You're right: my bad. Describing statistics can get very wordy, and I was trying to mitigate the wordiness - I guess I got carried away.
Just as an aside, I am in no way trying to detract from the accomplishments here; this is a very nice v3 adoption rate. I was just agreeing with the original poster that the statistics deserve better interpretation than a 'grade school average over time'.
For those of us who have moved completely away from Microsoft, [Samba] IS nothing... False. Samba is a fantastic utility, and a very acceptable protocol (it would be great if it were completely open). It is mountable in a unix filesystem, it can be safely authenticated over untrusted networks, it is spoken by countless devices and operating systems (not just Microsoft), supports two way transfers, supports simultaneous transfers, and it is reasonably fast. You stated 4 replacement protocols. Here is an analysis of where and why they fail my criteria set.
svn - its none-trivial usage aside, it is not designed for the same kinds of transfers as Samba. Primarily, it isn't designed for streaming. For instance, I wouldn't consider it viable for the archival of playback of music and movie collections.
ftp - stop joking with me. Usually single threaded transfer, laggy, not usually viable as a mounted disk (unless Fuse is used), and unsafe authentication in untrusted environments. This protocol is ancient, and it shows its age badly.
http - by default, unidirectional. Requires specific and non-standardized handlers to send information the other way. Also, no standard for file permissions, no safe method for authentication (without https).
ssh - The only one in this bunch that actually has a shot. It meets most of my requirements, especially now that you can mount an ssh filesystem with Fuse. However, that is still a fringe mechanism for mounting. Most embedded devices (even Linux based ones) do not support this. They support Samba. For examples (in case they are demanded), look at Media and Content streamers at AVS Forum. Many of them are Linux based, but almost all of them support Samba, uPNP, and possibly Apple Rendezvous (or whatever it is). None of your protocols can be found.
nfs (which you forgot) - Also close. I spent a lot of time trying to make NFS work in my network, but much to my chagrin, it simply isn't safe over an untrusted network. You can always spoof file UIDs, file GIDs, and IP addresses (unless you have really nice switches).
How many GPLv2 projects are there out there? Easily over 100,000 Out of curiousity, where are you getting this statistic? It might be more accurate, but on the other hand, it is probably more reasonable to compare numbers in the same database (with consistent identification methods and all).
According to the blog, there are "6446 GPL v2 or later" projects in the database, and assuming that more than 2000 of those are v3, that leaves just a little bit over 4400 are v2. Assuming the databased isn't biased towards v3 projects in any way, that means that almost 30% of projects are v3.
I'm not necessarily saying that your statistic is wrong; I would just like to see a source, and I definitely would prefer to do apples-to-apples comparisons (consistent collection methods).
I wouldn't want anybody straining themselves, so I'll do it for you.
The article itself does not have a distribution, but the blog linked to by the article does: Palamida blog complete with chart. There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December. The number of add projects, however, has been slowly climbing for the first few months of 2008.
Hear Hear! Current storage capacity is just fine for people who use gmail and openoffice, but not for people who actually use their computers for media - especially video and uncompressed/losslessly compressed images and audio. I am one of those people who has a multi-TB linux server in the basement. I ripped my music collection to FLAC, and got about 1/3 of the way through my DVD collection (raw rips with menus), and now I need more space - significantly more space. If there is a be a brave new physical-media-less world, our current storage capacity is woefully unprepared.
he'll still put his life on the line to protect your right to continue to whine. Point taken. However without detracting even a modicum from the sacrifices that servicemen make, I can sympathize and agree with the grandparents statement that earned this scathing response from you.
I'm not sure I would really classify these as true answers...Although I didn't expect much from a military man. I think this statement was not designed to demean military men as people, but merely as people who can provide new, interesting, and true information to Slashdot. Military people have a responsibility not to divulge important information and a responsibility to "toe the line" with regard to military standards and expectations. Thus, it would be reasonable to not expect much from these answers: it is nearly guaranteed that they would be neither new, nor entirely true (if truth means the entire truth).
how silly and stupid the question was. Are you claiming that the question is silly and stupid, or claiming that General Lord believes the question to be silly and stupid, or both?
I guess that I don't think the question is either silly or stupid. In other instances, the US condones actions carried out on the part of citizens in the interest of justice that would otherwise be illegal. For instance, bounty hunting. Or a citizens' arrest. Detaining people and hauling them to jail is usually illegal, but in these instances, exceptions are made. Why not make such allowances explicit for known targets on the internet? Maybe it should be required first that once obtains a license to do so - however, the general idea posed by the question is still valid.
