Isn't all this just a tornado in a glass of water? I mean, who cares how the DBMS maps records to files, or if it even maps them to files at all? I'd think that after, what, 50 years of having relational databases, the implementers should know how to make things efficient.
If you open up a random book about databases, chances are it is full of information on exactly how database implementations work around various performance gotchas in operating systems, never mind that many of these have been worked around in operating systems (at least Linux) by now, as well.
And I thought the whole reason we're still using RDBMSes, rather than persistant object stores (which map much better to the data models of our programming languages) is that RDBMSes can be and have been made efficient. Any idiot can come up with the idea to make a database that stores objects just the same way his favorite programming language does it, thus obviating the need for shoehorning your data into SQL's data model. However, there aren't as many idiots who can stamp out such a database and make it competitive with the established RDMBSes in terms of performance.
Column-stored vs. row stored? I don't even know what that means. Store columns together instead of rows? Yeah, whatever, just make what I am doing fast. I can't believe people only thought of this recently.
So, to sum up my thoughts in a somewhat less ranty manner:
1. As far as I know, relational databases are far from dead. I know few people who wouldn't want to trade the data model for something that fits better with their programming languages', but, as far as I understand, we still end up using existing RDBMSes because they are _fast_.
2. Column-oriented vs. row-oriented databases are just another optimization. People are optimizing DBMSes all the time. I hope this isn't going to become some heavily advertised feature...might as well start advertising that your operating system does inode caching, or whatever.
``You could configure your computer to reject RST packets, but then you'd end up leaving connections open all over the place and cause all sorts of other problems. It's not something that you can trivially work around.''
And here I was thinking that Bittorrent used UDP, which, lacking the concept of connections, should be invulnerable to this attack. Well, perhaps a workaround can be found in this direction. What if you tunneled the TCP connection through UDP, with encryption (like a VPN)? The ISP wouldn't know what you were transferring, nor would it be able to generate RST packets. Also, if you do this like a VPN, you wouldn't actually need to modify existing software. The difficulty, of course, would be getting the VPN set up...especially agreeing on a shared secret without the ISP knowing it, as well.
``underscores are hard to type''...as are caps. Which makes me happy I do a lot of programming in languages where everything is written in lowercase, with words separated by dashes. I do type lots of parentheses, which is why I've remapped them to not require pressing the shift key.
``If these vehicles were produced without subsidies, they'd be so expensive that no one would buy them.''
Which is the Real WTF. If you actually want to lower pollution, why not put the economic incentives closer to the pollution? For example, you could do like many European countries do and have insanely high taxes on fuel (if you think 6 dollars per gallon is a lot, you ain't seen nothing yet). Curiously, people here (in Europe) tend to drive more environmentally friendly cars and use alternate means of transportation a lot more. Go figure.
This may not be a whole lot of money for a company with Microsoft's cash flow, but it's still good news. Even if it doesn't exactly bankrupt them, Microsoft has been taken to court, convicted, and made to pay over their crimes. That has to count for something. Moreover, lots of people will hear of this. And that is probably the most important result: that people will be told that Microsoft is, in fact, a company that has engaged in illegal business practices. And it's not just a bunch of fringe figures saying it; a court agrees with them. And the "bunch of loonies" fought and got you back some of the money Microsoft cheated you out of.
``Why is the ISP supposed to police its customers, when it is clearly the police dep's job?''
Ah, yeah? Friends sharing a song they enjoy is cause for police involvement now?
The problem with the Copyright Cartel's rhetoric is that there is so much of it. Even if most of it is rejected as obvious bullshit, some of it apparently sticks.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's breaking the law, but it's really quite innocuous. In fact, it is not even completely clear that anyone is harmed by it at all. We certainly don't need our tax money being spent on more *AA propaganda on one side, and police frightening the wits out of children on the other. It's all been blown vastly out of proportion, and this thanks to the folks at copyright monopolies worldwide. While I am willing to believe that they benefitted society in the past, I am starting to feel that society is better off without them now.
Well, both actually. Lundis Energi should have been testing Vista back in its early alpha release stages to ensure compatibility with their Linux based server system. On the flip side, Microsoft has to get into gear with increased interoperability between Vista, Linux, XP, OSX, FreeBSD and every other operating system choice available on the market today.''
I don't agree with that assessment. It is not up to Lundis Energi to do compatibility with upcoming operating systems that they themselves do not produce. It is up to them to implement standards, and it is up to Microsoft to do the same. If either side breaks the standard, they are to blame.
Unfortunately, none of what I have managed to dig up with Google actually explains what the problem is. It seems, however, that this is because the people from Lundis Energi refuse to provide details. No matter on whose side the bug is (and, honestly, it could be on both sides), refusing to help resolve the issue is decidedly unhelpful (not to say boneheaded). If you discover a bug, the right thing to do is to report it, and perhaps suggest a workaround. You don't go screaming bloody murder and demand that the bug be fixed, while simultaneously refusing to provide help in fixing it (which Microsoft has asked for in so many words).
