No one ever said that MySQL was supposed to be a high-end RDBMS.
Whoever wrote their documentation clearly says this (go to www.mysql.com and read the docs). They don't say that MySQL has all the functionality of Oracle, but they claim that any missing functionality is either dumb, a bad idea, or just not necessary.
When I read about transactions being unnecessary, triggers slowing down every other statement, etc., I have to conclude that the writer responsible for those statements is utterly clueless. They basically claim to know more than most RDBMS programmers, and people like Stonebraker. I don't buy it.
-Michael
MySQL really isn't up to par
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
I've been writing about this product for a long time now, and the article is a subset of my gripes with MySQL. I don't care to be redundant, but I can add a few thoughts.
The MySQL supporters, in my experience, tend to be folks who don't have much knowledge of RDBMS technology, so to them, MySQL seems to be fast and good. Most of the rabid supporters will claim that MySQL isn't intended to be as good as Oracle, and that's fine, but if you bother to read their documentation, you'll find that they compare MySQL to Oracle quite often. They used to even brag that MySQL was half as fast as Oracle, which shouldn't be too difficult to achieve when we consider that Oracle actually logs transactions.
MySQL seems to fill a niche that a lot of people like. It's "good enough" to do what they want (even if it takes a little more work), they can get it free (even though maybe they should pay the $200 or whatever), and they don't know enough about RDBMS to know what they're missing.
A good example is subselects. I see so many people saying "but I don't need subselects". Of course you don't; you can write scads of code to do the same thing. I just have better things to do with my time.
And, of course, there's "but MySQL is so fast". Really? See how fast this is: "delete from table1 where key in (select key from table2)". Oops. Not fast at all when you have to do two queries, hope those tables aren't large. This is a common operation.
But my biggest problem with MySQL is the lack of stored procedures, triggers, and views. I know that the first two are nontrivial. All three of these are absolutely necessary for real security. (by the way, "column level security" is bogus, you need "row level security", and MySQL doesn't provide it) I think most people get around this problem by making their application 3-tiered, and putting the "security" in the middle layer (i.e. the PHP, Perl, or whatever code).
I want to stress this to MySQL zealots: I can create a database in Oracle that you have command line (read: SQL) access to, and you will be unable to do anything more than you can do with the pretty gui front-end. To put it in more practical terms (and this is a bad example, but it works) I could make a database that acted as a back end to an ecommerce site. You, the customer, could go into that database and view items in the product table, and actually create an order (in the orders and orders_items tables) that would be valid. You would be unable to set your own prices. You would be unable to see other people's information. Only your own. You can't do anything like this in MySQL.
It gets better. After an application is built like that (from the database up) adding a new front-end becomes trivial, because the application's core logic resides in the database and doesn't need to be rewritten.
An ecommerce example is lame in this case, because your customers don't get individual database logins, etc. But there are plenty of corporate applications where everybody does have their own login, and they should be allowed to change information that "belongs" to them, often with limitations on the change, while being able only to view or perhaps not view other people's information
Let's say we have an employee table. I should be able to view all my information, and update some of it (such as home address). I shouldn't be able to view other people's information, or perhaps I can view their name or department.
This is easy to implement in a database with true triggers, stored procedures, and views. Impossible in MySQL.
MySQL also is not free software and doesn't even fall under ESR's more "lenient" open source guidelines. It reminds me of Netscape (pre-Mozilla): widely accepted as the world's greatest browser by open source advocates even though it was a very proprietary piece of code. At least MySQL comes with source, and it's cheap.
Sorry if this sounds like a rant, it really isn't. I just want MySQL advocates to understand that it really isn't a good RDBMS, which is what the MySQL (TcX) folks make it out to be.
I actually use it in a project that I inherited, but going forward, new development will be pgsql.
I'm probably mistaken, but isn't that 'entrapment'?
