and they don't have to be compiled to be run, so they are faster
Compiling makes code slower? wow. How fast must
C-Code be if you interpret it.
So what I'm hoping for is the future inclusion of stored proceedures written in SQL itself like what is offered in other DBMS systems.
You can't implement stored procedures in SQL, at least not very effectivly, as SQL usually lacks condtions (ok, most SQL variants have at least something like that), and loops.
No, I think, Perl is a quite good idea, it's rather easy to learn (if you can code) and it has lots of features.
Is it really so bad when there are just a few enthusiasts out there that develop an operating system and focus on building a good, stable, reliable OS, completely ignoring market share?
Look at Mircosoft products, and see what focusing on market share creates. I also see it in my daily work: "Oh, hell, that thing probably doesn't work correctly" - "Ignore it, the customer wants it now, perhaps it works fine, and if not, we have to fix it anyway"
You pointed out something we should take care about: Privacy.
Surely, every electronical transaction is logged, and might be analyzed to get user profiles, and so we need good laws to give us back our rights to privacy and to have something to fight missuse of the logged data. But I don't think we shouldn't use the technology available, because that means SURRENDERING to those that might missuse the technology.
Current law (which was made in the past) can't foresee the problems that arise with new technology becoming available, and if we don't use the technology, there will never be the need to change the law, and so we are stuck in a doom circle.
Oh well, I think a lot of servers are out there that might go power down, and noone did a bad job on setting them up. Just think of the lots of fileservers in 'normal' offices, that aren't used during nights and weekends.
These could save lots of power.
But it makes surely just sense if it can power down for time measured at least in half of hours.
Hmm, I justed checked with netcraft... seems they
really did the job. Hotmails seems to be running Win2K.
The last I heard about that thing was that they didn't cope to do it with NT 4.0, even not after consulting the (inhouse) experts for NT 4.0 and the different servers.
If you find Windows in either version usefull, then please be happy and use it. Nobody will care about you using both systems, as well as nobody cares about every other guy that just uses Linux or Windows.
Out there are so many OSes, and almost every of them has something that others can't do better, simply because its designed for that. Windows for example has two or three main advantages: first, it's widely spread and therefore a lot of people know how to work with it, and second, it pretends being easy-to-use. (A third advantage is e.g. you can't hack the root acount;) )
Others have other advantages, and everyone should use that operation system that he thinks is best for the job.
And I find it interesting that the DNS Server of microsoft crashed, interesting in the same way as the hack of www.apache.org (if those guys don't know how to setup a secure webserver, who should know then?), and also as the newsitem about some MS Services like hotmail running Unices, simply because MS's products didn't do the job.
No, definitly not: You need noncoders during the development process, or your software will suck as well. Coders have quite a different view than normal users, and so they need someone to tell them "Hey, this is unusable", or "Hey, I'd like to do it that way".
Non-Coders should talk place in the process, testing the product, working with it, helping to get it out, but they should stick to "easy" coding tasks: defining user interfaces and such things.
The backend of an app should be reserved for they guys that know what they do;)
I see, you didn't get into MySQL that deep: They let their (paying) customers decide what features they like next. And if everybody wants replication and transaction, then they do ist.
Also Subqueries is not that big problem: You said, five lines of code. But you can't do replication or transaction within five lines of client code.
So I really can understand that they did these two points first, and subquerys are on the todo list.
What do you want? A stable database? Or lots of
new features with bugs in them?
It's a whole company, but do you know how much people they are? Don't always think of giants like Mircosoft or Intel when thinking of companies, MySQL is developed by just a few people (I counted 12 or 13 coders), and they are keeping the whole stuff platform independent, the server and the tools run an Windows, and many flavours of unixes.
Ever built a transaction feature yourself? Or a rudimentary database? I don't think half an year is to long for the things they implemented in 3.23.
Why do we always consider ourselves being so importantant that we can meddle in mother earths affairs?
Nature has survived almost 4 billion years without human help, and it worked. And we think to be able to do real harm to nature? No, we can't, not at all. Sure, we can do some harm to the balance out there, but in little time - little compared to the age of earth, not compared to the age of humans - nature will cope with that, and a new balance is created, there are already many examples out there.
It's human arrogance that makes us think, we are important in nature...
Yeah, but why do we need competition in developing the same program? That's the problem Serge sees:
We have over a hundred text editors, merely all doing the same job. No engineer is crazy enough to reinvent the wheel, or are any out there?
If a head developer does not accept patches for new features from others, why does he than allow to do so? (Just think of the old QT Licencse: the source were free, but you weren't allowed to change them and redstribute the changed sources). Every programmer that gets such a mail "Thanks, but I plan to implement that by myself" really must feel dumb: Is my code this bad, that he has to completly rewrite it? That things are bad for OSS, in my eyes.
