Re:Praise, either way...
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's too bad that more science isn't delivered this way.
I must disagree with this statement. The way science is forged is by having other scientists spotting gaps in your arguments. That the gaps in an unreviewed work do not walk up to the non-specialist reader and introduce themselves does not mean they do not exist.
By making a swipe at the change of the DOJ's handling of the Microsoft case, Perens runs the needless risk of alienating some of the people he may have just won over with his well laid-out argument.
I disagree that this is a needless risk. I see his comment as part of his second argument (that we should not trust Microsoft with our personal information). I see what you are getting at though -- it may turn off people who have not yet opened their eyes to the links between business and government.
Sure, you can't install Linux on your girl, but (with any luck) you can reproduce and teach your kids to run Linux as they are growing up. Keep producing, and you'll soon have a Beowulf cluster of them!
So, if I develop something useful, it would be called edu.cornell.resnet.jmk63.widget? A little unwieldy, methinks. I suppose it works as a unique identifier, but what if I graduate and I no longer have control of that location? Back to the arch example, if merging code trees is done without a full copy, anyone who is patching against my code tree (or even anyone patching against them) is out of luck.
Unfortunately, for some people/projects that's not a n option.
This is getting worse than journalling filesystems:-(
I can see how you would feel this way, but keep in mind, a healthy number of different implementation ideas and design philosophies can only hasten the development of open source tools.
I guess I'm wondering why arch uses FTP as its network protocol.
Well, the article mentioned that arch consisted of a bunch of shell scripts and some C code, so it looks like ftp was just an "off the shelf" component that the author could make good use of.
1) Programs like GZIP can use many different schemes for data compression and chose the one that works best for a particular set of data.
2) More importantly, computer files *do not generally consist of random data.* Most have structure (or even an uneven balance of 0s and 1s) that can be exploited by a compression algorithm.
This is a difficult situation precisely because Cornell held onto its patent for so long (I assume) without letting others make use of the technology. One might say that Cornell should forget the whole lawsuit business and make the technology free for anyone's use, but then that gives HP a six-year head start, which doesn't really seem fair. Obviously, the best situation would have been for Cornell to allow the technology to be freely used from the beginning, but *given what has already occured*, I don't think there's any more appropriate option.
But is this not just a necessary step in the evolution of processors?
Yes and no. Out of order execution is certainly a useful technique, but this kind of thing could conceivably be implemented in several different ways. The patent just protects one class of implementation. (This still seems general enough to me that it *should* not be patented, but I think it *can*.)
True, there is no business model. Still, I think the more important point is the economic position of technology as a whole. If one accepts that developers work on Linux because they have time to do so (as a luxury of already being self-sufficient), then one can see how bad economic times might reduce the amount of Linux development significantly. Though I do agree there would still be *some* people out there still doing well and working on Linux, and maybe a few more who would rather work on Linux than eat.:>
Hmm... and then *warn people* that you are tracking them? And how about cut and paste and zip and use a web-based e-mail service? Seems like a silly threat, even for an executive.
Slashdot Mirror
I must disagree with this statement. The way science is forged is by having other scientists spotting gaps in your arguments. That the gaps in an unreviewed work do not walk up to the non-specialist reader and introduce themselves does not mean they do not exist.
Legal? Nah. Moral? Good chance. :-)
How about "Drat, I sold those!"?
Fair enough, but I don't see university computer science departments closing their doors just yet.
And you somehow infer that I would like to work for a corporation? I'm sorry, that's not what gets me out of bed in the morning.
And that's exactly where I hope a PhD will come into play. I wanna be coming up with the theory that all those AI programmers use to write their code.
At least this site will inform the user that story content has changed...
By making a swipe at the change of the DOJ's handling of the Microsoft case, Perens runs the needless risk of alienating some of the people he may have just won over with his well laid-out argument.
I disagree that this is a needless risk. I see his comment as part of his second argument (that we should not trust Microsoft with our personal information). I see what you are getting at though -- it may turn off people who have not yet opened their eyes to the links between business and government.
Yeah, but he's obviously too cheap to buy a ring. Jeeze
Nah, just take here to see LOTR again and be like "you don't really want a ring, now, do you?"
Sure, you can't install Linux on your girl, but (with any luck) you can reproduce and teach your kids to run Linux as they are growing up. Keep producing, and you'll soon have a Beowulf cluster of them!
Hey, you know what I mean. If "I" am the average user, then I may or may not be a student, therefore I may or may not graduate.
So, if I develop something useful, it would be called edu.cornell.resnet.jmk63.widget? A little unwieldy, methinks. I suppose it works as a unique identifier, but what if I graduate and I no longer have control of that location? Back to the arch example, if merging code trees is done without a full copy, anyone who is patching against my code tree (or even anyone patching against them) is out of luck.
If you include non-free systems...
:-(
Unfortunately, for some people/projects that's not a n option.
This is getting worse than journalling filesystems
I can see how you would feel this way, but keep in mind, a healthy number of different implementation ideas and design philosophies can only hasten the development of open source tools.
I guess I'm wondering why arch uses FTP as its network protocol.
Well, the article mentioned that arch consisted of a bunch of shell scripts and some C code, so it looks like ftp was just an "off the shelf" component that the author could make good use of.
What? When dial-up reigned? No nostalgia here.
Apparently that didn't stop me from getting on:
"ftp.idsoftware.com
-
Welcome to ftp.idsoftware.com
-
Connection from 128.253.214.170 logged
You are user 203 of 200 available connections.
Average throughput for this server is 996.320 KBps.
89529 people have visited this site in the last 24 hours.
Please e-mail xian@idsoftware.com if you encounter any problems."
Need I say more?
But not if the software is offered free of charge, with no warranty. This kind of law would not even be a bump in the road for Free software.
Two points:
1) Programs like GZIP can use many different schemes for data compression and chose the one that works best for a particular set of data.
2) More importantly, computer files *do not generally consist of random data.* Most have structure (or even an uneven balance of 0s and 1s) that can be exploited by a compression algorithm.
This is a difficult situation precisely because Cornell held onto its patent for so long (I assume) without letting others make use of the technology. One might say that Cornell should forget the whole lawsuit business and make the technology free for anyone's use, but then that gives HP a six-year head start, which doesn't really seem fair. Obviously, the best situation would have been for Cornell to allow the technology to be freely used from the beginning, but *given what has already occured*, I don't think there's any more appropriate option.
But is this not just a necessary step in the evolution of processors?
Yes and no. Out of order execution is certainly a useful technique, but this kind of thing could conceivably be implemented in several different ways. The patent just protects one class of implementation. (This still seems general enough to me that it *should* not be patented, but I think it *can*.)
"Ah, went to Cornell, nope, can't hire them, we might get sued it they actually contribute to our product design."
Darn, and I though I actually had a shot at a good job...
I'd have to agree with you there. Methinks if we win, we'll just get even more involved in proprietary technology...
True, there is no business model. Still, I think the more important point is the economic position of technology as a whole. If one accepts that developers work on Linux because they have time to do so (as a luxury of already being self-sufficient), then one can see how bad economic times might reduce the amount of Linux development significantly. Though I do agree there would still be *some* people out there still doing well and working on Linux, and maybe a few more who would rather work on Linux than eat. :>
Real bloat comes from libraries like STL...
Actually, don't you mean template use in general?
Hmm... and then *warn people* that you are tracking them? And how about cut and paste and zip and use a web-based e-mail service? Seems like a silly threat, even for an executive.
I gotta agree with KM on this one... I think it's probably a BIOS feature that allows the box to run without a keyboard/mouse.