There's a difference between being active and being passive. When the feds worked hard to get John Delorian to run drugs for them, it was active. He had no history of such behavior, and they should have never did it. In the same way, ATF agents asked Randy Weaver to saw a couple shotguns off just a little bit shorter than the legal minimum length. Again, it's entrapment, we don't know if he was into that sort of thing before (or if he even knew it was illegal).
The basic idea is that in these cases and others like them, the crime is actually created by the law enforcement personnel who convince someone else to actually commit it. I don't know why they did that to Delorian. They did it to Weaver so they could subsequently blackmail him into helping to entrap someone else. Charges were pressed only after he refused to go along with them.
The irony of the Weaver situation is that we have one of the whiniest government agencies, the BATF, actually making up crimes for themselves to fight. It's like a fire department setting fires. The BATF whines about needing more money, yet they apparently have enough that they can make up crimes to fight. If I didn't know better, I'd have to guess that actual crime no longer exists and these guys are wandering around trying to look busy.
The situation here (gnutella & zeropaid) is one which I actually have no problem with. Rather than actively recruiting would-be criminals, they are passively providing some bait, and keeping track of those who bite. It seems likely that people who bite in this situation are actually looking for kiddie porn and probably already have some.
So, obviously they've broken no laws since they downloaded something legal. But the fbi now has a list of folks to start watching. I don't think that's so bad.
What you describe is call Differential GPS (or DGPS), but it's only useful over (I'd guestimate) a few tens of square miles.
You're wrong. It's available over a large percentage of the US. The Coast Guard has set up plenty of DGPS transceivers along navigable waterways, for use by boats. Looking at the maps at the Coast Guard's website, it looks like the range of each is around 70 miles, about 15,000 square miles each (with overlap between them).
It only works when the two receivers can receive roughly the same GPS satellites.
Meaning that it's useful as long as the two are within 30 or 40 degrees of each other, well beyond the range of the weak radio signal. At any time, there are typically at least 7 satellites above the horizon, and can be as many as 12. If I'm 60 miles away from the transceiver, we'll probably both see all of the same satellites. Even if we don't, if we can each see 4 satellites in common (definitely the case within 70 miles) then we're able to use the dgps signal.
So it's useless in the middle of the ocean, for example, or over (I'd guess) most of the world.
Congrats, your third and final statement is correct. However, it is possible to put dgps equipment in place around harbors and other places of interest for not too much money, and some private companies even do this. You can look here for information from a company that does just that, and then leases equipment that can use their signals.
My biggest gripe with respect to selective availability is that while the defense department was spending money to make gps, which is useful to everyone, other government agencies were spending money to get around SA by setting up differential gps transceivers. It really didn't make sense.
I also fail to believe that enemies would have any more advantage by being able to pinpoint their position to a few meters instead of a hundred. And even if they did, it's impossible to defend the dodo's who have kept SA on for most of the life of the gps system. And even if you could come up with a viable argument, it would be ruined in light of the disabling of SA during the war with Iraq.
I advocate removing gps entirely from the defense dept.'s control, setting up a separate agency (which would include a representative from the defense dept., among many others) to control the gps system, and take that part of the budget away from the defense dept. Thanks for gps, guys, but you've proven over the last 15 years that you don't have the ability to rationally think through the issues around gps, and in doing so, have cost the country a lot of money that could have been spent in better ways.
The final paragraph in the press release echos what I've been saying for a long time: gps isn't just about defense (and offense) anymore. It's about ambulances finding injured people quickly. It's about a tow truck finding a broken down car on the highway easily. It's about a firetruck getting to a burning house a bit quicker. It's about a trucking company knowing where its trucks are at all times, allowing for optimization of pickups and deliveries.
Frankly, defense use is really a small (but important) use for gps. Let's treat it as such.
I thought they actually made the dither _worse_, to disturb the Iraqi GPS receivers?
