Indeed, good points. As I said, relational databases are good for some things while object-oriented databases are good for others. Let's not poo-poo one over the other, shall we?
I am a big fan of Zope 2, and have written several products and complete websites in that framework (such as cookeville.com and tnproperties.com), but I am still confused about Zope3. Since there seem to be a few people in the know about Zope posting here, I thought I would pose the following question: What, exactly will Zope3 do for me that I cannot do in Zope2?
At the moment in Zope2, I can access databases, template my data, or index data directly on the server. I have a powerful security framework built in, as well as fast dynamic scripting.
Other than a user recognition system that does not require simple http authentication (which forces me to use Cookie Crumbler if I absolutely *must* allow my users to log in via form) and the ability to turn off transactions when I don't want or need them, I have just about everything I need to build powerful dynamic websites.
What will I get in Zope3 that I can't do in Zope2?
So far, hype over Zope3 is centered around integrating CMF/Plone. That's all well and good, if you need that, but CMF and Plone are heavy for a content management when I can easily roll my own better-performing sites with ZPT, DTML, or a custom Python Product.
The features that Zope *really* needs seem to be out in the dust in the rush to make a CMF for non-programmers.
So I repeat: What will Zope3 do for me that I can't do with Zope2?
Hmmm. Deliberately breaking -- oh, I'm sorry, "rewriting" -- one of the core technologies of the Internet, without telling anyone and in such a way as to pad their speed numbers? Nah, nothing wrong about that...
And what's wrong with that? It doesn't break the internet, and it clearly boosts speed. I'll grant you that it seems to only gives a boost with IE talking to IIS, and appears to be a slowdown for any other combo; perhaps MS could have done a better job by releasing the specs so that other webservers could take advantage of the speed boost.
But they are a business trying to gain a foothold in a market dominated by other platforms; it isn't a bad marketing strategy.
Easy to do, yes. Practical? No way in hell. Slashdot already sees so much traffic that on heavy days I end up with TCP errors. Caching linked pages locally would only increase Slashdot's traffic woes.
Let the flames commence, because I *do* think it's ingenious.
Essentially Microsoft is rewriting TCP to make it UDP-like by sacrificing TCP's guaranteed delivery for a speed boost. Since HTTP is essentially stateless, this doesn't sound like an overly bad idea.
I do have one question, however; how is it that Internet Explorer is able to rewrite TCP rules? Doesn't it use win32's TCP service? Or does it call a different, special TCP service?
Relational databases are nice for certain aspects, but certain types of object-oriented databases can indeed be just as fast as and in many ways faster than relational databases. If you add in the extra flexibility they can grant you over relational databases, they can be superior for certain applications.
"XML-driven" databases suck, however, so I'll give you that.:)
Hates Microsoft? This guy has a history of leeching off Microsoft technology and this contest is just another example. I'd say this guy *loves* Microsoft. Without Microsoft, he has no product.
Microsoft is the big fish. Michael Robertson is the lamprey attached to it.
Incidentally, I submitted this very same story to slashdot last week, when the story first ran on CNN, and got it rejected. Go figure.
It seems to me this subject has had a tremendous number of posts with scores of 4 and 5. Case in point, the parent and grandparent of this post are both scored as 5 even though they are repeats of other posts up-thread.
I swear to God, there weren't any posts like it when I started posting! I was just trying to be helpful.
Took a while to get through, so I thought I'd post for anyone else having trouble:
When is one program a "derivative work" of another?
Many users of open-source software are frightened by the term ``derivative works''. They worry they might accidentally create derivative works and put their own proprietary software under an open-source license. This is a complex topic that courts and lawyers disagree on, but I think we find definitions to ease people's concerns. First, a brief reminder of why the term derivative work is so important. Here's what a typical license might say: ``Licensor hereby grants you a license...to prepare derivative works based upon the original work and to distribute those derivative works with the proviso that copies of those derivative works that you distribute shall be licensed under this License.'' See, for example, the GNU General Public License at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html or the new Open Software License at www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php.
How can you tell when you've created a derivative work? The Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. 101, is a little vague and doesn't say anything at all about software:
A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work''.
