``I don't really understand what is pragmatic about the kinds of cases I described.''
Well, perhaps you can explain what you meant by the following, then:
The original GPL was a reasonable idea and made a lot of sense to a lot of people. GPLv3 is RMS and co's attempt to turn that popularity into a vehicle for their minority views on software development, and I guess we can see now how little of the community's support of the GPL was really down to believing in the FSF's political stance, and how much was just pragmatism.
``Code that is designed to run on specific hardware and requires specialist software or hardware to build/install is probably of most interest to others who also work on that hardware and already have access to the corresponding build/install systems. Those others are probably the most likely to contribute something of value back to the community as well. In trying to make everyone open up everything to everyone else, GPLv3 appears to get in the way of people opening up most of what they do to share with those who would most benefit from it, with the result that no-one can share anything with anyone in these fields under GPLv3.''''
While I agree that having source code for software that runs on specific hardware is probably of most interest to those who have that hardware and the build systems necessary for compiling the code, and while I agree that those who have the hardware and the build systems are the most likely group to contribute something of value, I don't see where your next sentence comes from.
The GPLv3 is not trying to open up everything to everyone else. Neither is it getting in the way of people opening up most of what they do to share with those who would most benefit from it. What the GPLv3 is doing is applying certain conditions to products licensed under it. Same as every other license.
In case of GPLv3, as relevant to this discussion, it aims to amend the GPLv2 so that entities can't distirbute "GPL-covered software that you can't effectively change" (Why Upgrade to GPLv3). In other words, where GPLv2 requires that source code be made available to those who receive binaries, GPLv3 takes some extra steps to make sure that people receiving that source code will actually be able to use it to make changes to the binaries that they received.
As you say, source code is most useful to those who have the required tools to build it, and the required hardware to run it. GPL, whether v2 or v3, aims to make it so: both require corresponding source to be made available to those that binaries are distributed to (in this discussion, people who purchase the hardware the code runs on), where corresponding source includes not only the source code proper, but basically anything required to build the software, with the possible exception of general-purpose tools or generally available free programs. In other words, far from getting in the way of making things available to those who would most benefit from it, GPL aims to _require_ making available everything needed to build the software to those who purchase the hardware.
``It's like the FSF presented the industry with an all-or-nothing proposition, and since it had no choice, the industry said "Well, too bad, we'll have nothing then."''
I don't understand where that is coming from, either. The FSF and others (e.g. the Linux and Busybox projects) presented the industry with software licensed under the GPL, and some players in the industry chose that software in preference to software licensed under other licenses (e.g. VxWorks). Of course, that does mean they have to abide by the terms of the license. In all cases I am aware of, they have also made an effort to do so. Some have done so up front. Others have done so after being reminded of their obligations. And yet others have only lived up to their obligations after having been threatened with lawsuits. None of that looks like "we'll have nothing then"
``My question is: Do we want to go this route of sacrificing openness for ease of use? Yes, viruses and Trojans are a nuisance, but do we want to trade our relatively open computers for what would essentially be terminals, locked to some for-profit corporation's motives and future?''
Another question is if you would actually get ease of use and absence of malware. To take a page from Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little convenience, will receive neither liberty nor convenience.
Many people have already found this out. Apps being denied entry to the app store are an example of this. As for malware, you can bet that the malware industry will work hard to enter any platform they think is popular enough and useful to their purposes. And they don't play by the rules, so they are not limited to what Apple says they can and can't do. If Apple is in control of your device, you are only safe if Apple _never_ drops the ball on security. Oops, too late, they've already done that, and viruses for the iPhone have indeed already been sighted.
Convenient? Perhaps, until you want to do something that Apple won't allow or hasn't thought of. Viruses and Trojans? Maybe it's not as bad as Windows, but they're there. The only thing that is certain is that you are not in control. If it works for you, then I'm happy for you. But it's not _because_ you gave up your freedom. That's a completely orthogonal thing; you are not getting any convenience or security because of it.
``could Firefox devs not offer a means to pipe the video stream to the player of the user's choice? Eg, vlc or mplayer running as a content-transparent plugin?''
