Yes it does. They are coming out with XBOX 2. The whole point of dropping the price is to get rid of their rediculously huge inventory.
After XBOX 2 comes out, noone will buy an Xbox. They have already spent the money to manufacture it. The only difference is, IF you pay the money THEN they recoup some of their losses, otherwise they recoup NONE of their losses.
"Yeah, but who is selling Linux to CIOs? It's not the people who put out vim and php."
Actually, it's their own tech department that usually does the selling to the CIO. Or a custom programming shop. These people are usually more likely to be pure-play open-source.
You've obviously never used Postgres. Postgres is in the same league as MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, and others. It is not quite as tunable as Oracle, and Oracle can scale higher, but not higher enough to be in a completely different league.
Comparing PG w/ Access shows that you've never used PG. PG supports views, triggers, constraints, the ability to write functions in many languages, indexes, partial indexes, some table inheritance support, includes a genetic query optimizer, can do views of "group by" clauses (and optimizes them very well), can do updateable views, has a really nice "rules" system for rewriting queries, has write-ahead logging, support for multiple transaction isolation levels, and several other features I can't think of here.
The limitations of Postgres are: no support for configurable tablespaces, no automated point-in-time recovery (however, Oracle's PITR is quite limited, too), doesn't work with protocols requiring two-phase commits (PG uses MVCC, which uses less locking), cannot do nested transactions, and does not have a built-in automated replication solution (although third-party products and open-source projects are available).
These limitations are only problematic in the largest of deployments, however, and most of them can be worked around. The only one which would be problematic for most database apps is the lack of support for nested transactions.
"As for JBoss vs. Weblogic, i don't have enough experience with either to make a valid comparison, but Weblogic is ceratinly a much more capable product by features alone."
Actually, JBOSS has led the way in features, with Weblogic playing catch-up. I'm sure there's some things that Weblogic has that JBOSS doesn't, but most people I know who have used both prefer JBOSS.
I think an even bigger problem is that it's not necessarily the _results_ that are a problem, but the question. For example, a lot of the Microsoft studies compare Microsoft and Linux/J2EE. What an idiotic comparison!!!! You cannot legitimately say that it was a Microsoft/Linux comparison. The only thing that happened to be "Linux" about it was that they ran J2EE and all of the other overpriced software (like Oracle) on Linux.
What makes the research flawed is that someone else gets to ask the question, and they get to be selective as to which results are returned. The research group does not get to publish a statement saying that they think the questions were bogus or focusing on the wrong issues.
It still amazes and troubles me that a comparison of Microsoft and J2EE (and not even open-source J2EE) is touted as a Microsoft/Linux battle. How does one even make that jump? Especially since J2EE runs fine on Microsoft platforms. If they had been honest, they would have either (a) run J2EE and Oracle on _both_ platforms, in which case Linux would have been cheaper, or (b) analyzed "common use" of either operating system (I do not know what the results of this would be, but my guess is that it favors Linux). The question as posed is already biased.
This is better because it can run Linux apps directly, rather than having to port them to Cygwin. This will also help me in my new book, because I'm teaching Linux assembly language.
I used to work at a company where salesmen routinely had to go thorough a grilling of the entire IT department. It was quite fun to be a part of. Especially since we were the _first_ step _before_ upper management.
"Would they even know about it? Seems to me that they get their support from where they buy their computer from, not MS themselves."
So how would the OEM's be able to support them now? If a giant exploit is discovered in Win98, the OEMs can do jack squat about it without Microsoft's help.
"So those Win98 users - the ones whose needs aren't sophisticated enough to justify upgrading to Win2K or WinXP - are all kernel developers now?"
Nope. In order to use the Linux model, they only need to find a company willing to support Win98. Perhaps a large company with a large 98 install base might even do this themselves.
"You can wriggle all you like, but the fact is that Microsoft is offering a near-unprecedented level of support for an EOL'd product, and Red Hat dropped the ball bigtime."
I agree with your first statement, but not your second. There is still support available for old RH versions, just not through RH. I don't see how this is bad. In addition, upgrades to RH are free.
I think the point is that 2K and XP offer so _little_ to the customer that the only reason to upgrade is to get a stable OS. If they actually offered improvements (not just stability/bugfixes) that would be another thing.
That said, the addition of the service manager to XP is quite useful IMO.
Your editorial was excellent. It was brief and to the point.
