Re:Companies will stab you in the back,...
on
Me-Commerce
·
· Score: 2
Don't ever work for me. Really. I'm sorry if other companies have treated you poorly, but not all companies are like that. You should have checked into that before you went to work. If all you do at work is make money, then you are most likely a very poor employee. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but its true.
This is not a HOLE in the GPL, its a RIGHT. The GPL grants users total freedom to do whatever they want with the source for their own reasons. Sun is simply offering a tool FOR USERS TO USE, that converts the source into sun drivers. Just think of it as a retargettable compiler. There is nothing wrong with users doing this with there own source code, and nothing wrong with Sun providing such a tool. It would only be wrong if a person were to distribute these binaries that they made (which no one has yet done). Yes, Donald Becker is mad, but that doesn't mean that a license has been violated. The license is doing what it was meant to do - protecting user freedoms.
This guy is a complete moron. I know that sounds like a flame, but let me show you:
From the article:
"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
and "Debugging is parallelizable." These assertions simply are not true and are
distortions of how the development of fetchmail proceeded. It is true that many people,
in parallel, looked for bugs and proposed fixes. But only one person (Raymond) actually
made fixes, by incorporating the proposed changes into the official code base. Debugging
(the process of fixing the program) was performed by one person, from suggestions made
by many people.
This is utter nonsense. Finding bugs and coming up with patches is the MAJORITY of the work. Simply reading patches, do minor mods on them, and applying them is absolutely minimal, compared to the work put in to the patches themselves. Noone is claiming that open source keeps anyone from having to work at all, just that collaborative development allows the workload to be better distributed. No matter what, there always has to be central control of the tree, or chaos results, whether that's in open source or not. However, in open source, you don't have to worry about scheduling people for things - people fix what they think is broken, you just have to be there to put in the changes. And, if you're not, guess what, someone else will take over tree control. The difference is that the management overhead (not the coding overhead) is completely eliminated.
Another point is that open source is self-organizing. That doesn't mean that a magical structure appears (like the author perceives it), but that natural leaders emerge (i.e. - the ones that code). If you started a project, people look to you for leadership. If you contribute a lot of code, the leader will give you a lot of authority in the project. This differs from normal management in that (1) the leaders are obvious, and
(2) you won't ever have a situation of inept leaders leading talented programmers (they will simply find one of themselves to lead). None of this takes management overhead.
Then he mentions how all of Linux kernel development halts when Linus goes on vacation. This is utterly not true. Development continues at the same pace as before, but the kernel tree does not get updated. As the Linux users and developers, _we_ have decided that we'll hold off on committing to the tree while Linus is away. Otherwise, we'd make our own tree. In fact, Alan Cox did this for a while, with very good results (many people for a while used Alan's tree instead of the main kernel tree, because it was better kept). Thus, if there is a flaw in the system, it is easily removed.
He then gives an example of how he thinks bazaar-style really works if it is really in a bazaar style (he argues that Linux and fetchmail aren't). I'll post it here:
Someone creates a minimal working version of the software. (This follows Raymond's
advice to start with a "plausible promise.")
The originator releases the working program, a description of how to use it, and all
the source code to an appropriate forum such as a newsgroup or public web site. From
this point forward, the originator becomes just another member of the user community,
with no special status.
Anyone may download the program and source, try it out, look for bugs, and suggest
fixes and enhancements. These ideas are communicated to the entire user community
through the forum.
Anyone at any time, or multiple people at the same time, may decide to create a new
version of the program. They do so by using ideas and code from the user community,
along with their own contributions. They post the new version to the user forum.
Most likely, the code "forks" as several people create new releases at the same time.
This is part of the bazaar process.
The user community attempts to settle on the best fork to follow, by trying all
available versions and focusing their attention on the best version. No single person or
small committee manages this process. Perhaps the best fork is widely recognized and
quickly selected, perhaps not.
Several forks may live in parallel for quite a while. If so, it is the decision of the
user community no one fork is the clear winner. When the community tires of parallel
forks, they will select one to follow.
Development continues in this dynamic, organic method. Leaders emerge briefly, as they
create a new release or argue for one fork over another, but they then become equal
community members again. All decisions about features, design, bug fixes, etc. are made
in this way.