Yeah, they could. But then they'd be doing the same thing that browser vendors have been doing for the object element since the 1990s. Then what would be the point of the new HTML 5 video element?
``What planet did I wake up on today? Republicans criticizing the commercialization of low-orbit space flights? Demanding the return of a gigantic, overbudget, behind schedule rocket to nowhere? Obama for the privatization of space and Conservatives for the continuation of a government monopoly on space?''
I actually think that if you look more deeply into what the Republican party and the Democratic party are really advocating, and where Liberals (in the American sense) and Conservatives (again, in the American sense) fall on various issues, you may be in for a few more surprises. Republican politicians voting for larger government, more government spending, and less room for enterprising individuals and companies is really nothing new.
Many people _believe_ that the Republican party is for big business, less government control, hard-working people keeping their money, and sane economic policies, and many people _believe_ that the Democratic party is for more government control, higher taxes, taxing hard working people (or even handing out money to those too lazy to work), and running up budget deficits for future governments to clean up after. Many people _believe_ that Republican == Conservative and Democrat == Liberal.
``I think if they're writing the cheques in pencil they're doing a Bachelor of Fraud.''
Actually, no. We're not doing a bachelor at all. I have a friend who will print the degree for me and we take turns answering the phone to provide references.
The massive student debts we've incurred? That's just for trips we took to the Mediterranean and the Bahamas.
You have to admit, though, it's a pretty well thought out concept. Can I get that cushy white-collar job now?
``Many, many people have the talent for running a business successfully''
Perhaps, but...
``but no capital and therefore, no chance to prove it.''
I don't think that is necessarily a problem. How much capital do you really need to start a business? It doesn't have to be a lot. It also doesn't have to be yours.
I would say the main reason that people don't start businesses is that they simply don't want to.
``Ars Technica has an opinion piece by Sarah Rothman Epps on the iPad and other potential tablets as a new paradigm that they are calling 'curated computing,' where third parties make a lot of choices to simplify things for the end user, reducing user choice but improving reliability and efficiency for a defined set of tasks. The idea is that this does not replace, but supplements, general-purpose computers.''
That's fine and dandy, but we don't need *locked down* devices for that. You can make the choices for the end users just fine, without taking away their ability to make different choices. Ubuntu is a good example of this: you can get the streamlined desktop experience that Canonical provides by just going with the defaults, or you can adapt the environment to your liking, starting with things like changing desktop backgrounds and installing packages from the main repositories, and continuing all the way to running a custom kernel and third-party software completely independent from the repositories.
By contrast, many of the 'curated computing' providers will sell you a device where you are prevented from doing many things, all _in the name_ of making things easier and more reliable for you. But really, that's a false dichotomy - your ability to deviate from it does not impact the ease of use and reliability of the default configuration.
``Funny how your post starts with not needing a file manager but ends with requiring a terminal.''
Yes. Guess how I manage my files?;-)
But really, the difference between a file manager and a terminal is that that a terminal (with shell, right?) is much more versatile... and takes up a lot less resources than many specialized file managers.
I am not the poster you are replied to, but I reckon many things that go for me go for him, too.
First of all, I would like to thank you for pointing out the things you pointed out, because they weren't clear to me before.
``Let's see. It's not listed specifically on the webpage, but the webpage always lags behind the patches, so unless you've downloaded a copy, you can't be certain the support hasn't been added.
Secondly, I don't know if the specs match another configuration that is named as supported, but if it does, the label doesn't matter.''
This, of course, is true. On the other hand, there is a difference between "supported" as in "it happens to work" and "supported" as in "we actually make sure it works". I would imagine that the latter category would be listed in the table, and when I am thinking to deploy Coreboot (or most products, for that matter), I want to make sure my platform is in the "we make sure it works" category.
``Thirdly, there are a hell of a lot of motherboards out there. Let's say Coreboot supported 99% of all motherboards. There would still then be 1 in every 100 that they didn't, by definition.''
Right. They are currently claiming support for 215 motherboards. That is, honestly, quite impressive. I really wish to congratulate them on that. On the other hand, I reckon it doesn't even come close to "your motherboard is probably supported", which is where I think we want to be.:-)
``Fourthly, since you can slap together basic support by putting together a profile that defines the processor, support chips and other ultra-standard parts, you could have offered a starter profile for them at any time.''