What we need is competetition between different approches to a problem: one wants to create a lean text editor for use over low bandwidth network connections, to do remote administration, the other one wants an editor that can do almost everything (hey, btw: is there a lisp package to access coffee machines;) ), and there should be competition between these two ideas, and not between two editors that do exactly the same job.
Can any/.'ers think of anything that needs writing, but nobody wants to?
Yes, comments in code and man files and that stuff. SCNR
Anonymous or not anonymous, that is the question
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
I don't like the thought of having to submit my personal data every time I create an account for sites like/., or to get the wheather forecast, or a news digest, or whatever, simply because of the reason that I don't know what they are doing with my data.
On the other hand, when take part in discussions like here on/., or the German "Heise Newsticker",
I use my name (ok, here it is a nick name, its a bit older, this account), because I want everyone to know that it is me how says/writes these things.
The right of Free Speech is meant for those who want to stand up and say "Hey, there is something wrong with..." and they shouldn't fear the power of the gouvernment afterwards, because it dislikes this oppinion. Also, your neighbour or anyone else can't get you sentenced for saying that he has done something bad, if it's true (As you see, the right of Free Speech doesn't include the right do lie). And if everything is true, then you can speak with your name, for yourself. That is what our ancesters have fought for.
But (a but has to come now): I can understand people that want to be anonymous towards the public, and that people should be allowed to post
here or elsewhere in an anonymized way: the owner of the web site must know the editor of an article, but does not need to give away the data about him, except in serious cases, like it is with journalists today.
And this would prevent a lot of flamebaits, offences, and work for getting the data about the editor from the various log files.
Hmm, I guess, the case EMP pulse and neutron bombardment is not worth discussing it... afterwards we won't need any dns anymore.;-)
And for the other cases, there are already multiple root name servers, 13 IIRC. And that boxes are definetly no desktop PCs *g*. I remember an article that was published earlier this year, covering the story about upgrading ROOT_A, because the old Sun Enterprise 10000 had problems to serve the about 450 million hits a day.
And thats also the reason why you can't put this information on freenet... freenet would be dead in that case.
It's somewhat strange. Whenever a new piece of good hardware is published, everybody seems to think: "When can I use it for playing quake?".
Hardly anyone thinks of the possibility that there are potential customers that surely will buy this processor, because they simply need it and can't get around this need with other means?
Just think of wheather forecast, or scientific simulations.
Slashdot Mirror
and they don't have to be compiled to be run, so they are faster
Compiling makes code slower? wow. How fast must C-Code be if you interpret it.
So what I'm hoping for is the future inclusion of stored proceedures written in SQL itself like what is offered in other DBMS systems.
You can't implement stored procedures in SQL, at least not very effectivly, as SQL usually lacks condtions (ok, most SQL variants have at least something like that), and loops.
No, I think, Perl is a quite good idea, it's rather easy to learn (if you can code) and it has lots of features.
Is it really so bad when there are just a few enthusiasts out there that develop an operating system and focus on building a good, stable, reliable OS, completely ignoring market share?
Look at Mircosoft products, and see what focusing on market share creates. I also see it in my daily work: "Oh, hell, that thing probably doesn't work correctly" - "Ignore it, the customer wants it now, perhaps it works fine, and if not, we have to fix it anyway"
You pointed out something we should take care about: Privacy.
Surely, every electronical transaction is logged, and might be analyzed to get user profiles, and so we need good laws to give us back our rights to privacy and to have something to fight missuse of the logged data. But I don't think we shouldn't use the technology available, because that means SURRENDERING to those that might missuse the technology.
Current law (which was made in the past) can't foresee the problems that arise with new technology becoming available, and if we don't use the technology, there will never be the need to change the law, and so we are stuck in a doom circle.
Oh well, I think a lot of servers are out there that might go power down, and noone did a bad job on setting them up. Just think of the lots of fileservers in 'normal' offices, that aren't used during nights and weekends.
These could save lots of power.
But it makes surely just sense if it can power down for time measured at least in half of hours.
Hmm, I justed checked with netcraft ... seems they
really did the job. Hotmails seems to be running Win2K.
The last I heard about that thing was that they didn't cope to do it with NT 4.0, even not after consulting the (inhouse) experts for NT 4.0 and the different servers.
But seems as if Windows is becoming better.
You never finish learning.
If you find Windows in either version usefull, then please be happy and use it. Nobody will care about you using both systems, as well as nobody cares about every other guy that just uses Linux or Windows.
;) )
Out there are so many OSes, and almost every of them has something that others can't do better, simply because its designed for that. Windows for example has two or three main advantages: first, it's widely spread and therefore a lot of people know how to work with it, and second, it pretends being easy-to-use. (A third advantage is e.g. you can't hack the root acount
Others have other advantages, and everyone should use that operation system that he thinks is best for the job.
