I agree. He's just being dinosauric and obstinate. Really, he doesn't know "much about Open Source"? He's probably had this debate a thousand times. Later in the article he shows some significant knowledge particularly on intricate license issues that differ between OSM and FSM.
Yes, he's been a major contributor but his time is passed. It's time to ignore this guy now.
This is crap. This is the excuse Microsoft gives to excuse the reliability/stability of Win 95 and its brethren. Most "home consumers" don't really need months of uptime and hence the stability is "good enough". Palm is simply doing the same when they say the hardware is "good enough". If they want to take that attitude, fine. But don't charge me an arm and a leg for it!! Give me a *FAIR* price.
The glory of journalism...you are "free" to speak, but that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what you speak. That's why we have "Top Secret" documents and laws against compromising national security. It's not as if 2600 didn't know that the information was sensitive...and claiming "you were just helping to get it fixed" is kind of lame.
This is not a correct comparison. Government is the *ONLY* entity priveleged in this way. NDA's, trade secrets, and such are not the same thing. If you discover something on your own you have the right to say whatever you want about it. There is only *ONE* exception and that is information that the government has deemed "Nationally Important". That's it. (We're not talking about yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre so don't go there...)
It doesn't say anything about "security" companies trying to "end" file-sharing on the Internet. I don't know what the hell that description was based on. The article was simply about bandwidth management and a few applications that tend to abuse this bandwidth. Sounds legitimate to me, particularly in the case of the PacketShaper product. Or would you argue the tyrants who blocked network Doom when Doom first came out were trying "end file-sharing"?
Who came up with this description?! Didn't anyone at Andover actually READ this article?
This article from Reuters has a quote the CNN article left out.
As a practical matter, he said, the U.S. Patent Office has decided that scientists cannot obtain patents for individual genes. However, he said, "If you develop a vaccine or something off of the genetic data - that will continue to have intellectual property rights."
"The fact that it increases share value does not justify any action, not even for a business."
Yes it is. What do you think a business is there for? The greater good of mankind? No, they're there to turn a profit, and pay their employees.
What?! And what if murdering your competitors did not come with the repercussions that you mentioned? What if it DID raise shareholder value? Would it be alright then? Of course not. So his statement is correct as we have already outlined *AT LEAST* one action that is not justified by increased profit. I'll bet there are more.
What is this? Are you part of some MS "grassroots" campaign? I thought they learned thier lesson about this. Sure the charity is great but it's REALLY just so BillG can reduce his TAX.
Sure, maybe a good admin CAN figure this out. But I am an Oracle DBA primarily, not a Unix Administrator. Sure, I can keep a box up and do the necessary maintenance and generally perform that job. But not with the nuances and expertise that I can administrate an Oracle database. I would like to have a good source to learn this stuff without having to change careers to do it..
And then there are those who aren't GREAT administrators. We all know 'em and have met them.. They can do their job (well some can't) moderately well but not very well..
Let's say that a physical object is usable by everybody simultaneously in all places, etc. I just made a ring for my wife. I do NOT want anybody else to use it. Is it my property? (privacy / uniqueness issues)
With the assumption that all physical objects are usable by all simultaneously for all of time without exception then idea of property would likely not exist and if it did it would be dismissed as absurd. The concept of 'give' would not exist because the concept of 'value' to that ring would not exist at least in terms of rarity and uniqueness. If your wife "valued" the rink because she thinks it looks nice then she would simply wear it. or if you "valued" it because you think it looks nice on your wife you would simply suggest that she wear it.
With the above assumption NOTHING IS UNIQUE
I am a very good chairmaker. I made an excellent chair for myself and everybody else can/does use it simultaneously with me. A guy comes to me and says that his butt is differently shaped and he wants a different chair, but he is not a chairmaker. How can he persuade me to make a chair for him? (stimulus issues)
The same way it is done today. You (the chairmaker) would "value" that something the guy is capable or producing simply exists. The guy wanting a chair would care "whose" it was because he could use it anyway he simply "values" its existance.
I have installed Oracle for Linux and used it for some fairly grand things. I wouldn't use it again for a little while, however. Once things are right it's okay.
But, it's REALLY finicky. The install program itself would random crash every now and then with odd scripting errors that were never repeatable. You could re-run it immediately after and blow by the same point even though you haven't changed a thing.
