Really? Sirius doesn't. Sometimes the DJ's self sensor themselves out of habit, then remember they're on satellite and launch into a barrage of fbombs for the heck of it. I'd go into more detail about the obscenities, but I fear comcast might read this and cut off my service.
Its good because they were both unprofitable. Hopefully after the merger they will be able to be solvent. Satellite radio is awesome, whether anyone realizes it or not. There is NO CENSORSHIP WHAT-SO-EVER. I'd repeat some of the things said here, but I think my ISP would object. The company suits do not make music selections, unlike any other radio station on earth. No static, unlimited range, an entire channel dedicated to the grateful dead. Chill, house, ambient, thrash metal, punk, bluegrass, three types of jazz all at your finger tips, and even if you hate music they have a top 40 station, a brittish top 40 station, and a couple Canadian channels.
No,actually you just need to leave out the "of course you are wrong" bit and everything is cool. No need for an extreme. Same high expectations for everyone.
Back in my day, Our math teacher would call on girls ask them a really tough question then after the wrong answer was given: " of course you don't know you're just a silly girl!" So if being "girl friendly" is not doing that, its an improvement. I think he was trying to be funny in an ironic sense, but really it was just too close to being blatant sexism for the irony to work.
It used to be called musicmatch back when I used it. I bought a few albums. So this is the reward for doing everything legit. People of good intent are being taken advantage of. DRM can no longer be spoken of as a necessary evil. It is now apparent that it is in the same category as Ring tones, a way for the music industry to make more money by getting you to buy the same music over and over again. To be avoided at all costs. To recoup my music that I paid for, I will investigate the start of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft, Yahoo and of course the RIAA. They have acted in bad faith to deceive and defraud customers.
Yeah, Cerf is amazing. His name itself is pretty cool. However, he is a bit too optimistic about human nature. He needs to be paired up with Bruce Schneier to make sure we don't have pranksters launching Denial of Sustenance attacks against us.
1)What database systems would you propose that are better for OLTP? What makes them better?
2)Drizzle, is designed for OLTP and nothing else( Innodb is default). Some one here intelligently referred to it as analogous to assembly for databases. ie less features, but the ability to do certain things faster than in a system (well mostly referring to MySql's current implementation of these features) that does have them.
Then nothing is wrong with using Mysql of OLTP loads on commodity hardware for massive scalability, because everyone who does that uses Innodb. Innodb ends up being faster than MyIsam for these loads due to the finer lock granularity and concurrent writes.
Dude, implementing some features slow down some operations ( Think about the relative speed of a DSP versus a general purpose CPU). Its not about code size. If you don't understand the problem, the solution is going to confuse you. Its like the "what's this tool used for" segment of this old home where they trot out this weird looking tool and try to figure out what it could be used for. Only after being presented with the right problem does the strange looking monstrosity's purpose become clear.
I agree it should be the client library that does the escaping. Just out of curiosity, how would the client library know the prepared statement was cached on the server(without sending it to be parsed)? Or is the caching per connection? Again,this would only make a difference in a highly loaded Database, where each round trip to the server is significant regardless of the processing involved.
I understand some of your points, and most of them apply equally regardless of the database backend. And you are correct, Mysql 5 just introduced subqueries and they aren't very optimized in any release.
However, I'm not sure you understand the goals of Drizzle, nor the problem that it addresses. Drizzle is aimed at a niche that Mysql currently dominates: ONTP horizontally scaled on commodity hardware. Having the data itself split on different servers forces you to put some data aware logic in a middleware layer.
You may not realize this but Drizzle is the the fruit of SunLabs employee. Sun. Makers of Solaris, Sparc, Java, Dtrace, and ZFS. They didn't skip any classes in Comp Sci. If you are going to make an intelligent criticism of a product, you have to first try and understand it, instead of making an emotional response to some stupid developers.
Uhmm Innodb is going to be the default. There is a gap in databases that isn't being filled very well with the available database offerings. Drizzle is filing that need. If you don't know what that niche is, I understand its a bit confusing, but the people doing it know what they are doing and why. Think massive concurrency.
I can't find it right now but a couple weeks ago one of the more prominent mysql blogger wrote an article about the downside of prepared statements: speed. It requires two calls for a a prepared sql statement. It would be better to write a library that mimicked the prepared statement in the app. Webservers are easy to scale, so anything that pushes more load on them and less on the database servers is a good thing.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm glad someone made that point. Its like everyone who blasts Mysql for not having features is advocating that everyone should always use ruby for every job. Drizzle is filing a gap that hasn't quite been filled by anything else. Mysql itself comes the closest.
