Blackberry, on the other hand, is a company that once bought QNX because they though having a really good kernel would save their product. Users don't see or care about kernels. Remember this lesson. Now, there is essentially nothing but QNX left of Blackberry.
Well, you're not really asking that the system never have priority over the user. You're asking that your interactive task have priority over everything else. The system is responsible for reading what you type on the keyboard, for example, so in that case the system should have a very high priority so that it can service your interactive task.
I suspect that what is bothering you is a process that is blocked on I/O, or your computer is starved for resources and swapping (which means everything gets blocked on I/O).
Ultimately this comes down to the system attempting to keep all of the promises it's already made to you. Most of the time these promises are buffered writes which it has in RAM, and is pushing to your really slow USB drive or SD card as fast as it can. You interrupt it, but this does not interrupt the promises already made.
Ultimately the fix is adding more expensive hardware, like a disk that won't make you wait.
SpaceX made it clear on day one that their vehicle performed "nominally", as they say, and nobody credible has been contradicting them. The inquiry is normal for this sort of failure. And the Air Force gave them 290 Million for launching 3 more GPS satellites last month, without waiting for the results of this inquiry.
Surplus places come and go, and obviously eBay has taken a lot of business. I'll miss Weird Stuff, where I actually bought evidence for Google's defense in Oracle v. Google - copies of Sun software that cloned other companies APIs. HSC will probably close if nobody wants to buy it. And that is close to the end for Silicon Valley surplus.
I enjoyed a visit to Skycraft when I was in Florida for Hamcation and the Falcon 9 Heavy launch. Mendolson's in Dayton is also worth seeing, make time for that and the Air Force Museum if you go to Hamvention.
But the one I'll never forget was a little hole in the wall on Long Island called Community Electronics. Went there on the bus from Lido Beach before I had a driver's license. There was always a story that Tom, the proprietor, actually supported the company from some entirely different business activity that you weren't supposed to ask about. We also had Barry electronics and Edlie.
OK so you're saying that threads are a better concurrency model than promises on certain OSes? Let's hear why you think that.
We should start with the point that not everything that should have promises does, and it will take another couple iterations of the Javascript standard to get there.
Javascript I/O programming creates a hidden state machine. Threading makes it obvious what the states are and what their order is. Implementing a state machine in a switch statement generally does this too, although it's not enforced. Implementing them in promises gives you a state machine where the last state is the innermost block, or you refer to them by name instead of using immediate blocks and then it's a directed graph with no obvious or enforced order.
I don't really have a problem with promises as an I/O paradigm, it's the fact that it's harder to understand the code by reading it from the first line to the last than it would be with threading or even with most well-written state machines in switch statements.
I once interviewed a programming candidate, sent to me by a recruiter, who had only programmed in JOVIAL for his whole career and only wanted to program in JOVIAL for the rest of his career. I guess my business didn't matter much to that recruiter.
Most of the really good programmers can learn a new language on the plane to their new gig.
Why are you talking so much about JavaScript when the story is about ruby?
Because I am one of those boring, pedantic people who insist on actually reading all of the way to the third sentence of the story,
which said this:
The JavaScript framework Node.js, for instance, has become popular as it requires less memory to deal with numerous connections because of its callback functions...
I wonder about people who find Nawmal videos entertaining. To give you some background on that, I hate having meetings on text chat servers because everyone else types really slowly. Similarly, watching two CG talking heads go through a dialogue, and in a monotone, is incredibly tedious for me because I could read the same dialogue much more quickly and I expect more inflection in speech. And probably because I worked at Pixar and its predecessor for 19 years, I have much higher standards for CG entertainment.
That said, I get the point that some things scale better. But it doesn't really matter, because some things that don't scale nearly as well are still fast enough.
And whoever is comparing Apache and Node doesn't understand that Apache has its own internal event-driven I/O system, and had before Node was born. It just uses select() or poll(). I suspect this is also true for MySQL.
Event-driven I/O is a good idea. It happens that Node already has a good one because it's a web standard, and it inherits it from Chrome along with the rest of Javascript. However, event-driven I/O is easily done in C, Ruby, Python, Java, anything that supports coroutines. Many of these languages also support lambdas, anonymous blocks, and closures. Yes, even C++ has lambdas and will have futures (like closures) in the next standard. The syntax for them is sort of clunky next to Ruby.
