One can only hope that eventually Apache 2.0 will be accepted and lead the way for real multi-threading of open source software. Pre-fork, although optimized in Linux (a poorly thought-out idea, IMHO), is a terrible and inefficient way to thread. Just kill it.
Re:Why did Apache 2.0 need to break compatibility?
on
Sites Rejecting Apache 2?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Because it's multi-threaded. There are a bunch of strings attached when you thread stuff. For example, thread children all operate in the same memory space (as opposed to the pre-forking Apache 1.x, where each child process had it's own memory space)... that alone has a HUGE impact on how modules must be coded. In order to maintain backwards compatibility, a hybrid pre-fork / thread server setup would have to be constructed.
On a side note, I'd have to disagree with the CTO of Aperio Technologies, Solaris also gets a serious performance improvement with Apache 2, albeit not as good as Windows, but still decent.
What about retraining everyone to use new software (I'd say roughly $750-$1000 a pop + lost productivity)? What about all the money thrown away on purchased software? The "downtime" that everyone seems to believe plagues Windows is almost unseen where I work. Once MacOS X is released on x86 hardware and you can cross-compile source code to x86 with with no changes (other than little/big endian changes), then you might have a competitor on the desktop.
You have a very narrow view of libertarianism. Your comment about the Berman bill makes no sense. Libertarians believe that no one individual or corporation is above the law. "Hacking away at the P2P folks" would certainly be considered violations of the Bill of Rights (right to privacy and violation of property). I believe that most libertarians stand by the Bill of Rights, so please do not group Libertarians in with anarchists. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "Anarchist Libertarian," they are simply anarchists.
The problem with today's law is that it's so far beyond repair, you can't apply libertarian principle to it. Libertarianism is about rock-solid, unshakable principles, which simply can't apply to current US law without a major restructure.
Consider this: If the movie studios were free to hack away at P2P users, the same logic would apply contradictively. The individual would, then, be free to disable the movie studio networks, preventing them from violating your civil rights. I would assume most sane people would consider this a very big inconvenience, and would agree that a law that prevents all tresspassing of private property is the right thing to do. I don't think many libertarians would object.
Users want strucgture: Once presented with a general layout, "My Documents," "My Media," etc... users will start to create subfolders and organize things. The folder concept is very simple and very concrete to users, you just have to show them how to use it, and they're off and running.
The only thing that seems to get crowded for non-"IT Professionals" that I know is the Desktop, which is a horrible place to be able to put files, in my opinion. The desktop should be relegated to program/page links, and the special document/media folders.
This goes to show you how companies and "insiders" manipulate the mind of the individual investor to actually believe that the stock price reflects the value of the company at all. Here's the scoop: The company offers stock in bulk offerings (millions of shares) once a year or so. Between these offerings, the stock price can fluctuate as investors trade these stocks amongst one another, and it has no hard impact on the company itself (spare employees with stock options). When the company offers stock, even at this low price, they are still making investment capital. So yes, Virginia, your stock is actually valueless. Those are some mighty expensive bits and bytes. And... if you STILL have stock in AOL/Time-Warner (you didn't notice that, oh, $150 billion loss), you are screwed. The "big boys" are gone before the street even wakes up in the morning.
I work for small shipping company, every webapp is Java besides tracking (that's C, of course). And there is a nice myth that Fortune 500 companies have huge amounts of cash to burn, which is... a myth. Everything is engineered be faster, cheaper, and better. Matter of fact, we have signs all of the place that say that:)
People with credit card limits in excess of several million dollars, their number sequence and expiration date can be stored in just a few bytes (8 bytes at the most).
It's too bad even a publically owned non-profit organization is going to end up like the government. Very few consumers/citizens will get involved. If the organization's main goal is to maintain the infrastructure, then it will just stagnate. With no true competition, there is no motivation. If you've ever done executive or director-level charity work, you'd know that the decision making process is slow as molassas. Often incompetant people are put in places of authority whom usually just get in the way of the productive persons and cause general grief for the organization.
