top >to bottom code audit, and obviously that was a >mistake.
>It will probably take about 6 weeks. Apologies >for wasting your time before that was done.
>Hans
What was the first one rated?
Unrated in the US but only 14A in Canada. I guess anime nudity and violence don't count.
From IMDB:
Certification: Argentina:16 / Australia:M / Brazil:14 / Canada:14A / Finland:K-12 (video premiere) / France:-12 / Germany:16 / Sweden:15 / Switzerland:12 (canton of Geneva) / Switzerland:12 (canton of Vaud) / UK:15 / USA:Unrated
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113568/
The Music Industry can make all the money from Live performance. Now the _Recording_ Industry is becoming irrelevant.
The music industry can make more than enough money from Live performance! Recorded music should be "free". (they can change for the media, but you can make copy). CD and internet P2P music swap should works like Radio, MTV etc as free publicity , advertisement for their real product, Live Performance!
This isn't really new idea. Open source software is free and programmer can still make money because business need programmer to customize software for their special need.
GPL kind of free software does NOT give you (the user) freedom. It force you to do thing their way. OTOH, Public domain give you freedom. No if and or but.
While I'm not saying that GPL kind of "freedom" is bad or anything. RMS surely have the right to promote his agenda and all. The point is GPL does not give YOU freedom.
Paul
They believe "Life begin at conception".
Since cloning don't involve conception at all, there should be no problem right?
OTOH, how come a lot of people again abortion also against cloning???
IMHO, the idea of "Life begin at conception" is dead! Anyone have better idea?
We all know GPL is a virus, but is UNIX a virus too?
If that is the case, SCO might have a point...
http://www.arm.com/aboutarm/milestones?OpenDocumen t
"ARM announces that it has shipped over 1 billion of its microprocessor cores to date"
You can always serialize a set of objects into xml. Now, how to use that xml without the original code is left as an exercise for reader. In that case, most likely you need a bug for bug compatible MSOffice clone.
What is glibc 2.2.90? Something like gcc 2.96??
OK. It's rename to httpd...
No Apache at all! No 2.0. Not even 1.3.x !?
Everybody know the good guy eat BigMac and drink Coke!
No I didn't.
1. There is always the choice of using the old license, so a new GPL can only remove restrictions on the old code, never create more restrictions.
Users have the choice. You the author don't! May be I don't want less restrictions. Do you like BSD?
2. The FSF sends a contract to everyone who donates code, which guareentees that the code will remain free. The contract is almost as detailed about this as the GPL, and leave _very_ little room for changes.
Sure, but what kind of _free_? GPL vs BSD vs SCSL vs OSI vs Artistic vs MPL etc. Some people have very strong feeling against some of them.
If you don't like say Artistic lic. but GPL v3 become Artistic-like. There is nothing you (the author) can do. The user can pick GPL v2 or v3. Can't terminate the lic. either!
Do you know how to buy Linux? Buy RMS!
FROM GPL v2:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So GPL v3+ could be something similar to SCSL or worse. Point is GPL v3+ can be anything! You, as author, have no control over it. Sure, you can release a new version of your software under another licence. There is no termination in GPL, therefore people can chose to use GPL v3+ on the existing version of your software even if you object to its terms!
If you are Bill G., do you know how to buy Linux? Buy RMS!