Yes, I've read the Ant home page, and I've seen their lame arguments. They only prove that those people don't really understand make or how to use it properly.
To claim that Makefiles are inherently evil just because the Ant authors are too stupid to handle the tab vs. space issue in makefiles just underscores their inexperience and ignorance. This is simply a syntax issue, and if you're going to use a tool (any tool), you need to learn the syntax. Besides, all it takes is a simple ":set list" in vi to sell you if you've got a tab there or a space:)
And the Ant people even admit: "Granted, this removes some of the expressive power that is inherent" in makefiles..
Why would you want to use an inferior tool like Ant just for "the abiity to be cross platform" ??? This is where their argument really falls flat. After all, Ant is a Java tool, right? Java is cross platform. You compile it on one platform and run it on many others -- you don't recompile your Java code on each platform! Where's the need for a cross platform Java build tool? This really doesn't make any sense at all.
... who don't know how to write a proper makefile.
I've always used makefiles for my Java development and it works very, very well. Make is a proven product, has a well-defined, well-documented syntax and for the most part, is very easy to read (while Ant's XML mishmash is a mess).
Yes, I posted it twice. I wanted to respond to a particular post and didn't click on the right link:)... So, I went back and did it right the second time. I didn't think anyone would notice, because my posts are usually ignored by most people...
I'm not quite sure why I was allowed to post it again so quickly. Good Karma, I guess...
In one sense, there is very little "regular" spam, if you only count the number of spammers involved. However, the spammers that don't forge their headers are involved in sending out an awful lot of spam. In fact, it's easier for them to be spammers because they don't have to constantly deal with their accounts being shut off, finding a new relay to abuse, etc.
I develop server-side spam filtering products (among other things), and I see a lot more spam than most people do:). I have lots of spam trap addresses floating around that let me know when a new spam campaign is starting... Just off the top of my head, I'd say that at least a quarter (and possibly a third) of the spam I see on a weekly basis comes from less than a dozen sources....
State regulations that require ADV in the subject are paper tigers -- they have no effect and for the most part, they're pretty worthless. However, they do give the bureaucrats something to point at when people complain about spam.
These regulations are unenforceable because they're ambiguous. How do you define where an email address is "located"?? Is it located where the owner of the address has a legal residence? Is it located wherever the POP3 server resides? Is it located anywhere the owner chooses to read their email? Furthermore, most states that have these ADV: laws don't have a statewide registry of email addresses. Without this, there's no way to filter out addresses in certain states.
Yes, there is a difference between regular spam and the fraudulent variety. Normal spam is sent by well known "bulk mailers" (as they call themselves, in a pitiful attempt to legitimize their business) on a contract-for-hire basis.
They send email directly from their own systems to your mailbox. They do not fake their headers, use open relays, hijacked proxies or root'ed boxes of other people to send out their messages. They generally have contracts with their ISPs to not cancel their connectivity as long as they have some type of proof, no matter how vague, that the mail *might* be considered opt-in (and as long as the complaints aren't too frequent. These people do listwash their own lists, if only to stop spamming people who actually complain about it, and also to show to their ISPs that they have an effective opt-out system. Their spam is annoying, but currently legal.
Fraudulent spam, on the other hand, is completely different. These are the people that hijack other people's machines to do the dirty work, rape open relays and consume all of their bandwidth during spam runs, actively probe for open relays and proxies, forge everything they can in the headers, study SpamAssassin and other filters in an attempt to craft messages that don't "look" like spam. These are the people that use their opt-out lists as a source of revenue (by selling the names to other spammers), and will frequently joe-job spam activists and others who complain too loudly and to the wrong people...
The first type of spammer sends out insurance offers, cell phones ads, inkjet ads and such. The second type sends out virus/trojan laden messages, porno by the bucketload, ads for illegal drugs, etc.
Both types of spam are annoying, but the "fraudulent" type is much more so because of its immoral content (and anyone who thinks that sending pornographic images to children isn't immoral should quietly remove themselves from the gene pool) and also because of the theft of services (bandwidth, hard drive space, etc.) from the relays and proxies that they abuse.
Yes, there is a difference between regular spam and the fraudulent variety. Normal spam is sent by well known "bulk mailers" (as they call themselves, in a pitiful attempt to legitimize their business) on a contract-for-hire basis.