The strange thing is, this is what happens in both the cathedral open-source style and the bazaar open-source style. Take for example, GCC - it existed in egcs and gcc form for many years. However, egcs was technically better, and this was recognized, so they merged. Take the Linux kernel. He is wrongly stating that there is only one tree. Let me see how many trees I can count:
Linus's tree
Alan's tree
Monta Vista's tree
Other real-time trees
Debian tree
a tree for every other vendor who produces a distribution (no, no dist ever uses a Linus release)
And then remember that for a long time, PCMCIA was on someone else's tree, and it wasn't until recently that they merged. GNOME works in the same way. People just think in terms of Linus's tree, because that's an easy reference point. However, Linus's tree is probably the least-used of any tree in a real environment.
This guy obviously knows nothing of what he is talking about.
While moving toward the paperless office (Storing all of our records on magnetic digital medium) we are potentially setting ourselves up for catastrophe. We do not know what all exists in space, but lets say something happens, and it sends a _REALLY STRONG_ magnetic wave to earth. BAM! All of our data goes bye-bye. We might not even know it until we've lost all of our data. And then, if the magnetic wave is permanent, we may never get our precious computers back on line. I know this sounds paranoid, but the smaller we get, the more fragile we get as well. I see this as a potentially dangerous trend.
The problem is that the government is granting power to the big guys. Having big guys is no problem. However, copyright laws, patent laws, and other such governmental interference (yes, copyright _is_ a governmental interference in the free market) is what is giving large corporations power that the free market would not have otherwise granted them. The government is making so many regulations that it is impossible for startups without mega-funding to make it. Thus, the power of the government is what is making the free market system not work.
How does this get rid of the need for DHCP? DHCP is needed for configuration, even out of a static pool. It makes administration easier (i.e. - I don't have to set up your workstation, I just have to set up the DHCP server). Using DHCP to serve up static addresses is pretty common.
Considering the going rate at most ISPs is $50/per IP address, that a 5000% markup they get to use. The price you quote is only $1.50 per address. How is that pricey?
Re:But there ARE compatibility issues...
on
GPG vs. PGP?
·
· Score: 1
a patch can be distributed under any license whatsoever. As long as the end-user is the one combining the patches with the code, the end-user can do anything he wants with GPL code for himself.
X is pure free software, because it _can_ be redistributed under terms of the GPL. It is originally BSD licensed, but the BSD license allows to change licenses, thus it can be used in a free software project.
Actually, though, he did not do anything illegal. He did not decompile the object code. He just re-implemented it, which is perfectly legal under U.S. law. In fact, he didn't just re-implement it, he implemented a different program that has similar functionality (it doesn't use their servers - just goes straight to Amazon.com). The company suing him is smoking crack.
NONE of their IP was stolen, or reverse-engineered. A driver was merely written. I'm sorry, but these guys are idiots. If current law upholds their complaints, this country is in a truly sad shape indeed.
Actually, RMS wasn't saying _anything_ negative about QT or TrollTech. Everything about them was entirely positive and thankful. He only said negative things about KDE, which he was well within his right, because KDE has been using GNU code illegally (not just their own GPL code, but the FSF's as well).
The FSF (which is headed by RMS) has copyright to many, many GPL projects. Therefore, RMS is authorized to grant forgiveness. Most projects listed on the GNU software page have the whole copyright of them assigned to the FSF. They don't automatically hold the copyright. Instead, they have forms that you fill out to grant the FSF copyright (filling out these forms is a requirement to participate in some of the projects). These forms give the FSF the ability to defend the GPL in court. The transfer of copyright gives a legal basis for _someone_ owning the copyright (if you didn't do a legal transfer, there would be no record of copyright ownership), and also allow the FSF to sue companies who violate the copyright of GPL products.
Have you ever tried to use C++ for object-oriented development? It's a piece of crap. It takes more time to work around C++'s idiosyncrasies than it does to do the same stuff in C. Also, GNOME _is_ object-oriented. Yes, you _can_ do OO stuff in C. In fact, writing a library in C++ is terribly stupid, because there is no binary compatibility specifications. Having the library in C and a C++ wrapper is a much, much better solution. If you want a better language than C, go with Objective C. C++ definitely sucks as far as OO goes.
I think the main idea is not that "they will know my IP address", but rather "they can route my IP address". This makes attacks _very_ difficult. How do you break into a machine that you can't route to? Not only do you have to break our firewall, you have to break into every router between you and them and make that IP address routable. Most of NAT's features are in the "firewall-like" category. However, NAT makes the setup much more foolproof. You don't have to remember to block syn packets in certain directions. And, on top of everything else, the address you are coming from is non-routable. On top of that, there is a layer of obscurity (yes, obscurity has its purposes, but it shouldn't be confused with security). So, the advantages of NAT are:
I think your missing the point - everyone _has_ upgraded their browser. Are you using Netscape 1.0? IE 2.0? Netscape 1.0 only got usage from people who were in the early days of the net, and they were savvy enough to upgrade. If you're using IE 2.0, then it crashes every other page you visit. I can't think of a browser that I've even _heard_ of people using that doesn't give a host header.