C programmers haven't just learned about select() and poll(), they've had them for a long time. These allow them event semantics on the existing Unix I/O primitives and you can build an event I/O library on top of them.
Javascript doesn't really offer all of the desirable features of modern programming languages. After all, the goal was for it to look like C. We'll end up with a nicer language with a first-class event-driven I/O library and no native I/O.
I learned how fruitless going your own way was when I worked for HP. Around 2000, they budgeted a Billion dollars to add IPV6 to HP-UX. This was of course completely insane.
Then I had Symbian for a consulting customer. And they were really adamant that the Symbian OS was their strong point and really all of the value in their company, and they had just spent a similarly astronomical amount to put IPV6 in it. I suggested they port their GUI to Linux, but it turned out their GUI came from SONY or they had more than one and didn't like any of them. Of course I watched the Symbian ship sink, unable to convince them to do anything to save themselves.
Ultimately, systems programming is not what sells your hardware. What sells it is only what the customer sees, and that's the GUI, the application software, some hardware features but not most of them, and the performance (so your OS should not be slow or crash, because the customer sees that).
So, it makes the most sense for a business to get all of its systems programming from the source that is the best and requires the least extra work - like porting - and then move all of the dollars saved to stuff the customer sees.
If it costs you more to use BSD rather than just getting your GPL compliance in order, you lose.
Consultant - private BSD is not a model used extensively, most companies are still using Linux and other GPL software regardless of what they feel about the terms, simply because it has what they need and it's more mature with a larger development community. And by the way, this has nothing to do with religion and its offensive for you to imply that it does.
Even if they publish the source, it won't include drivers, so it isn't like you will be able to compile and use it.
Actually, they are obligated to provide the drivers. Some people (never me) used to think that dynamically linking device drivers protected them from the GPL. But besides the other arguments that dynamic linking is not protective, we've just had the Oracle v. Google case declare that APIs are copyrightable, overturning what we thought we knew for 20 years from CAI v. Altai. One effect of this new court precedent is that it doesn't matter how you link, it's using the API that makes your code a derivative work.
Of course some future case could change this - and in general Free Software folks have good reasons not to want APIs to be copyrightable. But you can take that decision to court and win your infringement case, and most likely the folks you charge don't want to argue this up to the Supreme court rather than release their device driver.
If you violate the GPL, what you are charged with is making unlicensed copies. The thing everyone gets wrong about that is that the license then becomes your defense and you have to prove that you were complying with the license, in order to defend yourself. And of course if you've been brought to court over this, you probably can't.
I really do charge companies to fix their GPL violations. Many of them have looked at the cost and decided to keep violating. I can't, unfortunately, tell you who they are. But if you don't believe that their infringement is wilful, I can tell you for sure that many companies are wilful infringers.
Well, your question isn't all that clear. If you mean should the QSDK and OpenWRT people be paid, technically they could demand monetary damages but the community principles that most of them adhere to say they prioritize compliance over damages. An developer support organization like SFLC may ask for some damages for the purpose of supporting its own activities.
If you are asking if their own employees and consultants should be paid, they usually are. But the cost, even with the source code distribution necessary for license compliance, is very small compared to making your own kernel. You can buy a proprietary kernel, but in general they aren't as good and they can be very costly. For example you can get Nucleus. Which supposedly is good enough to support nuclear plants, but if you want modern networking facilities, you may have to pay big bucks for them to be added.
A lot of people get this wrong. If you redistribute GPL code, you are responsible to redistribute the source code too. Directly, and even if you never modified anything. You can't point to anyone else's web site because those people aren't obligated to keep their web sites going to satisfy your license obligation.
Sorry, Martin, it really is unlicensed copying that is the violation. The way it works is when you violate the license, the copyright holder (plaintiff) goes to court and says "the defendant is infringing my copyright by making unlicensed copies". The defendant answers with their defense: "I am not violating copyright because I have a license". The plaintiff then shows all of the ways that the defendant is not honoring the license terms, and thus demonstrates that the act of copying was unlicensed and that for the defendant, all rights were reserved and are thus being infringed. The tort is making unlicensed copies.
There isn't really a BSD distribution comparable to OpenWRT. I suspect the BSD license is one reason for that. A lot of people don't want to spend their free time producing corporate welfare. If a corporation wants to participate, they expect the corporation to return value to the Free Software community.
Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry, on the other hand, is a company that once bought QNX because they though having a really good kernel would save their product. Users don't see or care about kernels. Remember this lesson. Now, there is essentially nothing but QNX left of Blackberry.
