They will pay you to work on your own stuff at least 20% of the time, what better investment could you get?
I think the reasoning is if you have a pile of money in Google stock, you might want to take that and start a company to work on your own stuff 100% of the time.
Well, I was really thinking about mysql here - which has historically had difficulty joining more than three tables without unpredictable performance results.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is actually seriously pushing MySQL for the whole "Enterprise with a capital 'E'" thing...
I agree with the other stuff, Postgres does have extremely rudimentary partitioning abilities, but then it's not a difficult problem and will probably improve relatively quickly (ie, not on the same order as clustering).
1. Can be true - but depends on how small the "small" projects are, and how many there are. 15 small Oracle databases are going to be more work than 15 Postgres databases, even if you are already running Oracle for other stuff. Also, if there's enough work for the smaller stuff that it needs separate DBAs (even if it's just 2 total), then getting Postgres ones would not be more expensive than Oracle ones.
2. Blatantly untrue. Oracle will scale better on multiple machines, but on a single machine Postgres will outperform Oracle far more often than not. And I'd like to see some source showing Oracle's optimizer to be better than Postgres'. (and hey, depending on who's administering your stuff, that 4-way can outperform the 16-way with both running Oracle).
Most open source database products, including MySQL, seem to require quite a bit of digging and cobbling together to set up and maintain.
Actually, that's just MySQL, the others are comparable to SQL Server as far as the complexity of a "basic" setup goes. Of course one could say that the time needed for a new installation is just not important in the long run.
I've heard mostly good things about the newer SQL Server versions from people, unfortunately you can't use it alongside a free/open application stack, unless you want to support two entirely different platforms. Which is a bit sub-optimal for the smaller shops that these things are targeted at. That's the main problem with Microsoft, it's all or nothing with them - does not play well with others. Oh, and of course for complex queries Postgres kicks SQL Servers ass, performance-wise.
Incidentally, an experienced DBA loves the command line more than his children, and would never be so derogatory as to call it "experimentation":)
Open Source Databases are only free if you don't value your time.
Dude, have you actually used both Postgres and Oracle? There is not an entity on this earth less respectful of my time than Oracle (well, maybe ClearCase) - the thing is an absolute nightmare to administer. Sure, it needs the complexity because of its advanced scaling capabilities; but most of us are not amazon.com, and never will be.
On the other hand, the administrative overhead of running Postgres is damn near 0% (MySQL is a different story entirely of course).
Sure we are a small company, and only have under a TB of data in our databases, but there are a lot of companies in the same position who shell out ridiculous amounts of money for Oracle (only for the name-brand, nothing else), and then someone ends up stabbing themselves in the eye in frustration (might be a slight exaggeration). Or else pay for a full time DBA; I've worked for a company with 3 developers and 1 full time Oracle DBA - that's just nuts.
That said, this is a company making a copy for a profit... I can't really say that copyright should be changed to allow for this.
And they are selling the copy together with the original - copyright doesn't need to be changed to allow this, it doesn't prohibit it to begin with. It's only the DMCA they are violating.
This company is making a profit off of someone else's intellectual property.
See, that's the problem with the made-up concept of "Intellectual Property": copyright grants a limited monopoly on an artistic work to the author (perfectly reasonable), but the idea that once you create something it's your property forever and no one can profit in any way associated with it is just preposterous. By that logic companies that manufacture TVs and DVD* players should not be allowed to profit from the "property" of those who create the content they display.
Main problem is that the *AA's aren't content to just create a product and sell it to people at insane profits, they want to control every aspect of what you are and are not allowed to do with it once you've purchased it, in order to squeeze every last cent possible out of their consumers. It's a ridiculous proposition, I don't know how it came to be taken for granted.
* Firefox's spell checker doesn't know what a DVD is? Weird.
Of course I'm not a baby that wants general anesthetic and NO2 either.
Removing wisdom teeth is fucking dental surgery, if I wanted that sort of thing done without proper anesthetic, I would've stayed in Russia. (seriously, I've had teeth pulled over there without any anesthetic - it's just not as much fun as you would think)
It kills innovation because there is no longer a reward for it.
Of course the counter argument is that Second Life is not the real world and sticking a couple of polygons together is not "innovation". And yes, you aren't going to see the same kinds of motivation for that as you would for the creation of Free software.