So, in as far as I can judge from my couch over here, Lundis Energi is definitely doing something wrong. Microsoft may or may not be doing something wrong here, but without further details, I can't tell.
In one sense, the GPL does hinder two-way code sharing. You can't distribute, modify, etc. a project as a whole under the terms of the BSD license if some code in the project is under the GPL. So adding GPL-ed code to a BSD-licensed project does hinder two-way sharing.
However, the fact to the matter is that it is the _BSD_ license that allows you to do this. The BSD license simply does not require you to share your changes.
So, if you are asking yourself why changes aren't being shared back, the answer really is that the original authors (who put their code under the BSD license) said it was OK to use their code without sharing back.
Of course, you can still call into question the behavior of people who take something willingly shared with them and then put up obstacles for sharing back with the original authors.
``Proponents of the GPL defend their license for enforcing that their code can always be shared. However in the current debate the GPL is being added to BSD-licensed code, thereby preventing it from being shared back with the original authors of the code. Thus, a share-and-share-alike license is effectively preventing two-way sharing.''
Err, no. What is preventing the two-way sharing is (1) people using the GPL with (portions of) the code in a originally BSD-licensed project, and (2) the people in the original project not being willing to accept the GPL-ed code.
This has much more to do with people being uncooperative than it has with the licenses per se. Taking a project and adding code to it that cannot be distributed under the project's license is not a very friendly thing to do. On the other hand, if the license permits it (as both the BSD license and the GPL do), you have every right to do so.
In the other direction, there is nothing _really_ preventing the original project from using the code that uses the new license. The only thing is that terms of distributions (etc.) of the original project would have to change to be compatible with the new license. I fully understand if the authors of the original project are unwililng to do this. However, "we are unwilling to do X" and "it is impossible to do X" are not the same thing.
Since this discussion (probably) started with the whole saga surrounding the Atheros driver, I would like to point out that that story is a bit more complicated than what I have pointed out above. So please, don't reply to this post with details about the Atheros driver case; that's not what I'm talking about.
Except that, perhaps, western media aren't really doing enough to get the important issues exposed, and people are to complacent. That's my view, anyway.
It wasn't Bush's fault. It was Gore's. If Gore hadn't frustrated GWB's attempts at every turn, Bush would have sent in the Marines, liberated Nigeria, and been received as a hero a long time ago!
Wrong. _Power_ is what allows people to do this. Being in the government gives people power, whether the government is socialist or otherwise. Corruption happens in decidedly un-socialist governments as well, and it happens in companies,... I could go on, but I've already made my point: it's power that facilitates corruption.
So thanks for wrongly knocking socialism, and thanks to the moderators who modded you up. It reminds me just how much bollocks is flying around when it comes to politics.
``Of course. Russia is part of the US judicial system.''
As we _should_ all know, really. I mean, otherwise arresting Dmitry Sklyarov would have been out of bounds. And we all know that wasn't the case; to say otherwise would be blasphemy. You can't violate the DMCA in Russia and walk free!
``It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false...
a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed.''
So when the notice says, as in this case,
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
what that means is actually
* Additionally, when distributing this software, you must comply with the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
That makes no sense to me. If it says alternatively, there should be a choice.
Now, in the part I deleted from Theo's quote, he actually says: ``it is still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may not be removed.''
So it seems he's talking about modifiying the copyright notice that the authors attached. Now, there, he may be right. It makes sense to me that you don't go modifying someone else's copyright notice, especially if the notice explicitly states that it must be preserved (as the BSD license does).
Now, before I and everyone else gets lost in speculation, can we please get someone who is actually a lawyer to comemnt on this?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't all this just a tornado in a glass of water? I mean, who cares
how the DBMS maps records to files, or if it even maps them to files at
all? I'd think that after, what, 50 years of having relational databases,
the implementers should know how to make things efficient.
If you open up a random book about databases, chances are it is full of
information on exactly how database implementations work around various
performance gotchas in operating systems, never mind that many of these
have been worked around in operating systems (at least Linux) by now,
as well.
And I thought the whole reason we're still using RDBMSes, rather than
persistant object stores (which map much better to the data models of
our programming languages) is that RDBMSes can be and have been made
efficient. Any idiot can come up with the idea to make a database that
stores objects just the same way his favorite programming language does
it, thus obviating the need for shoehorning your data into SQL's data
model. However, there aren't as many idiots who can stamp out such a
database and make it competitive with the established RDMBSes in
terms of performance.
Column-stored vs. row stored? I don't even know what that means. Store
columns together instead of rows? Yeah, whatever, just make what I am
doing fast. I can't believe people only thought of this recently.