"Forcing believeing children to give the impression that they are not believing, why is that any better than the opposite?"
Yes! One thing that people do not realize is that school, at least in the US, is a forced activity from 8 to 3 - 7 hours. This is usually more time than is spent with the family. The results of this are
* Children are starting to give more credence to their school acquaintences than their family
* Whatever moral instruction is or isn't applied at school is essentially de facto present or absent from the child's life
* Whatever cultural practices are or aren't applied at school are essentially de facto present or absent from the child's life
* The context and viewpoint of learning is whatever the state says it is, and there is no such thing as neutrality
This is setting us up for a huuuuge problem - state-run religion, or state-run secularization, as it may be. In addition, it is the replacement of the family with the school, making children essentially accept whatever propoganda is being taught in the schools.
"Or that the state should be able to influence the children in a neutral manner through the schools? If so, who gets to decide what's neutral?"
There is not, nor will there ever be, a neutral standpoint.
"God himself always ok'd killing everyone not agreeing with you"
Nope. There were several instances where God ok'd this, but it was definitely not a universal sanction. Specifically Israelites were required not to marry people of foreign Gods, and were not to worship these Gods, but these people were allowed to live among the Israelites and the Israelites were _required_ to treat them with equity, because at one time they had been foreigners living in a foreign land.
Also, on a side point, there are many places in the Bible where foreign worship would be recognized as worshipping the one true God. For example, Melchizedek, who was a foreign priest, worshiped El Elyon (Abraham worshipped Yahweh), but Abraham recognized him as God's priest, and gave him a tenth of everything he owned.
So, anyway, I would say that your summary is by far incorrect. God, at certain times, ok'd killing off entire civilizations. However, in the general case, this was not ok.
"calling everyone else "barbarians" to justify taking their land"
I understand your point, but the fact is that, in the Old Testament, God was very picky about who Israel fought. There were many foreigners whom God told the Israelites not to touch because God had given those people their land just like God had given the Israelites their land. It was not "us" verse "everyone else". God had interacted with several of the nations, and found favor with many of them, and did not find favor with others. There were many people that Israel wanted to fight that God said "no" to, and many people God wanted Israel to fight that Israel said "no" to.
"Ali did not as far as I know ever ever advocate violence to solve problems in his life or the world"
Yes he did. Needs money - beats people up on national TV - gets millions.
I understand that what you are saying is that the only targets are willing participants, but that is the case in many violent conflicts (think barfight).
" If they had used a true one-way function, (definition: infeasible to find an input resulting in certian output)"
Is that the real definition of a one-way function? I thought it was simply that X -> Y, but that you could not necessarily find your way back to X based just on Y. For example f(x) = 1 would be a one-way function, since everything maps to 1. I'm not sure about this, would someone like to point to a URL with more definitive information?
Actually, infinity does not mean "Everything", it means "countless things". For example, I can have an infinite line, but that does not mean that the line crosses every conceivable point on the paper. In fact, with an infinite line, there are infintely many more points that the line did not cross than there are points that it did cross.
You see, you are including the time it takes for testing in the change request. At EDS, the 30-day process happened after testing was COMPLETED. Several sites required that _text_ changes go through this process, too.
"If you are a one person shop, it is a little different. Don't assume that a large corporation can react as fast as a one person shop, it isn't possible."
I understand this idea. I've worked at both types of companies. I actually was working at EDS.
In addition, their implementation scripts generally did not work. Period. They would come up with these horribly complex scripts that just didn't run. I usually had to go in and debug them while I was trying to use them to install.
I think part of the problem is simply the way EDS is set up. They can't figure out if they are hosting the boxes, the applications, or the monitoring services. The needed to figure it out and then let the company who is being hosted have their own change review process, and only run changes through EDS that actually affected EDS.
Nope. We've talked to our ISP. They are aware of what we are doing (actually, we discussed it even before we signed up with them), and how we are conducting our business. They agree with it, and as long as we don't truly spam people (i.e. - harvested lists, no unsubscribe information, bad return address, etc.), then they will keep us.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it does. They are coming out with XBOX 2. The whole point of dropping the price is to get rid of their rediculously huge inventory.
After XBOX 2 comes out, noone will buy an Xbox. They have already spent the money to manufacture it. The only difference is, IF you pay the money THEN they recoup some of their losses, otherwise they recoup NONE of their losses.