They send email directly from their own systems to your mailbox. They do not fake their headers, use open relays, hijacked proxies or root'ed boxes of other people to send out their messages. They generally have contracts with their ISPs to not cancel their connectivity as long as they have some type of proof, no matter how vague, that the mail *might* be considered opt-in (and as long as the complaints aren't too frequent. These people do listwash their own lists, if only to stop spamming people who actually complain about it, and also to show to their ISPs that they have an effective opt-out system. Their spam is annoying, but currently legal.
Fraudulent spam, on the other hand, is completely different. These are the people that hijack other people's machines to do the dirty work, rape open relays and consume all of their bandwidth during spam runs, actively probe for open relays and proxies, forge everything they can in the headers, study SpamAssassin and other filters in an attempt to craft messages that don't "look" like spam. These are the people that use their opt-out lists as a source of revenue (by selling the names to other spammers), and will frequently joe-job spam activists and others who complain too loudly and to the wrong people...
The first type of spammer sends out insurance offers, cell phones ads, inkjet ads and such. The second type sends out virus/trojan laden messages, porno by the bucketload, ads for illegal drugs, etc.
Both types of spam are annoying, but the "fraudulent" type is much more so because of its immoral content (and anyone who thinks that sending pornographic images to children isn't immoral should quietly remove themselves from the gene pool) and also because of the theft of services (bandwidth, hard drive space, etc.) from the relays and proxies that they abuse.
When you find that "good SCSI controller" for less than the $40 you'd spend on more memory, please let me know - I'd like to pick one up myself...
So you're getting good performance with 16 MB, eh? I guess that means you aren't running Mozilla, Open Office or anything related to Java...
Oh, and the "main chokepoint" for "ordinary home desktops" most certainly *is* a lack of memory, but you're just too clueless to understand that. The "ordinary" home desktop is purchased from CompUSA or similar type of store that pushes out commodity boxes by the thousands. These machines never have enough memory installed, because they're shipped with the amount of "minimum recommended memory", per Microsoft's requirements. This turns out to be 64 mb or 128mb in most cases (which for a Windows user, is completely inadequate), although some systems are shipping with 256mb now...
Additionally, these system ship with all sorts of programs pre-loaded in the system tray, in addition to the pre-loaded Microsoft viruses (MS Office quick launch and Find Fast) -- all of which use up precious memory. In this case, adding memory is the EASIEST thing that can be done -- certainly far easier than reducing the size of the bloatware that is being shipped.
The I/O in a home machine is only stressed, really, when the computer has to constantly swap things in and out -- and this happens because there isn't enough RAM. If you bump up the memory, you eliminate a lot of the I/O -- which means that crappy I/O isn't much of a problem anymore....
Quit being a hippie throwback to the old days... Yes, it would be nice if we didn't need so much memory, but the fact is that we DO need all the memory we can stuff into the machine. My laptop, with a 486-25 and 12MB of memory (running OS/2 2.11) was "faster" and snappier to use than a Pentium III-500 with 256MB running Windows NT... That's unfortunate, but that's the way things are.
Right now, in today's environment, the BEST and CHEAPEST and EASIEST and MOST NOTICEABLE improvement to your system can be achieved by simply adding more memory until you get to the 512MB mark (for now). And you're complaining about how you don't want to spend $40????
It's depressing to have a 1GHz Athlon system with 128MB RAM
What's depressing is that you actually think you have a decent setup... You know, for $40 or so you can have 512Mb of memory in your system. Try upgrading to a decent amount of memory and you will amazed at the performance increase...
It doesn't really matter what OS you're running, 128mb really isn't enough. 512 on the other hand, is comfortable and sufficient for most tasks.
As far as the "value proposition" of the GPL (which to me, it has a value of zero -- possibly less), I think that in the future people will look back at the GPL (not necessarily open source, mind you, but the communist GPL incarnation of it), and compare it to Prohibition. This is what they'll think:
I can't believe people were stupid enough to think it would actually work
You're missing the point -- if I release something that _isn't_ under the GPL (because, for some strange reason, I feel like getting paid for my work), the open source bigots and fanatics jump all over me, whining and moaning about how much better life would be if I released my work under the GPL (so they could steal it instead of paying for it)...