So, to sum up my thoughts in a somewhat less ranty manner:
1. As far as I know, relational databases are far from dead. I know
few people who wouldn't want to trade the data model for something that
fits better with their programming languages', but, as far as I understand,
we still end up using existing RDBMSes because they are _fast_.
2. Column-oriented vs. row-oriented databases are just another optimization.
People are optimizing DBMSes all the time. I hope this isn't going to
become some heavily advertised feature...might as well start advertising that
your operating system does inode caching, or whatever.
``You could configure your computer to reject RST packets, but then you'd end up leaving connections open all over the place and cause all sorts of other problems. It's not something that you can trivially work around.''
And here I was thinking that Bittorrent used UDP, which, lacking the concept of connections, should be invulnerable to this attack. Well, perhaps a workaround can be found in this direction. What if you tunneled the TCP connection through UDP, with encryption (like a VPN)? The ISP wouldn't know what you were transferring, nor would it be able to generate RST packets. Also, if you do this like a VPN, you wouldn't actually need to modify existing software. The difficulty, of course, would be getting the VPN set up...especially agreeing on a shared secret without the ISP knowing it, as well.
``My solution was along the lines of "strings *.so | aspell" you might need to use c++filt to demangle c++ names.''
In that case, why not use "nm -D -C *.so | aspell"? (shouldn't that be "aspell -a", by the way?)
You would probably also want to use a custom dictionary.
``underscores are hard to type'' ...as are caps. Which makes me happy I do a lot of programming in languages where everything is written in lowercase, with words separated by dashes. I do type lots of parentheses, which is why I've remapped them to not require pressing the shift key.
``If these vehicles were produced without subsidies, they'd be so expensive that no one would buy them.''
Which is the Real WTF. If you actually want to lower pollution, why not put the economic incentives closer to the pollution? For example, you could do like many European countries do and have insanely high taxes on fuel (if you think 6 dollars per gallon is a lot, you ain't seen nothing yet). Curiously, people here (in Europe) tend to drive more environmentally friendly cars and use alternate means of transportation a lot more. Go figure.
This may not be a whole lot of money for a company with Microsoft's cash flow, but it's still good news. Even if it doesn't exactly bankrupt them, Microsoft has been taken to court, convicted, and made to pay over their crimes. That has to count for something. Moreover, lots of people will hear of this. And that is probably the most important result: that people will be told that Microsoft is, in fact, a company that has engaged in illegal business practices. And it's not just a bunch of fringe figures saying it; a court agrees with them. And the "bunch of loonies" fought and got you back some of the money Microsoft cheated you out of.
I thought the Pirate Bay was in the Netherlands nowadays. Am I wrong?
``Now if you were to fail at forming sentences in Belgian, that would be another story.. :)''
Luckily, nobody can ever fail at that.
(FYI: there is no such language)
``Why is the ISP supposed to police its customers, when it is clearly the police dep's job?''
Ah, yeah? Friends sharing a song they enjoy is cause for police involvement now?
The problem with the Copyright Cartel's rhetoric is that there is so much of it. Even if most of it is rejected as obvious bullshit, some of it apparently sticks.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's breaking the law, but it's really quite innocuous. In fact, it is not even completely clear that anyone is harmed by it at all. We certainly don't need our tax money being spent on more *AA propaganda on one side, and police frightening the wits out of children on the other. It's all been blown vastly out of proportion, and this thanks to the folks at copyright monopolies worldwide. While I am willing to believe that they benefitted society in the past, I am starting to feel that society is better off without them now.
``And why in God's name should your teacher give you any respect?''
Because respecting each other is good.
``Your self-righteous attitude is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with youth culture today.''
Or perhaps it's really lack of respect for one another.
``Who's to blame.
Well, both actually. Lundis Energi should have been testing Vista back in its early alpha release stages to ensure compatibility with their Linux based server system. On the flip side, Microsoft has to get into gear with increased interoperability between Vista, Linux, XP, OSX, FreeBSD and every other operating system choice available on the market today.''
I don't agree with that assessment. It is not up to Lundis Energi to do compatibility with upcoming operating systems that they themselves do not produce. It is up to them to implement standards, and it is up to Microsoft to do the same. If either side breaks the standard, they are to blame.
Unfortunately, none of what I have managed to dig up with Google actually explains what the problem is. It seems, however, that this is because the people from Lundis Energi refuse to provide details. No matter on whose side the bug is (and, honestly, it could be on both sides), refusing to help resolve the issue is decidedly unhelpful (not to say boneheaded). If you discover a bug, the right thing to do is to report it, and perhaps suggest a workaround. You don't go screaming bloody murder and demand that the bug be fixed, while simultaneously refusing to provide help in fixing it (which Microsoft has asked for in so many words).