Alright. How does that work? Can I just compile a list of parts that are on my motherboard, send it to them, and expect to get a bootable image in the near future? Because that would be fantastic.
``Why are you posting about what Coreboot doesn't list, when you could be extending that very list at any moment?''
In my case, it's mostly ignorance and lack of time. I think Coreboot is a fantastic project and I wish them great success. On the other hand, that goes for hundreds of other projects, too. I wish I had the time to contribute to all of them!
``paint all the asphalt in the world with silver paint, thus increasing the reflectivity of the Earth, and lowering the temperature just as effectively as increased cloud cover would.''
Moreover, blinding drivers, so they'll get out of the habit of driving real quick!
``Oh, and Coreboot works on a hell of a lot of platforms these days''
I am happy to hear that, because the one thing that has kept me away from Coreboot all these years has been lack of support for my hardware. Other than that, it's just about perfect - I got boot time from GRUB to shell down to a few seconds years ago (on a 486, even), and from GRUB to full X session a few years ago, but the time from power-on to GRUB can easily be tens of seconds. I am led to believe that Coreboot can do better than that.:-)
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate. Thanks for the heads-up!
I am a geek, and even I would welcome a device that let me browse the web and read mail, but didn't have a file manager. In fact, I can't recall the last time I've used a file manager.
On the other hand, I want the software to be as simple as possible (but no simpler) in terms of basic concepts, including files. The reason for this is that designs that don't worry about complexity in terms of the basic building blocks that we have seem to invariably end up becoming unmaintainable buggy horrors. The ideal design is both user friendly and hacker friendly.
Also, in addition to the browser and the perhaps optional mail client, I want a terminal and an SSH client. They don't have to cost much in terms of resources, but they open a world of possibilities. In fact, I use them for everything I do besides web browsing and image manipulation. They don't have to be installed by default, as long as I can add them.
Give me a lightweight, user friendly, hackable system with a browser, a terminal, and an SSH client, and I'll be a happy customer. And I know it can be done.
I like the direction Ubuntu is taking. Instant-on, thinking about how to better use screen real-estate. These are things that have been on my mind for a long time, but I don't have the clout to get it done. Now Ubuntu is doing these things that I have been thinking about. I am looking forward to the results!
I am in a bit of a rush, so I can't netgrep for it myself right now, but I am curious how these new contenders stack up against more established key-value stores such as Berkeley DB and GDBM. Has anyone run the benchmarks?
``The problem is AMD is using an outdated architecture.''
Are they, really? Last I looked into it (admittedly a few years ago), I concluded AMD's architecture was _better_, with more scalable memory access (Intel's would choke when more than a few threads were running simultaneously), a better cache protocol (I forget the details there, but it also had something to do with multiple threads), and more instructions per clock tick. Compared to that, Intel had higher clock speeds, especially for memory, which _just_ gave it the edge in single-thread performance, at the cost of higher energy consumption.
So, while perhaps AMD's architecture is older, "outdated" implies that it also isn't as good as the current state of the art anymore. I would like to know if that is actually the case or not, and for what workloads one would prefer which model of CPU.
The article is vague on what, if anything, is being done to address the important issues that have been impeding a wider selection of fonts being used on web pages, namely:
1. Lack of browser support for downloading fonts (CSS @font-face and friends; see @font-face: The Potential of Web Typography, which will also show you if your browser supports the technology they use)
2. Restrictive licenses that do not allow making fonts available
Both of these means that, when making a web page, you are limited to what fonts the viewer has available.
I wonder why Super Faith is targeting adult diapers specifically. Wouldn't it work for other kinds of diaper, too? And just how common are adult diapers in Japan, anyway?
``I've been following these browser press releases for years now and every time the Javascript is X% faster. Does that mean that it was horrendously crap to start with''
Yes. As long as people were using JavaScript to add little bits of interactivity and dynamism to web pages, speed was not an issue and browser makers didn't make their JavaScript implementations fast. Now that people are writing entire applications in JavaScript, speed is an issue and browser makers use JavaScript speed as a major selling point.
``Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.''
Actually, I think we can produce fuel from renewable sources for a lot less than $100 per gallon. So maybe we could actually stop drilling anywhere we "care" about the "environment" as you suggest, and we would all be better off as a result.
``For the GP: Here's a thought. Drive a car? Heat your house with Oil? Ride a Train? Use Plastics? Guess what, your hands are just as dirty as BP. I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.''
Actually, creating a demand for products that BP happens to produce does not mean people are complicit with whatever practices BP might choose to practice, or even endorsement of BP. For one, people could specifically be buying these products from companies other than BP. But, more importantly, BP could be doing all kinds of unsafe or otherwise objectionable things without letting anybody know about it - and then the outrage would only come once people found out. If it was anywhere near realistic for me to know everything every company involved in getting me the things that I bought ever did, then I would buy your argument. As it is, it is a bit over the top. Did you know that the computer you used to make that post runs on electricity, and that electricity can be produced from oil - possible oil being produced by BP?
I agree with you. There are a lot of things that get posted to/. that I don't consider worth my time. And there are a lot of Ubuntu stories. On the other hand, one person's "not worth my time" is another person's "wow, interesting!". I guess with a lot of Ubuntu users out there, everything Ubuntu does _is_ actually interesting to a large part of the/. readership - and considering the number of comments on this story, the latter part certainly does seem to be true.
So I guess the best thing you can do when a story is posted that doesn't interest you is to just ignore it. Once interest in a particular kind of story drops far enough, I reckon that kind of story will cease being posted.
Actually, I'd rather mod you up than down. I concur with your observations, even if your presentation could be improved a bit. Alas, my mod points disappeared just before I found a post I felt like modding...
Slashdot Mirror
``I don't really understand what is pragmatic about the kinds of cases I described.''
Well, perhaps you can explain what you meant by the following, then:
``Code that is designed to run on specific hardware and requires specialist software or hardware to build/install is probably of most interest to others who also work on that hardware and already have access to the corresponding build/install systems. Those others are probably the most likely to contribute something of value back to the community as well. In trying to make everyone open up everything to everyone else, GPLv3 appears to get in the way of people opening up most of what they do to share with those who would most benefit from it, with the result that no-one can share anything with anyone in these fields under GPLv3.''''
While I agree that having source code for software that runs on specific hardware is probably of most interest to those who have that hardware and the build systems necessary for compiling the code, and while I agree that those who have the hardware and the build systems are the most likely group to contribute something of value, I don't see where your next sentence comes from.
The GPLv3 is not trying to open up everything to everyone else. Neither is it getting in the way of people opening up most of what they do to share with those who would most benefit from it. What the GPLv3 is doing is applying certain conditions to products licensed under it. Same as every other license.
In case of GPLv3, as relevant to this discussion, it aims to amend the GPLv2 so that entities can't distirbute "GPL-covered software that you can't effectively change" (Why Upgrade to GPLv3). In other words, where GPLv2 requires that source code be made available to those who receive binaries, GPLv3 takes some extra steps to make sure that people receiving that source code will actually be able to use it to make changes to the binaries that they received.
As you say, source code is most useful to those who have the required tools to build it, and the required hardware to run it. GPL, whether v2 or v3, aims to make it so: both require corresponding source to be made available to those that binaries are distributed to (in this discussion, people who purchase the hardware the code runs on), where corresponding source includes not only the source code proper, but basically anything required to build the software, with the possible exception of general-purpose tools or generally available free programs. In other words, far from getting in the way of making things available to those who would most benefit from it, GPL aims to _require_ making available everything needed to build the software to those who purchase the hardware.
``It's like the FSF presented the industry with an all-or-nothing proposition, and since it had no choice, the industry said "Well, too bad, we'll have nothing then."''