Also, I'd disagree with you on the point that "two isn't enough for competition." Two is quite enough, as evidenced by the technological advances cable companies have made now that they are threatened by DirecTV. Currently I have hundreds of high-quality digital channels streaming into my household over the cable infrastructure. I'm sure we'd still be watching 40 channels of analog television if it wasn't for the competition.
Suprise! Java wasn't engineered for "Hello World" applications. You're forgetting that there's a VM and a compiler loaded there. Please show us the size of your GCC, and the differences between the Java bytecode and the native binary.
Let's not forget that most of the work on Mozilla is still done by Netscape engineers (although the community aspect is gaining momentum). Mozilla is more than just a browser, it's a ton of infrastructure (XPCOM, XPToolkit, NSPR, JavaScript, etc) that has been GRACIOUSLY donated to the open source community by AOL, with only a GPL license attached. AOL also pays for very high-quality, ad-free hosting and I commend them for that. It certainly could be alot worse.
As far as the AOL service goes, their customers CHOOSE to use the service. AOL gives their customers what they want, and obviously 34 MILLION users want what AOL offers. Their are certainly many other, very-compatible, easy-to-use competing services.
As much as a troll as this is, you exemplify the wrong attitude that has become dominant in the open source world. Beyond the hype, the purpose of open source is to improve software, period. Open source isn't about defeating the evils in the world or getting things for free, it's about moving technology forward. You don't spend a Saturday in a soup kitchen because you get something tangible from it. If Microsoft decides to take the high-quality TCP/IP stack code written by FreeBSD and integrating it into Windows 2000, then let them. By hundreds of people contributing their effort into that TCP/IP stack, they have made Windows 2000 more stable. That, my friend, is the goal in the end, better software. Not because someone paid for it, but because someone decided it needed to be done the right way.
Slashdot Mirror
One can only hope that eventually Apache 2.0 will be accepted and lead the way for real multi-threading of open source software. Pre-fork, although optimized in Linux (a poorly thought-out idea, IMHO), is a terrible and inefficient way to thread. Just kill it.
Because it's multi-threaded. There are a bunch of strings attached when you thread stuff. For example, thread children all operate in the same memory space (as opposed to the pre-forking Apache 1.x, where each child process had it's own memory space)... that alone has a HUGE impact on how modules must be coded. In order to maintain backwards compatibility, a hybrid pre-fork / thread server setup would have to be constructed.
On a side note, I'd have to disagree with the CTO of Aperio Technologies, Solaris also gets a serious performance improvement with Apache 2, albeit not as good as Windows, but still decent.
Any Postscript printer, basically...
or... having sex with thousands of people and saying that makes each instance of sex have a lower likeliness to cause an STD.
What about retraining everyone to use new software (I'd say roughly $750-$1000 a pop + lost productivity)? What about all the money thrown away on purchased software? The "downtime" that everyone seems to believe plagues Windows is almost unseen where I work. Once MacOS X is released on x86 hardware and you can cross-compile source code to x86 with with no changes (other than little/big endian changes), then you might have a competitor on the desktop.
And get treated like a laborer by management? PLEASE. I'd rather get treated like an asset to the company and thanked for the hard work I do.
You have a very narrow view of libertarianism. Your comment about the Berman bill makes no sense. Libertarians believe that no one individual or corporation is above the law. "Hacking away at the P2P folks" would certainly be considered violations of the Bill of Rights (right to privacy and violation of property). I believe that most libertarians stand by the Bill of Rights, so please do not group Libertarians in with anarchists. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "Anarchist Libertarian," they are simply anarchists.
The problem with today's law is that it's so far beyond repair, you can't apply libertarian principle to it. Libertarianism is about rock-solid, unshakable principles, which simply can't apply to current US law without a major restructure.
Consider this: If the movie studios were free to hack away at P2P users, the same logic would apply contradictively. The individual would, then, be free to disable the movie studio networks, preventing them from violating your civil rights. I would assume most sane people would consider this a very big inconvenience, and would agree that a law that prevents all tresspassing of private property is the right thing to do. I don't think many libertarians would object.
