ZFS was developed by Sun, not "the open source community."
Which is precisely why I said: "there is an open source community helping to develop..."; I did not claim that they birthed it themselves. I will not dispute that many prized projects "dropped out of commercial software vendors," though I would argue in many cases they weren't exactly in "already-working condition." That depends on who you ask I guess.
what is stopping Linux and the Open Source community from doing it? Oh, that's right- it's easier to just complain about MS than to actually get your hands dirty. Nevermind then, carry on.
Actually, there is an open source community helping to develop a next-generation filesystem right now. In fact, it's already being used in production environments! It's called ZFS, and you can find out more about that community here:
The original quote in context has a different meaning in my opinion:
Well, anyway, it's wonderful to be having this White House Conference on Small Business again after almost 6 years. Things certainly have changed in the meantime. Back then, government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. [Laughter] Well, with your help, I think we've turned all that around. We cut taxes. We squashed inflation. We brought interest rates down, threw out needless regulations, setting the economy on a growth path that has created somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 million new jobs in under 4 years. Now, most people know that history. What isn't widely enough recognized, however, is the leading role of entrepreneurs and small businesses in our ongoing expansion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! That is the whole point of the BSD license, and is why many slashdotters dislike it. If you want your changes back, you would NEVER license code under the BSD license!
Yes, but the irony is that a license about "sharing" doesn't really "share" except with itself. Incestous licensing if you ask me:)
CDDL was very carefully written so as to prevent their code to be migrated to GPLed software. Sun is deathly afraid that their software will fork under a GPL license and that they won't be able to keep up with the GPLed coders.
Stop spreading FUD. Anyone involved in the pilot process for OpenSolaris can tell you that those are NOT the reasons why the CDDL was created or used for SUN's code. The GPL was also one of the licenses considered.
Personally, I think the GPL is very selfish. GPL projects can take all the BSD code or code from other compatibly licensed files they want, incorporate and improve it but the GPL prevents BSD developers from getting back most of those improvements unless the project incorprating gives them back under the original license (so it would seem anyway, someone correct me if wrong and explain).
Yet, somehow, the BSD or MIT license is even simpler. Hmm...
The point is, as many times as the GPL has been explained, you think that an official "legal" interpretation from the FSF would be included alongside the license. It might help prevent a lot of these problems.
As I said, feel free to mock my grammar and spelling. However, "flee in terror" is a colloquialism that I enjoy using in specific scenarios. Additionally, it doesn't really qualify as a "cliche," at least to me, since I very rarely hear it used.
The author of this "review" uses some of the worst analogies I have ever seen. Flee in terror after reading the following example:
Oh, I need to cover one more thing before I close. You need to know that before you do anything remotely close to building software packages, be wary that by default Ubuntu comes with nothing close to anything you'll need to do any form of compiling on the system. I mean, come on, shouldn't this be one of the more important things to include? Granted, the idea is to move away from hand compiling all of our applications, but let's not jump the gun here. We're not quite there yet. There's nothing worse than a bad case of premature ejaculation, and that's right where we are if we're expecting everything to work out of the box with prebuilt packages.
You may now proceed to mock my spelling and grammar in response. Nonetheless, I think that this article is a prime example of "juvenile journalism."
While your post seems like an obvious observation I missed, it is not. I was well aware of that. I'm making the point that I think it's unreasonable for someone to be able to achieve full academic honors with a full credit load, a full time job, and be able to have a decent life. I would rather finish my PhD nearly middle aged then have a nervous breakdown or die earlier due to the stress that stole years from my life. If that's the benefit of finishing education early, no thanks!
While I don't doubt that DragonFly BSD will start to shine, I'm not sure that it will "take the lead." I personally expect OpenSolaris to take the lead since SUN has far more years experience in dealing with multiple processors.
Why do you have to take a full credit load of classes? Why not just one or two a semester? I've never understood the desire to stress out and make life miserable by taking more classes than can comfortably be handled. Sure, you may get to finish your degree quicker, yet what will it cost you?