Also, simply adding one more octet (not ocet) is not as easy as it sounds. There are thousands of applications/operating systems/etc built around the current IP addressing scheme. Simply adding
an extra octet will mean that every router/client program/server/kernel will have to be rewritten. It seems strange that you are willing to have users upgrade their browsers for one change and not another. Anyway, IPV6 is essentially this (except that it has a lot of other features, too). However, it is expected to take about 10 years to implement because of the problems I've noted above.
It is _not_ security by obscurity. As you said, there are things that the NAT boxes _can't_ do. That _is_ security - limitting the possibilities. It prevents any requests from being routed to your internal boxes.
Most browsers only support parts of the HTTP/1.1 spec, so they broadcast themselves as HTTP/1.0, even though they are sending the host header. A better metric would be to search for Netscape 1 and IE 1/2 UserAgents. I don't think you'll find any.
They don't do virtual IP. What usually happens is they link your username/password to a directory on the system. If you find another address with the same IP as yours, ftp in with your username and password, you will still find your site. The host name is never transferred in the FTP protocol.
First of all, the person writing the article apparently is ignorant to the rest of Win32->Linux efforts, as he/she totally forgot to mention WINE. They said that access to Windows 98/2000 source code was essential to doing such a port. But, like anyone who has traced WINE's accomplishments, you would know that they have no such access, and probably are having better success than anyone else.
Second of all, I find it very interesting that this is coming out 2 months before Sun unveils the Free version of StarOffice. They've been working on it for over a year, and just now, with the announcements of people working on GNOME, do they mention this project. For those of you who don't read the Robert Cringely columns often, let me tell you what this means. Microsoft often announces products with no intention of shipping them just to scare others out of the marketplace. For example, the X box announcements are designed to hold Sony at bay, not that they actually plan to ship a product anytime this century. Therefore, they are probably announcing this so that developers don't unilaterally jump ship for GNOME now that it has good backing and support. They are trying to leverage their Win32 platform by saying "we'll have it for Linux, we swear!". Then, it doesn't matter if they port to Linux or not -- they have kept everyone coding for Win32 instead of GNOME.
You should try backing up your claim. Obviously, MySQL is a toy database. It is used for fast tabular data access, not true database work. What makes PostgreSQL a toy? It supports things such as table inheritance, very nice transaction support, and other things.
I'm curious, what makes open source automatically have lesser products? I'm not saying that currently PostgreSQL has everything you may need, but does that have to do with open source or just the specific project? Also, I'm not impressed with your amount of data. If you are using a pre-written application, most of them hold and keep _way_ more data than they ever need to. Oracle Applications, for instance, for our 300-person company, took up 1 Gig just for the table definitions! So your 4Tb system could be more from mismanagement than having that much useful data.
Actually, for database applications, the critical component is the hardware (assuming you have a _real_ RDBMS - not MySQL). Sun hardware beats just about anything. If you want to see PostgreSQL being used in the real world, take a look at http://www.pgsql.com/
Have you taken a look at the features in PostgreSQL? They are very, very nice.
HELLO!!!! UMSDOS does NOT use DOS. It doesn't require DOS or anything like it! UMSDOS simply puts Linux on a DOS _disk_. And they are not changing the filesystem format. Even if they did make an incompatible change, its their business. I use Linux, because if Linux makes an incompatible change I don't like, I can/* comment it out */
I know you're trying to be funny, but I think you've missed the point. In the dynamo stuff, the translated code runs _faster_ than the original code. This is because it performs optimizations based on usage patterns that could never be done at compile time. For example if you have two procedures that are defined in very different places in the source code, which happen to call each other often, the dynamo translation will move them onto the same memory page, thus making many more cache hits.
I don't know much about REXX, but languages like VB, which are extremely easy to write, lend themselves to REALLY bad coding habits, and actually prevent many good coding habits (like abstraction). What makes something take 20 lines instead of 1000 is usually library support, not necessarily something inherent in the language. The question is not "does it do the job". Any language can be used to do the job. The question is, in 5 years will someone else be able to adapt my code to new and unforseen situations? That is the main problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't ever work for me. Really. I'm sorry if other companies have treated you poorly, but not all companies are like that. You should have checked into that before you went to work. If all you do at work is make money, then you are most likely a very poor employee. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but its true.