Make sure to read the chapter on the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
Well, you're not really asking that the system never have priority over the user. You're asking that your interactive task have priority over everything else. The system is responsible for reading what you type on the keyboard, for example, so in that case the system should have a very high priority so that it can service your interactive task.
I suspect that what is bothering you is a process that is blocked on I/O, or your computer is starved for resources and swapping (which means everything gets blocked on I/O).
Ultimately this comes down to the system attempting to keep all of the promises it's already made to you. Most of the time these promises are buffered writes which it has in RAM, and is pushing to your really slow USB drive or SD card as fast as it can. You interrupt it, but this does not interrupt the promises already made.
Ultimately the fix is adding more expensive hardware, like a disk that won't make you wait.
SpaceX made it clear on day one that their vehicle performed "nominally", as they say, and nobody credible has been contradicting them. The inquiry is normal for this sort of failure. And the Air Force gave them 290 Million for launching 3 more GPS satellites last month, without waiting for the results of this inquiry.
Surplus places come and go, and obviously eBay has taken a lot of business. I'll miss Weird Stuff, where I actually bought evidence for Google's defense in Oracle v. Google - copies of Sun software that cloned other companies APIs. HSC will probably close if nobody wants to buy it. And that is close to the end for Silicon Valley surplus.
I enjoyed a visit to Skycraft when I was in Florida for Hamcation and the Falcon 9 Heavy launch. Mendolson's in Dayton is also worth seeing, make time for that and the Air Force Museum if you go to Hamvention.
But the one I'll never forget was a little hole in the wall on Long Island called Community Electronics. Went there on the bus from Lido Beach before I had a driver's license. There was always a story that Tom, the proprietor, actually supported the company from some entirely different business activity that you weren't supposed to ask about. We also had Barry electronics and Edlie.
I don't just read about Javascript. I am quite competent in writing it.
I wasn't, and async/await does look more like threading (and maybe brings back the overhead of at least a lightweight thread, too).
We should start with the point that not everything that should have promises does, and it will take another couple iterations of the Javascript standard to get there.
Javascript I/O programming creates a hidden state machine. Threading makes it obvious what the states are and what their order is. Implementing a state machine in a switch statement generally does this too, although it's not enforced. Implementing them in promises gives you a state machine where the last state is the innermost block, or you refer to them by name instead of using immediate blocks and then it's a directed graph with no obvious or enforced order.
I don't really have a problem with promises as an I/O paradigm, it's the fact that it's harder to understand the code by reading it from the first line to the last than it would be with threading or even with most well-written state machines in switch statements.
I am sure we can solve this all with syntax.
I would definitely use Node if I was serving WebRTC. There aren't that many other solutions.
I wonder how many of those folks understand that they're actually programming a state machine. Which we have had forever.
I once interviewed a programming candidate, sent to me by a recruiter, who had only programmed in JOVIAL for his whole career and only wanted to program in JOVIAL for the rest of his career. I guess my business didn't matter much to that recruiter.
Most of the really good programmers can learn a new language on the plane to their new gig.
Because I am one of those boring, pedantic people who insist on actually reading all of the way to the third sentence of the story, which said this:
I wonder about people who find Nawmal videos entertaining. To give you some background on that, I hate having meetings on text chat servers because everyone else types really slowly. Similarly, watching two CG talking heads go through a dialogue, and in a monotone, is incredibly tedious for me because I could read the same dialogue much more quickly and I expect more inflection in speech. And probably because I worked at Pixar and its predecessor for 19 years, I have much higher standards for CG entertainment.
That said, I get the point that some things scale better. But it doesn't really matter, because some things that don't scale nearly as well are still fast enough.
And whoever is comparing Apache and Node doesn't understand that Apache has its own internal event-driven I/O system, and had before Node was born. It just uses select() or poll(). I suspect this is also true for MySQL.
Event-driven I/O is a good idea. It happens that Node already has a good one because it's a web standard, and it inherits it from Chrome along with the rest of Javascript. However, event-driven I/O is easily done in C, Ruby, Python, Java, anything that supports coroutines. Many of these languages also support lambdas, anonymous blocks, and closures. Yes, even C++ has lambdas and will have futures (like closures) in the next standard. The syntax for them is sort of clunky next to Ruby.