I am pretty sure that most people aren't advocating a world without copyright, trademarks, and patents, just arguing that the current power afforded to these protections goes far beyond what they were originally intended for. On the other hand, yes "intellectual property" is a destructive concept.
Oh "Insightful" my ass. Just the energy requirements for something like this (ever hear of conservation of mass?) mean that if "replicators" are commonplace, then society has long ago changed drastically, and scarcity is not a problem.
Gods I wish these geeks would find something to agonize over other than these outlandish, ridiculous science fiction scenarios.
"They built a large computer cluster - oh noes! It will become self-aware any minute now!" "A robotic device has been engineered to do X - we are all doomed unless they progam it with the Three Laws!"* Oh, and of course generally being kept up at night by how the imminent invention of time travel will affect our society.
Etc, etc, ad infinitum. Get a grip.
Remember the whole movement to rename it "Speculative" Fiction after Science Fiction developed a rather mediocre reputation? As pandering as it may have been, the name is apt - the whole purpose of SF is to create implausable situations which may afford unique perspectives on various philosophical questions of humanity. They are not meant as literal warnings of things to come. They are not meant to be taken literally at all.
Um, sorry about the rant. The mindboggingly narrow viewpoint just gets to me sometimes (along with the "irrelevant development + science fiction = everybody panic!" formula).
* Did anyone actually read the books or, you know, get the point? Seriously, I see people on here talk about the "Three Laws" as if they are some sort of pre-requisite for (real life) artificial intelligence.
aliens probe our anuses (anii?) with large metallic rods
That would be ani, or at least I think it's masculine; I guess it could be ana if it's neuter. In any case it's not anii, that'd be the plural of anius (think 'radius -ii').
There's apparently also an entirely unrelated fourth declension feminine anus (plural: anus).
I guess the on-topic police are gonna get me for this one.
inhumanity to animals
Statements like that always make me chuckle. Look, either we accept animals as members of our society and stop making bacon out of them (I would vote 'Nay' on that one), in which case they would have to follow our laws and in turn receive the appropriate rights. Or, we stop whining about how horrible it is that we make bacon, couches, medicines, etc out of them.
Where I work we give mice cancer for a living. We jump through all sorts of hoops to make it more "humane", but at the end of the day, we still purposefully give them cancer just so we can study it - I am sure the "humane" treatment makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, though (well, most of them are inbred to the point that they don't know where they are, but that's beside the point).
And yet, how many mice dying of cancer are worth one human dying of cancer? Or, more accurately at this point, living 3 months longer. Personally, I think it's a very large number... YMMV.
Gee, really? You think there might be some fear, uncertainty, and doubt associated with freaking space elevators? An idea that's currently still firmly in the realm of science fiction?
FUD refers to the tactic of corporate propaganda with no technical merit. When it's substantiated (as it is with any formula along the lines of "common convenience" + "freaking space"), it's not FUD.
Yeah, I can't really get a clear picture unless they put it into standard units, like Libraries of Congress, or VW Beatles... I think there's also one with stacks of stuff to the Moon - that's a good one too.
democracy isn't a prerequisite for a effective government
Democracy has never been accused of being an "effective" form of government. Democracy (well, various types of republics) is just the most sustainable form of just government that we know of, effectiveness is sacrificed to achieve that.
everything I need to know about management from Dilbert.
As have many managers... which is why Dilbert exists in the first place... wait, Dilbert is creating some kind of tear in the space-time continuum, isn't it?
Saying the GPL is "restrictive" is like saying emancipation is restrictive. Yes, emancipation does "restrict" you from owning slaves but the point is to maximize overall human freedom - which it suceeeds at.
I suppose that's a valid (if a little odd) analogy. But no, it's not "restrictive", it's restrictive. (Of course slavery brings in a few other considerations, that commercial software doesn't)
I absolutely agree that it's a good thing, but if you are a developer looking at licenses, the GPL is more restrictive than BSD, MIT, or LGPL.
It's a choice that the developer can make, about how much control they retain after releasing their product with an open source license. They can balance the freedoms of those using the software directly and the freedom of those using redistributed versions.
Nothing wrong with that - that's why the different licenses exist.
I mean, I know some people have a mad on against the GPL, but it ain't what you'd call restrictive. The only thing it does is mandate that all derivitve works also have to be GPLed.
Out of the most popular Free licenses, GPL probably is the most restrictive - many others don't have the restriction you mention.
Not to say that I don't think the GPL is a good choice for this.