"Yeah, but who is selling Linux to CIOs? It's not the people who put out vim and php."
Actually, it's their own tech department that usually does the selling to the CIO. Or a custom programming shop. These people are usually more likely to be pure-play open-source.
Obviously, you need to flip the Magic Switch
You've obviously never used Postgres. Postgres is in the same league as MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, and others. It is not quite as tunable as Oracle, and Oracle can scale higher, but not higher enough to be in a completely different league.
Comparing PG w/ Access shows that you've never used PG. PG supports views, triggers, constraints, the ability to write functions in many languages, indexes, partial indexes, some table inheritance support, includes a genetic query optimizer, can do views of "group by" clauses (and optimizes them very well), can do updateable views, has a really nice "rules" system for rewriting queries, has write-ahead logging, support for multiple transaction isolation levels, and several other features I can't think of here.
The limitations of Postgres are: no support for configurable tablespaces, no automated point-in-time recovery (however, Oracle's PITR is quite limited, too), doesn't work with protocols requiring two-phase commits (PG uses MVCC, which uses less locking), cannot do nested transactions, and does not have a built-in automated replication solution (although third-party products and open-source projects are available).
These limitations are only problematic in the largest of deployments, however, and most of them can be worked around. The only one which would be problematic for most database apps is the lack of support for nested transactions.
"As for JBoss vs. Weblogic, i don't have enough experience with either to make a valid comparison, but Weblogic is ceratinly a much more capable product by features alone."
Actually, JBOSS has led the way in features, with Weblogic playing catch-up. I'm sure there's some things that Weblogic has that JBOSS doesn't, but most people I know who have used both prefer JBOSS.
I think an even bigger problem is that it's not necessarily the _results_ that are a problem, but the question. For example, a lot of the Microsoft studies compare Microsoft and Linux/J2EE. What an idiotic comparison!!!! You cannot legitimately say that it was a Microsoft/Linux comparison. The only thing that happened to be "Linux" about it was that they ran J2EE and all of the other overpriced software (like Oracle) on Linux.
What makes the research flawed is that someone else gets to ask the question, and they get to be selective as to which results are returned. The research group does not get to publish a statement saying that they think the questions were bogus or focusing on the wrong issues.
It still amazes and troubles me that a comparison of Microsoft and J2EE (and not even open-source J2EE) is touted as a Microsoft/Linux battle. How does one even make that jump? Especially since J2EE runs fine on Microsoft platforms. If they had been honest, they would have either (a) run J2EE and Oracle on _both_ platforms, in which case Linux would have been cheaper, or (b) analyzed "common use" of either operating system (I do not know what the results of this would be, but my guess is that it favors Linux). The question as posed is already biased.
This is better because it can run Linux apps directly, rather than having to port them to Cygwin. This will also help me in my new book, because I'm teaching Linux assembly language.
Is ITRON a standard or an implementation? It looks just like a standard from the web site.
I used to work at a company where salesmen routinely had to go thorough a grilling of the entire IT department. It was quite fun to be a part of. Especially since we were the _first_ step _before_ upper management.
Thunk. "Ahhh! Maybe not!"
No, XP was the first _consumer_ version of Windows to have the service manager. It was available in NT, but the 9x line has never had it.
"Would they even know about it? Seems to me that they get their support from where they buy their computer from, not MS themselves."
So how would the OEM's be able to support them now? If a giant exploit is discovered in Win98, the OEMs can do jack squat about it without Microsoft's help.
"So those Win98 users - the ones whose needs aren't sophisticated enough to justify upgrading to Win2K or WinXP - are all kernel developers now?"
Nope. In order to use the Linux model, they only need to find a company willing to support Win98. Perhaps a large company with a large 98 install base might even do this themselves.
"You can wriggle all you like, but the fact is that Microsoft is offering a near-unprecedented level of support for an EOL'd product, and Red Hat dropped the ball bigtime."
I agree with your first statement, but not your second. There is still support available for old RH versions, just not through RH. I don't see how this is bad. In addition, upgrades to RH are free.
I think the point is that 2K and XP offer so _little_ to the customer that the only reason to upgrade is to get a stable OS. If they actually offered improvements (not just stability/bugfixes) that would be another thing.
That said, the addition of the service manager to XP is quite useful IMO.
Your editorial was excellent. It was brief and to the point.