The thing is ACID, MVCC transactions are not being removed from Drizzle. Its going to be that way by default. They are just cutting out things like views, triggers, stored procedures and what not. Drizzle is for massively scaled web applications, not a MyIsam based Mysql 3.0 replacement.
Ok there is that problem as well. Mozilla is not setting the price. They are determining policy. The market determines the price. There is nothing in mozilla's policy that requires any entity providing certs to charge a certain price. The only reason why CA Cert is not included is because they are not independently audited. Mozilla believes that their policies are the best for their users.
We are having a difficult time communicating, because it seems like you have a misunderstanding of basic economic principle. If I want the value of product A, I must pay the cost set by the market for Product A. Regardless of what use you have in mind for product A, that is the cost. If the cost is too high for you, you have set a lower value on the product then the rest of the market. In this case Product A is encryption that has been deemed safe by the browsers. It also does not matter if you are a cooperation, a small business, or grandpa Joe. If you want the value, you must pay the cost. I don't think you value encryption deemed safe by the browsers enough.
Agreed on all parts but the last. How do you know what is unimportant talk, before it happens? You often learn more ( about their approach to code, their level of understanding of the system, their assumptions) by having developers describe their solution to you. The drink nights are a good idea, but you can't kill that kind of in the moment spontaneous idea swapping, with out a good reason.
Why does or would it prevent connections from being encrypted? If you have sensitive data being sent to you, use a ssl. If you want to be taken seriously buy a cert. As many, many posters have pointed out trusted certs are cheap. What kind of an idiot decides not to use encryption on sensitive data due to the low price of a trusted cert? Is that someone anyone should be doing any kind of business with?
My post was written with the perspective of a small website. They obviously aren't going to beable to convince firefox, Ie, safari, or Opera to change their behavior. They have two real choices, buy a signed cert, or not.
No one will be able to design an interface that will explain to joe internet user the difference between point to point transmission security provided by SSL of any sort, and a cert that identifies the website as a trustworthy sight to send sensitive information to. The best that can be done now with the current situation is to flash a giant warning across the page when it runs into a self signed cert. People will have a better chance of understanding completely safe, and not completely safe than 20 different levels between the two states. Your proposal sounds a lot like the much lampooned color coated terrorism threat level.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Sirius doesn't. Sometimes the DJ's self sensor themselves out of habit, then remember they're on satellite and launch into a barrage of fbombs for the heck of it. I'd go into more detail about the obscenities, but I fear comcast might read this and cut off my service.
Its good because they were both unprofitable. Hopefully after the merger they will be able to be solvent. Satellite radio is awesome, whether anyone realizes it or not. There is NO CENSORSHIP WHAT-SO-EVER. I'd repeat some of the things said here, but I think my ISP would object. The company suits do not make music selections, unlike any other radio station on earth. No static, unlimited range, an entire channel dedicated to the grateful dead. Chill, house, ambient, thrash metal, punk, bluegrass, three types of jazz all at your finger tips, and even if you hate music they have a top 40 station, a brittish top 40 station, and a couple Canadian channels.
No,actually you just need to leave out the "of course you are wrong" bit and everything is cool. No need for an extreme. Same high expectations for everyone.
Back in my day, Our math teacher would call on girls ask them a really tough question then after the wrong answer was given: " of course you don't know you're just a silly girl!" So if being "girl friendly" is not doing that, its an improvement. I think he was trying to be funny in an ironic sense, but really it was just too close to being blatant sexism for the irony to work.
It used to be called musicmatch back when I used it. I bought a few albums. So this is the reward for doing everything legit. People of good intent are being taken advantage of. DRM can no longer be spoken of as a necessary evil. It is now apparent that it is in the same category as Ring tones, a way for the music industry to make more money by getting you to buy the same music over and over again. To be avoided at all costs. To recoup my music that I paid for, I will investigate the start of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft, Yahoo and of course the RIAA. They have acted in bad faith to deceive and defraud customers.
Yeah, Cerf is amazing. His name itself is pretty cool. However, he is a bit too optimistic about human nature. He needs to be paired up with Bruce Schneier to make sure we don't have pranksters launching Denial of Sustenance attacks against us.
1)What database systems would you propose that are better for OLTP? What makes them better?
2)Drizzle, is designed for OLTP and nothing else( Innodb is default). Some one here intelligently referred to it as analogous to assembly for databases. ie less features, but the ability to do certain things faster than in a system (well mostly referring to MySql's current implementation of these features) that does have them.
Then nothing is wrong with using Mysql of OLTP loads on commodity hardware for massive scalability, because everyone who does that uses Innodb. Innodb ends up being faster than MyIsam for these loads due to the finer lock granularity and concurrent writes.
What is wrong with the data integrity of Innodb?
Massively scalable OLTP loads on commodity hardware.