So if I release under the GPL, I don't get paid for my hard work. If I don't release under the GPL, the fanatics come out of the woodwork to decry my "proprietary" stance (and then encourage others to avoid my work because it isn't "free"). It's a lose-lose situation when dealing with open source.
I do like the part about the GPL where if you purchase software, you also have the right to the source code (and the ability to modify the code, if desired) to suit your own purposes. This provision would cover you in case the software vendor went out of business, and would also allow you to extend or customize the software for your own needs...
Beyond that, however, I think it is absurd to allow you to take someone else's work and sell it without compensating the original author -- or even worse, give it away to an unrelated third party.
You said: "Is it because on our side of the fence - the linux/bsd users won't pay for ANYTHING?"
Yes, this is the problem with open source; it promotes an attitude of "I want _you_ to work hard and produce something of value, but I *demand* that you give it to me for free".
Why is it that OSS advocates insist on getting everything for free? This attitude permeates every level of thinking of those indoctrinated by the GPL (and other communistic licenses of similar ilk).. Why, just witness the OUTRAGE and HORROR expressed here on Slashdot when an "Evil Corporation (tm)" decided to levy a 25 cent royalty on MP3 players.... There were flaming idiots by the hundreds claiming that MP3 was now officially evil, and that they would immediately trash their entire MP3 collections and convert to Ogg.
It's pathetic. You should expect to pay for value received, and to receive for value created. TANSTAAFL -- everyone should keep this in mind.
Re:They passed on Java because FreeBSD is crappy?
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 1
You don't need multiple threads to serve webpages. You can have a single threaded web server, if you want (and run it under DOS, even). Or you can have multiple processes running your single-threaded web server and accomplish the same thing as multiple threads.
However, it won't be as efficient. A single-threaded DOS webserver could get bogged down quite easily, and running multiple processes won't be as fast as multiple threads, because a context switch between threads is faster than a context switch between processes...
Re:They passed on Java because FreeBSD is crappy?
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 1
I find that especially sad because I think good threading support on FreeBSD is not far away
What *I* find sad is that FreeBSD has gotten by for so long _without_ decent thread support. I mean, OS/2 had *wonderful* thread support back in 1992, and Linux has been pretty solid for a while. What took the BSD people so long?
Re:They passed on Java because FreeBSD is crappy?
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 1
Err.... Mountains of PCs
Re:They passed on Java because FreeBSD is crappy?
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 1
(1) Yes, changing corporate values is indeed hard; people tend to stick with what they know (better to have the devil you know than the devil you don't) -- one of the reasons people stick with Microsoft, by the way
(2) Windows 2000 / IE 5.5 (Worked fine with Opera 6.05 and Moz 1.1)
(3) I understand your point -- after all, it does get annoying when the primary focus of the news is the value of someone else's currency. The Estado de Sao Paulo shows the dollar's value every day on the bottom of the front page.
Personally, I think Lula is going to screw you over royally. He's a communist who idolizes Fidel Castro, believes in isolationism (and believe me, when he repudiates Brazil's external debt, you _will_ be isolated like you never thought possible), and was only elected for two reasons:
1. He moderated his statements during the election cycle so he would be more appealing (I guess losing 3 or 4 elections previously taught him that an overt communist would never win). Of course, he didn't really change his views (as you will soon find out), he only changed his marketing...
2. Things have improved greatly in Brazil since the 80's and I think the people are complacent with their new-found comfort. The Real has been around since '94 -- quite an accomplishment for a country that went through 4 currencies in 6 years before it was introduced. Imports have increased greatly, letting Brazilians buy things they never had before. Incomes have risen dramatically, even among the poor (although the gap between rich and poor is still abnormally wide). And for the first time in decades, a middle class emerged in Brazil... There _was_ no middle class in the 80's.
BTW, how did you "get" the blog's text so easily? Can you understand portuguese?
Claro:) Drop me a note at "thedoomdog @ yahoo.com" if you want to hear about what life was like with 2000% inflation....
(parlament? I don't know the english word for Congresso)
Congresso = congress = den of thieves; England has a Parliament, the US has a Congress. Neither is to be trusted.
