(Note : I'm talking about french agencies, it might not be true everywhere. But I suspect most european countries are following those lines too.)
here in Peru they ask the same things: "open standards, evolutivity, free (as in beer) libraries, maximum portability, and connectivity";
but... this is an extract taken from their dictionary:
'standards' = windows 'evolutivity' = XP!.Net!, XML! (yes, with exclamation points they hear better) 'free' = 'i can get a CD for S/. 5' (that's five soles, less than 2 US dollars) 'portability' = ?? 'conectivity' = IE.
now guess why i don't do web development.
Re:Enough MySQL
on
PHP Cookbook
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Because it's easy, fast, and 'real' enough for the vast majority of quick webpages.
just like PHP
if you want a big, complex, very scalable website; it might be better to go with java, for everything else (>90% of cases, i'm sure) it's easier to do it with PHP.
just the same; if you want a heavy duty database, with lots of concurrent updates, and/or triggers, stored procedures and so... well you can do it with Postgres or mortgage your house and use Oracle. for everything else, it's easier, quicker; and usually faster to use MySQL
Instead of mechanical relays, use electroinc analog switches, like the easily found 4066. cleaner, less power, no need of buffer transistors. maybe you'd have to use a transistor to match the LED output to the CMOS logic, but that's easier than driving a relay.
Since Soyus is so bumpy, they always have custom-built recliners.
It wasn't a case of 'These are whiny americans, let's give 'em special seats'
have you seen the seats in a soyuz? really smart, they let your body wistand far greater g-forces than the 'lay on your back' american chairs, and fit in almost half the space. that's part of why they were able to land on dry ground with just a few parachutes on the capsule, instead of a big plane-like ship, or dropping the thing to the sea.
Unfortunately, they're so thight, i think would be very uncomfortable if not custom-built for every cosmonaut. There have one-size-fits-all models for emergency lifeboats too, but i wouldn't be surprised if there was a risk of minor damage to leg arteries or muscles.
I'm sure there has to be prior art on web advertising; almost as sure that some of those are as complicated as the one described on the patent.
But it really doesn't matter; since it's the obvious way to do it! Newspapers, magazines, tv stations, everbody who makes a living from advertising does this kind of 'bidding for ad space' one way or another. Just give an overview of the traditional method to ANY half-competent web developer and he'll come up with this 'patented' method in less than 10 minutes.
Why has the USPTO forgotten about the 'non obvious' part of their requirements? Maybe it's non-obvious to a patent clerck, but he/she should consult with somebody 'competent on the art' isn't that in the guidelines for a patent?
That's exactly why they're embracing XML as a document format. After that, they'll extend it... you know their tried-and-true tactic of 'embrace and extend' but this time, the 'extend' half is endorsed by the very name of the technology they're embracing!
Would that make the 'extend' part so trivial that it wouldn't matter? or so innocent-looking that we won't be able to defend ourselves?
Has anybody seen the XML documents produced by Office 11?
To all of the above posters saying things like "why QuickTime when {DivX | MPEG4 | Ogg Tarkin | AVI} is so much {better | smaller | easier | open} ?" I'll tell you two things:
1: When editing video you want the LEAST compression possible. BIG files are a PLUS. That's why this guy uses DV encoded files, it's the same compression done by his camera, so he loses nothing while capturing and editing.
2: QuickTime isn't a compression, not even a file format, it's a software architecture. When he picked his camera, the choice of compression was made for him (DV), and when he chose the NLE (Cinestream), the file format was fixed (mov, quicktime's native format)
This isn't about viewing video clips on the 'net, for that he'd reencode as MPEG4 after having his master tape.
Just connect everthing together, but mount it on only one machine at a time. be sure to unmount it before mounting it on the other.
on a logical level, it's exactly the same as unplugging it from one machine and plugging it on the other.
you could also mount it r/o on more than one machine, but remember to unmount it from everyone before remounting r/w on anyone.
Of course, the real thing would be to use one of the few cluster filesystems out there, GFS, MFS, or the Oracle thing. Those supposedly solve the problem of keeping the directory structures in consistent and in sync.
FreeBSD is widely acclaimed as a very portable kernel. One of these ports was to the Mach microkernel; called the 'BSD server'. In micokernel architectures are called servers and this particular process 'serves' the BSD API, so user level processes can pretend that that big process is just a monolithic kernel. There was also a 'BSD multiserver', roghly similar to the Hurd, but composed of lots of fragments of original FreeBSD code.