I don't understand where that is coming from, either. The FSF and others (e.g. the Linux and Busybox projects) presented the industry with software licensed under the GPL, and some players in the industry chose that software in preference to software licensed under other licenses (e.g. VxWorks). Of course, that does mean they have to abide by the terms of the license. In all cases I am aware of, they have also made an effort to do so. Some have done so up front. Others have done so after being reminded of their obligations. And yet others have only lived up to their obligations after having been threatened with lawsuits. None of that looks like "we'll have nothing then"
``My question is: Do we want to go this route of sacrificing openness for ease of use? Yes, viruses and Trojans are a nuisance, but do we want to trade our relatively open computers for what would essentially be terminals, locked to some for-profit corporation's motives and future?''
Another question is if you would actually get ease of use and absence of malware. To take a page from Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little convenience, will receive neither liberty nor convenience.
Many people have already found this out. Apps being denied entry to the app store are an example of this. As for malware, you can bet that the malware industry will work hard to enter any platform they think is popular enough and useful to their purposes. And they don't play by the rules, so they are not limited to what Apple says they can and can't do. If Apple is in control of your device, you are only safe if Apple _never_ drops the ball on security. Oops, too late, they've already done that, and viruses for the iPhone have indeed already been sighted.
Convenient? Perhaps, until you want to do something that Apple won't allow or hasn't thought of. Viruses and Trojans? Maybe it's not as bad as Windows, but they're there. The only thing that is certain is that you are not in control. If it works for you, then I'm happy for you. But it's not _because_ you gave up your freedom. That's a completely orthogonal thing; you are not getting any convenience or security because of it.
``could Firefox devs not offer a means to pipe the video stream to the player of the user's choice? Eg, vlc or mplayer running as a content-transparent plugin?''
Yeah, they could. But then they'd be doing the same thing that browser vendors have been doing for the object element since the 1990s. Then what would be the point of the new HTML 5 video element?
``What planet did I wake up on today? Republicans criticizing the commercialization of low-orbit space flights? Demanding the return of a gigantic, overbudget, behind schedule rocket to nowhere? Obama for the privatization of space and Conservatives for the continuation of a government monopoly on space?''
I actually think that if you look more deeply into what the Republican party and the Democratic party are really advocating, and where Liberals (in the American sense) and Conservatives (again, in the American sense) fall on various issues, you may be in for a few more surprises. Republican politicians voting for larger government, more government spending, and less room for enterprising individuals and companies is really nothing new.
Many people _believe_ that the Republican party is for big business, less government control, hard-working people keeping their money, and sane economic policies, and many people _believe_ that the Democratic party is for more government control, higher taxes, taxing hard working people (or even handing out money to those too lazy to work), and running up budget deficits for future governments to clean up after. Many people _believe_ that Republican == Conservative and Democrat == Liberal.
As far as I can tell, these beliefs are widely held by people all over the political spectrum. In actuality, things aren't quite as clear-cut. In fact, there are many cases where things are the exact opposite of what these beliefs would have you expect. For example, there are many cases where US national debt has decreased under Democratic presidents, and many cases where it has increased under Republican presidents. Also, American liberals largely vote for the Democratic party. They also tend to be wealthy and highly educated. This contradicts some of the things that many people say and believe. The moral of the story? Always check your assumptions, and check the actual program and voting record of the participants in the elections, lest you vote someone into office who is going to do the opposite of what you want ...
``I think if they're writing the cheques in pencil they're doing a Bachelor of Fraud.''
Actually, no. We're not doing a bachelor at all. I have a friend who will print the degree for me and we take turns answering the phone to provide references.
The massive student debts we've incurred? That's just for trips we took to the Mediterranean and the Bahamas.
You have to admit, though, it's a pretty well thought out concept. Can I get that cushy white-collar job now?
``Many, many people have the talent for running a business successfully''
Perhaps, but ...
``but no capital and therefore, no chance to prove it.''
I don't think that is necessarily a problem. How much capital do you really need to start a business? It doesn't have to be a lot. It also doesn't have to be yours.
I would say the main reason that people don't start businesses is that they simply don't want to.
``Ars Technica has an opinion piece by Sarah Rothman Epps on the iPad and other potential tablets as a new paradigm that they are calling 'curated computing,' where third parties make a lot of choices to simplify things for the end user, reducing user choice but improving reliability and efficiency for a defined set of tasks. The idea is that this does not replace, but supplements, general-purpose computers.''