Sadly enough, you're right. And I try soooooo hard to not feed the trolls....
Re:They passed on Java because FreeBSD is crappy?
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 1
And do you have any hard numbers (and a link) to back up your assertion? Whiles PCs are generally cheaper, I find it hard to believe that 16 mainframes could be more expensive to maintain than 4500 PCs...
If you have 16 colo sites, you'd need 16 mainframes. You don't need an extra box for redundancy, because _everything_ inside of a mainframe is already built for redundancy.
Upgrading the mainframe is easier too -- just activate a few more CPUs and define a few more virtual linux partitions and you're ready to go (most mainframes ship with more CPUs than what you need; when you want to upgrade, you call IBM and they turn on those unused processors! Try that with a PC!)
Mountains PCs are generally better at raw CPU power, but serving up web sites is all about I/O -- and mainframes are the kings of I/O.
"I'm not a "web app" developer; I'm a real developer who got dragooned into wasting a few months on a web project because that stuff is trivial and we couldn't see any sense in hiring a "web app developer" for something that a programmer could do twice as well in half the time. And then we'd have to fire the poor fool when we were done with him."
You're the same "real developer" that wrote a JSP web project that was so slow that the client thought the server was hung, right? Hmm.....
So the truth, like memory from your code, is slowly leaking out... You're a bigoted C++ programmer that thinks templates are the greatest thing in the world... Sure, Java doesn't have templates, but it does have built-in threading libraries (which C++ doesn't) -- and I find them far more useful...
By the way, the only reason you like templates is because you've never had to debug one...
Re:They passed on Java because FreeBSD is crappy?
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 1
I never suggested they "magically dump" everything written for BSD. Conversion to a better platform could easily be done a piece at a time. After all, they're making the switch to PHP, which entails rewriting a few million lines of code. When you look at the cost for developers to crank out *millions* of lines of code, the price of a few mainframes isn't that big of a deal...
You said "Yahoo! simply can't throw away everything they've written, just to use J2EE". Well, they're doing it *just* to use PHP? What's the difference?
And what's wrong with your blog? How much extra work did you have to do to get it to render properly with Opera and Mozilla, but die horribly under IE ???
[[ from your blog: O dólar continua subindo - E eu não estou nem aí! ]]
So it doesn't bother you that your country's currency is quickly becoming worthless? Let the Real become another cruzeiro, or cruzado (or horrors, even a cruzado novo?) Or are you too young to remember the "good ol' days" of 2000% annual inflation?
Re:Java is not suitable for Web stuff
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's an impressive amount of ignorance to display in a single post! No wonder you posted AC...
1. Web development is just "parsing and concatenating strings" ??? Interesting... And here I was thinking that it also involved database lookups, pulling streaming data off of message queues, querying external sources for status and information and data validation, among others.. Why didn't you just say that software development is just typing on a keyboard?
2. Regular expressions are "built-in" to Java now -- ever since the 1.4 release (which has been out for a while now)...
3. If your user thought that your server had hung while processing your Java code, I'd say it was because you wrote REALLY LOUSY code. Unless you're using Swing, there's nothing wrong with Java's speed.
4. You HATE Perl and you hate Java even more ??? Seems like ample proof that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are just _pretending_ to be a programmer. You're clueless, and most likely couldn't code your way out of a paper bag. Java and Perl are tools -- there's no reason to hate either one. Both have their place and excel at different things. Obviously, you're one of those "I only have a hammer" kind of people, and you simply don't know how to use more than 1 type of tool (and as you mentioned above, you _surely_ aren't a competent Java/JSP developer).
5. Java is a "lame but rational" language? Just more proof that you don't have a clue. Java is very well designed; it isn't perfect and needs improvement in certain areas, it is still very nicely done.
6. 4500 PCs have a lower TCO than mainframes? Where exactly is your proof? And what qualifies big iron as an automatic "dinosaur" ??? They are simply another type of tool that can be used. They have their places where they make far more sense than a bunch of PCs stuffed into a rack, and they also have places where they aren't the best idea. But for some reason, you seem to be stuck on this "there's only one right way to do _anything_ trip"....
As I said, you've managed to pack an impressive amount of ignorance in just one post.... Next time, put your name alongside your drivel.