That seems like a terrible idea. Honestly, they might just like that scenario. It would give them an excuse to turn their service into an AOL-like "portal" where you get Comcast news, Comcast voip, Comcast search, and if they're really in a bad mood, one single Comcast political candidate. Portals have become passé, but they really are a crap-ton more profitable. Imagine not only getting ISP monthly fees, but also all the ad revenue from a subscribers account, email bounties (selling your address down the river), and exclusive distribution for other "pay" services like voip and online games. All this added to the the fact that they can now effectively brainwash you to believe whatever they want because they control your information.
sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients.
If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder. Given your description of what is going on, your metaphor is not apt. A better one:
The post office deliberately sends a soldier fake dear john letters, merely because they believe that soldier's girlfriend to be unscrupulous, or because they have grown tired of mailing that soldier's letters to his girlfriend.
if this is corruption then about 95% of the people in middle and upper management should be in jail. Then we're agreed; 95% of the people in middle and upper management should be in jail.
As a side note, I really don't care that much about the money. For me, any notion of impropriety in the Wikipedia with regard to rogue editing of personally relevant entries, especially among administrators, should not be tolerated. I also don't really care whether he goes to jail. I simply don't want to see this kind of behavior among any active administrators: play within the rules, or lose privileges.
and his later life or his personal details don't effect that. I understand what you're saying, and I agree in principal. However, open initiatives or not, a group like Wikipedia can easily be poisoned by rogue moderators and staff. Wikipedia has been slowly moving towards a more tightly controlled model (in the same vein as Larry Sanger's Citizendium). This model might be good for the Wikipedia and give it a much needed credibility, but it also opens it to all kinds of corruption from within. From everything I've read (comments from Wikipedia administrators, Sanger's accounts of Neupedia, interviews of Whales himself, and more), Jimmy Whales is not the kind of man that should be running the Wikipedia. He appears to be extremely corruptible and not particularly principled, exactly the opposite of Wikipedia really need: a strong reputation for incorruptibility at the highest levels.
Probably not, but a cynic might believe that they would try to curtail technology designed to do so. Consider Argus, an omni directional radio telescope (by same people who ran the Big Ear telescope of "Wow Signal" fame). It was mostly designed with SETI purposes in mind, but I imagine that finding satellites would be trivial for it. The government might be inclined to ban or require "oversight" for known omni directional telescopes.
I was tempted to say, "you must be new here". But that certainly isn't the case, given your ID - you've been a member at least a few years. Then, I was tempted to say, "you must not come here often". But 141 comments (mediocre though it may be) is a counter indicator to that as well. Thus, I have settled on one of two possibilities; either you have YRO posts at -5, or you don't RTFAs. Lessig comes up all the time here - or at least, he did until he switched "causes" away from copyrights. Anyway, not knowing who he is isn't necessarily bad; I'm just shocked.
My guess is that this is part of Jerry Yang and Co's stand against Microsoft. I bet that they don't want to be bought out, and they need to increase shareholder confidence in them in order to prevent it. If I'm right, it won't stop here. There will be initiatives and announcements about future projects and products over the next few weeks, all in an effort to increase shareholder confidence.
RIAA trying to reduce songwriter royalties. [snip] So don't be so sure that the non-geeks aren't aware of how evil the RIAA is. Ahh, good point. There are artisans and industry insiders who despise the RIAA. Trust me, I'm not ignoring these people. But in the end, these are the people that are getting the money, not giving it. These are the "starving" artists that will work for RIAA labels no matter what. The people that need to be anti-RIAA are the consumers, and those are the people that generally aren't aware of the evil (unless they've been sued, of course).
RIAA might as well be SCO. That acronym, of course, is not exactly ubiquitous. However, unlike SCO, if you read their full name (Recording Industry Association of America), people will immediately know what they do and why the exist. Moreover, people are generally familiar with their work: phrases like "went gold", or "double platinum" are all terms created by the RIAA sales certification system. The majority of people understand those terms, and are in some way respectful of that system. So, while the RIAA doesn't exactly have great brand recognition, people are certainly familiar with their direct work, and that puts them way ahead of SCO.
But Google, as a company, has made promises to its shareholders and patrons. Don't you think that many people who own shares of Google do so under the assumption that they are not evil? You assume that the primary responsibility of a company to its shareholder is financial, and it is 99.9% of the time, but it is possible for a large group of shareholders to unite and declare other simultaneous objectives for the company.
If you get the majority of your news from Slashdot, I think your perception of the state of affairs would be skewed. There are several important differences between SCO and RIAA:
SCO was evil and stupid, whereas the RIAA is merely evil (though it has had bonehead moments)
SCO was only known or really recognized among people (usually IT/Software people) who were smart and knowledgeable enough to know just how terrible they were. The RIAA, on the other hand, is a nationally recognized organization, and the majority of people who know them won't have the knowledge or experience to know exactly why they suck so much.