And I find it interesting that the DNS Server of microsoft crashed, interesting in the same way as the hack of www.apache.org (if those guys don't know how to setup a secure webserver, who should know then?), and also as the newsitem about some MS Services like hotmail running Unices, simply because MS's products didn't do the job.
No, definitly not: You need noncoders during the development process, or your software will suck as well. Coders have quite a different view than normal users, and so they need someone to tell them "Hey, this is unusable", or "Hey, I'd like to do it that way".
;)
Non-Coders should talk place in the process, testing the product, working with it, helping to get it out, but they should stick to "easy" coding tasks: defining user interfaces and such things.
The backend of an app should be reserved for they guys that know what they do
I see, you didn't get into MySQL that deep: They let their (paying) customers decide what features they like next. And if everybody wants replication and transaction, then they do ist.
Also Subqueries is not that big problem: You said, five lines of code. But you can't do replication or transaction within five lines of client code.
So I really can understand that they did these two points first, and subquerys are on the todo list.
What do you want? A stable database? Or lots of
new features with bugs in them?
It's a whole company, but do you know how much people they are? Don't always think of giants like Mircosoft or Intel when thinking of companies, MySQL is developed by just a few people (I counted 12 or 13 coders), and they are keeping the whole stuff platform independent, the server and the tools run an Windows, and many flavours of unixes.
Ever built a transaction feature yourself? Or a rudimentary database? I don't think half an year is to long for the things they implemented in 3.23.
Michael
Why do we always consider ourselves being so importantant that we can meddle in mother earths affairs?
...
Nature has survived almost 4 billion years without human help, and it worked. And we think to be able to do real harm to nature? No, we can't, not at all. Sure, we can do some harm to the balance out there, but in little time - little compared to the age of earth, not compared to the age of humans - nature will cope with that, and a new balance is created, there are already many examples out there.
It's human arrogance that makes us think, we are important in nature
Yeah, but why do we need competition in developing the same program? That's the problem Serge sees:
;) ), and there should be competition between these two ideas, and not between two editors that do exactly the same job.
We have over a hundred text editors, merely all doing the same job. No engineer is crazy enough to reinvent the wheel, or are any out there?
If a head developer does not accept patches for new features from others, why does he than allow to do so? (Just think of the old QT Licencse: the source were free, but you weren't allowed to change them and redstribute the changed sources). Every programmer that gets such a mail "Thanks, but I plan to implement that by myself" really must feel dumb: Is my code this bad, that he has to completly rewrite it? That things are bad for OSS, in my eyes.
What we need is competetition between different approches to a problem: one wants to create a lean text editor for use over low bandwidth network connections, to do remote administration, the other one wants an editor that can do almost everything (hey, btw: is there a lisp package to access coffee machines
Can any /.'ers think of anything that needs writing, but nobody wants to?
Yes, comments in code and man files and that stuff. SCNR
I don't like the thought of having to submit my personal data every time I create an account for sites like /., or to get the wheather forecast, or a news digest, or whatever, simply because of the reason that I don't know what they are doing with my data.
/., or the German "Heise Newsticker",
..." and they shouldn't fear the power of the gouvernment afterwards, because it dislikes this oppinion. Also, your neighbour or anyone else can't get you sentenced for saying that he has done something bad, if it's true (As you see, the right of Free Speech doesn't include the right do lie). And if everything is true, then you can speak with your name, for yourself. That is what our ancesters have fought for.
On the other hand, when take part in discussions like here on
I use my name (ok, here it is a nick name, its a bit older, this account), because I want everyone to know that it is me how says/writes these things.
The right of Free Speech is meant for those who want to stand up and say "Hey, there is something wrong with
But (a but has to come now): I can understand people that want to be anonymous towards the public, and that people should be allowed to post
here or elsewhere in an anonymized way: the owner of the web site must know the editor of an article, but does not need to give away the data about him, except in serious cases, like it is with journalists today.
And this would prevent a lot of flamebaits, offences, and work for getting the data about the editor from the various log files.
Hmm, I guess, the case EMP pulse and neutron bombardment is not worth discussing it ... afterwards we won't need any dns anymore. ;-)
... freenet would be dead in that case.
And for the other cases, there are already multiple root name servers, 13 IIRC. And that boxes are definetly no desktop PCs *g*. I remember an article that was published earlier this year, covering the story about upgrading ROOT_A, because the old Sun Enterprise 10000 had problems to serve the about 450 million hits a day.
And thats also the reason why you can't put this information on freenet
Michael
It's somewhat strange. Whenever a new piece of good hardware is published, everybody seems to think: "When can I use it for playing quake?".
Hardly anyone thinks of the possibility that there are potential customers that surely will buy this processor, because they simply need it and can't get around this need with other means?
Just think of wheather forecast, or scientific simulations.
Michael
>This isn't News For Nerds!!! I ought to know, I'm a nerd and I don't care about this.
/., it is news for nerds.
Then perhaps you aren't a nerd. As it is posted on
-Michael