Triangular in shape, two of the sides house offices while the third, a large rectangular block if taken in isolation, contains two data centres, as well as the infrastructure to ensure that Web sites continue to function come fire, flood, natural catastrophy or foreign invasion.
Let's see... a Web site is a certain machine to which people connect, if you can't connect to it it's useless. You don't need to bomb the place, you just need to cut the fiber coming out of the building...
I think you are making the generalization open source software == free (as in beer) software. Most of aspects in which you say closed source is better to open source don't aply in the case of comercial open source:
usability and aesthetics: money pays for testers performance: you can allways spend twice as many resources just to get a 10% increase in performace, but if you are not making any money you won't... it's not fun support: money pays for support staff documentation: again, it's not fun, but if you are getting paid to do it...
etcetera...
Once you've made the decision of which software solution to use, you can't influence its developping process if it's open source (read non comercial). In other words if there's no software in the market (open source or otherwise) that meets all of your requierements, you better pick a comercial software that assures you you'll get your missing features in the future, than count on the good will of open source developpers to implement them.
Is there a US-centered view among US politicians? in other words, does it cross their minds that, for example, strict regulations regarding encryption might put the US behind the rest of the world in that field in the next years? or that protecting MS as a corporation that makes a ton of money for the US rigth now, could mean loss of jobs and technological obsolecence in the future as everybody else switches to another OS (consider the harsher position towards MS in the EU right now).
Re:Breaking out of your own culture
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 1
Larry Wall seeks to develop a language which has built-in the fact that we like to explore, making his task more difficult, but a language which moves and flows with the evolution of our culture readily.
On the contrary... what I think is the greatest advantage of Perl's flexibility is the fact that I can programm like I want. I don't want a language for exploring new ways of coding, I want it for creating code in the very particular way that satisfies me.
Slashdot Mirror
Triangular in shape, two of the sides house offices while the third, a large rectangular block if taken in isolation, contains two data centres, as well as the infrastructure to ensure that Web sites continue to function come fire, flood, natural catastrophy or foreign invasion.
Let's see... a Web site is a certain machine to which people connect, if you can't connect to it it's useless. You don't need to bomb the place, you just need to cut the fiber coming out of the building...
I think you are making the generalization open source software == free (as in beer) software. Most of aspects in which you say closed source is better to open source don't aply in the case of comercial open source:
usability and aesthetics: money pays for testers
performance: you can allways spend twice as many resources just to get a 10% increase in performace, but if you are not making any money you won't... it's not fun
support: money pays for support staff
documentation: again, it's not fun, but if you are getting paid to do it...
etcetera...
Once you've made the decision of which software solution to use, you can't influence its developping process if it's open source (read non comercial).
In other words if there's no software in the market (open source or otherwise) that meets all of your requierements, you better pick a comercial software that assures you you'll get your missing features in the future, than count on the good will of open source developpers to implement them.
BTW that's MySQL/InnoDB
Is there a US-centered view among US politicians? in other words, does it cross their minds that, for example, strict regulations regarding encryption might put the US behind the rest of the world in that field in the next years? or that protecting MS as a corporation that makes a ton of money for the US rigth now, could mean loss of jobs and technological obsolecence in the future as everybody else switches to another OS (consider the harsher position towards MS in the EU right now).