That's fine and dandy, but we don't need *locked down* devices for that. You can make the choices for the end users just fine, without taking away their ability to make different choices. Ubuntu is a good example of this: you can get the streamlined desktop experience that Canonical provides by just going with the defaults, or you can adapt the environment to your liking, starting with things like changing desktop backgrounds and installing packages from the main repositories, and continuing all the way to running a custom kernel and third-party software completely independent from the repositories.
By contrast, many of the 'curated computing' providers will sell you a device where you are prevented from doing many things, all _in the name_ of making things easier and more reliable for you. But really, that's a false dichotomy - your ability to deviate from it does not impact the ease of use and reliability of the default configuration.
``You mean a N900?''
Yes, for example.
``Funny how your post starts with not needing a file manager but ends with requiring a terminal.''
Yes. Guess how I manage my files? ;-)
But really, the difference between a file manager and a terminal is that that a terminal (with shell, right?) is much more versatile ... and takes up a lot less resources than many specialized file managers.
I am not the poster you are replied to, but I reckon many things that go for me go for him, too.
First of all, I would like to thank you for pointing out the things you pointed out, because they weren't clear to me before.
``Let's see. It's not listed specifically on the webpage, but the webpage always lags behind the patches, so unless you've downloaded a copy, you can't be certain the support hasn't been added.
Secondly, I don't know if the specs match another configuration that is named as supported, but if it does, the label doesn't matter.''
This, of course, is true. On the other hand, there is a difference between "supported" as in "it happens to work" and "supported" as in "we actually make sure it works". I would imagine that the latter category would be listed in the table, and when I am thinking to deploy Coreboot (or most products, for that matter), I want to make sure my platform is in the "we make sure it works" category.
``Thirdly, there are a hell of a lot of motherboards out there. Let's say Coreboot supported 99% of all motherboards. There would still then be 1 in every 100 that they didn't, by definition.''
Right. They are currently claiming support for 215 motherboards. That is, honestly, quite impressive. I really wish to congratulate them on that. On the other hand, I reckon it doesn't even come close to "your motherboard is probably supported", which is where I think we want to be. :-)
``Fourthly, since you can slap together basic support by putting together a profile that defines the processor, support chips and other ultra-standard parts, you could have offered a starter profile for them at any time.''
Alright. How does that work? Can I just compile a list of parts that are on my motherboard, send it to them, and expect to get a bootable image in the near future? Because that would be fantastic.
``Why are you posting about what Coreboot doesn't list, when you could be extending that very list at any moment?''
In my case, it's mostly ignorance and lack of time. I think Coreboot is a fantastic project and I wish them great success. On the other hand, that goes for hundreds of other projects, too. I wish I had the time to contribute to all of them!
``paint all the asphalt in the world with silver paint, thus increasing the reflectivity of the Earth, and lowering the temperature just as effectively as increased cloud cover would.''
Moreover, blinding drivers, so they'll get out of the habit of driving real quick!
``Oh, and Coreboot works on a hell of a lot of platforms these days''
I am happy to hear that, because the one thing that has kept me away from Coreboot all these years has been lack of support for my hardware. Other than that, it's just about perfect - I got boot time from GRUB to shell down to a few seconds years ago (on a 486, even), and from GRUB to full X session a few years ago, but the time from power-on to GRUB can easily be tens of seconds. I am led to believe that Coreboot can do better than that. :-)
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate. Thanks for the heads-up!
I am a geek, and even I would welcome a device that let me browse the web and read mail, but didn't have a file manager. In fact, I can't recall the last time I've used a file manager.
On the other hand, I want the software to be as simple as possible (but no simpler) in terms of basic concepts, including files. The reason for this is that designs that don't worry about complexity in terms of the basic building blocks that we have seem to invariably end up becoming unmaintainable buggy horrors. The ideal design is both user friendly and hacker friendly.
Also, in addition to the browser and the perhaps optional mail client, I want a terminal and an SSH client. They don't have to cost much in terms of resources, but they open a world of possibilities. In fact, I use them for everything I do besides web browsing and image manipulation. They don't have to be installed by default, as long as I can add them.