The Iraqis knew exactly where they were: fucked in the middle of the desert, unable to advance for fear of being shot by the US & allies, and unable to retreat for fear of being shot (or worse) by other Iraqis. Your exact latitude and longitude in that situation really doesn't matter.
What do you suggest they use? Remember that being a Linux/Free Software/Open Source company doesn't mean that everyone working there is accustomed to using text-based email clients. Not to mention the fact that except for the beta Mozilla, there isn't a "full featured" open source web browser/email client available.
There are solutions on the way, but the browser & email client are two weak spots in the open source/free software lineup. Most people have just been using Netscape under Linux, but it's not Free (4.x and prior versions) and it's not a very stable piece of software.
I would imagine that many people at LinuxCare do use Free Software when they can. But it makes no sense to berate them over someone using OE for email.
1) Fraudulent CC usage needs to be reported within 90 days IIRC, and has much more protection than checking accounts (you are only responsible for $50 of the fraudulent charges, although I suspect it can be hard to prove which charges are fraudulent)
There are two kinds of fraudulent activity. If someone steals my card and goes on a shopping spree, I am responsible for the first $50 that they spend. The CC company can go after all the stores who were too dumb to check ID and let the thief use the card.
Type two of fraudulent activity occurs when a company puts an unauthorized charge on your credit card. You aren't responsible for even a penny of that. Contact your CC company immediately upon discovery of any such charge to have it removed. Remember, too, your CC company is not a government institution. The offending company is "guilty until proven innocent", meaning that they bear full responsibility for proving that the charge is authorized. You don't have to prove that it was unauthorized (which is impossible in most cases, anyway).
What that means in this case is that Netpliance will have to provide a recording of the phone call that initiated the charge, with the caller clearly stating that he is authorizing the monthly charge. From what he's said here, I doubt they'll be able to dig that up.
After all, we know that Sun is the only company that sells "open systems", there's no way they would acquire a patent like this, then use it to harrass and extort money from other companies. Since all their computers are "open", the hardware specs are easily obtained, and anyone can create compatible hardware.
Scott McNealy must be the most altruistic person in the world. Why must people dump on him?
Rather than trying to get Apple to open up their proprietary video format, why not spend your time encouraging the producers of quicktime videos to also/instead create their movies in the standard mpeg format? QuickTime is a non-standard, and mpeg is quite good enough that we don't need another video format.
I see Java as a way to let users pick their operating system and not have to be concerned with being locked into Winblows.
So, tell us, what are the advantages of being locked into Sun's proprietary platform vs. being locked into Microsoft's proprietary platform? At least Microsoft isn't dishonest about their intentions.
Yeah, right. Did anyone really think that Sun was a friend of Linux or the open source/free software community? Come now, they never have been and never will be. They are making too much money being at the top of the proprietary Unix heap.
I would have more respect for slashdot if the nice little Sun logo icon were replaced with Scott McNealy (whose name rhymes with "Mr. McFeely") as a borg, a la Microsoft's icon.
This is clueless. Driving a car, flying a plane, broadcasting on public airwaves, and practicing law and medicine are regulated simply because they all have a direct impact on other people. In the case of driving, flying, or practicing medicine, that impact can be physically devastating to other people. In the case of broadcasting, regulation is required to let everyone have their very own frequency. And in the case of law, regulation is required to keep incompetent lawyers from ruining their clients' lives.
None of those have any resemblance to someone using the internet, or wanking over internet porn. Can you imagine needing a license to read books?
The original poster is clueless
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 3
In my interpretation, a license is personal -- towards individuals only. Companies are not individuals and have no right as such.
Being the owner of a C corporation, I can say that this is patently false. The whole concept of a company is that it does have many of the same rights as an individual. A company can enter into contracts with other companies or individuals, a company can be sued, etc. If I enter into a contract with a company, then I have a contract with a company, not with individuals within that company.
If the entire assertion is based on the idea that a company isn't a legal entity, then there's nothing to this.
