Are you really sure about Fight Club? There are many points in the movie where the film is spliced or made to look like the film is offtrack. I guess what I'm asking is have you since then seen the dvd and seen all the same splices you saw in the theater?
The major difference between Home and Pro is that Pro can join domains. It's that simple. They wanted to differentiate the product for use in businesses (hence PROfessional).
An example of a commercial system... basically does all the stuff I want, I forgot all about these guys:-) Neptune Systems lots of cool toys to keep everything in check. It's not open source though, so you're kinda stuck with the interface they provide you.
There are lots of programs out there now that remind you when things need to be done in an aquarium -- but this kind of thing (not the one on his site, that's still open loop, it just acts on faith that the chemicals its adding are actually needed) would be very useful in aquarium maintenance, especially marine/reef aquariums. You could set up pH, specific gravity, etc... meters and based on those add chemicals and fresh water. Or you could run all those tests manually and have the system add the appropriate amounts based on the numbers you feed it. I'm sure large public aquariums run systems like this to keep things in check, but it would be cool to do it at home.
No, of course that text is not illegal to publish, it's free speech (at least in the US, IANAL).
The use of that specific 'program' in the form of a web page would constitute fair use since you are transforming it - you're not using the whole article, just a summary text.
Even if that program pulled in the entire article it would not be illegal to use on its own. If you wrote it, published it for people to download on their computer and run and you stood to gain no personal profit from doing so, that most likely is fair use because it's not YOU who is using the data, it's the person who downloaded your program. The whole idea of copyright stems from the fact that the person who developed some form of intellectual property should be helped - not harmed - by its use. There are lots of ways to use something fairly.
All this court decision says is that this court decision says that inlined linking of 3rd party content on a public web site is not a fair use and requires permission from the owner of that 3rd party content.
Of course it's possible*, but you shouldn't have to implement a 'copy protection' to thwart people - making it illegal is enough.
*(yes it's possible... by blocking based on referrer. But that can be hacked quite easilly using javascript. And you could block with basic auth, but that's just inconvenient for users of the legit site. I just don't think blocking on the server is the 'right' way to handle things.)
No, I can't agree... inlining content whether it be text or images is exactly the same thing. In the case I outlined above the content is still on the remote server - just inlined on mine. I wouldn't be copying it, just causing the users web browser to load it into what appears to be my page. No copying is taking place in either scenario.
The same situation could apply to music or any other media. You can right now tell a browser to play a music clip when it loads a page, that clip can be on any server. So if a band puts up a web page with clips of their copyrighted music on it so people can listen to it, I can embed a link to those music files on my web page. When people come to my web page they hear them, and even if I offer a link to the bands site in attribution it's still not fair use... it's not copying either in the true sense of the word, but it's violating the spirit of the copyright laws -- What it comes down to is that you're not allowed to profit from other people's copyrighted work without permission.
Tell me how inlining copyrighted images is different than inlining copyrighted text or music? And what makes one fair use and the others not?
No, the problem was that Ditto/Arriba used to link the full size image inline (they don't anymore). So other than the link below it you didn't have the original context. There's nothing wrong with the way google is doing things (framing the entire page with the image in context). The courts are simply saying that it's wrong to inline images from other servers without permission.
Looking at it in a broader context - lets say that in a few years the whole web has moved to XML with Stylesheets to format it. And some popular news site, lets say CNN.com, has a/news.xml on its server which they would normally display to the end users with their/news.xsl stylesheet. So I decide that I like their news data, and I want to make a search engine to help people find news from all sorts of sites - theirs in particular. To help people find things easier (and of course to force them to stay on my site since eyeballs==$$$) I decide that while I'll give a link to the source, I'll at the same time take that XML content and use my own stylesheet to reformat it for display inline in my site. The browser is still retrieving the XML file from CNN.com's server, and all I'm doing is overriding the appearance of it for display in my site. Is that fair use?