This is not a HOLE in the GPL, its a RIGHT. The GPL grants users total freedom to do whatever they want with the source for their own reasons. Sun is simply offering a tool FOR USERS TO USE, that converts the source into sun drivers. Just think of it as a retargettable compiler. There is nothing wrong with users doing this with there own source code, and nothing wrong with Sun providing such a tool. It would only be wrong if a person were to distribute these binaries that they made (which no one has yet done). Yes, Donald Becker is mad, but that doesn't mean that a license has been violated. The license is doing what it was meant to do - protecting user freedoms.
From the article:
"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
and "Debugging is parallelizable." These assertions simply are not true and are
distortions of how the development of fetchmail proceeded. It is true that many people,
in parallel, looked for bugs and proposed fixes. But only one person (Raymond) actually
made fixes, by incorporating the proposed changes into the official code base. Debugging
(the process of fixing the program) was performed by one person, from suggestions made
by many people.
This is utter nonsense. Finding bugs and coming up with patches is the MAJORITY of the work. Simply reading patches, do minor mods on them, and applying them is absolutely minimal, compared to the work put in to the patches themselves. Noone is claiming that open source keeps anyone from having to work at all, just that collaborative development allows the workload to be better distributed. No matter what, there always has to be central control of the tree, or chaos results, whether that's in open source or not. However, in open source, you don't have to worry about scheduling people for things - people fix what they think is broken, you just have to be there to put in the changes. And, if you're not, guess what, someone else will take over tree control. The difference is that the management overhead (not the coding overhead) is completely eliminated.
Another point is that open source is self-organizing. That doesn't mean that a magical structure appears (like the author perceives it), but that natural leaders emerge (i.e. - the ones that code). If you started a project, people look to you for leadership. If you contribute a lot of code, the leader will give you a lot of authority in the project. This differs from normal management in that (1) the leaders are obvious, and
(2) you won't ever have a situation of inept leaders leading talented programmers (they will simply find one of themselves to lead). None of this takes management overhead.
Then he mentions how all of Linux kernel development halts when Linus goes on vacation. This is utterly not true. Development continues at the same pace as before, but the kernel tree does not get updated. As the Linux users and developers, _we_ have decided that we'll hold off on committing to the tree while Linus is away. Otherwise, we'd make our own tree. In fact, Alan Cox did this for a while, with very good results (many people for a while used Alan's tree instead of the main kernel tree, because it was better kept). Thus, if there is a flaw in the system, it is easily removed.
He then gives an example of how he thinks bazaar-style really works if it is really in a bazaar style (he argues that Linux and fetchmail aren't). I'll post it here:
Someone creates a minimal working version of the software. (This follows Raymond's
advice to start with a "plausible promise.")
The originator releases the working program, a description of how to use it, and all
the source code to an appropriate forum such as a newsgroup or public web site. From
this point forward, the originator becomes just another member of the user community,
with no special status.
Anyone may download the program and source, try it out, look for bugs, and suggest
fixes and enhancements. These ideas are communicated to the entire user community
through the forum.
Anyone at any time, or multiple people at the same time, may decide to create a new
version of the program. They do so by using ideas and code from the user community,
along with their own contributions. They post the new version to the user forum.
Most likely, the code "forks" as several people create new releases at the same time.
This is part of the bazaar process.
The user community attempts to settle on the best fork to follow, by trying all
available versions and focusing their attention on the best version. No single person or
small committee manages this process. Perhaps the best fork is widely recognized and
quickly selected, perhaps not.
Several forks may live in parallel for quite a while. If so, it is the decision of the
user community no one fork is the clear winner. When the community tires of parallel
forks, they will select one to follow.
Development continues in this dynamic, organic method. Leaders emerge briefly, as they
create a new release or argue for one fork over another, but they then become equal
community members again. All decisions about features, design, bug fixes, etc. are made
in this way.
The strange thing is, this is what happens in both the cathedral open-source style and the bazaar open-source style. Take for example, GCC - it existed in egcs and gcc form for many years. However, egcs was technically better, and this was recognized, so they merged. Take the Linux kernel. He is wrongly stating that there is only one tree. Let me see how many trees I can count:
And then remember that for a long time, PCMCIA was on someone else's tree, and it wasn't until recently that they merged. GNOME works in the same way. People just think in terms of Linus's tree, because that's an easy reference point. However, Linus's tree is probably the least-used of any tree in a real environment.