It is individual programmers who have the absolute right to copy, modify, and distribute software (as claimed by the GNU GPL, but as I contend no human law can ever claim otherwise).
This is pure and utter BS. If you work for a company, then any code which you create at work is property of that company, and you- the individual programmer- have no right to distribute that software unless it's explicitly granted (outside the confines of the GPL). Otherwise, we'd never pay for software again, just get to know someone at the company. The GPL, as a legal document, can't really distinguish between a company and a person, and I'm not sure why it would, anyway. Companies can and do distribute software. I own RedHat Linux, did Bob Young personally distribute it?
How did this guy's clueless rantings get this much attention? He should have been pointed to a Business Law 101 site and ignored from then on.
You're making illegal copies of music and distributing it. What in the hell do you expect people to do? What would you do if you're all of the sudden losing money because of really low record sales because of the distribution of your music on the internet?
Are they losing money?
The SPA tries to make us believe that when n30 the cool haxor downloads MS Office from a warez site, Microsoft loses $500.
I don't believe it. I buy as many CD's as I ever have, I don't download from mp3 sites, but I do make legal mp3's of stuff that I own. Why shouldn't I be able to do that?
The argument that they're putting forth is "because someone may use this technology for unlawful purposes." A fundamental tenet of freedom is that law-abiding people aren't prohibited from performing lawful acts based on the possible unlawful acts of other people. The RIAA would do well to understand that.
Slashdot Mirror
With less & less suits in the process, the changes are that 'bloatware' will more and more be a thing of the past...
I guess you've never heard of Emacs.
No one ever said that MySQL was supposed to be a high-end RDBMS.
Whoever wrote their documentation clearly says this (go to www.mysql.com and read the docs). They don't say that MySQL has all the functionality of Oracle, but they claim that any missing functionality is either dumb, a bad idea, or just not necessary.
When I read about transactions being unnecessary, triggers slowing down every other statement, etc., I have to conclude that the writer responsible for those statements is utterly clueless. They basically claim to know more than most RDBMS programmers, and people like Stonebraker. I don't buy it.
-Michael
I've been writing about this product for a long time now, and the article is a subset of my gripes with MySQL. I don't care to be redundant, but I can add a few thoughts.
The MySQL supporters, in my experience, tend to be folks who don't have much knowledge of RDBMS technology, so to them, MySQL seems to be fast and good. Most of the rabid supporters will claim that MySQL isn't intended to be as good as Oracle, and that's fine, but if you bother to read their documentation, you'll find that they compare MySQL to Oracle quite often. They used to even brag that MySQL was half as fast as Oracle, which shouldn't be too difficult to achieve when we consider that Oracle actually logs transactions.
MySQL seems to fill a niche that a lot of people like. It's "good enough" to do what they want (even if it takes a little more work), they can get it free (even though maybe they should pay the $200 or whatever), and they don't know enough about RDBMS to know what they're missing.
A good example is subselects. I see so many people saying "but I don't need subselects". Of course you don't; you can write scads of code to do the same thing. I just have better things to do with my time.
And, of course, there's "but MySQL is so fast". Really? See how fast this is: "delete from table1 where key in (select key from table2)". Oops. Not fast at all when you have to do two queries, hope those tables aren't large. This is a common operation.
But my biggest problem with MySQL is the lack of stored procedures, triggers, and views. I know that the first two are nontrivial. All three of these are absolutely necessary for real security. (by the way, "column level security" is bogus, you need "row level security", and MySQL doesn't provide it) I think most people get around this problem by making their application 3-tiered, and putting the "security" in the middle layer (i.e. the PHP, Perl, or whatever code).
I want to stress this to MySQL zealots: I can create a database in Oracle that you have command line (read: SQL) access to, and you will be unable to do anything more than you can do with the pretty gui front-end. To put it in more practical terms (and this is a bad example, but it works) I could make a database that acted as a back end to an ecommerce site. You, the customer, could go into that database and view items in the product table, and actually create an order (in the orders and orders_items tables) that would be valid. You would be unable to set your own prices. You would be unable to see other people's information. Only your own. You can't do anything like this in MySQL.