Almost everyone agrees that if you take the copyrighted source code of any program and physically modify it--actually revise the program or translate it into another computer language--you have created a derivative work of that program. That's the simple case. If you do such a thing with a program licensed under the GPL or the OSL, you must honor the reciprocity provision and publish the source code of the derivative works you distribute. But what happens if you merely copy an original program as a component in your own, perhaps larger, work? Does it make a difference that you didn't actually modify the source code to combine the original program into your larger work?
Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program? Almost every program links to library routines. Surely, one doesn't create a derivative work of a library simply by calling a sqrt function in the library. Why should it be any different when you link to something as complex as an enterprise server or database engine? What about linking from a software program, such as when linking your device driver into a GPL- or OSL-licensed program like Linux?
Does it matter what technical form of linking you use? Or is that analysis (e.g., static linking, dynamic linking, passing data through an API, as an object contained within a larger object, etc.) a technical morass that obscures the fundamental issue? How can the law of derivative works keep up with technological change in the world of software engineering?
These questions are important because some licenses require you to publish the source code of your portion of the resulting derivative work program, a burden you may not want to accept. Here's how I would decide in the cases described above.
1) The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work.
2) The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs. When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.
3) Derivative works are not going to encompass plugins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If a GPL-covered program is designed to accept separately designed plugin programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely running such a plugin under it, even if you have to look at the source code to learn how.
4) In most cases we shouldn't care how the linkage between separate programs was technically done, unless that fact helps determine whether the creators of the programs designed them with some apparent common understanding of what a derivative work would look like. We should consider subtle market-based factors as indicators of intent, such as whether the resulting program is being sold as an ``enhanced'' version of the original, or whether the original was designed and advertised to be improvable ``like a library''.
You should care about this issue to encourage that free and open-source software be created without scaring proprietary software users away. We need to make sure that companies know, with some degree of certainty, when they've created a derivative work and when they haven't.
Legal advice must be provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship specifically with reference to all the facts of a particular situation and the law of your jurisdiction. Even though an attorney wrote this article, the information in this article must not be relied upon as a substitute for obtaining specific legal advice from a licensed attorney.
Lawrence Rosen is an attorney in private practice, with offices in Los Altos and Ukiah, California (www.rosenlaw.com). He is also corporate secretary and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative, which manages and promotes the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org).
But, if we don't have just cause we aren't allowed to search your garbage.
Which is why you need a warrant: to prove your "just cause". "Just cause" can be made up after evidence is found; records of when you had "just cause" are easily falsified.
There is a reason you can be sued for searching through someone's trash; you short-circuited the fourth amendment.
The first thing I thought as I was reading the article was, as everyone else has commented, "how is this different?"
It really *is* different; the problem is that the article explains things very poorly. Here's the difference:
With normal browsers, when you click the back button to a previous page, and then follow a new link on the previous page, the page you were on before you clicked the back button and followed a new link, is removed from the list. This is what they mean by "stack" behavior.
What these guys are proposing is that every time you visit a page, it goes into the back list. Thus if you are on, say, page 2, and click the back button to page 1, then follow a link to page 3, the list stored in the back button is 1 - 2 - 3, and you will go back to page 2. In the current system, the list stored would be 1 - 3; page 2 is gone from the list and no longer available via the back button.
So now you know. Regardless, this behavior is already available in I.E. 5.x and above via the History explorer bar. A simple sort by Order Visited Today gets the list exactly as proposed by the article. Except for the thumbnails, however, which is a very good touch.
Personally, I think it would be best to have *two* such buttons; one that has stack behavior (current "back" button), and another that has the proposed temporal behavior; perhaps as a history pull-down menu.
20. A method for illuminating a housing of a computing device, the computing device having a screen display, said method comprising: sampling a plurality of regions on the screen display to acquire color indicators for the plurality of regions; and illuminating a plurality of regions of the housing of the computing device based on the color indicators.
So they want to make the housing look a little in tune with whatever is on the screen at the time. I wonder how fast that will be... can you imagine playing Quake and watching a frag flash your monitor housing a different color suddenly? That'd be cool.:)
You should consider switching to the Zope platform. Although XML parsing is not yet out-of-the-box in Zope, there are several products for the platform available free of charge that should do what you want it to do.