Personally, I'm on year three of my two year associate's degree. It will have taken me four years total when I complete my degree at my current pace. However, I've only taken 6-9 credit hours per semester. As a result, I've still been able to work full time, keep my 4.0 GPA, hang out with friends a few times a month, and enjoy life. I'm mildly stressed once in a while, but overall it isn't nearly as bad as it would be if I tried to take a full credit load.
Hardly, this has little to do with that. One of the main reasons they have population problems is because there are far more males born then females. Gender imbalance and other things in the population are the real issue here, of course this being slashdot pithy reasonings like the above seem more logical. However, the research shows otherwise:
Which one would I use? Well that's tough. But, if I didn't care who used it, I would place it under BSD. If I wanted to make sure *my* code always stayed open, I'd use the CDDL.
Then you are doing something wrong. Let me guess, you use browser sniffers, don't you?
I'm so glad your omniscient and obviously correct about everything. Why, I must have just fallen off the turnip truck! Silly me, having been coding HTML and JavaScript since the Web first started practically. For your information I DO NOT USE BROWSER SNIFFERS. Thanks for assuming. As I mentioned earlier, Opera has rendering differences on the exact same HTML. How do you embed browser sniffers in freakin' HTML?
And now the Firefox fanboy says that IE is more standards compliant than Opera! Great move. Now everyone will take you seriously!
Hello. Earth to McFly. Did I ever say I was a Firefox user, or that Firefox was somehow divine? No, actually I was talking about Mozilla. Nor did I ever say that IE is more standards compliant than Opera. What I did say was that Opera renders standards compliant material *differently* or *in my opinion* wrongly sometimes compared to IE and Mozilla. Give me a freakin' break.
So now your "no end of sites" has changed to "internal development sites"? Interesting.
Did I say that? No! I was citing an example. Don't twist my words, thanks.
Nope. That depends entirely on what you are looking at. Opera and Mozilla's CSS box models are similar to each other, while IE gets most of it wrong. IE is the odd one out, not Opera.
No, you're wrong. I'll put it differently so you can understand. I can make a site with specific requirements layout and otherwise that will look the same in IE and Mozilla using the same CSS code and same JS code. Yet, I can't do that with IE, Mozilla and Opera because Opera's rendering is too different.
So what you are saying is that you are allowed to spread FUD about Opera, but I am not allowed to point out the fact that what you are saying about Opera applies equally to Mozilla?
I am not spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". I am stating facts. Opera does not render standards compliant material either correctly in my opinion or the same as other browsers. This makes simultaneous development on a set of browsers nearly impossible when Opera is included. This makes Opera irrelevant for more complex work.
What I'm saying about Opera does not equally apply to Mozilla for a few reasons:
1) Mozilla (despite your claims otherwise) renders many things much closer to IE than Opera allowing me to use the same code for particular things
2) Mozilla based browsers have a much larger market share on the desktop then Opera and in my case we have no customers that use Opera, and hardly any use Mozilla, which means my primary target market is IE and it's only practical for me to support browsers that work reasonably close to the way IE does for rendering.
You're just repeating what some other Firefox fan told you, aren't you? Those differences exist between all browsers. There are lots of sites that work in IE and Opera but not in Firefox.
No actually, while I said wasn't an opera user, I meant that in the ongoing sense. I have *used* Opera. But not for very long before dumping it.
Secondly, while what you say about Firefox may be true, I don't care about those sites. I only care about mine and internal development work. Work that is 100% standards compliant that I need to work the same way. IE and Mozilla are a lot closer to rendering like each other than Opera is to them. Since the majority of the market is IE, followed by Mozilla-based browsers, and then finally by Opera it makes a big difference.
So, please get off your high Opera horse and look at it from a practical development perspective.