"Forcing believeing children to give the impression that they are not believing, why is that any better than the opposite?"
Yes! One thing that people do not realize is that school, at least in the US, is a forced activity from 8 to 3 - 7 hours. This is usually more time than is spent with the family. The results of this are
* Children are starting to give more credence to their school acquaintences than their family
* Whatever moral instruction is or isn't applied at school is essentially de facto present or absent from the child's life
* Whatever cultural practices are or aren't applied at school are essentially de facto present or absent from the child's life
* The context and viewpoint of learning is whatever the state says it is, and there is no such thing as neutrality
This is setting us up for a huuuuge problem - state-run religion, or state-run secularization, as it may be. In addition, it is the replacement of the family with the school, making children essentially accept whatever propoganda is being taught in the schools.
"Or that the state should be able to influence the children in a neutral manner through the schools? If so, who gets to decide what's neutral?"
There is not, nor will there ever be, a neutral standpoint.
They're called mailing lists. I'd try the samba one, or one for your dist.
"I know of France banning public wearing of _any_ religious symbols in class"
Forced secularization. Wow.
It appears secular humanism is the new world religion.
"God himself always ok'd killing everyone not agreeing with you"
Nope. There were several instances where God ok'd this, but it was definitely not a universal sanction. Specifically Israelites were required not to marry people of foreign Gods, and were not to worship these Gods, but these people were allowed to live among the Israelites and the Israelites were _required_ to treat them with equity, because at one time they had been foreigners living in a foreign land.
Also, on a side point, there are many places in the Bible where foreign worship would be recognized as worshipping the one true God. For example, Melchizedek, who was a foreign priest, worshiped El Elyon (Abraham worshipped Yahweh), but Abraham recognized him as God's priest, and gave him a tenth of everything he owned.
So, anyway, I would say that your summary is by far incorrect. God, at certain times, ok'd killing off entire civilizations. However, in the general case, this was not ok.
"calling everyone else "barbarians" to justify taking their land"
I understand your point, but the fact is that, in the Old Testament, God was very picky about who Israel fought. There were many foreigners whom God told the Israelites not to touch because God had given those people their land just like God had given the Israelites their land. It was not "us" verse "everyone else". God had interacted with several of the nations, and found favor with many of them, and did not find favor with others. There were many people that Israel wanted to fight that God said "no" to, and many people God wanted Israel to fight that Israel said "no" to.
"Ali did not as far as I know ever ever advocate violence to solve problems in his life or the world"
Yes he did. Needs money - beats people up on national TV - gets millions.
I understand that what you are saying is that the only targets are willing participants, but that is the case in many violent conflicts (think barfight).
" If they had used a true one-way function, (definition: infeasible to find an input resulting in certian output)"
Is that the real definition of a one-way function? I thought it was simply that X -> Y, but that you could not necessarily find your way back to X based just on Y. For example f(x) = 1 would be a one-way function, since everything maps to 1. I'm not sure about this, would someone like to point to a URL with more definitive information?
Actually, infinity does not mean "Everything", it means "countless things". For example, I can have an infinite line, but that does not mean that the line crosses every conceivable point on the paper. In fact, with an infinite line, there are infintely many more points that the line did not cross than there are points that it did cross.
Wrong. Disney uses WINE.
You see, you are including the time it takes for testing in the change request. At EDS, the 30-day process happened after testing was COMPLETED. Several sites required that _text_ changes go through this process, too.
"If you are a one person shop, it is a little different. Don't assume that a large corporation can react as fast as a one person shop, it isn't possible."
I understand this idea. I've worked at both types of companies. I actually was working at EDS.
In addition, their implementation scripts generally did not work. Period. They would come up with these horribly complex scripts that just didn't run. I usually had to go in and debug them while I was trying to use them to install.
I think part of the problem is simply the way EDS is set up. They can't figure out if they are hosting the boxes, the applications, or the monitoring services. The needed to figure it out and then let the company who is being hosted have their own change review process, and only run changes through EDS that actually affected EDS.
Nope. We've talked to our ISP. They are aware of what we are doing (actually, we discussed it even before we signed up with them), and how we are conducting our business. They agree with it, and as long as we don't truly spam people (i.e. - harvested lists, no unsubscribe information, bad return address, etc.), then they will keep us.
No, it's just that innovation can't really be outsourced, nor done at such a distance.