I can't imagine anyone who understands the issue thinking that it's fair use. Deep linking is not theft, but inlining other people's content is. Plain and simple.
You might as well make it a perl subroutine, or hell, just use the new perl procedural language inside MySQL itself.
PostgreSQL has a much better perl based stored procedure language than mySQL has. Unlike the mySQL hack, the Pg implementation is a complete procedure language -- you can even use the normal DBI syntax to run queries against the database.
Face it: the only reason you would want to use wine is so you can run proprietary, closed windows software anyway, so any political arguments for making wine lgpl are basically moot.
No, the reason many of us want to use Wine is so that we can run a more wide variety of software, open and closed, free (as in beer, or as in speech). I'd like to run Trillian under wine - it's a much better piece of software than anything out there that's open source, but it's still free. CDex - another great program, it's open source even, but do you see a linux port? Nope... wouldn't it be great if you could run it natively? Wine gives choice - plain and simple.
I'll say that again, you reiterated everything I was thinking that I implied in my post... but true not everything I said.
This is where you're wrong. The reduction in downtime has nothing to do with allowing ANALYZE to be executed separately. It is entirely the result of the new vacuum code (which is "lazy", unlike a VACUUM FULL -- which does a 7.1-style VACUUM). In 7.2, running VACUUM (with or without ANALYZE) is fast, and doesn't require an exclusive lock -- so your database can continue serving clients while a VACUUM is executing. Whether you choose to run ANALYZE at the same time or separately is really irrelevant.
Yes, I misspoke there and left out lots of detail - when I run a vacuum I always run it with anaylyze since there's no way to analyze in 7.1 without vacuuming (at least that I'm aware of). Why would I want to run vacuum followed by vacuum analyze only to have the tables exclusively locked twice? I want to do both, clean up unused rows, and update stats.. so I always run vacuum analyze. What's worse is that the 7.1 vacuum can deadlock with other processes because it uses exclusive locks.
And yes, I know that in 7.1.x they changed the locking behavior so the vacuum analyze so it did not hold an exclusive lock during the portion where it was anlyzing the table. But that doesn't change the fact that it did hold an exclusive lock while vacuuming - which it had to do because the commands were joined together.
Effectively there were TWO good things that happened. Analyze was broken into a separate command - that alone would have been an improvement since it would have allowed for vacuums to be done distinctly from analyzes. Vacuum becoming lazy is a second good thing - and yes a very good thing it is. The short of all this is that now you can run vacuums and analyzes separately all day long if you want.
I'm not trying to get tha last word;-) really! I think we both can agree that 7.2 is a big leap forward.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, in fact you all but reiterated everything I said.
The 7.1 vacuum analyze required table locks. Doesn't matter which phase of it required locks - it required exclusive locks because it vacuumed. By breaking that into a separate commands the need for downtime is reduced drastically (down to the example which you point out - deleting thousands of rows at a time).
I know that you're recommended to run vacuum once per day, but I found that on a large database running on a fast server a daily vacuum took nearly 30 minutes to complete... that's 30 minutes of sequentially locked tables. Can't afford to do that every day - moving it to once a week may have degraded performance but it reduced the downtime window from 30 minutes per day to 1 hour per week.
I'm just happy that I don't have to bring a production server to its knees once a week (or for that matter once a day) just to do some table maintenance.
I should probably clarify that - the full locking vacuum was separated out into two parts one which analyzes statistics and doesn't lock the tables and another which does what the old vacuum did by reordering data blocks to shrink the size on disk.... the bonus is that before you might run vacuum once a week or so because of the impact it has to a production system by doing a full lock on each table it vacuumed, now you can run it much more frequently as all it consumes is cpu time. Shrinking size on disk is nice, but it's the statistics that help the query planner turn SQL into faster queries.
This is a huge step forward in making PostgreSQL ready for deployment in the enterprise. Eliminating the locking vacuum in favor of a separate statistics gathering process is clearly the best part of this release.