Unfortunately the thing that immediately comes to mind is an internal web app, so I can't show that. However, the last time I checked the three things that Opera didn't handle right were:
* divs that used overflow attribute
* Font sizing was way different than either Mozilla or IE causing severe layout issues (in a internal Web App where precision layout is needed, not a Web Site)
* Some weird behavaiours with sizing of table cells and wrapping compared to IE/Mozilla
The main thing it came down to was that I could workaround or "fix" almost all of the behaviours by doing something a different way. But, let's be realistic, if I'm using 100% standard compliant code, I don't want to have to write three different versions! It was hard enough to convince management to let me make sure the Application looked the same in IE, and I only got away with that because I'm able to use one set of styles and JavaScript for both IE and Mozilla and because IE isn't available under Linux without using some Wine or emulator thing.
Because of this, I don't expect I will ever use Opera. Because quite frankly, I don't see the point. Mozilla provides everything I want and need for free. Why would I pay for Opera? Especially when I can't use it in most of my work because they implement standards rendering differently than IE and Mozilla? I really don't care about which interpretation or rendering is "more correct". I just care about the fact that almost all of the customers I have to support use IE, and a few use Mozilla-based ones. So, even if I liked Opera personally, I wouldn't ever be able to use it to develop since it seems to render so differently than IE and Mozilla.
BitTorrent is far from the only thing which sets Opera apart from Firefox. Speed, size, functionality, integration out of the box are some keywords. Of course, which one is better is a matter of taste, but some people prefer the way Opera works. No extension problems when upgrading, for one.
Of course, I could point to no end of sites that work just fine in Firefox and IE, but not in Opera. Sites that sometimes are 100% standards compliant.Of course, since I'm not an Opera User I don't care enough to report the problems, and additionally sometimes the "not working" part is because of a matter of interpretetive differences between the Opera team and IE/Mozilla developers.
Obviously I consider Opera better than IE, but it still has a long way to go for me personally when it comes to use as a development browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is precisely why I said: "there is an open source community helping to develop..."; I did not claim that they birthed it themselves. I will not dispute that many prized projects "dropped out of commercial software vendors," though I would argue in many cases they weren't exactly in "already-working condition." That depends on who you ask I guess.
At least the money stays here then -- remember, buy corrupt, buy American (only half-joking).
Actually, there is an open source community helping to develop a next-generation filesystem right now. In fact, it's already being used in production environments! It's called ZFS, and you can find out more about that community here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/
What is ZFS you ask? Find out here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/whati
ZFS highlights include:
Overviews of ZFS technology can be found here:
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/zfs_learning_
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/campaign_docs/expertexch
Remarks to State Chairpersons of the National White House Conference on Small Business
August 15, 1986
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/19
Whoa, whoa, whoa! That is the whole point of the BSD license, and is why many slashdotters dislike it. If you want your changes back, you would NEVER license code under the BSD license!
:)
Yes, but the irony is that a license about "sharing" doesn't really "share" except with itself. Incestous licensing if you ask me
CDDL was very carefully written so as to prevent their code to be migrated to GPLed software. Sun is deathly afraid that their software will fork under a GPL license and that they won't be able to keep up with the GPLed coders.
Stop spreading FUD. Anyone involved in the pilot process for OpenSolaris can tell you that those are NOT the reasons why the CDDL was created or used for SUN's code. The GPL was also one of the licenses considered.
Personally, I think the GPL is very selfish. GPL projects can take all the BSD code or code from other compatibly licensed files they want, incorporate and improve it but the GPL prevents BSD developers from getting back most of those improvements unless the project incorprating gives them back under the original license (so it would seem anyway, someone correct me if wrong and explain).
Yet, somehow, the BSD or MIT license is even simpler. Hmm...
The point is, as many times as the GPL has been explained, you think that an official "legal" interpretation from the FSF would be included alongside the license. It might help prevent a lot of these problems.
As I said, feel free to mock my grammar and spelling. However, "flee in terror" is a colloquialism that I enjoy using in specific scenarios. Additionally, it doesn't really qualify as a "cliche," at least to me, since I very rarely hear it used.