The original NeXT machines ran a Mach microkernel on 68020 cpus, and a FreeBSD monoserver; therefore, it's just a version of FreeBSD, but with a Mach below it.
there's also MkLinux and L4Linux, would you say those aren't Linux just because there's a microkernel below it?
Completely right; I should've said 'for existing x86 software'. Both x86-64 and this proposal are extensions to this (old) architecture, won't benefit old programs.
on the other hand register renaming does work its magic transparently to existing software.
Register renaming already does what's being proposed here, but transparently. In fact, most of the instructions reordering done by a good optimizing compiler (and later by the out-of-order dispatching unit) aims to increase paralelism on register usage.
Of course RISC processors are so much nicer to work with because of their large, flat register files (at least 16 or 32 registers, all of them equally usable), but that's not possible with existing x86 architecture.
P4 processors have 128 registers available for register renaming, using all of them is not so easy, so Hyperthreading (still only on Xeon) tries to bring in two different processes to the intruction mix, keeping their renaming maps separate, so the dispatching unit has more noncolliding instructions ready for execution. This won't make one CPU as fast as 2, but it does keep that insanely deep pipeline from getting filled with bubbles (or would that be 'empty of instructions' ?)
it does have a snapshot command (haven't used it myself), but it needs to first 'freeze' the filesystem; during that time, all writes go to the journal file, and get only committed when it's 'unfreezed'
but it wouldn't do a file rollback, it's mostly for directory backups, block dumps and media management (via LVM).
set up a daemon looking at new files (use fam, of course) and create a hard link on a mirror directory as soon as they're created. When the file is unlink()ed, it won't be deleted since there's still another link to it. Add a cron job that scans the mirror directory and moves any file with a link count of 1 to the 'just deleted' folder. the rest is routine, hourly/dayly/weekly rotations, old ones really deleted, etc.
I'm not talking about propietary OS, not even about propietary software. The trouble and the big lock-in is the propetary FILE FORMATS and PROTOCOLS.
That means that once the software has been used for a while, and the users don't care about the format used to save documets, they won't change because they fear they won't be able to use old documents.
And the worst offender by far is MS Word. Changing it's format with every version, just to make everybody upgrage to the last and slowest, only to be able to read other people's documents.
Here in Peru, the response from M$ to the Open Source proposal was not only the easily rebutted FUD letter. There was also a 'donation' of computers and software to the schools. All free, of course... for 5 years. after that, we'll have to pay for the priviledge of being locked-in with the propietary formats.
And the same line: "Since it's a donation, there was no public bidding", and it will make impossible to apply the OpenSource law (if it would be approved).
How can we escape? having no money is no longer a defense from being robbed
I've read the proposed law. It would (if approved) prevent to use propietary software in government-funded systems.
That's why I don't think it has a chance to be approved.
If it just made the requirement to use open format documents and protocols, then maybe (just maybe) it could be approved.
The problem with our third-world politics is that politicians are as ignorant as any one in the world, but our 'intelectuals' are far more arrogant and progressive than on rich countries. That makes a HUGE distance between what some groups propose and what finally gets to the congress. Further distorted by the media, and finally misunderstood by the people.
And, being poor, the deepest pockets and most publicited 'donations' are what get the most attention. Guess who was here 'giving' computers and software to the schools?
First: i'm a Peruvian, and I'd love to see my government use open source software, but I don't have any hopes (even less now that Billy G. has bought the education ministry for just 0.5 mill).
No matter how much better Open Source software is, i think it's foolish to make the busisness model a requirement for a government. "The best tool for the job" should be the main criteria.
(Of course, most of the time the really best tool is open source, especially for network infrastructure)
But what REALLY should be a requirement is to use only open file formats and open protocols to store, file and transfer every document.
I'd like to make it illegal the lock-in tactics used by M$ to perpetuate MSWord; but it's foolish not to trash any software that refuses to share with other systems.
Slashdot Mirror
not sad... i thought just the same!
here in Peru they ask the same things: "open standards, evolutivity, free (as in beer) libraries, maximum portability, and connectivity";
but... this is an extract taken from their dictionary:
'standards' = windows
'evolutivity' = XP!
'free' = 'i can get a CD for S/. 5' (that's five soles, less than 2 US dollars)
'portability' = ??
'conectivity' = IE.
now guess why i don't do web development.
