If you absolutely want Red Hat support, go ahead and buy one contract per machine.
But if you don't need the support, that's another problem. Their licensing agreement says that the "Advanced Server" product is distributed under the same terms as the products it contains. Most of them are GPL'ed free software (as in free speech), and all of them are freely redistributable software (as in free beer).
You can find the licence agreement here. The licence agreement itself is Appendix 1,towards the end.
You are puzzled because they don't distribute the binaries (RPMS, iso images...) for free. The only obligation RedHat has under the GPL is to make the source *not the binaries !!!* available to everybody for free. And they do comply (see here.)
This means that you can buy one RedHat Advanced Server box, or copy it from a friend, and install it on as many machines as you want. Or you can compile the sources and burn an iso image:)
Totally agreed. Code is meant to be read by humans in the first place, not by compilers.
Learning the language is one thing...
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... but achieving clean, efficient object-oriented design is another one.
Transforming the buzzwords of "encapsulation", "reusability", "modularity" into workable and efficient solutions requires way more work than strictly learning the language.
Also, a common pitfall is to believe that you can do whatever because some garbage collector is taking care of memory management.
Before even reading whatever about java, I'd strongly recommend:
Do you seriously use your own, true, primary email address to post on usenet or on your website ? So perhaps you want to be spammed after all ? Would you put your snail mail address and social security number as well ?
The spammer certainly doesn't think of his spam as "noise" and will be at least as good at making it fit any clean, simple standard for "not noise" as 90% of the people you *want* to receive mail from.
100% agreed. Except if this utopic standard works in connected mode with the people you *want* to receive mail from.
Say, I put a X-something: header with a magic word (hashcode ?) in my emails, and change it periodically. Anybody answering me with an X-something-reply: containing that magic word gets a better rating in my filtering system.
Or anything else... that might in any case be more efficient that the infinite numbers of lawmakers. Who, by the way, often have a really poor signal/noise ratio themselves (okay - this is called democracy).
Spam, after all, is a deterioration of the signal/noise ratio. This problem can be approached two different ways:
1- by taking an infinite number of monk^H^H^H lawmakers with typewriters until probability laws drives them to pass a bill that actually solves the problem;
2- by thinking about a nice, clean, simple, standards-compliants solution to clearly identify a piece of information as *not* being noise. (X-something header with a unique hash, anyone ?)
Oh well. The infinite number of lawmakers might end up writing decent Shakespeare, so that's cool too.
Interesting figures. But they don't say anything about the kind of hardware behind the OSes and different http servers. Nor do they describe the network topologies, routing policies or load balancing strategies used by the happy admins of the top-10 uptimers.
Yet, there is that embarrassing all-BSD top five. Tho I don't know how BSD or any OS can be of any help when you lose your storage subsystem.
Oh no, they certainly wouldn't do that. They'd piss off zillions of people.
[3 months after]
>... they did it. Maybe they'll take advantage of the upgrade to > add slight changes to file format definitions ?
Oh no ! That wouldn't be, like, cool. Steve Job *is* cool. Look at these ads, man.
[and so on]
"and my wallet went like, beeeeep, beeeep. It was a very good paper. So I installed Debian."
Maintainability of Perl code
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 1
Hello Larry !
Some criticize Perl because they feel that it's particularly difficult to maintain or re-engineer an exiting Perl codebase.
One reason that these folks often give is that Perl not enforcing any programming paradigm makes it difficult for teams of hackers to agree on conventions or to stick to a programming discipline.
What are your feelings towards this ? Do you plan to address this further on in Perl 6 ?
Slashdot Mirror
Redhat is simply : ;
1 - getting away from the Linux/desktop market
2 - attempting to destroy it with FUD, saying that there is actually no such market.
Even an intern at microsoft could have done better.
If you absolutely want Red Hat support, go ahead and buy one contract per machine.
:)
But if you don't need the support, that's another problem. Their licensing agreement says that the "Advanced Server" product is distributed under the same terms as the products it contains. Most of them are GPL'ed free software (as in free speech), and all of them are freely redistributable software (as in free beer).
You can find the licence agreement here. The licence agreement itself is Appendix 1,towards the end.
You are puzzled because they don't distribute the binaries (RPMS, iso images...) for free. The only obligation RedHat has under the GPL is to make the source *not the binaries !!!* available to everybody for free. And they do comply (see here.)
This means that you can buy one RedHat Advanced Server box, or copy it from a friend, and install it on as many machines as you want. Or you can compile the sources and burn an iso image
Fabrice
Totally agreed. Code is meant to be read by humans in the first place, not by compilers.
Transforming the buzzwords of "encapsulation", "reusability", "modularity" into workable and efficient solutions requires way more work than strictly learning the language.
Also, a common pitfall is to believe that you can do whatever because some garbage collector is taking care of memory management.
Before even reading whatever about java, I'd strongly recommend
- of course, Design Patterns, by Erich Gamma et al;
- Principles of Object-Oriented Software Design, by Anton Eliëns (online version here).
Do you seriously use your own, true, primary email address to post on usenet or on your website ? So perhaps you want to be spammed after all ? Would you put your snail mail address and social security number as well ?
The spammer certainly doesn't think of his spam as "noise" and will be at least as good at making it fit any clean, simple standard for "not noise" as 90% of the people you *want* to receive mail from.
100% agreed. Except if this utopic standard works in connected mode with the people you *want* to receive mail from.
Say, I put a X-something: header with a magic word (hashcode ?) in my emails, and change it periodically. Anybody answering me with an X-something-reply: containing that magic word gets a better rating in my filtering system.
Or anything else... that might in any case be more efficient that the infinite numbers of lawmakers. Who, by the way, often have a really poor signal/noise ratio themselves (okay - this is called democracy).
Spam, after all, is a deterioration of the signal/noise ratio. This problem can be approached two different ways :
;
1- by taking an infinite number of monk^H^H^H lawmakers with typewriters until probability laws drives them to pass a bill that actually solves the problem
2- by thinking about a nice, clean, simple, standards-compliants solution to clearly identify a piece of information as *not* being noise. (X-something header with a unique hash, anyone ?)
Oh well. The infinite number of lawmakers might end up writing decent Shakespeare, so that's cool too.
Interesting figures. But they don't say anything about the kind of hardware behind the OSes and different http servers. Nor do they describe the network topologies, routing policies or load balancing strategies used by the happy admins of the top-10 uptimers.
Yet, there is that embarrassing all-BSD top five. Tho I don't know how BSD or any OS can be of any help when you lose your storage subsystem.
More seriously, did anybody here ever have the occasion to take a look at bits of windows code ? What did it look like ?
> ... and then maybe they'll charge for upgrades ?
... they did it. Maybe they'll take advantage of the upgrade to
Oh no, they certainly wouldn't do that. They'd piss off zillions of people.
[3 months after]
>
> add slight changes to file format definitions ?
Oh no ! That wouldn't be, like, cool. Steve Job *is* cool. Look at these ads, man.
[and so on]
"and my wallet went like, beeeeep, beeeep. It was a very good paper. So I installed Debian."
Hello Larry !
Some criticize Perl because they feel that it's particularly difficult to maintain or re-engineer an exiting Perl codebase.
One reason that these folks often give is that Perl not enforcing any programming paradigm makes it difficult for teams of hackers to agree on conventions or to stick to a programming discipline.
What are your feelings towards this ? Do you plan to address this further on in Perl 6 ?
Sincerely,
Fabrice