You may now proceed to mock my spelling and grammar in response. Nonetheless, I think that this article is a prime example of "juvenile journalism."
While your post seems like an obvious observation I missed, it is not. I was well aware of that. I'm making the point that I think it's unreasonable for someone to be able to achieve full academic honors with a full credit load, a full time job, and be able to have a decent life. I would rather finish my PhD nearly middle aged then have a nervous breakdown or die earlier due to the stress that stole years from my life. If that's the benefit of finishing education early, no thanks!
While I don't doubt that DragonFly BSD will start to shine, I'm not sure that it will "take the lead." I personally expect OpenSolaris to take the lead since SUN has far more years experience in dealing with multiple processors.
"10-52 Ambulance Needed"
http://www.phreak.org/radio/tencode.html
Why do you have to take a full credit load of classes? Why not just one or two a semester? I've never understood the desire to stress out and make life miserable by taking more classes than can comfortably be handled. Sure, you may get to finish your degree quicker, yet what will it cost you?
Personally, I'm on year three of my two year associate's degree. It will have taken me four years total when I complete my degree at my current pace. However, I've only taken 6-9 credit hours per semester. As a result, I've still been able to work full time, keep my 4.0 GPA, hang out with friends a few times a month, and enjoy life. I'm mildly stressed once in a while, but overall it isn't nearly as bad as it would be if I tried to take a full credit load.
Apparently this "magical computing" corporation has sprinkled their pixie dust on others too. They're actually registered for the next CES:
b itor_details.asp?exhibid=7059
:)
http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/directory/rd_exhi
Personally, I'd rather have the pixie dist they're using then whatever supposed invention they're presenting
Did the submitter even read the article he linked to? It's Planescape: Torment. NOT Planescapes Torment!
Anyone know what the performance of these "perpendicular" drives will be like compared to today's accepted methods?
Hardly, this has little to do with that. One of the main reasons they have population problems is because there are far more males born then females. Gender imbalance and other things in the population are the real issue here, of course this being slashdot pithy reasonings like the above seem more logical. However, the research shows otherwise:
- 7E17-4B0C7486108D420D.cfm
http://www.financeasia.com/articles/52A158FE-9027
Staying with? More like switching to ;)
//C+
My last Apple system was my beloved Apple
Unfortunately, when it died, I moved on.
Now I'll have a machine I can run Mac OS X, Windows, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and a few other operating systems on. It's a developers dream for me!
(Yes, I actually develop or have developed for all of those platforms except Mac OS).
Incorrect. The units were NOT pre-rendered sprites. They were in fact real-time rendered 3D objects, more than likely gourad shaded.
Which one would I use? Well that's tough. But, if I didn't care who used it, I would place it under BSD. If I wanted to make sure *my* code always stayed open, I'd use the CDDL.
Then you are doing something wrong. Let me guess, you use browser sniffers, don't you?
I'm so glad your omniscient and obviously correct about everything. Why, I must have just fallen off the turnip truck! Silly me, having been coding HTML and JavaScript since the Web first started practically. For your information I DO NOT USE BROWSER SNIFFERS. Thanks for assuming. As I mentioned earlier, Opera has rendering differences on the exact same HTML. How do you embed browser sniffers in freakin' HTML?
And now the Firefox fanboy says that IE is more standards compliant than Opera! Great move. Now everyone will take you seriously!
Hello. Earth to McFly. Did I ever say I was a Firefox user, or that Firefox was somehow divine? No, actually I was talking about Mozilla. Nor did I ever say that IE is more standards compliant than Opera. What I did say was that Opera renders standards compliant material *differently* or *in my opinion* wrongly sometimes compared to IE and Mozilla. Give me a freakin' break.
Stop wasting my time.
So now your "no end of sites" has changed to "internal development sites"? Interesting.
Did I say that? No! I was citing an example. Don't twist my words, thanks.