For digital compact users who think DSLRs are too expensive - it's no around the price of a decent digital compact, no more.
Eh? An excellent digital compact is about $350. You are saying that there's rumors of a "sub $500" DSLR, probably meaning $499. And that's the absolute cheapest one, that doesn't exist yet. How good is the absolute cheapest example of something, usually?
So, it's better for lawyers to dictate which is the best user interface in an O/S?
Ok, I guess it is difficult. If a good technical idea is implemented in such a way that MS leverages their monopoly power to further undermine competition, that's a Bad Thing. Even if the technical aspect of it is sound. In other words:
Fun OSS project implements a new feature == "Cool, let's see how it works!"
Giant monopoly implements a new feature == "Hmm, I wonder if this will have a negative impact on the rest of the industry, like so many times before."
If you think MS is an actual monopoly, in the sense that the term was applied to Standard Oil or AT&T, you're really, really mistaken (and probably not making much sense to the Mac users, and all those *nix box users out there).
You are joking, right? OS X desktops/laptops vastly outnumber Linux, and they are what, 4% of the market? (nothing else even registers)
Incidentally, I'm using the word 'monopoly' in the same sense as it was used when MS was convicted of being an illegal monopoly.
Point is, there is no alternative to MS products in the business world and little competition in the home market, ergo MS has the entire industry by the balls, ergo the decisions they make have significant impact, ergo they are watched more closely and with some skepticism (especially given their history).
They've demonstrated time and again that there is no tactic they wouldn't stoop to, in seeking to profit at the expense of the consumer - how is this kind of behaviour not "Teh Evil"?
Slashdot Mirror
Nina's boyfriend Sean Sturgeon allegedly practices BDSM, raped Nina, engages in "death yoga", made death threats against Hans...
And Hans is allegedly a murderer, what's your point?
They will pay you to work on your own stuff at least 20% of the time, what better investment could you get?
I think the reasoning is if you have a pile of money in Google stock, you might want to take that and start a company to work on your own stuff 100% of the time.
Well, I was really thinking about mysql here - which has historically had difficulty joining more than three tables without unpredictable performance results.
Unpredictability seems to be ingrained deeply into the MySQL psyche. This always makes me chuckle: http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/mysql.html
Anyway, I don't think anyone is actually seriously pushing MySQL for the whole "Enterprise with a capital 'E'" thing...
I agree with the other stuff, Postgres does have extremely rudimentary partitioning abilities, but then it's not a difficult problem and will probably improve relatively quickly (ie, not on the same order as clustering).
1. Can be true - but depends on how small the "small" projects are, and how many there are. 15 small Oracle databases are going to be more work than 15 Postgres databases, even if you are already running Oracle for other stuff. Also, if there's enough work for the smaller stuff that it needs separate DBAs (even if it's just 2 total), then getting Postgres ones would not be more expensive than Oracle ones.
2. Blatantly untrue. Oracle will scale better on multiple machines, but on a single machine Postgres will outperform Oracle far more often than not. And I'd like to see some source showing Oracle's optimizer to be better than Postgres'. (and hey, depending on who's administering your stuff, that 4-way can outperform the 16-way with both running Oracle).
3. MySQL is shit.
Most open source database products, including MySQL, seem to require quite a bit of digging and cobbling together to set up and maintain.
:)
Actually, that's just MySQL, the others are comparable to SQL Server as far as the complexity of a "basic" setup goes. Of course one could say that the time needed for a new installation is just not important in the long run.
I've heard mostly good things about the newer SQL Server versions from people, unfortunately you can't use it alongside a free/open application stack, unless you want to support two entirely different platforms. Which is a bit sub-optimal for the smaller shops that these things are targeted at. That's the main problem with Microsoft, it's all or nothing with them - does not play well with others. Oh, and of course for complex queries Postgres kicks SQL Servers ass, performance-wise.
Incidentally, an experienced DBA loves the command line more than his children, and would never be so derogatory as to call it "experimentation"
Open Source Databases are only free if you don't value your time.
Dude, have you actually used both Postgres and Oracle? There is not an entity on this earth less respectful of my time than Oracle (well, maybe ClearCase) - the thing is an absolute nightmare to administer. Sure, it needs the complexity because of its advanced scaling capabilities; but most of us are not amazon.com, and never will be.
On the other hand, the administrative overhead of running Postgres is damn near 0% (MySQL is a different story entirely of course).