The only major hurdle left is replication built into the server.
They never even released a version of XENIX with processor support past the 8086... The last Microsoft release of XENIX corresponded with the release of the IBM PC/XT (1984). POSIX.1 was ~1986. The versions of XENIX that supported 286/386 were developed by SCO, not Microsoft. I really don't believe - nor can I find any evidence - that Microsoft had anything to do with the development of the POSIX standard. Call me a skeptic, but I'd just like to see proof to back up that other post saying they spent $35 million.
Yes, of course is does, but that does not make POSIX a Microsoft funded standard. It's a standard that was developed purely to give a high level of interoperability between the various unixes from different vendors. It's also been around since the mid 80's and back then Microsoft didn't give a damn about being compatible with unix. And to go even further, it's worth noting that the name POSIX was suggested by the one and only RMS.
That may or may not be true. It's possible, though unlikely, that they may have members of their in house counsel with licenses to practice in Texas and/or agreements national firms that do. They also have the option of becoming licensed, which may, in fact, be less expensive than hiring local counsel.
It could be done using State Threads. It's a library originally created by SGI based on code used in Mozilla. Basically it gives you the illusion of multithreaded programming wrapped around non-blocking I/O calls. For internet servers it's a perfect programming paradigm - as long as they don't have to do any blocking I/O (disk reads are a good example) or library calls that could wait for a long time. The best part about it is since the 'threads' never really run concurrently you don't have to do any locking of variables... everything is in the same memory space and it can all be shared between threads with no synchronization.
Isn't just allegedly doing this... they're real. The have 5 separate patents on their signal transmission technology. And what's even better is that this tech can be used to improve not just cable, but DSL and Wireless(!) - all in all it's just a really cool modem.
But can you find any source citing him saying that? I've believed it to be true for a long time too, but there's no proof of it anywhere. I want to believe it, but you can't say it's a fact without proof to back it up.
Actually Win2k and XP have a big CAB file that holds well over 4000 individual drivers (system, printer, etc...). No need to go to the CD because instead it just takes up 75 megs of disk space in the WinNT directory.
Who actually took the time to moderate this comment down as redundant? It's an AC, it was already at zero, and it's one whole line stating a perfectly valid opinion about the parent post. I could see not modding it up, but aren't there more constructive things to do with moderation points than to mod down an innocent comment made by an AC? I'm curious what would have happened if someone had posted the same comment w/ a +1 Bonus.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you really sure about Fight Club? There are many points in the movie where the film is spliced or made to look like the film is offtrack. I guess what I'm asking is have you since then seen the dvd and seen all the same splices you saw in the theater?
The major difference between Home and Pro is that Pro can join domains. It's that simple. They wanted to differentiate the product for use in businesses (hence PROfessional).
An example of a commercial system... basically does all the stuff I want, I forgot all about these guys :-) Neptune Systems lots of cool toys to keep everything in check. It's not open source though, so you're kinda stuck with the interface they provide you.
There are lots of programs out there now that remind you when things need to be done in an aquarium -- but this kind of thing (not the one on his site, that's still open loop, it just acts on faith that the chemicals its adding are actually needed) would be very useful in aquarium maintenance, especially marine/reef aquariums. You could set up pH, specific gravity, etc... meters and based on those add chemicals and fresh water. Or you could run all those tests manually and have the system add the appropriate amounts based on the numbers you feed it. I'm sure large public aquariums run systems like this to keep things in check, but it would be cool to do it at home.
The use of that specific 'program' in the form of a web page would constitute fair use since you are transforming it - you're not using the whole article, just a summary text.
Even if that program pulled in the entire article it would not be illegal to use on its own. If you wrote it, published it for people to download on their computer and run and you stood to gain no personal profit from doing so, that most likely is fair use because it's not YOU who is using the data, it's the person who downloaded your program. The whole idea of copyright stems from the fact that the person who developed some form of intellectual property should be helped - not harmed - by its use. There are lots of ways to use something fairly.