Nope. That depends entirely on what you are looking at. Opera and Mozilla's CSS box models are similar to each other, while IE gets most of it wrong. IE is the odd one out, not Opera.
No, you're wrong. I'll put it differently so you can understand. I can make a site with specific requirements layout and otherwise that will look the same in IE and Mozilla using the same CSS code and same JS code. Yet, I can't do that with IE, Mozilla and Opera because Opera's rendering is too different.
So what you are saying is that you are allowed to spread FUD about Opera, but I am not allowed to point out the fact that what you are saying about Opera applies equally to Mozilla?
I am not spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". I am stating facts. Opera does not render standards compliant material either correctly in my opinion or the same as other browsers. This makes simultaneous development on a set of browsers nearly impossible when Opera is included. This makes Opera irrelevant for more complex work.
What I'm saying about Opera does not equally apply to Mozilla for a few reasons:
1) Mozilla (despite your claims otherwise) renders many things much closer to IE than Opera allowing me to use the same code for particular things
2) Mozilla based browsers have a much larger market share on the desktop then Opera and in my case we have no customers that use Opera, and hardly any use Mozilla, which means my primary target market is IE and it's only practical for me to support browsers that work reasonably close to the way IE does for rendering.
Thank you Opera fanboi.
You're just repeating what some other Firefox fan told you, aren't you? Those differences exist between all browsers. There are lots of sites that work in IE and Opera but not in Firefox.
No actually, while I said wasn't an opera user, I meant that in the ongoing sense. I have *used* Opera. But not for very long before dumping it.
Secondly, while what you say about Firefox may be true, I don't care about those sites. I only care about mine and internal development work. Work that is 100% standards compliant that I need to work the same way. IE and Mozilla are a lot closer to rendering like each other than Opera is to them. Since the majority of the market is IE, followed by Mozilla-based browsers, and then finally by Opera it makes a big difference.
So, please get off your high Opera horse and look at it from a practical development perspective.
Unfortunately the thing that immediately comes to mind is an internal web app, so I can't show that. However, the last time I checked the three things that Opera didn't handle right were:
* divs that used overflow attribute
* Font sizing was way different than either Mozilla or IE causing severe layout issues (in a internal Web App where precision layout is needed, not a Web Site)
* Some weird behavaiours with sizing of table cells and wrapping compared to IE/Mozilla
The main thing it came down to was that I could workaround or "fix" almost all of the behaviours by doing something a different way. But, let's be realistic, if I'm using 100% standard compliant code, I don't want to have to write three different versions! It was hard enough to convince management to let me make sure the Application looked the same in IE, and I only got away with that because I'm able to use one set of styles and JavaScript for both IE and Mozilla and because IE isn't available under Linux without using some Wine or emulator thing.
Because of this, I don't expect I will ever use Opera. Because quite frankly, I don't see the point. Mozilla provides everything I want and need for free. Why would I pay for Opera? Especially when I can't use it in most of my work because they implement standards rendering differently than IE and Mozilla? I really don't care about which interpretation or rendering is "more correct". I just care about the fact that almost all of the customers I have to support use IE, and a few use Mozilla-based ones. So, even if I liked Opera personally, I wouldn't ever be able to use it to develop since it seems to render so differently than IE and Mozilla.
BitTorrent is far from the only thing which sets Opera apart from Firefox. Speed, size, functionality, integration out of the box are some keywords. Of course, which one is better is a matter of taste, but some people prefer the way Opera works. No extension problems when upgrading, for one.
Of course, I could point to no end of sites that work just fine in Firefox and IE, but not in Opera. Sites that sometimes are 100% standards compliant.Of course, since I'm not an Opera User I don't care enough to report the problems, and additionally sometimes the "not working" part is because of a matter of interpretetive differences between the Opera team and IE/Mozilla developers.
Obviously I consider Opera better than IE, but it still has a long way to go for me personally when it comes to use as a development browser.