Sure we are a small company, and only have under a TB of data in our databases, but there are a lot of companies in the same position who shell out ridiculous amounts of money for Oracle (only for the name-brand, nothing else), and then someone ends up stabbing themselves in the eye in frustration (might be a slight exaggeration). Or else pay for a full time DBA; I've worked for a company with 3 developers and 1 full time Oracle DBA - that's just nuts.
Working at a University, this is not a subject I'm not unfamiliar with.
I don't think that doesn't make you not unqualified to not talk about it.
So it's actually the newfangled "enlightened" attitudes that have led to "homophobia", by introducing so much ambiguity.
That has got to be the single stupidest thing I've read today.
Congratulations, you've made me want to go do work instead of reading Slashdot.
The summary included the phrase "Wii yourself" - I bet that's happened to more than one Zelda fan on launch day.
That said, this is a company making a copy for a profit... I can't really say that copyright should be changed to allow for this.
And they are selling the copy together with the original - copyright doesn't need to be changed to allow this, it doesn't prohibit it to begin with. It's only the DMCA they are violating.
This company is making a profit off of someone else's intellectual property.
See, that's the problem with the made-up concept of "Intellectual Property": copyright grants a limited monopoly on an artistic work to the author (perfectly reasonable), but the idea that once you create something it's your property forever and no one can profit in any way associated with it is just preposterous. By that logic companies that manufacture TVs and DVD* players should not be allowed to profit from the "property" of those who create the content they display.
Main problem is that the *AA's aren't content to just create a product and sell it to people at insane profits, they want to control every aspect of what you are and are not allowed to do with it once you've purchased it, in order to squeeze every last cent possible out of their consumers. It's a ridiculous proposition, I don't know how it came to be taken for granted.
* Firefox's spell checker doesn't know what a DVD is? Weird.
Except that the quality of VHS tapes degrades over time, while they are just sitting there.
Most people don't have "high-traffic" needs. Plus, even at its best, VHS quality is hardly palatable anymore.
Of course I'm not a baby that wants general anesthetic and NO2 either.
Removing wisdom teeth is fucking dental surgery, if I wanted that sort of thing done without proper anesthetic, I would've stayed in Russia. (seriously, I've had teeth pulled over there without any anesthetic - it's just not as much fun as you would think)
Medical insurance, unless you have some severe, traumatic injury, is a worthless investment.
So are backups, unless you have some sort of catastrophic loss of data. Seems like a similar type of deal.
Anyway, when I had my wisdom teeth pulled (all 5 of them), they put me under, and I had to pay like $15 - maybe your insurance just sucks?
It kills innovation because there is no longer a reward for it.
Of course the counter argument is that Second Life is not the real world and sticking a couple of polygons together is not "innovation". And yes, you aren't going to see the same kinds of motivation for that as you would for the creation of Free software.
I am pretty sure that most people aren't advocating a world without copyright, trademarks, and patents, just arguing that the current power afforded to these protections goes far beyond what they were originally intended for. On the other hand, yes "intellectual property" is a destructive concept.
What will happen when we have replicators
Oh "Insightful" my ass. Just the energy requirements for something like this (ever hear of conservation of mass?) mean that if "replicators" are commonplace, then society has long ago changed drastically, and scarcity is not a problem.
Gods I wish these geeks would find something to agonize over other than these outlandish, ridiculous science fiction scenarios.
"They built a large computer cluster - oh noes! It will become self-aware any minute now!"
"A robotic device has been engineered to do X - we are all doomed unless they progam it with the Three Laws!"*
Oh, and of course generally being kept up at night by how the imminent invention of time travel will affect our society.
Etc, etc, ad infinitum. Get a grip.
Remember the whole movement to rename it "Speculative" Fiction after Science Fiction developed a rather mediocre reputation? As pandering as it may have been, the name is apt - the whole purpose of SF is to create implausable situations which may afford unique perspectives on various philosophical questions of humanity. They are not meant as literal warnings of things to come. They are not meant to be taken literally at all.
Um, sorry about the rant. The mindboggingly narrow viewpoint just gets to me sometimes (along with the "irrelevant development + science fiction = everybody panic!" formula).
* Did anyone actually read the books or, you know, get the point? Seriously, I see people on here talk about the "Three Laws" as if they are some sort of pre-requisite for (real life) artificial intelligence.
aliens probe our anuses (anii?) with large metallic rods
That would be ani, or at least I think it's masculine; I guess it could be ana if it's neuter. In any case it's not anii, that'd be the plural of anius (think 'radius -ii').