Users want strucgture: Once presented with a general layout, "My Documents," "My Media," etc... users will start to create subfolders and organize things. The folder concept is very simple and very concrete to users, you just have to show them how to use it, and they're off and running.
The only thing that seems to get crowded for non-"IT Professionals" that I know is the Desktop, which is a horrible place to be able to put files, in my opinion. The desktop should be relegated to program/page links, and the special document/media folders.
This goes to show you how companies and "insiders" manipulate the mind of the individual investor to actually believe that the stock price reflects the value of the company at all. Here's the scoop: The company offers stock in bulk offerings (millions of shares) once a year or so. Between these offerings, the stock price can fluctuate as investors trade these stocks amongst one another, and it has no hard impact on the company itself (spare employees with stock options). When the company offers stock, even at this low price, they are still making investment capital. So yes, Virginia, your stock is actually valueless. Those are some mighty expensive bits and bytes. And... if you STILL have stock in AOL/Time-Warner (you didn't notice that, oh, $150 billion loss), you are screwed. The "big boys" are gone before the street even wakes up in the morning.
I work for small shipping company, every webapp is Java besides tracking (that's C, of course). And there is a nice myth that Fortune 500 companies have huge amounts of cash to burn, which is... a myth. Everything is engineered be faster, cheaper, and better. Matter of fact, we have signs all of the place that say that :)
that... KALROTH SUX!~!!
People with credit card limits in excess of several million dollars, their number sequence and expiration date can be stored in just a few bytes (8 bytes at the most).
You mean the R in "Reality"?
Question is, would this XML validate properly without the shameless contained in quotes?
It's too bad even a publically owned non-profit organization is going to end up like the government. Very few consumers/citizens will get involved. If the organization's main goal is to maintain the infrastructure, then it will just stagnate. With no true competition, there is no motivation. If you've ever done executive or director-level charity work, you'd know that the decision making process is slow as molassas. Often incompetant people are put in places of authority whom usually just get in the way of the productive persons and cause general grief for the organization.
Also, I'd disagree with you on the point that "two isn't enough for competition." Two is quite enough, as evidenced by the technological advances cable companies have made now that they are threatened by DirecTV. Currently I have hundreds of high-quality digital channels streaming into my household over the cable infrastructure. I'm sure we'd still be watching 40 channels of analog television if it wasn't for the competition.
Suprise! Java wasn't engineered for "Hello World" applications. You're forgetting that there's a VM and a compiler loaded there. Please show us the size of your GCC, and the differences between the Java bytecode and the native binary.
Let's not forget that most of the work on Mozilla is still done by Netscape engineers (although the community aspect is gaining momentum). Mozilla is more than just a browser, it's a ton of infrastructure (XPCOM, XPToolkit, NSPR, JavaScript, etc) that has been GRACIOUSLY donated to the open source community by AOL, with only a GPL license attached. AOL also pays for very high-quality, ad-free hosting and I commend them for that. It certainly could be alot worse.
As far as the AOL service goes, their customers CHOOSE to use the service. AOL gives their customers what they want, and obviously 34 MILLION users want what AOL offers. Their are certainly many other, very-compatible, easy-to-use competing services.
As much as a troll as this is, you exemplify the wrong attitude that has become dominant in the open source world. Beyond the hype, the purpose of open source is to improve software, period. Open source isn't about defeating the evils in the world or getting things for free, it's about moving technology forward. You don't spend a Saturday in a soup kitchen because you get something tangible from it. If Microsoft decides to take the high-quality TCP/IP stack code written by FreeBSD and integrating it into Windows 2000, then let them. By hundreds of people contributing their effort into that TCP/IP stack, they have made Windows 2000 more stable. That, my friend, is the goal in the end, better software. Not because someone paid for it, but because someone decided it needed to be done the right way.
Java is too slow to do such intense computationalizations! They should use something fast, like VBScript!