So, in as far as I can judge from my couch over here, Lundis Energi is definitely doing something wrong. Microsoft may or may not be doing something wrong here, but without further details, I can't tell.
``However, I am at a loss to understand why they cannot just reimplement the current setup using modern and more reliable components.''
Because modern components aren't more reliable?
In one sense, the GPL does hinder two-way code sharing. You can't distribute, modify, etc. a project as a whole under the terms of the BSD license if some code in the project is under the GPL. So adding GPL-ed code to a BSD-licensed project does hinder two-way sharing.
However, the fact to the matter is that it is the _BSD_ license that allows you to do this. The BSD license simply does not require you to share your changes.
So, if you are asking yourself why changes aren't being shared back, the answer really is that the original authors (who put their code under the BSD license) said it was OK to use their code without sharing back.
Of course, you can still call into question the behavior of people who take something willingly shared with them and then put up obstacles for sharing back with the original authors.
``Proponents of the GPL defend their license for enforcing that their code can always be shared. However in the current debate the GPL is being added to BSD-licensed code, thereby preventing it from being shared back with the original authors of the code. Thus, a share-and-share-alike license is effectively preventing two-way sharing.''
Err, no. What is preventing the two-way sharing is (1) people using the GPL with (portions of) the code in a originally BSD-licensed project, and (2) the people in the original project not being willing to accept the GPL-ed code.
This has much more to do with people being uncooperative than it has with the licenses per se. Taking a project and adding code to it that cannot be distributed under the project's license is not a very friendly thing to do. On the other hand, if the license permits it (as both the BSD license and the GPL do), you have every right to do so.
In the other direction, there is nothing _really_ preventing the original project from using the code that uses the new license. The only thing is that terms of distributions (etc.) of the original project would have to change to be compatible with the new license. I fully understand if the authors of the original project are unwililng to do this. However, "we are unwilling to do X" and "it is impossible to do X" are not the same thing.
Since this discussion (probably) started with the whole saga surrounding the Atheros driver, I would like to point out that that story is a bit more complicated than what I have pointed out above. So please, don't reply to this post with details about the Atheros driver case; that's not what I'm talking about.
I can't believe it has been over 80 posts without anyone actually congratulating Wikileaks on this great feat.
So let me be the first to welcome our new, leaking overlords!
Congratulations, Wikileaks!! Keep up the good work!
Exactly. 100% right.
Except that, perhaps, western media aren't really doing enough to get the important issues exposed, and people are to complacent. That's my view, anyway.
It wasn't Bush's fault. It was Gore's. If Gore hadn't frustrated GWB's attempts at every turn, Bush would have sent in the Marines, liberated Nigeria, and been received as a hero a long time ago!
*listens to whispering voice*
Ah, Kenya. Of course, I meant Kenya.
Wrong. _Power_ is what allows people to do this. Being in the government gives people power, whether the government is socialist or otherwise. Corruption happens in decidedly un-socialist governments as well, and it happens in companies, ... I could go on, but I've already made my point: it's power that facilitates corruption.
So thanks for wrongly knocking socialism, and thanks to the moderators who modded you up. It reminds me just how much bollocks is flying around when it comes to politics.
``Russia is part of the US judicial system. So is the rest of the world, like Montana and Oregon.''
Are you sure you aren't confusing Russia and Georgia? Err, I mean Georgia.
``Of course. Russia is part of the US judicial system.''
As we _should_ all know, really. I mean, otherwise arresting Dmitry Sklyarov would have been out of bounds. And we all know that wasn't the case; to say otherwise would be blasphemy. You can't violate the DMCA in Russia and walk free!
``I'm just relieved to see that not every random company out there can sue them for providing me the service I ask for on my own computer.''
But that's not what the law says, now, is it?
I think this law is bad. The fact that it was used to obtain an outcome that many people find desirable doesn't change that.
``I for one am really happy that the ruling went in Kaspersky's favor, and shudder to think what would have happened if it hadn't.''
Companies would stop detecting spyware, and people would run away from Windows, screaming in terror?
Ah...one can dream.
``It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false
a dual licensed file always remains dual
licensed, every time it is distributed.''
So when the notice says, as in this case,
what that means is actually
That makes no sense to me. If it says alternatively, there should be a choice.
Now, in the part I deleted from Theo's quote, he actually says: ``it is
still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal
document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may
not be removed.''
So it seems he's talking about modifiying the copyright notice that the authors attached. Now, there, he may be right. It makes sense to me that you don't go modifying someone else's copyright notice, especially if the notice explicitly states that it must be preserved (as the BSD license does).
Now, before I and everyone else gets lost in speculation, can we please get someone who is actually a lawyer to comemnt on this?
Any idea how this stacks up against VIAs Padlock?
http://gpl-violations.org/
Didn't see it mentioned anywhere, so I thought I'd post it.