... that Eclipse is getting more "air time" on Slashdot. It's an outstanding IDE in its own right; the tools used to build it that you can use yourself (like SWT) are mere icing on the cake.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, good points. As I said, relational databases are good for some things while object-oriented databases are good for others. Let's not poo-poo one over the other, shall we?
I am a big fan of Zope 2, and have written several products and complete websites in that framework (such as cookeville.com and tnproperties.com), but I am still confused about Zope3. Since there seem to be a few people in the know about Zope posting here, I thought I would pose the following question: What, exactly will Zope3 do for me that I cannot do in Zope2?
At the moment in Zope2, I can access databases, template my data, or index data directly on the server. I have a powerful security framework built in, as well as fast dynamic scripting.
Other than a user recognition system that does not require simple http authentication (which forces me to use Cookie Crumbler if I absolutely *must* allow my users to log in via form) and the ability to turn off transactions when I don't want or need them, I have just about everything I need to build powerful dynamic websites.
What will I get in Zope3 that I can't do in Zope2?
So far, hype over Zope3 is centered around integrating CMF/Plone. That's all well and good, if you need that, but CMF and Plone are heavy for a content management when I can easily roll my own better-performing sites with ZPT, DTML, or a custom Python Product.
The features that Zope *really* needs seem to be out in the dust in the rush to make a CMF for non-programmers.
So I repeat: What will Zope3 do for me that I can't do with Zope2?
Space.com slashdotted? That'll be the day.
Mt.Dew.On.Keyboard. Mod parent funny, please!
Heh... gotta love it when a goatse post gets modded up and a post bitching about that gets modded down. :D
I agree; which explains why XP customers are almost all developers themselves.... ;)
But they are a business trying to gain a foothold in a market dominated by other platforms; it isn't a bad marketing strategy.
now *that* is a good idea! :)
In fact, every time I submit an article (not that any of my submissions have ever been accepted), I will attempt to find a google cached version.
It may be futile, if the story is too fresh. But I vow to try!
Easy to do, yes. Practical? No way in hell. Slashdot already sees so much traffic that on heavy days I end up with TCP errors. Caching linked pages locally would only increase Slashdot's traffic woes.
And I haven't even mentioned *storage* yet...
So that would be:
1) Rewrite TCP
2) ???
3) Speed boost!
Let the flames commence, because I *do* think it's ingenious.
Essentially Microsoft is rewriting TCP to make it UDP-like by sacrificing TCP's guaranteed delivery for a speed boost. Since HTTP is essentially stateless, this doesn't sound like an overly bad idea.
I do have one question, however; how is it that Internet Explorer is able to rewrite TCP rules? Doesn't it use win32's TCP service? Or does it call a different, special TCP service?
Relational databases are nice for certain aspects, but certain types of object-oriented databases can indeed be just as fast as and in many ways faster than relational databases. If you add in the extra flexibility they can grant you over relational databases, they can be superior for certain applications.
:)
"XML-driven" databases suck, however, so I'll give you that.
What's funnier is that this article was submitted by others with correct links and it was almost instantly rejected.
:)
Perhaps it's time have a little talk with the editors...
Hates Microsoft? This guy has a history of leeching off Microsoft technology and this contest is just another example. I'd say this guy *loves* Microsoft. Without Microsoft, he has no product.
Microsoft is the big fish. Michael Robertson is the lamprey attached to it.
Incidentally, I submitted this very same story to slashdot last week, when the story first ran on CNN, and got it rejected. Go figure.
Because KDE and Gnome are of course the only way to define what is or is not a unix machine.
Sometimes I wish Slashdot had emoticons like other forums, so I could post a nice roll-eye icon.
1) Create Fanfic Episode 2) ??? 3) Profit!!!
Here are links to directly download the vids, in case anyone hates using a stupid browser plugin:
o v
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/teaser.mov
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/actone.mov
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/acttwo.mov
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/actthree.m
http://homepage.mac.com/starshipexeter/tag.mov
Took a while to get through, so I thought I'd post for anyone else having trouble:
When is one program a "derivative work" of another?
Many users of open-source software are frightened by the term ``derivative works''. They worry they might accidentally create derivative works and put their own proprietary software under an open-source license. This is a complex topic that courts and lawyers disagree on, but I think we find definitions to ease people's concerns.