It gets better. After an application is built like that (from the database up) adding a new front-end becomes trivial, because the application's core logic resides in the database and doesn't need to be rewritten.
An ecommerce example is lame in this case, because your customers don't get individual database logins, etc. But there are plenty of corporate applications where everybody does have their own login, and they should be allowed to change information that "belongs" to them, often with limitations on the change, while being able only to view or perhaps not view other people's information
Let's say we have an employee table. I should be able to view all my information, and update some of it (such as home address). I shouldn't be able to view other people's information, or perhaps I can view their name or department.
This is easy to implement in a database with true triggers, stored procedures, and views. Impossible in MySQL.
MySQL also is not free software and doesn't even fall under ESR's more "lenient" open source guidelines. It reminds me of Netscape (pre-Mozilla): widely accepted as the world's greatest browser by open source advocates even though it was a very proprietary piece of code. At least MySQL comes with source, and it's cheap.
Sorry if this sounds like a rant, it really isn't. I just want MySQL advocates to understand that it really isn't a good RDBMS, which is what the MySQL (TcX) folks make it out to be.
I actually use it in a project that I inherited, but going forward, new development will be pgsql.
-Michael
I'm probably mistaken, but isn't that 'entrapment'?
There's a difference between being active and being passive. When the feds worked hard to get John Delorian to run drugs for them, it was active. He had no history of such behavior, and they should have never did it. In the same way, ATF agents asked Randy Weaver to saw a couple shotguns off just a little bit shorter than the legal minimum length. Again, it's entrapment, we don't know if he was into that sort of thing before (or if he even knew it was illegal).
The basic idea is that in these cases and others like them, the crime is actually created by the law enforcement personnel who convince someone else to actually commit it. I don't know why they did that to Delorian. They did it to Weaver so they could subsequently blackmail him into helping to entrap someone else. Charges were pressed only after he refused to go along with them.
The irony of the Weaver situation is that we have one of the whiniest government agencies, the BATF, actually making up crimes for themselves to fight. It's like a fire department setting fires. The BATF whines about needing more money, yet they apparently have enough that they can make up crimes to fight. If I didn't know better, I'd have to guess that actual crime no longer exists and these guys are wandering around trying to look busy.
The situation here (gnutella & zeropaid) is one which I actually have no problem with. Rather than actively recruiting would-be criminals, they are passively providing some bait, and keeping track of those who bite. It seems likely that people who bite in this situation are actually looking for kiddie porn and probably already have some.
So, obviously they've broken no laws since they downloaded something legal. But the fbi now has a list of folks to start watching. I don't think that's so bad.
-Michael
All this will do is cause their popularity to dwindle to nothing.
And it's about 10 years too late for that.
-Michael
standard Internet software modules were uploaded to the spacecraft.
Brings new meaning to the term "upload".
-Michael
How big is your missile?
Big enough, but we all know that size doesn't matter.
-Michael
What you describe is call Differential GPS (or DGPS), but it's only useful over (I'd guestimate) a few tens of square miles.
You're wrong. It's available over a large percentage of the US. The Coast Guard has set up plenty of DGPS transceivers along navigable waterways, for use by boats. Looking at the maps at the Coast Guard's website, it looks like the range of each is around 70 miles, about 15,000 square miles each (with overlap between them).
It only works when the two receivers can receive roughly the same GPS satellites.
Meaning that it's useful as long as the two are within 30 or 40 degrees of each other, well beyond the range of the weak radio signal. At any time, there are typically at least 7 satellites above the horizon, and can be as many as 12. If I'm 60 miles away from the transceiver, we'll probably both see all of the same satellites. Even if we don't, if we can each see 4 satellites in common (definitely the case within 70 miles) then we're able to use the dgps signal.