The RIAA has deep pockets and [until recently] enjoyed the outright support of very large influential corporations. SCO, on the other hand, only had Microsoft which really couldn't outright support SCO (they had to support them through shady deals like buying licenses, and that only goes so far).
SCO was looking out for SCO. They were a greedy, selfish, stupid company that were willing to bring down the entire open source community for their own profit. The RIAA on the other hand has the interests of an entire business model in hand; they see it as their job to rescue a dying business model from death. Not only do they enjoy the support of their constituent corporations, but also sympathy and legal/lobby aid from their evil sister organizations (MPAA, BSA to name a few).
None of this is written to claim that there isn't hope. However, this will be a much harder battle than SCO. SCO was pathetic, and the RIAA simply isn't.
Kudos on the TNG reference! However, the Cardassians were interrogating Picard - not the Romulans. See Chain of Command Part II. The joke would have been so much better had that not been the case.
What happen to them when political reality comes crashing in. What reality? We have been watching polls, primaries, and elections for decades believing that there is no hope. Now, all of a sudden, we have a candidate that is actually viable. He may not win, but this whole process has communicated something to everybody on the internet; there are large number of people out there who share the libertarian ideal of a simple government. Ron Paul is going to change Republican politics forever even if he doesn't win.
I feel sorry for the Paulettes I believe the more ubiquitous appellation is "Ronulans".
They've been working to elect the unelectable rather than working to change the obvious choices. Despite its syntactical correctness, I am having trouble parsing this sentence. I'm going to take a shot translate this to "you should support and vote for a shitty candidate". To which I respond, NO. I will sooner not vote than vote for a popular candidate whom I believe to be bad for this country.
totally would have dugg your comment Here, moderation is a privilege that is earned, fortunately. You don't seem like the kind of person who would earn it. Clue - don't mock people, especially the reigning majority here.
I was under the impression that Huckabee has only won one caucus (Iowa is not a very populous state). I was also under the impression that a caucus isn't really a primary, though it does determine delegates. Is any of that wrong? I really don't believe that Huckabee has made even a showing in the race.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. You mean, "he has as much chance of getting the nomination as Huckabee has." He has had a completely terrible performance since Iowa, and he really doesn't have a shot. And yet Huckabee is among our acceptable Republican candidate list. Frankly, it doesn't matter if either of them are going to win. People need to get out of their small boxes and consider some more creative solutions to our problems, right or wrong. Paul has some very interesting solutions (as does Huckabee), and the visibility to boot. Thus, he should certainly be apart of any interesting discussion. It's not unreasonable for Republicans to be annoyed at Taco's exclusion of Paul from that list.
But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate. Nope. Maybe you don't like it, and maybe it will move a few people from the "not Ron Paul" camp to the "blatantly anti-Ron Paul" camp, but in the end, it gets his name out there. And that's what candidates need.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right: my bad. Describing statistics can get very wordy, and I was trying to mitigate the wordiness - I guess I got carried away.
Just as an aside, I am in no way trying to detract from the accomplishments here; this is a very nice v3 adoption rate. I was just agreeing with the original poster that the statistics deserve better interpretation than a 'grade school average over time'.
According to the blog, there are "6446 GPL v2 or later" projects in the database, and assuming that more than 2000 of those are v3, that leaves just a little bit over 4400 are v2. Assuming the databased isn't biased towards v3 projects in any way, that means that almost 30% of projects are v3.
I'm not necessarily saying that your statistic is wrong; I would just like to see a source, and I definitely would prefer to do apples-to-apples comparisons (consistent collection methods).
Also, a 5000 project end-of-year prediction seems very optimistic to me. I think a more reasonable prediction would be 3500-4000.
I wouldn't want anybody straining themselves, so I'll do it for you.
The article itself does not have a distribution, but the blog linked to by the article does: Palamida blog complete with chart. There was a definite surge last year of GPL3 projects, followed a sharp decline in December. The number of add projects, however, has been slowly climbing for the first few months of 2008.
Hear Hear! Current storage capacity is just fine for people who use gmail and openoffice, but not for people who actually use their computers for media - especially video and uncompressed/losslessly compressed images and audio. I am one of those people who has a multi-TB linux server in the basement. I ripped my music collection to FLAC, and got about 1/3 of the way through my DVD collection (raw rips with menus), and now I need more space - significantly more space. If there is a be a brave new physical-media-less world, our current storage capacity is woefully unprepared.