All this court decision says is that this court decision says that inlined linking of 3rd party content on a public web site is not a fair use and requires permission from the owner of that 3rd party content.
*(yes it's possible... by blocking based on referrer. But that can be hacked quite easilly using javascript. And you could block with basic auth, but that's just inconvenient for users of the legit site. I just don't think blocking on the server is the 'right' way to handle things.)
The same situation could apply to music or any other media. You can right now tell a browser to play a music clip when it loads a page, that clip can be on any server. So if a band puts up a web page with clips of their copyrighted music on it so people can listen to it, I can embed a link to those music files on my web page. When people come to my web page they hear them, and even if I offer a link to the bands site in attribution it's still not fair use... it's not copying either in the true sense of the word, but it's violating the spirit of the copyright laws -- What it comes down to is that you're not allowed to profit from other people's copyrighted work without permission.
Tell me how inlining copyrighted images is different than inlining copyrighted text or music? And what makes one fair use and the others not?
Yes, not without permission. But it has always been ethically questionable to do... now it's just backed up by the courts.
Looking at it in a broader context - lets say that in a few years the whole web has moved to XML with Stylesheets to format it. And some popular news site, lets say CNN.com, has a /news.xml on its server which they would normally display to the end users with their /news.xsl stylesheet. So I decide that I like their news data, and I want to make a search engine to help people find news from all sorts of sites - theirs in particular. To help people find things easier (and of course to force them to stay on my site since eyeballs==$$$) I decide that while I'll give a link to the source, I'll at the same time take that XML content and use my own stylesheet to reformat it for display inline in my site. The browser is still retrieving the XML file from CNN.com's server, and all I'm doing is overriding the appearance of it for display in my site. Is that fair use?
I can't imagine anyone who understands the issue thinking that it's fair use. Deep linking is not theft, but inlining other people's content is. Plain and simple.
PostgreSQL has a much better perl based stored procedure language than mySQL has. Unlike the mySQL hack, the Pg implementation is a complete procedure language -- you can even use the normal DBI syntax to run queries against the database.
No, the reason many of us want to use Wine is so that we can run a more wide variety of software, open and closed, free (as in beer, or as in speech). I'd like to run Trillian under wine - it's a much better piece of software than anything out there that's open source, but it's still free. CDex - another great program, it's open source even, but do you see a linux port? Nope... wouldn't it be great if you could run it natively? Wine gives choice - plain and simple.
I'll say that again, you reiterated everything I was thinking that I implied in my post... but true not everything I said.
This is where you're wrong. The reduction in downtime has nothing to do with allowing ANALYZE to be executed separately. It is entirely the result of the new vacuum code (which is "lazy", unlike a VACUUM FULL -- which does a 7.1-style VACUUM). In 7.2, running VACUUM (with or without ANALYZE) is fast, and doesn't require an exclusive lock -- so your database can continue serving clients while a VACUUM is executing. Whether you choose to run ANALYZE at the same time or separately is really irrelevant.
Yes, I misspoke there and left out lots of detail - when I run a vacuum I always run it with anaylyze since there's no way to analyze in 7.1 without vacuuming (at least that I'm aware of). Why would I want to run vacuum followed by vacuum analyze only to have the tables exclusively locked twice? I want to do both, clean up unused rows, and update stats.. so I always run vacuum analyze. What's worse is that the 7.1 vacuum can deadlock with other processes because it uses exclusive locks.
And yes, I know that in 7.1.x they changed the locking behavior so the vacuum analyze so it did not hold an exclusive lock during the portion where it was anlyzing the table. But that doesn't change the fact that it did hold an exclusive lock while vacuuming - which it had to do because the commands were joined together.
Effectively there were TWO good things that happened. Analyze was broken into a separate command - that alone would have been an improvement since it would have allowed for vacuums to be done distinctly from analyzes. Vacuum becoming lazy is a second good thing - and yes a very good thing it is. The short of all this is that now you can run vacuums and analyzes separately all day long if you want.