There's apparently also an entirely unrelated fourth declension feminine anus (plural: anus).
I guess the on-topic police are gonna get me for this one.
inhumanity to animals
Statements like that always make me chuckle. Look, either we accept animals as members of our society and stop making bacon out of them (I would vote 'Nay' on that one), in which case they would have to follow our laws and in turn receive the appropriate rights. Or, we stop whining about how horrible it is that we make bacon, couches, medicines, etc out of them.
Where I work we give mice cancer for a living. We jump through all sorts of hoops to make it more "humane", but at the end of the day, we still purposefully give them cancer just so we can study it - I am sure the "humane" treatment makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, though (well, most of them are inbred to the point that they don't know where they are, but that's beside the point).
And yet, how many mice dying of cancer are worth one human dying of cancer? Or, more accurately at this point, living 3 months longer. Personally, I think it's a very large number... YMMV.
Gee, really? You think there might be some fear, uncertainty, and doubt associated with freaking space elevators? An idea that's currently still firmly in the realm of science fiction?
FUD refers to the tactic of corporate propaganda with no technical merit. When it's substantiated (as it is with any formula along the lines of "common convenience" + "freaking space"), it's not FUD.
Yeah, I can't really get a clear picture unless they put it into standard units, like Libraries of Congress, or VW Beatles... I think there's also one with stacks of stuff to the Moon - that's a good one too.
democracy isn't a prerequisite for a effective government
Democracy has never been accused of being an "effective" form of government. Democracy (well, various types of republics) is just the most sustainable form of just government that we know of, effectiveness is sacrificed to achieve that.
everything I need to know about management from Dilbert.
As have many managers... which is why Dilbert exists in the first place... wait, Dilbert is creating some kind of tear in the space-time continuum, isn't it?
making sure that the other party doesn't take liberties
That's odd because both parties have been trying to take my liberties for a long time now. And they are doing pretty well at it, too.
Saying the GPL is "restrictive" is like saying emancipation is restrictive. Yes, emancipation does "restrict" you from owning slaves but the point is to maximize overall human freedom - which it suceeeds at.
I suppose that's a valid (if a little odd) analogy. But no, it's not "restrictive", it's restrictive. (Of course slavery brings in a few other considerations, that commercial software doesn't)
I absolutely agree that it's a good thing, but if you are a developer looking at licenses, the GPL is more restrictive than BSD, MIT, or LGPL.
It's a choice that the developer can make, about how much control they retain after releasing their product with an open source license. They can balance the freedoms of those using the software directly and the freedom of those using redistributed versions.
Nothing wrong with that - that's why the different licenses exist.
I mean, I know some people have a mad on against the GPL, but it ain't what you'd call restrictive. The only thing it does is mandate that all derivitve works also have to be GPLed.
Out of the most popular Free licenses, GPL probably is the most restrictive - many others don't have the restriction you mention.
Not to say that I don't think the GPL is a good choice for this.
For digital compact users who think DSLRs are too expensive - it's no around the price of a decent digital compact, no more.
Eh? An excellent digital compact is about $350. You are saying that there's rumors of a "sub $500" DSLR, probably meaning $499. And that's the absolute cheapest one, that doesn't exist yet. How good is the absolute cheapest example of something, usually?
Ok, I guess it is difficult. If a good technical idea is implemented in such a way that MS leverages their monopoly power to further undermine competition, that's a Bad Thing. Even if the technical aspect of it is sound. In other words:
If you think MS is an actual monopoly, in the sense that the term was applied to Standard Oil or AT&T, you're really, really mistaken (and probably not making much sense to the Mac users, and all those *nix box users out there).
You are joking, right? OS X desktops/laptops vastly outnumber Linux, and they are what, 4% of the market? (nothing else even registers)
Incidentally, I'm using the word 'monopoly' in the same sense as it was used when MS was convicted of being an illegal monopoly.
Point is, there is no alternative to MS products in the business world and little competition in the home market, ergo MS has the entire industry by the balls, ergo the decisions they make have significant impact, ergo they are watched more closely and with some skepticism (especially given their history).
They've demonstrated time and again that there is no tactic they wouldn't stoop to, in seeking to profit at the expense of the consumer - how is this kind of behaviour not "Teh Evil"?