First, a brief reminder of why the term derivative work is so important. Here's what a typical license might say: ``Licensor hereby grants you a license...to prepare derivative works based upon the original work and to distribute those derivative works with the proviso that copies of those derivative works that you distribute shall be licensed under this License.'' See, for example, the GNU General Public License at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html or the new Open Software License at www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php.
How can you tell when you've created a derivative work? The Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. 101, is a little vague and doesn't say anything at all about software:
A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work''.
Almost everyone agrees that if you take the copyrighted source code of any program and physically modify it--actually revise the program or translate it into another computer language--you have created a derivative work of that program. That's the simple case. If you do such a thing with a program licensed under the GPL or the OSL, you must honor the reciprocity provision and publish the source code of the derivative works you distribute.
But what happens if you merely copy an original program as a component in your own, perhaps larger, work? Does it make a difference that you didn't actually modify the source code to combine the original program into your larger work?
Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program? Almost every program links to library routines. Surely, one doesn't create a derivative work of a library simply by calling a sqrt function in the library. Why should it be any different when you link to something as complex as an enterprise server or database engine? What about linking from a software program, such as when linking your device driver into a GPL- or OSL-licensed program like Linux?
Does it matter what technical form of linking you use? Or is that analysis (e.g., static linking, dynamic linking, passing data through an API, as an object contained within a larger object, etc.) a technical morass that obscures the fundamental issue? How can the law of derivative works keep up with technological change in the world of software engineering?
These questions are important because some licenses require you to publish the source code of your portion of the resulting derivative work program, a burden you may not want to accept. Here's how I would decide in the cases described above.
1) The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work.
2) The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs. When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.
3) Derivative works are not going to encompass plugins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If a GPL-covered program is designed to accept separately designed plugin programs, you don't create a derivative work by merely running such a plugin under it, even if you have to look at the source code to learn how.
4) In most cases we shouldn't care how the linkage between separate programs was technically done, unless that fact helps determine whether the creators of the programs designed them with some apparent common understanding of what a derivative work would look like. We should consider subtle market-based factors as indicators of intent, such as whether the resulting program is being sold as an ``enhanced'' version of the original, or whether the original was designed and advertised to be improvable ``like a library''.
You should care about this issue to encourage that free and open-source software be created without scaring proprietary software users away. We need to make sure that companies know, with some degree of certainty, when they've created a derivative work and when they haven't.
Legal advice must be provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship specifically with reference to all the facts of a particular situation and the law of your jurisdiction. Even though an attorney wrote this article, the information in this article must not be relied upon as a substitute for obtaining specific legal advice from a licensed attorney.
Lawrence Rosen is an attorney in private practice, with offices in Los Altos and Ukiah, California (www.rosenlaw.com). He is also corporate secretary and general counsel for the Open Source Initiative, which manages and promotes the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org).
There is a reason you can be sued for searching through someone's trash; you short-circuited the fourth amendment.
The first thing I thought as I was reading the article was, as everyone else has commented, "how is this different?"
It really *is* different; the problem is that the article explains things very poorly. Here's the difference:
With normal browsers, when you click the back button to a previous page, and then follow a new link on the previous page, the page you were on before you clicked the back button and followed a new link, is removed from the list. This is what they mean by "stack" behavior.
What these guys are proposing is that every time you visit a page, it goes into the back list. Thus if you are on, say, page 2, and click the back button to page 1, then follow a link to page 3, the list stored in the back button is 1 - 2 - 3, and you will go back to page 2. In the current system, the list stored would be 1 - 3; page 2 is gone from the list and no longer available via the back button.
So now you know. Regardless, this behavior is already available in I.E. 5.x and above via the History explorer bar. A simple sort by Order Visited Today gets the list exactly as proposed by the article. Except for the thumbnails, however, which is a very good touch.
Personally, I think it would be best to have *two* such buttons; one that has stack behavior (current "back" button), and another that has the proposed temporal behavior; perhaps as a history pull-down menu.
You should consider switching to the Zope platform. Although XML parsing is not yet out-of-the-box in Zope, there are several products for the platform available free of charge that should do what you want it to do.
... that Eclipse is getting more "air time" on Slashdot. It's an outstanding IDE in its own right; the tools used to build it that you can use yourself (like SWT) are mere icing on the cake.
1) Bash Microsoft
2) ???
3) Karma!