I guess that I don't think the question is either silly or stupid. In other instances, the US condones actions carried out on the part of citizens in the interest of justice that would otherwise be illegal. For instance, bounty hunting. Or a citizens' arrest. Detaining people and hauling them to jail is usually illegal, but in these instances, exceptions are made. Why not make such allowances explicit for known targets on the internet? Maybe it should be required first that once obtains a license to do so - however, the general idea posed by the question is still valid.
That seems like a terrible idea. Honestly, they might just like that scenario. It would give them an excuse to turn their service into an AOL-like "portal" where you get Comcast news, Comcast voip, Comcast search, and if they're really in a bad mood, one single Comcast political candidate. Portals have become passé, but they really are a crap-ton more profitable. Imagine not only getting ISP monthly fees, but also all the ad revenue from a subscribers account, email bounties (selling your address down the river), and exclusive distribution for other "pay" services like voip and online games. All this added to the the fact that they can now effectively brainwash you to believe whatever they want because they control your information.
The post office deliberately sends a soldier fake dear john letters, merely because they believe that soldier's girlfriend to be unscrupulous, or because they have grown tired of mailing that soldier's letters to his girlfriend.
Other than that minor point, I agree entirely.
Wow, you really picked the wrong forum to make that joke.
As a side note, I really don't care that much about the money. For me, any notion of impropriety in the Wikipedia with regard to rogue editing of personally relevant entries, especially among administrators, should not be tolerated. I also don't really care whether he goes to jail. I simply don't want to see this kind of behavior among any active administrators: play within the rules, or lose privileges.
Probably not, but a cynic might believe that they would try to curtail technology designed to do so. Consider Argus, an omni directional radio telescope (by same people who ran the Big Ear telescope of "Wow Signal" fame). It was mostly designed with SETI purposes in mind, but I imagine that finding satellites would be trivial for it. The government might be inclined to ban or require "oversight" for known omni directional telescopes.
I was tempted to say, "you must be new here". But that certainly isn't the case, given your ID - you've been a member at least a few years. Then, I was tempted to say, "you must not come here often". But 141 comments (mediocre though it may be) is a counter indicator to that as well. Thus, I have settled on one of two possibilities; either you have YRO posts at -5, or you don't RTFAs. Lessig comes up all the time here - or at least, he did until he switched "causes" away from copyrights. Anyway, not knowing who he is isn't necessarily bad; I'm just shocked.
My guess is that this is part of Jerry Yang and Co's stand against Microsoft. I bet that they don't want to be bought out, and they need to increase shareholder confidence in them in order to prevent it. If I'm right, it won't stop here. There will be initiatives and announcements about future projects and products over the next few weeks, all in an effort to increase shareholder confidence.
But Google, as a company, has made promises to its shareholders and patrons. Don't you think that many people who own shares of Google do so under the assumption that they are not evil? You assume that the primary responsibility of a company to its shareholder is financial, and it is 99.9% of the time, but it is possible for a large group of shareholders to unite and declare other simultaneous objectives for the company.
- SCO was evil and stupid, whereas the RIAA is merely evil (though it has had bonehead moments)
- SCO was only known or really recognized among people (usually IT/Software people) who were smart and knowledgeable enough to know just how terrible they were. The RIAA, on the other hand, is a nationally recognized organization, and the majority of people who know them won't have the knowledge or experience to know exactly why they suck so much.
- The RIAA has deep pockets and [until recently] enjoyed the outright support of very large influential corporations. SCO, on the other hand, only had Microsoft which really couldn't outright support SCO (they had to support them through shady deals like buying licenses, and that only goes so far).
- SCO was looking out for SCO. They were a greedy, selfish, stupid company that were willing to bring down the entire open source community for their own profit. The RIAA on the other hand has the interests of an entire business model in hand; they see it as their job to rescue a dying business model from death. Not only do they enjoy the support of their constituent corporations, but also sympathy and legal/lobby aid from their evil sister organizations (MPAA, BSA to name a few).
None of this is written to claim that there isn't hope. However, this will be a much harder battle than SCO. SCO was pathetic, and the RIAA simply isn't.In addition to being a Cardassian in that episode, he has been a Klingon and one of those treacherous, good-for-nothing humans. No Romulan acting experience as far as I can tell.
Kudos on the TNG reference! However, the Cardassians were interrogating Picard - not the Romulans. See Chain of Command Part II. The joke would have been so much better had that not been the case.
I was under the impression that Huckabee has only won one caucus (Iowa is not a very populous state). I was also under the impression that a caucus isn't really a primary, though it does determine delegates. Is any of that wrong? I really don't believe that Huckabee has made even a showing in the race.
Contrary to my siblings, I think the article that was quoted in the summary can be found at Engadget