So it's useless in the middle of the ocean, for example, or over (I'd guess) most of the world.
Congrats, your third and final statement is correct. However, it is possible to put dgps equipment in place around harbors and other places of interest for not too much money, and some private companies even do this. You can look here for information from a company that does just that, and then leases equipment that can use their signals.
-Michael
My biggest gripe with respect to selective availability is that while the defense department was spending money to make gps, which is useful to everyone, other government agencies were spending money to get around SA by setting up differential gps transceivers. It really didn't make sense.
I also fail to believe that enemies would have any more advantage by being able to pinpoint their position to a few meters instead of a hundred. And even if they did, it's impossible to defend the dodo's who have kept SA on for most of the life of the gps system. And even if you could come up with a viable argument, it would be ruined in light of the disabling of SA during the war with Iraq.
I advocate removing gps entirely from the defense dept.'s control, setting up a separate agency (which would include a representative from the defense dept., among many others) to control the gps system, and take that part of the budget away from the defense dept. Thanks for gps, guys, but you've proven over the last 15 years that you don't have the ability to rationally think through the issues around gps, and in doing so, have cost the country a lot of money that could have been spent in better ways.
The final paragraph in the press release echos what I've been saying for a long time: gps isn't just about defense (and offense) anymore. It's about ambulances finding injured people quickly. It's about a tow truck finding a broken down car on the highway easily. It's about a firetruck getting to a burning house a bit quicker. It's about a trucking company knowing where its trucks are at all times, allowing for optimization of pickups and deliveries.
Frankly, defense use is really a small (but important) use for gps. Let's treat it as such.
-Michael
I thought they actually made the dither _worse_, to disturb the Iraqi GPS receivers?
The Iraqis knew exactly where they were: fucked in the middle of the desert, unable to advance for fear of being shot by the US & allies, and unable to retreat for fear of being shot (or worse) by other Iraqis. Your exact latitude and longitude in that situation really doesn't matter.
-Michael
What do you suggest they use? Remember that being a Linux/Free Software/Open Source company doesn't mean that everyone working there is accustomed to using text-based email clients. Not to mention the fact that except for the beta Mozilla, there isn't a "full featured" open source web browser/email client available.
There are solutions on the way, but the browser & email client are two weak spots in the open source/free software lineup. Most people have just been using Netscape under Linux, but it's not Free (4.x and prior versions) and it's not a very stable piece of software.
I would imagine that many people at LinuxCare do use Free Software when they can. But it makes no sense to berate them over someone using OE for email.
Michael
1) Fraudulent CC usage needs to be reported within 90 days IIRC, and has much more protection than checking accounts (you are only responsible for $50 of the fraudulent charges, although I suspect it can be hard to prove which charges are fraudulent)
There are two kinds of fraudulent activity. If someone steals my card and goes on a shopping spree, I am responsible for the first $50 that they spend. The CC company can go after all the stores who were too dumb to check ID and let the thief use the card.
Type two of fraudulent activity occurs when a company puts an unauthorized charge on your credit card. You aren't responsible for even a penny of that. Contact your CC company immediately upon discovery of any such charge to have it removed. Remember, too, your CC company is not a government institution. The offending company is "guilty until proven innocent", meaning that they bear full responsibility for proving that the charge is authorized. You don't have to prove that it was unauthorized (which is impossible in most cases, anyway).
What that means in this case is that Netpliance will have to provide a recording of the phone call that initiated the charge, with the caller clearly stating that he is authorizing the monthly charge. From what he's said here, I doubt they'll be able to dig that up.
After all, we know that Sun is the only company that sells "open systems", there's no way they would acquire a patent like this, then use it to harrass and extort money from other companies. Since all their computers are "open", the hardware specs are easily obtained, and anyone can create compatible hardware.
Scott McNealy must be the most altruistic person in the world. Why must people dump on him?