Slashdot Mirror
The only "issues" that Ant relieves are those relating to the inability of Ant's authors and proponents to understand simple makefile syntax.
Yes, I've read the Ant home page, and I've seen their lame arguments. They only prove that those people don't really understand make or how to use it properly.
:)
To claim that Makefiles are inherently evil just because the Ant authors are too stupid to handle the tab vs. space issue in makefiles just underscores their inexperience and ignorance. This is simply a syntax issue, and if you're going to use a tool (any tool), you need to learn the syntax. Besides, all it takes is a simple ":set list" in vi to sell you if you've got a tab there or a space
And the Ant people even admit: "Granted, this removes some of the expressive power that is inherent" in makefiles..
Why would you want to use an inferior tool like Ant just for "the abiity to be cross platform" ??? This is where their argument really falls flat. After all, Ant is a Java tool, right? Java is cross platform. You compile it on one platform and run it on many others -- you don't recompile your Java code on each platform! Where's the need for a cross platform Java build tool? This really doesn't make any sense at all.
I've always used makefiles for my Java development and it works very, very well. Make is a proven product, has a well-defined, well-documented syntax and for the most part, is very easy to read (while Ant's XML mishmash is a mess).
Yes, I posted it twice. I wanted to respond to a particular post and didn't click on the right link :)... So, I went back and did it right the second time. I didn't think anyone would notice, because my posts are usually ignored by most people...
I'm not quite sure why I was allowed to post it again so quickly. Good Karma, I guess...
In one sense, there is very little "regular" spam, if you only count the number of spammers involved. However, the spammers that don't forge their headers are involved in sending out an awful lot of spam. In fact, it's easier for them to be spammers because they don't have to constantly deal with their accounts being shut off, finding a new relay to abuse, etc.
:). I have lots of spam trap addresses floating around that let me know when a new spam campaign is starting... Just off the top of my head, I'd say that at least a quarter (and possibly a third) of the spam I see on a weekly basis comes from less than a dozen sources....
I develop server-side spam filtering products (among other things), and I see a lot more spam than most people do
State regulations that require ADV in the subject are paper tigers -- they have no effect and for the most part, they're pretty worthless. However, they do give the bureaucrats something to point at when people complain about spam.
These regulations are unenforceable because they're ambiguous. How do you define where an email address is "located"?? Is it located where the owner of the address has a legal residence? Is it located wherever the POP3 server resides? Is it located anywhere the owner chooses to read their email? Furthermore, most states that have these ADV: laws don't have a statewide registry of email addresses. Without this, there's no way to filter out addresses in certain states.
Bad laws like this don't accomplish anything.
Yes, there is a difference between regular spam and the fraudulent variety. Normal spam is sent by well known "bulk mailers" (as they call themselves, in a pitiful attempt to legitimize their business) on a contract-for-hire basis.
They send email directly from their own systems to your mailbox. They do not fake their headers, use open relays, hijacked proxies or root'ed boxes of other people to send out their messages. They generally have contracts with their ISPs to not cancel their connectivity as long as they have some type of proof, no matter how vague, that the mail *might* be considered opt-in (and as long as the complaints aren't too frequent. These people do listwash their own lists, if only to stop spamming people who actually complain about it, and also to show to their ISPs that they have an effective opt-out system. Their spam is annoying, but currently legal.
Fraudulent spam, on the other hand, is completely different. These are the people that hijack other people's machines to do the dirty work, rape open relays and consume all of their bandwidth during spam runs, actively probe for open relays and proxies, forge everything they can in the headers, study SpamAssassin and other filters in an attempt to craft messages that don't "look" like spam. These are the people that use their opt-out lists as a source of revenue (by selling the names to other spammers), and will frequently joe-job spam activists and others who complain too loudly and to the wrong people...
The first type of spammer sends out insurance offers, cell phones ads, inkjet ads and such. The second type sends out virus/trojan laden messages, porno by the bucketload, ads for illegal drugs, etc.
Both types of spam are annoying, but the "fraudulent" type is much more so because of its immoral content (and anyone who thinks that sending pornographic images to children isn't immoral should quietly remove themselves from the gene pool) and also because of the theft of services (bandwidth, hard drive space, etc.) from the relays and proxies that they abuse.