Dude, implementing some features slow down some operations ( Think about the relative speed of a DSP versus a general purpose CPU). Its not about code size. If you don't understand the problem, the solution is going to confuse you. Its like the "what's this tool used for" segment of this old home where they trot out this weird looking tool and try to figure out what it could be used for. Only after being presented with the right problem does the strange looking monstrosity's purpose become clear.
I agree it should be the client library that does the escaping. Just out of curiosity, how would the client library know the prepared statement was cached on the server(without sending it to be parsed)? Or is the caching per connection? Again,this would only make a difference in a highly loaded Database, where each round trip to the server is significant regardless of the processing involved.
Yeah, it should just be built into the client library. In the vast majority of cases, prepared statements are the way to go.
I understand some of your points, and most of them apply equally regardless of the database backend. And you are correct, Mysql 5 just introduced subqueries and they aren't very optimized in any release.
However, I'm not sure you understand the goals of Drizzle, nor the problem that it addresses. Drizzle is aimed at a niche that Mysql currently dominates: ONTP horizontally scaled on commodity hardware. Having the data itself split on different servers forces you to put some data aware logic in a middleware layer.
You may not realize this but Drizzle is the the fruit of SunLabs employee. Sun. Makers of Solaris, Sparc, Java, Dtrace, and ZFS. They didn't skip any classes in Comp Sci. If you are going to make an intelligent criticism of a product, you have to first try and understand it, instead of making an emotional response to some stupid developers.
A thousand times, yes. The DB is always the bottleneck of a large data intensive application.
Uhmm Innodb is going to be the default. There is a gap in databases that isn't being filled very well with the available database offerings. Drizzle is filing that need. If you don't know what that niche is, I understand its a bit confusing, but the people doing it know what they are doing and why. Think massive concurrency.
I can't find it right now but a couple weeks ago one of the more prominent mysql blogger wrote an article about the downside of prepared statements: speed. It requires two calls for a a prepared sql statement. It would be better to write a library that mimicked the prepared statement in the app. Webservers are easy to scale, so anything that pushes more load on them and less on the database servers is a good thing.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm glad someone made that point. Its like everyone who blasts Mysql for not having features is advocating that everyone should always use ruby for every job. Drizzle is filing a gap that hasn't quite been filled by anything else. Mysql itself comes the closest.
The thing is ACID, MVCC transactions are not being removed from Drizzle. Its going to be that way by default. They are just cutting out things like views, triggers, stored procedures and what not. Drizzle is for massively scaled web applications, not a MyIsam based Mysql 3.0 replacement.
Ok there is that problem as well. Mozilla is not setting the price. They are determining policy. The market determines the price. There is nothing in mozilla's policy that requires any entity providing certs to charge a certain price. The only reason why CA Cert is not included is because they are not independently audited. Mozilla believes that their policies are the best for their users.
We are having a difficult time communicating, because it seems like you have a misunderstanding of basic economic principle. If I want the value of product A, I must pay the cost set by the market for Product A. Regardless of what use you have in mind for product A, that is the cost. If the cost is too high for you, you have set a lower value on the product then the rest of the market. In this case Product A is encryption that has been deemed safe by the browsers. It also does not matter if you are a cooperation, a small business, or grandpa Joe. If you want the value, you must pay the cost. I don't think you value encryption deemed safe by the browsers enough.
Agreed on all parts but the last. How do you know what is unimportant talk, before it happens? You often learn more ( about their approach to code, their level of understanding of the system, their assumptions) by having developers describe their solution to you. The drink nights are a good idea, but you can't kill that kind of in the moment spontaneous idea swapping, with out a good reason.
Why does or would it prevent connections from being encrypted? If you have sensitive data being sent to you, use a ssl. If you want to be taken seriously buy a cert. As many, many posters have pointed out trusted certs are cheap. What kind of an idiot decides not to use encryption on sensitive data due to the low price of a trusted cert? Is that someone anyone should be doing any kind of business with?
My post was written with the perspective of a small website. They obviously aren't going to beable to convince firefox, Ie, safari, or Opera to change their behavior. They have two real choices, buy a signed cert, or not.
No one will be able to design an interface that will explain to joe internet user the difference between point to point transmission security provided by SSL of any sort, and a cert that identifies the website as a trustworthy sight to send sensitive information to. The best that can be done now with the current situation is to flash a giant warning across the page when it runs into a self signed cert. People will have a better chance of understanding completely safe, and not completely safe than 20 different levels between the two states. Your proposal sounds a lot like the much lampooned color coated terrorism threat level.
Buy a cert or accept the consequences. That is the cost of using SSL on the web these days. Don't like it? Take it up with the phishers.
Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.