Give me a lightweight, user friendly, hackable system with a browser, a terminal, and an SSH client, and I'll be a happy customer. And I know it can be done.
I like the direction Ubuntu is taking. Instant-on, thinking about how to better use screen real-estate. These are things that have been on my mind for a long time, but I don't have the clout to get it done. Now Ubuntu is doing these things that I have been thinking about. I am looking forward to the results!
I am in a bit of a rush, so I can't netgrep for it myself right now, but I am curious how these new contenders stack up against more established key-value stores such as Berkeley DB and GDBM. Has anyone run the benchmarks?
``The problem is AMD is using an outdated architecture.''
Are they, really? Last I looked into it (admittedly a few years ago), I concluded AMD's architecture was _better_, with more scalable memory access (Intel's would choke when more than a few threads were running simultaneously), a better cache protocol (I forget the details there, but it also had something to do with multiple threads), and more instructions per clock tick. Compared to that, Intel had higher clock speeds, especially for memory, which _just_ gave it the edge in single-thread performance, at the cost of higher energy consumption.
So, while perhaps AMD's architecture is older, "outdated" implies that it also isn't as good as the current state of the art anymore. I would like to know if that is actually the case or not, and for what workloads one would prefer which model of CPU.
The article is vague on what, if anything, is being done to address the important issues that have been impeding a wider selection of fonts being used on web pages, namely:
1. Lack of browser support for downloading fonts (CSS @font-face and friends; see @font-face: The Potential of Web Typography, which will also show you if your browser supports the technology they use)
2. Restrictive licenses that do not allow making fonts available
Both of these means that, when making a web page, you are limited to what fonts the viewer has available.
I wonder why Super Faith is targeting adult diapers specifically. Wouldn't it work for other kinds of diaper, too? And just how common are adult diapers in Japan, anyway?
You don't have to vote for them, they already have the power.
``I've been following these browser press releases for years now and every time the Javascript is X% faster. Does that mean that it was horrendously crap to start with''
Yes. As long as people were using JavaScript to add little bits of interactivity and dynamism to web pages, speed was not an issue and browser makers didn't make their JavaScript implementations fast. Now that people are writing entire applications in JavaScript, speed is an issue and browser makers use JavaScript speed as a major selling point.
``Metasploit might become one of the first examples of how a completely FOSS project grows up to be successful.''
What is the definition of 'successful' being used here? I see open source projects all around me. Aren't those successful?
``Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.''
Actually, I think we can produce fuel from renewable sources for a lot less than $100 per gallon. So maybe we could actually stop drilling anywhere we "care" about the "environment" as you suggest, and we would all be better off as a result.
``For the GP: Here's a thought. Drive a car? Heat your house with Oil? Ride a Train? Use Plastics?
Guess what, your hands are just as dirty as BP.
I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.''
Actually, creating a demand for products that BP happens to produce does not mean people are complicit with whatever practices BP might choose to practice, or even endorsement of BP. For one, people could specifically be buying these products from companies other than BP. But, more importantly, BP could be doing all kinds of unsafe or otherwise objectionable things without letting anybody know about it - and then the outrage would only come once people found out. If it was anywhere near realistic for me to know everything every company involved in getting me the things that I bought ever did, then I would buy your argument. As it is, it is a bit over the top. Did you know that the computer you used to make that post runs on electricity, and that electricity can be produced from oil - possible oil being produced by BP?
I think the World Factbook is pretty awesome, actually.
I agree with you. There are a lot of things that get posted to /. that I don't consider worth my time. And there are a lot of Ubuntu stories. On the other hand, one person's "not worth my time" is another person's "wow, interesting!". I guess with a lot of Ubuntu users out there, everything Ubuntu does _is_ actually interesting to a large part of the /. readership - and considering the number of comments on this story, the latter part certainly does seem to be true.
So I guess the best thing you can do when a story is posted that doesn't interest you is to just ignore it. Once interest in a particular kind of story drops far enough, I reckon that kind of story will cease being posted.
Actually, I'd rather mod you up than down. I concur with your observations, even if your presentation could be improved a bit. Alas, my mod points disappeared just before I found a post I felt like modding ...