I'm not trying to get tha last word ;-) really! I think we both can agree that 7.2 is a big leap forward.
Actually before they called it PostgreSQL they called it Postgres95. :-)
The 7.1 vacuum analyze required table locks. Doesn't matter which phase of it required locks - it required exclusive locks because it vacuumed. By breaking that into a separate commands the need for downtime is reduced drastically (down to the example which you point out - deleting thousands of rows at a time).
I know that you're recommended to run vacuum once per day, but I found that on a large database running on a fast server a daily vacuum took nearly 30 minutes to complete... that's 30 minutes of sequentially locked tables. Can't afford to do that every day - moving it to once a week may have degraded performance but it reduced the downtime window from 30 minutes per day to 1 hour per week.
I'm just happy that I don't have to bring a production server to its knees once a week (or for that matter once a day) just to do some table maintenance.
I should probably clarify that - the full locking vacuum was separated out into two parts one which analyzes statistics and doesn't lock the tables and another which does what the old vacuum did by reordering data blocks to shrink the size on disk.... the bonus is that before you might run vacuum once a week or so because of the impact it has to a production system by doing a full lock on each table it vacuumed, now you can run it much more frequently as all it consumes is cpu time. Shrinking size on disk is nice, but it's the statistics that help the query planner turn SQL into faster queries.
The only major hurdle left is replication built into the server.
They never even released a version of XENIX with processor support past the 8086... The last Microsoft release of XENIX corresponded with the release of the IBM PC/XT (1984). POSIX.1 was ~1986. The versions of XENIX that supported 286/386 were developed by SCO, not Microsoft. I really don't believe - nor can I find any evidence - that Microsoft had anything to do with the development of the POSIX standard. Call me a skeptic, but I'd just like to see proof to back up that other post saying they spent $35 million.
Yes, of course is does, but that does not make POSIX a Microsoft funded standard. It's a standard that was developed purely to give a high level of interoperability between the various unixes from different vendors. It's also been around since the mid 80's and back then Microsoft didn't give a damn about being compatible with unix. And to go even further, it's worth noting that the name POSIX was suggested by the one and only RMS.
That may or may not be true. It's possible, though unlikely, that they may have members of their in house counsel with licenses to practice in Texas and/or agreements national firms that do. They also have the option of becoming licensed, which may, in fact, be less expensive than hiring local counsel.
Just my 2 cents...
It could be done using State Threads. It's a library originally created by SGI based on code used in Mozilla. Basically it gives you the illusion of multithreaded programming wrapped around non-blocking I/O calls. For internet servers it's a perfect programming paradigm - as long as they don't have to do any blocking I/O (disk reads are a good example) or library calls that could wait for a long time. The best part about it is since the 'threads' never really run concurrently you don't have to do any locking of variables... everything is in the same memory space and it can all be shared between threads with no synchronization.
Isn't just allegedly doing this... they're real. The have 5 separate patents on their signal transmission technology. And what's even better is that this tech can be used to improve not just cable, but DSL and Wireless(!) - all in all it's just a really cool modem.
But can you find any source citing him saying that? I've believed it to be true for a long time too, but there's no proof of it anywhere. I want to believe it, but you can't say it's a fact without proof to back it up.
It seems to be just an urban legend.
Actually Win2k and XP have a big CAB file that holds well over 4000 individual drivers (system, printer, etc...). No need to go to the CD because instead it just takes up 75 megs of disk space in the WinNT directory.
Who actually took the time to moderate this comment down as redundant? It's an AC, it was already at zero, and it's one whole line stating a perfectly valid opinion about the parent post. I could see not modding it up, but aren't there more constructive things to do with moderation points than to mod down an innocent comment made by an AC? I'm curious what would have happened if someone had posted the same comment w/ a +1 Bonus.
I know it's offtopic, flame on.