This guy obviously knows nothing of what he is talking about.
While moving toward the paperless office (Storing all of our records on magnetic digital medium) we are potentially setting ourselves up for catastrophe. We do not know what all exists in space, but lets say something happens, and it sends a _REALLY STRONG_ magnetic wave to earth. BAM! All of our data goes bye-bye. We might not even know it until we've lost all of our data. And then, if the magnetic wave is permanent, we may never get our precious computers back on line. I know this sounds paranoid, but the smaller we get, the more fragile we get as well. I see this as a potentially dangerous trend.
The problem is that the government is granting power to the big guys. Having big guys is no problem. However, copyright laws, patent laws, and other such governmental interference (yes, copyright _is_ a governmental interference in the free market) is what is giving large corporations power that the free market would not have otherwise granted them. The government is making so many regulations that it is impossible for startups without mega-funding to make it. Thus, the power of the government is what is making the free market system not work.
How does this get rid of the need for DHCP? DHCP is needed for configuration, even out of a static pool. It makes administration easier (i.e. - I don't have to set up your workstation, I just have to set up the DHCP server). Using DHCP to serve up static addresses is pretty common.
Considering the going rate at most ISPs is $50/per IP address, that a 5000% markup they get to use. The price you quote is only $1.50 per address. How is that pricey?
a patch can be distributed under any license whatsoever. As long as the end-user is the one combining the patches with the code, the end-user can do anything he wants with GPL code for himself.
X is pure free software, because it _can_ be redistributed under terms of the GPL. It is originally BSD licensed, but the BSD license allows to change licenses, thus it can be used in a free software project.
Actually, though, he did not do anything illegal. He did not decompile the object code. He just re-implemented it, which is perfectly legal under U.S. law. In fact, he didn't just re-implement it, he implemented a different program that has similar functionality (it doesn't use their servers - just goes straight to Amazon.com). The company suing him is smoking crack.
NONE of their IP was stolen, or reverse-engineered. A driver was merely written. I'm sorry, but these guys are idiots. If current law upholds their complaints, this country is in a truly sad shape indeed.
Actually, RMS wasn't saying _anything_ negative about QT or TrollTech. Everything about them was entirely positive and thankful. He only said negative things about KDE, which he was well within his right, because KDE has been using GNU code illegally (not just their own GPL code, but the FSF's as well).
The FSF (which is headed by RMS) has copyright to many, many GPL projects. Therefore, RMS is authorized to grant forgiveness. Most projects listed on the GNU software page have the whole copyright of them assigned to the FSF. They don't automatically hold the copyright. Instead, they have forms that you fill out to grant the FSF copyright (filling out these forms is a requirement to participate in some of the projects). These forms give the FSF the ability to defend the GPL in court. The transfer of copyright gives a legal basis for _someone_ owning the copyright (if you didn't do a legal transfer, there would be no record of copyright ownership), and also allow the FSF to sue companies who violate the copyright of GPL products.
Have you ever tried to use C++ for object-oriented development? It's a piece of crap. It takes more time to work around C++'s idiosyncrasies than it does to do the same stuff in C. Also, GNOME _is_ object-oriented. Yes, you _can_ do OO stuff in C. In fact, writing a library in C++ is terribly stupid, because there is no binary compatibility specifications. Having the library in C and a C++ wrapper is a much, much better solution. If you want a better language than C, go with Objective C. C++ definitely sucks as far as OO goes.
I think the main idea is not that "they will know my IP address", but rather "they can route my IP address". This makes attacks _very_ difficult. How do you break into a machine that you can't route to? Not only do you have to break our firewall, you have to break into every router between you and them and make that IP address routable. Most of NAT's features are in the "firewall-like" category. However, NAT makes the setup much more foolproof. You don't have to remember to block syn packets in certain directions. And, on top of everything else, the address you are coming from is non-routable. On top of that, there is a layer of obscurity (yes, obscurity has its purposes, but it shouldn't be confused with security). So, the advantages of NAT are:
* More foolproof firewalling (security benefit)
* Non-routable internal addresses (security benefit)
* Makes the internal network harder to view (obscurity benefit)
I've implemented a NAT solution for about 300 machines, and it worked quite well.