The original Oracle for Linux CD came with almost completely non-shared libraries which means most executables, such as tnsping and svrmgr were 3-4 meg apiece. The re-linking process itself was a nightmare. I had tons of problems relinking executables which eventually came down to what I believe was a GNU linker or binutils bug but it could've been the library they distributed.
The documentation for Linux is not awful but not grand either. Documentation for other platforms is significantly better.
For awhile I would have trouble shutting down the database. It would refuse to shutdown with a 'shutdown immediate' even though there were no connections nor any rollback activity. Nothing short of a shutdown force would shut it down. This eventually went away for some unknown reason.
The listener would occasionally core dump for little to no reason (that I could see anyway) under light load.
However, mind you it was pretty damn fast and purred well once things got hammered out. The biggest problem I think is they really rushed to package the thing and just tested it to see that most things work.
And some advice. Don't go anywhere NEAR Oracle Application Server for Linux. Particularly, their piece-o-crap Apache module.. (used to make Apache the web listener).
Stupidity may not be limited to the young, but informed, experienced inteligence is in whole (or damn near enough) limited to the older. You'll learn someday. Yes, even you, shall change your mind.
Even though YOU'VE never had a problem with the brakes on your 1994 (whatever)mobile car even though millions of others have had theirs fail while on the road does not mean shouldn't issue a recall. Furthermore, you would PROBABLY want to take your car in too even though you haven't had a problem, right? I know I would.
I saw a wearable once that stored energy from the compression energy in your shoe when you walk. If you batteries get low.. go for a 15 minute stroll...
Slashdot Mirror
"I have made the observation that experience is trading off talent for knowledge -- as you get older the brain slows down."
This is complete malarkey. You've probably been drinking too much and too often. Typically male mental peak is about 35 years old. NOT 18.
Stick Boy
I agree. He's just being dinosauric and obstinate. Really, he doesn't know "much about Open Source"? He's probably had this debate a thousand times. Later in the article he shows some significant knowledge particularly on intricate license issues that differ between OSM and FSM.
Yes, he's been a major contributor but his time is passed. It's time to ignore this guy now.
StickBoy
This is crap. This is the excuse Microsoft gives to excuse the reliability/stability of Win 95 and its brethren. Most "home consumers" don't really need months of uptime and hence the stability is "good enough". Palm is simply doing the same when they say the hardware is "good enough". If they want to take that attitude, fine. But don't charge me an arm and a leg for it!! Give me a *FAIR* price.
StickBoy
Where did you see this? Do you know the article/patent # for this patent?
I would like to look this up and read it.
Thanks.
StickBoy
The glory of journalism...you are "free" to speak, but that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what you speak. That's why we have "Top Secret" documents and laws against compromising national security. It's not as if 2600 didn't know that the information was sensitive...and claiming "you were just helping to get it fixed" is kind of lame.
This is not a correct comparison. Government is the *ONLY* entity priveleged in this way. NDA's, trade secrets, and such are not the same thing. If you discover something on your own you have the right to say whatever you want about it. There is only *ONE* exception and that is information that the government has deemed "Nationally Important". That's it. (We're not talking about yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre so don't go there...)
StickBoy
It doesn't say anything about "security" companies trying to "end" file-sharing on the Internet. I don't know what the hell that description was based on. The article was simply about bandwidth management and a few applications that tend to abuse this bandwidth. Sounds legitimate to me, particularly in the case of the PacketShaper product. Or would you argue the tyrants who blocked network Doom when Doom first came out were trying "end file-sharing"?
Who came up with this description?! Didn't anyone at Andover actually READ this article?
StickBoy
This article from Reuters has a quote the CNN article left out.
As a practical matter, he said, the U.S. Patent Office has decided that scientists cannot obtain patents for individual genes. However, he said, "If you develop a vaccine or something off of the genetic data - that will continue to have intellectual property rights."
StickBoy
Yes it is. What do you think a business is there for? The greater good of mankind? No, they're there to turn a profit, and pay their employees.
What?! And what if murdering your competitors did not come with the repercussions that you mentioned? What if it DID raise shareholder value? Would it be alright then? Of course not. So his statement is correct as we have already outlined *AT LEAST* one action that is not justified by increased profit. I'll bet there are more.
IRIX: insecure? possibly; hard to support? sure. unscalable? Absolutely NOT.
Now, I'm not saying that IRIX is THE tits and beer of Unix but scalability is something that IRIX is extremely proficient at.