Yes, there is a difference between regular spam and the fraudulent variety. Normal spam is sent by well known "bulk mailers" (as they call themselves, in a pitiful attempt to legitimize their business) on a contract-for-hire basis.
They send email directly from their own systems to your mailbox. They do not fake their headers, use open relays, hijacked proxies or root'ed boxes of other people to send out their messages. They generally have contracts with their ISPs to not cancel their connectivity as long as they have some type of proof, no matter how vague, that the mail *might* be considered opt-in (and as long as the complaints aren't too frequent. These people do listwash their own lists, if only to stop spamming people who actually complain about it, and also to show to their ISPs that they have an effective opt-out system. Their spam is annoying, but currently legal.
Fraudulent spam, on the other hand, is completely different. These are the people that hijack other people's machines to do the dirty work, rape open relays and consume all of their bandwidth during spam runs, actively probe for open relays and proxies, forge everything they can in the headers, study SpamAssassin and other filters in an attempt to craft messages that don't "look" like spam. These are the people that use their opt-out lists as a source of revenue (by selling the names to other spammers), and will frequently joe-job spam activists and others who complain too loudly and to the wrong people...
The first type of spammer sends out insurance offers, cell phones ads, inkjet ads and such. The second type sends out virus/trojan laden messages, porno by the bucketload, ads for illegal drugs, etc.
Both types of spam are annoying, but the "fraudulent" type is much more so because of its immoral content (and anyone who thinks that sending pornographic images to children isn't immoral should quietly remove themselves from the gene pool) and also because of the theft of services (bandwidth, hard drive space, etc.) from the relays and proxies that they abuse.
Why, you'd save a fortune in glo-in-the-dark condoms
When you find that "good SCSI controller" for less than the $40 you'd spend on more memory, please let me know - I'd like to pick one up myself...
So you're getting good performance with 16 MB, eh? I guess that means you aren't running Mozilla, Open Office or anything related to Java...
Oh, and the "main chokepoint" for "ordinary home desktops" most certainly *is* a lack of memory, but you're just too clueless to understand that. The "ordinary" home desktop is purchased from CompUSA or similar type of store that pushes out commodity boxes by the thousands. These machines never have enough memory installed, because they're shipped with the amount of "minimum recommended memory", per Microsoft's requirements. This turns out to be 64 mb or 128mb in most cases (which for a Windows user, is completely inadequate), although some systems are shipping with 256mb now...
Additionally, these system ship with all sorts of programs pre-loaded in the system tray, in addition to the pre-loaded Microsoft viruses (MS Office quick launch and Find Fast) -- all of which use up precious memory. In this case, adding memory is the EASIEST thing that can be done -- certainly far easier than reducing the size of the bloatware that is being shipped.
The I/O in a home machine is only stressed, really, when the computer has to constantly swap things in and out -- and this happens because there isn't enough RAM. If you bump up the memory, you eliminate a lot of the I/O -- which means that crappy I/O isn't much of a problem anymore....
Quit being a hippie throwback to the old days... Yes, it would be nice if we didn't need so much memory, but the fact is that we DO need all the memory we can stuff into the machine. My laptop, with a 486-25 and 12MB of memory (running OS/2 2.11) was "faster" and snappier to use than a Pentium III-500 with 256MB running Windows NT... That's unfortunate, but that's the way things are.
Right now, in today's environment, the BEST and CHEAPEST and EASIEST and MOST NOTICEABLE improvement to your system can be achieved by simply adding more memory until you get to the 512MB mark (for now). And you're complaining about how you don't want to spend $40????
It's depressing to have a 1GHz Athlon system with 128MB RAM
What's depressing is that you actually think you have a decent setup... You know, for $40 or so you can have 512Mb of memory in your system. Try upgrading to a decent amount of memory and you will amazed at the performance increase...
It doesn't really matter what OS you're running, 128mb really isn't enough. 512 on the other hand, is comfortable and sufficient for most tasks.
you'd better make your product worth paying for. :)
This is the point of this discussion: open source / GPL fanatics think that nothing is worth paying for. Their mantra is "gimme gimme gimme"...