C programmers haven't just learned about select() and poll(), they've had them for a long time. These allow them event semantics on the existing Unix I/O primitives and you can build an event I/O library on top of them.
Javascript doesn't really offer all of the desirable features of modern programming languages. After all, the goal was for it to look like C. We'll end up with a nicer language with a first-class event-driven I/O library and no native I/O.
I learned how fruitless going your own way was when I worked for HP. Around 2000, they budgeted a Billion dollars to add IPV6 to HP-UX. This was of course completely insane.
Then I had Symbian for a consulting customer. And they were really adamant that the Symbian OS was their strong point and really all of the value in their company, and they had just spent a similarly astronomical amount to put IPV6 in it. I suggested they port their GUI to Linux, but it turned out their GUI came from SONY or they had more than one and didn't like any of them. Of course I watched the Symbian ship sink, unable to convince them to do anything to save themselves.
Ultimately, systems programming is not what sells your hardware. What sells it is only what the customer sees, and that's the GUI, the application software, some hardware features but not most of them, and the performance (so your OS should not be slow or crash, because the customer sees that).
So, it makes the most sense for a business to get all of its systems programming from the source that is the best and requires the least extra work - like porting - and then move all of the dollars saved to stuff the customer sees.
If it costs you more to use BSD rather than just getting your GPL compliance in order, you lose.
No significant cost. Take it easy.
Consultant - private BSD is not a model used extensively, most companies are still using Linux and other GPL software regardless of what they feel about the terms, simply because it has what they need and it's more mature with a larger development community. And by the way, this has nothing to do with religion and its offensive for you to imply that it does.
Just in case anyone didn't already realize, this AC is wrong :-)
Actually, they are obligated to provide the drivers. Some people (never me) used to think that dynamically linking device drivers protected them from the GPL. But besides the other arguments that dynamic linking is not protective, we've just had the Oracle v. Google case declare that APIs are copyrightable, overturning what we thought we knew for 20 years from CAI v. Altai. One effect of this new court precedent is that it doesn't matter how you link, it's using the API that makes your code a derivative work.
Of course some future case could change this - and in general Free Software folks have good reasons not to want APIs to be copyrightable. But you can take that decision to court and win your infringement case, and most likely the folks you charge don't want to argue this up to the Supreme court rather than release their device driver.
If you violate the GPL, what you are charged with is making unlicensed copies. The thing everyone gets wrong about that is that the license then becomes your defense and you have to prove that you were complying with the license, in order to defend yourself. And of course if you've been brought to court over this, you probably can't.
I really do charge companies to fix their GPL violations. Many of them have looked at the cost and decided to keep violating. I can't, unfortunately, tell you who they are. But if you don't believe that their infringement is wilful, I can tell you for sure that many companies are wilful infringers.
Well, your question isn't all that clear. If you mean should the QSDK and OpenWRT people be paid, technically they could demand monetary damages but the community principles that most of them adhere to say they prioritize compliance over damages. An developer support organization like SFLC may ask for some damages for the purpose of supporting its own activities.
If you are asking if their own employees and consultants should be paid, they usually are. But the cost, even with the source code distribution necessary for license compliance, is very small compared to making your own kernel. You can buy a proprietary kernel, but in general they aren't as good and they can be very costly. For example you can get Nucleus. Which supposedly is good enough to support nuclear plants, but if you want modern networking facilities, you may have to pay big bucks for them to be added.
I guess everyone on Slashdot knows better, but taking legal advice from Anonymous Coward is considered harmful :-)
A lot of people get this wrong. If you redistribute GPL code, you are responsible to redistribute the source code too. Directly, and even if you never modified anything. You can't point to anyone else's web site because those people aren't obligated to keep their web sites going to satisfy your license obligation.
Sorry, Martin, it really is unlicensed copying that is the violation. The way it works is when you violate the license, the copyright holder (plaintiff) goes to court and says "the defendant is infringing my copyright by making unlicensed copies". The defendant answers with their defense: "I am not violating copyright because I have a license". The plaintiff then shows all of the ways that the defendant is not honoring the license terms, and thus demonstrates that the act of copying was unlicensed and that for the defendant, all rights were reserved and are thus being infringed. The tort is making unlicensed copies.
There isn't really a BSD distribution comparable to OpenWRT. I suspect the BSD license is one reason for that. A lot of people don't want to spend their free time producing corporate welfare. If a corporation wants to participate, they expect the corporation to return value to the Free Software community.