StickBoy
What is this? Are you part of some MS "grassroots" campaign? I thought they learned thier lesson about this. Sure the charity is great but it's REALLY just so BillG can reduce his TAX.
StickBoy
Sure, maybe a good admin CAN figure this out. But I am an Oracle DBA primarily, not a Unix Administrator. Sure, I can keep a box up and do the necessary maintenance and generally perform that job. But not with the nuances and expertise that I can administrate an Oracle database. I would like to have a good source to learn this stuff without having to change careers to do it..
And then there are those who aren't GREAT administrators. We all know 'em and have met them.. They can do their job (well some can't) moderately well but not very well..
Stick Boy
Had you read the complete post you would have read his explanation
Release early and release often....
StickBoy
Let's say that a physical object is usable by everybody simultaneously in all places, etc. I just made a ring for my wife. I do NOT want anybody else to use it. Is it my property? (privacy / uniqueness issues)
With the assumption that all physical objects are usable by all simultaneously for all of time without exception then idea of property would likely not exist and if it did it would be dismissed as absurd. The concept of 'give' would not exist because the concept of 'value' to that ring would not exist at least in terms of rarity and uniqueness. If your wife "valued" the rink because she thinks it looks nice then she would simply wear it. or if you "valued" it because you think it looks nice on your wife you would simply suggest that she wear it.
With the above assumption NOTHING IS UNIQUE
I am a very good chairmaker. I made an excellent chair for myself and everybody else can/does use it simultaneously with me. A guy comes to me and says that his butt is differently shaped and he wants a different chair, but he is not a chairmaker. How can he persuade me to make a chair for him? (stimulus issues)
The same way it is done today. You (the chairmaker) would "value" that something the guy is capable or producing simply exists. The guy wanting a chair would care "whose" it was because he could use it anyway he simply "values" its existance.
StickBoy
I have installed Oracle for Linux and used it for some fairly grand things. I wouldn't use it again for a little while, however. Once things are right it's okay.
But, it's REALLY finicky. The install program itself would random crash every now and then with odd scripting errors that were never repeatable. You could re-run it immediately after and blow by the same point even though you haven't changed a thing.
The original Oracle for Linux CD came with almost completely non-shared libraries which means most executables, such as tnsping and svrmgr were 3-4 meg apiece. The re-linking process itself was a nightmare. I had tons of problems relinking executables which eventually came down to what I believe was a GNU linker or binutils bug but it could've been the library they distributed.
The documentation for Linux is not awful but not grand either. Documentation for other platforms is significantly better.
For awhile I would have trouble shutting down the database. It would refuse to shutdown with a 'shutdown immediate' even though there were no connections nor any rollback activity. Nothing short of a shutdown force would shut it down. This eventually went away for some unknown reason.
The listener would occasionally core dump for little to no reason (that I could see anyway) under light load.
However, mind you it was pretty damn fast and purred well once things got hammered out. The biggest problem I think is they really rushed to package the thing and just tested it to see that most things work.
And some advice. Don't go anywhere NEAR Oracle Application Server for Linux. Particularly, their piece-o-crap Apache module.. (used to make Apache the web listener).
StickBoy
100 times faster is more than 100% faster
But, it is 1% as fast which is what he said...
Stickboy
... the bait hasn't been taken until now. What's
slashdot coming to?! I expect cats and dogs raining outside any minute...
Stickboy
-- MS lackeys not allowed.
Stupidity may not be limited to the young, but informed, experienced inteligence is in whole (or damn near enough) limited to the older. You'll learn someday. Yes, even you, shall change your mind.
Even though YOU'VE never had a problem with the brakes on your 1994 (whatever)mobile car even though millions of others have had theirs fail while on the road does not mean shouldn't issue a recall. Furthermore, you would PROBABLY want to take your car in too even though you haven't had a problem, right? I know I would.
He really has no right to demand anything. All he is concerned about is his piece of the spotlight.
Call it OpenNews if you want or OpenJournalism..
I hate clicking on article to find out i have to pay to read it.. Just say no!
StickBoy
It is a great suggestion!! Hope you read this rob!
StickBoy
Since when did your disk drive serial numbers get broadcast over the net, eh?
I saw a wearable once that stored energy from the compression energy in your shoe when you walk. If you batteries get low.. go for a 15 minute stroll...
cool, eh?