As far as the "value proposition" of the GPL (which to me, it has a value of zero -- possibly less), I think that in the future people will look back at the GPL (not necessarily open source, mind you, but the communist GPL incarnation of it), and compare it to Prohibition. This is what they'll think:
I can't believe people were stupid enough to think it would actually work
You're missing the point -- if I release something that _isn't_ under the GPL (because, for some strange reason, I feel like getting paid for my work), the open source bigots and fanatics jump all over me, whining and moaning about how much better life would be if I released my work under the GPL (so they could steal it instead of paying for it)...
So if I release under the GPL, I don't get paid for my hard work. If I don't release under the GPL, the fanatics come out of the woodwork to decry my "proprietary" stance (and then encourage others to avoid my work because it isn't "free"). It's a lose-lose situation when dealing with open source.
I do like the part about the GPL where if you purchase software, you also have the right to the source code (and the ability to modify the code, if desired) to suit your own purposes. This provision would cover you in case the software vendor went out of business, and would also allow you to extend or customize the software for your own needs...
Beyond that, however, I think it is absurd to allow you to take someone else's work and sell it without compensating the original author -- or even worse, give it away to an unrelated third party.
You said: "Is it because on our side of the fence - the linux/bsd users won't pay for ANYTHING?"
Yes, this is the problem with open source; it promotes an attitude of "I want _you_ to work hard and produce something of value, but I *demand* that you give it to me for free".
Why is it that OSS advocates insist on getting everything for free? This attitude permeates every level of thinking of those indoctrinated by the GPL (and other communistic licenses of similar ilk).. Why, just witness the OUTRAGE and HORROR expressed here on Slashdot when an "Evil Corporation (tm)" decided to levy a 25 cent royalty on MP3 players.... There were flaming idiots by the hundreds claiming that MP3 was now officially evil, and that they would immediately trash their entire MP3 collections and convert to Ogg.
It's pathetic. You should expect to pay for value received, and to receive for value created. TANSTAAFL -- everyone should keep this in mind.
You don't need multiple threads to serve webpages. You can have a single threaded web server, if you want (and run it under DOS, even). Or you can have multiple processes running your single-threaded web server and accomplish the same thing as multiple threads.
However, it won't be as efficient. A single-threaded DOS webserver could get bogged down quite easily, and running multiple processes won't be as fast as multiple threads, because a context switch between threads is faster than a context switch between processes...
I find that especially sad because I think good threading support on FreeBSD is not far away
What *I* find sad is that FreeBSD has gotten by for so long _without_ decent thread support. I mean, OS/2 had *wonderful* thread support back in 1992, and Linux has been pretty solid for a while. What took the BSD people so long?
Err.... Mountains of PCs
(1) Yes, changing corporate values is indeed hard; people tend to stick with what they know (better to have the devil you know than the devil you don't) -- one of the reasons people stick with Microsoft, by the way
:) Drop me a note at "thedoomdog @ yahoo.com" if you want to hear about what life was like with 2000% inflation....
(2) Windows 2000 / IE 5.5 (Worked fine with Opera 6.05 and Moz 1.1)
(3) I understand your point -- after all, it does get annoying when the primary focus of the news is the value of someone else's currency. The Estado de Sao Paulo shows the dollar's value every day on the bottom of the front page.
Personally, I think Lula is going to screw you over royally. He's a communist who idolizes Fidel Castro, believes in isolationism (and believe me, when he repudiates Brazil's external debt, you _will_ be isolated like you never thought possible), and was only elected for two reasons:
1. He moderated his statements during the election cycle so he would be more appealing (I guess losing 3 or 4 elections previously taught him that an overt communist would never win). Of course, he didn't really change his views (as you will soon find out), he only changed his marketing...
2. Things have improved greatly in Brazil since the 80's and I think the people are complacent with their new-found comfort. The Real has been around since '94 -- quite an accomplishment for a country that went through 4 currencies in 6 years before it was introduced. Imports have increased greatly, letting Brazilians buy things they never had before. Incomes have risen dramatically, even among the poor (although the gap between rich and poor is still abnormally wide). And for the first time in decades, a middle class emerged in Brazil... There _was_ no middle class in the 80's.
BTW, how did you "get" the blog's text so easily? Can you understand portuguese?
Claro
(parlament? I don't know the english word for Congresso)
Congresso = congress = den of thieves; England has a Parliament, the US has a Congress. Neither is to be trusted.