Because it's easy, fast, and 'real' enough for the vast majority of quick webpages.
just like PHP
if you want a big, complex, very scalable website; it might be better to go with java, for everything else (>90% of cases, i'm sure) it's easier to do it with PHP.
just the same; if you want a heavy duty database, with lots of concurrent updates, and/or triggers, stored procedures and so... well you can do it with Postgres or mortgage your house and use Oracle. for everything else, it's easier, quicker; and usually faster to use MySQL
Right!! OpenMosix is the solution.
Using MFS, you can just have one pool of disks, memory, cpu's and the processes will migrate to the data; instead of copying the data around.
Great system, once you settle on one version of the kernel (have to be the same on all machines)
Instead of mechanical relays, use electroinc analog switches, like the easily found 4066. cleaner, less power, no need of buffer transistors. maybe you'd have to use a transistor to match the LED output to the CMOS logic, but that's easier than driving a relay.
Since Soyus is so bumpy, they always have custom-built recliners.
It wasn't a case of 'These are whiny americans, let's give 'em special seats'
have you seen the seats in a soyuz? really smart, they let your body wistand far greater g-forces than the 'lay on your back' american chairs, and fit in almost half the space. that's part of why they were able to land on dry ground with just a few parachutes on the capsule, instead of a big plane-like ship, or dropping the thing to the sea.
Unfortunately, they're so thight, i think would be very uncomfortable if not custom-built for every cosmonaut. There have one-size-fits-all models for emergency lifeboats too, but i wouldn't be surprised if there was a risk of minor damage to leg arteries or muscles.
That's exactly the point!
I'm sure there has to be prior art on web advertising; almost as sure that some of those are as complicated as the one described on the patent.
But it really doesn't matter; since it's the obvious way to do it! Newspapers, magazines, tv stations, everbody who makes a living from advertising does this kind of 'bidding for ad space' one way or another. Just give an overview of the traditional method to ANY half-competent web developer and he'll come up with this 'patented' method in less than 10 minutes.
Why has the USPTO forgotten about the 'non obvious' part of their requirements? Maybe it's non-obvious to a patent clerck, but he/she should consult with somebody 'competent on the art' isn't that in the guidelines for a patent?
That's exactly why they're embracing XML as a document format. After that, they'll extend it... you know their tried-and-true tactic of 'embrace and extend' but this time, the 'extend' half is endorsed by the very name of the technology they're embracing!
Would that make the 'extend' part so trivial that it wouldn't matter? or so innocent-looking that we won't be able to defend ourselves?
Has anybody seen the XML documents produced by Office 11?
To all of the above posters saying things like "why QuickTime when {DivX | MPEG4 | Ogg Tarkin | AVI} is so much {better | smaller | easier | open} ?" I'll tell you two things:
1: When editing video you want the LEAST compression possible. BIG files are a PLUS. That's why this guy uses DV encoded files, it's the same compression done by his camera, so he loses nothing while capturing and editing.
2: QuickTime isn't a compression, not even a file format, it's a software architecture. When he picked his camera, the choice of compression was made for him (DV), and when he chose the NLE (Cinestream), the file format was fixed (mov, quicktime's native format)
This isn't about viewing video clips on the 'net, for that he'd reencode as MPEG4 after having his master tape.
Now called SMS, but the same thing (look in www.e-smith.org for the free version and support).
It's a cd you pop into a pc and turns it into a really dumb-proof server. very complete and cheap!
Yep, you'd be competing with yourself, but what's the 'uncapped' cable modem top speed? 10mb/s?
somewhere i read that the bandwdith used on the cable is 40mb/s. if that's so, you'd see some improvement on doing that.
of course, it wouldn't be any more stable...
It's easy to do in a not-so-nice way.
Just connect everthing together, but mount it on only one machine at a time. be sure to unmount it before mounting it on the other.
on a logical level, it's exactly the same as unplugging it from one machine and plugging it on the other.
you could also mount it r/o on more than one machine, but remember to unmount it from everyone before remounting r/w on anyone.
Of course, the real thing would be to use one of the few cluster filesystems out there, GFS, MFS, or the Oracle thing. Those supposedly solve the problem of keeping the directory structures in consistent and in sync.
To avoid breaking the FireWire chain (not a loop!), just don't make a chain.
Use FireWire hubs to create a more tree- or star- like topology, that way each disk is in it's own branch and unplugging it won't affect the others.