I think your missing the point - everyone _has_ upgraded their browser. Are you using Netscape 1.0? IE 2.0? Netscape 1.0 only got usage from people who were in the early days of the net, and they were savvy enough to upgrade. If you're using IE 2.0, then it crashes every other page you visit. I can't think of a browser that I've even _heard_ of people using that doesn't give a host header.
Also, simply adding one more octet (not ocet) is not as easy as it sounds. There are thousands of applications/operating systems/etc built around the current IP addressing scheme. Simply adding
an extra octet will mean that every router/client program/server/kernel will have to be rewritten. It seems strange that you are willing to have users upgrade their browsers for one change and not another. Anyway, IPV6 is essentially this (except that it has a lot of other features, too). However, it is expected to take about 10 years to implement because of the problems I've noted above.
Where I work, we have a whole class B. We only use about 100 of them for routable machines.
It is _not_ security by obscurity. As you said, there are things that the NAT boxes _can't_ do. That _is_ security - limitting the possibilities. It prevents any requests from being routed to your internal boxes.
Most browsers only support parts of the HTTP/1.1 spec, so they broadcast themselves as HTTP/1.0, even though they are sending the host header. A better metric would be to search for Netscape 1 and IE 1/2 UserAgents. I don't think you'll find any.
They don't do virtual IP. What usually happens is they link your username/password to a directory on the system. If you find another address with the same IP as yours, ftp in with your username and password, you will still find your site. The host name is never transferred in the FTP protocol.
First of all, the person writing the article apparently is ignorant to the rest of Win32->Linux efforts, as he/she totally forgot to mention WINE. They said that access to Windows 98/2000 source code was essential to doing such a port. But, like anyone who has traced WINE's accomplishments, you would know that they have no such access, and probably are having better success than anyone else.
Second of all, I find it very interesting that this is coming out 2 months before Sun unveils the Free version of StarOffice. They've been working on it for over a year, and just now, with the announcements of people working on GNOME, do they mention this project. For those of you who don't read the Robert Cringely columns often, let me tell you what this means. Microsoft often announces products with no intention of shipping them just to scare others out of the marketplace. For example, the X box announcements are designed to hold Sony at bay, not that they actually plan to ship a product anytime this century. Therefore, they are probably announcing this so that developers don't unilaterally jump ship for GNOME now that it has good backing and support. They are trying to leverage their Win32 platform by saying "we'll have it for Linux, we swear!". Then, it doesn't matter if they port to Linux or not -- they have kept everyone coding for Win32 instead of GNOME.
You should try backing up your claim. Obviously, MySQL is a toy database. It is used for fast tabular data access, not true database work. What makes PostgreSQL a toy? It supports things such as table inheritance, very nice transaction support, and other things.
I'm curious, what makes open source automatically have lesser products? I'm not saying that currently PostgreSQL has everything you may need, but does that have to do with open source or just the specific project? Also, I'm not impressed with your amount of data. If you are using a pre-written application, most of them hold and keep _way_ more data than they ever need to. Oracle Applications, for instance, for our 300-person company, took up 1 Gig just for the table definitions! So your 4Tb system could be more from mismanagement than having that much useful data.
Actually, for database applications, the critical component is the hardware (assuming you have a _real_ RDBMS - not MySQL). Sun hardware beats just about anything. If you want to see PostgreSQL being used in the real world, take a look at http://www.pgsql.com/
Have you taken a look at the features in PostgreSQL? They are very, very nice.
HELLO!!!! UMSDOS does NOT use DOS. It doesn't require DOS or anything like it! UMSDOS simply puts Linux on a DOS _disk_. And they are not changing the filesystem format. Even if they did make an incompatible change, its their business. I use Linux, because if Linux makes an incompatible change I don't like, I can /* comment it out */
I know you're trying to be funny, but I think you've missed the point. In the dynamo stuff, the translated code runs _faster_ than the original code. This is because it performs optimizations based on usage patterns that could never be done at compile time. For example if you have two procedures that are defined in very different places in the source code, which happen to call each other often, the dynamo translation will move them onto the same memory page, thus making many more cache hits.
I don't know much about REXX, but languages like VB, which are extremely easy to write, lend themselves to REALLY bad coding habits, and actually prevent many good coding habits (like abstraction). What makes something take 20 lines instead of 1000 is usually library support, not necessarily something inherent in the language. The question is not "does it do the job". Any language can be used to do the job. The question is, in 5 years will someone else be able to adapt my code to new and unforseen situations? That is the main problem.