Sadly enough, you're right. And I try soooooo hard to not feed the trolls....
And do you have any hard numbers (and a link) to back up your assertion? Whiles PCs are generally cheaper, I find it hard to believe that 16 mainframes could be more expensive to maintain than 4500 PCs...
If you have 16 colo sites, you'd need 16 mainframes. You don't need an extra box for redundancy, because _everything_ inside of a mainframe is already built for redundancy.
Upgrading the mainframe is easier too -- just activate a few more CPUs and define a few more virtual linux partitions and you're ready to go (most mainframes ship with more CPUs than what you need; when you want to upgrade, you call IBM and they turn on those unused processors! Try that with a PC!)
Mountains PCs are generally better at raw CPU power, but serving up web sites is all about I/O -- and mainframes are the kings of I/O.
And so, unable to support your arguments (and being exposed for the fool that you are), you quickly descend into being a troll...
You spewed the following drivel:
"I'm not a "web app" developer; I'm a real developer who got dragooned into wasting a few months on a web project because that stuff is trivial and we couldn't see any sense in hiring a "web app developer" for something that a programmer could do twice as well in half the time. And then we'd have to fire the poor fool when we were done with him."
You're the same "real developer" that wrote a JSP web project that was so slow that the client thought the server was hung, right? Hmm.....
So the truth, like memory from your code, is slowly leaking out... You're a bigoted C++ programmer that thinks templates are the greatest thing in the world... Sure, Java doesn't have templates, but it does have built-in threading libraries (which C++ doesn't) -- and I find them far more useful...
By the way, the only reason you like templates is because you've never had to debug one...
I never suggested they "magically dump" everything written for BSD. Conversion to a better platform could easily be done a piece at a time. After all, they're making the switch to PHP, which entails rewriting a few million lines of code. When you look at the cost for developers to crank out *millions* of lines of code, the price of a few mainframes isn't that big of a deal...
You said "Yahoo! simply can't throw away everything they've written, just to use J2EE". Well, they're doing it *just* to use PHP? What's the difference?
And what's wrong with your blog? How much extra work did you have to do to get it to render properly with Opera and Mozilla, but die horribly under IE ???
[[ from your blog: O dólar continua subindo - E eu não estou nem aí! ]]
So it doesn't bother you that your country's currency is quickly becoming worthless? Let the Real become another cruzeiro, or cruzado (or horrors, even a cruzado novo?) Or are you too young to remember the "good ol' days" of 2000% annual inflation?
That's an impressive amount of ignorance to display in a single post! No wonder you posted AC...
1. Web development is just "parsing and concatenating strings" ??? Interesting... And here I was thinking that it also involved database lookups, pulling streaming data off of message queues, querying external sources for status and information and data validation, among others.. Why didn't you just say that software development is just typing on a keyboard?
2. Regular expressions are "built-in" to Java now -- ever since the 1.4 release (which has been out for a while now)...
3. If your user thought that your server had hung while processing your Java code, I'd say it was because you wrote REALLY LOUSY code. Unless you're using Swing, there's nothing wrong with Java's speed.
4. You HATE Perl and you hate Java even more ??? Seems like ample proof that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are just _pretending_ to be a programmer. You're clueless, and most likely couldn't code your way out of a paper bag. Java and Perl are tools -- there's no reason to hate either one. Both have their place and excel at different things. Obviously, you're one of those "I only have a hammer" kind of people, and you simply don't know how to use more than 1 type of tool (and as you mentioned above, you _surely_ aren't a competent Java/JSP developer).
5. Java is a "lame but rational" language? Just more proof that you don't have a clue. Java is very well designed; it isn't perfect and needs improvement in certain areas, it is still very nicely done.
6. 4500 PCs have a lower TCO than mainframes? Where exactly is your proof? And what qualifies big iron as an automatic "dinosaur" ??? They are simply another type of tool that can be used. They have their places where they make far more sense than a bunch of PCs stuffed into a rack, and they also have places where they aren't the best idea. But for some reason, you seem to be stuck on this "there's only one right way to do _anything_ trip"....
As I said, you've managed to pack an impressive amount of ignorance in just one post.... Next time, put your name alongside your drivel.