Apple has its own remote GUI. it's not X11, so all mac apps (both X and classic) can run remotely
FreeBSD is widely acclaimed as a very portable kernel. One of these ports was to the Mach microkernel; called the 'BSD server'. In micokernel architectures are called servers and this particular process 'serves' the BSD API, so user level processes can pretend that that big process is just a monolithic kernel. There was also a 'BSD multiserver', roghly similar to the Hurd, but composed of lots of fragments of original FreeBSD code.
The original NeXT machines ran a Mach microkernel on 68020 cpus, and a FreeBSD monoserver; therefore, it's just a version of FreeBSD, but with a Mach below it.
there's also MkLinux and L4Linux, would you say those aren't Linux just because there's a microkernel below it?
Completely right; I should've said 'for existing x86 software'. Both x86-64 and this proposal are extensions to this (old) architecture, won't benefit old programs.
on the other hand register renaming does work its magic transparently to existing software.
But ideas are supposed to be non obvious to be patentable! that's why the 1-click and XOR cursor are SO absurd!
Damn Right!
Register renaming already does what's being proposed here, but transparently. In fact, most of the instructions reordering done by a good optimizing compiler (and later by the out-of-order dispatching unit) aims to increase paralelism on register usage.
Of course RISC processors are so much nicer to work with because of their large, flat register files (at least 16 or 32 registers, all of them equally usable), but that's not possible with existing x86 architecture.
P4 processors have 128 registers available for register renaming, using all of them is not so easy, so Hyperthreading (still only on Xeon) tries to bring in two different processes to the intruction mix, keeping their renaming maps separate, so the dispatching unit has more noncolliding instructions ready for execution. This won't make one CPU as fast as 2, but it does keep that insanely deep pipeline from getting filled with bubbles (or would that be 'empty of instructions' ?)
it does have a snapshot command (haven't used it myself), but it needs to first 'freeze' the filesystem; during that time, all writes go to the journal file, and get only committed when it's 'unfreezed'
but it wouldn't do a file rollback, it's mostly for directory backups, block dumps and media management (via LVM).
set up a daemon looking at new files (use fam, of course) and create a hard link on a mirror directory as soon as they're created. When the file is unlink()ed, it won't be deleted since there's still another link to it. Add a cron job that scans the mirror directory and moves any file with a link count of 1 to the 'just deleted' folder. the rest is routine, hourly/dayly/weekly rotations, old ones really deleted, etc.
I'm not talking about propietary OS, not even about propietary software. The trouble and the big lock-in is the propetary FILE FORMATS and PROTOCOLS.
That means that once the software has been used for a while, and the users don't care about the format used to save documets, they won't change because they fear they won't be able to use old documents.
And the worst offender by far is MS Word. Changing it's format with every version, just to make everybody upgrage to the last and slowest, only to be able to read other people's documents.
Here in Peru, the response from M$ to the Open Source proposal was not only the easily rebutted FUD letter. There was also a 'donation' of computers and software to the schools. All free, of course... for 5 years. after that, we'll have to pay for the priviledge of being locked-in with the propietary formats.
And the same line: "Since it's a donation, there was no public bidding", and it will make impossible to apply the OpenSource law (if it would be approved).
How can we escape? having no money is no longer a defense from being robbed
I've read the proposed law. It would (if approved) prevent to use propietary software in government-funded systems.
That's why I don't think it has a chance to be approved.
If it just made the requirement to use open format documents and protocols, then maybe (just maybe) it could be approved.
The problem with our third-world politics is that politicians are as ignorant as any one in the world, but our 'intelectuals' are far more arrogant and progressive than on rich countries. That makes a HUGE distance between what some groups propose and what finally gets to the congress. Further distorted by the media, and finally misunderstood by the people.
And, being poor, the deepest pockets and most publicited 'donations' are what get the most attention. Guess who was here 'giving' computers and software to the schools?
First: i'm a Peruvian, and I'd love to see my government use open source software, but I don't have any hopes (even less now that Billy G. has bought the education ministry for just 0.5 mill).
No matter how much better Open Source software is, i think it's foolish to make the busisness model a requirement for a government. "The best tool for the job" should be the main criteria.
(Of course, most of the time the really best tool is open source, especially for network infrastructure)
But what REALLY should be a requirement is to use only open file formats and open protocols to store, file and transfer every document.
I'd like to make it illegal the lock-in tactics used by M$ to perpetuate MSWord; but it's foolish not to trash any software that refuses to share with other systems.