My wife went into labor on December 19, and I tried to get her to hold off until January 1. She wasn't interested....
Try selling it to your boss as Netscape; you'll find it much easier than as Mozilla.
I am the boss, and trust me, it's much easier to sell me on Mozilla.
The question is, why would I bother with their hacks when I can get it fresh off the vine at mozilla.org?
Rather than trying to get Apple to open up their proprietary video format, why not spend your time encouraging the producers of quicktime videos to also/instead create their movies in the standard mpeg format? QuickTime is a non-standard, and mpeg is quite good enough that we don't need another video format.
I see Java as a way to let users pick their operating system and not have to be concerned with being locked into Winblows.
So, tell us, what are the advantages of being locked into Sun's proprietary platform vs. being locked into Microsoft's proprietary platform? At least Microsoft isn't dishonest about their intentions.
Java should be a standard, not just something anybody can change to suit them.
You're right. Tell Sun that we'd like Java to be a standard instead of their proprietary language.
Yeah, right. Did anyone really think that Sun was a friend of Linux or the open source/free software community? Come now, they never have been and never will be. They are making too much money being at the top of the proprietary Unix heap.
I would have more respect for slashdot if the nice little Sun logo icon were replaced with Scott McNealy (whose name rhymes with "Mr. McFeely") as a borg, a la Microsoft's icon.
This is clueless. Driving a car, flying a plane, broadcasting on public airwaves, and practicing law and medicine are regulated simply because they all have a direct impact on other people. In the case of driving, flying, or practicing medicine, that impact can be physically devastating to other people. In the case of broadcasting, regulation is required to let everyone have their very own frequency. And in the case of law, regulation is required to keep incompetent lawyers from ruining their clients' lives.
None of those have any resemblance to someone using the internet, or wanking over internet porn. Can you imagine needing a license to read books?
In my interpretation, a license is personal -- towards individuals only. Companies are not individuals and have no right as such.
Being the owner of a C corporation, I can say that this is patently false. The whole concept of a company is that it does have many of the same rights as an individual. A company can enter into contracts with other companies or individuals, a company can be sued, etc. If I enter into a contract with a company, then I have a contract with a company, not with individuals within that company.
If the entire assertion is based on the idea that a company isn't a legal entity, then there's nothing to this.
It is individual programmers who have the absolute right to copy, modify, and distribute software (as claimed by the GNU GPL, but as I contend no human law can ever claim otherwise).
This is pure and utter BS. If you work for a company, then any code which you create at work is property of that company, and you- the individual programmer- have no right to distribute that software unless it's explicitly granted (outside the confines of the GPL). Otherwise, we'd never pay for software again, just get to know someone at the company. The GPL, as a legal document, can't really distinguish between a company and a person, and I'm not sure why it would, anyway. Companies can and do distribute software. I own RedHat Linux, did Bob Young personally distribute it?
How did this guy's clueless rantings get this much attention? He should have been pointed to a Business Law 101 site and ignored from then on.
You're making illegal copies of music and distributing it. What in the hell do you expect people to do? What would you do if you're all of the sudden losing money because of really low record sales because of the distribution of your music on the internet?
Are they losing money?
The SPA tries to make us believe that when n30 the cool haxor downloads MS Office from a warez site, Microsoft loses $500.
I don't believe it. I buy as many CD's as I ever have, I don't download from mp3 sites, but I do make legal mp3's of stuff that I own. Why shouldn't I be able to do that?
The argument that they're putting forth is "because someone may use this technology for unlawful purposes." A fundamental tenet of freedom is that law-abiding people aren't prohibited from performing lawful acts based on the possible unlawful acts of other people. The RIAA would do well to understand that.
One idea of mine is to get a GPS system for Mars before we try to land anything there again. Of course, that might cost too much.
Buy several boxes ($400 worth) of your favorite Linux distro and give them to unconverted friends.
Good idea! Does CheapBytes have one of these stupid rebate deals?