If IBM think youy have enough money, IBM will ram mainframs down your throat. This is for the people who want a green datacentre but for who System Z might be a little out of reach.
"If you have redundant hardware and a SAN, why not just use normal servers, and have redundancy for them?"
Because you don't need anywhere near as much redundancy. You don't have to double up every server, just have enoug capacity for if one or two real boxes fail.
I guess I live in a server software world where the software isn't all that hungry, but you want the high availability, server encapsulation and load balancing offered by ESX.
Bastards! Always with the closing of things. Hopefully someone will find a close-proof way sooner or later (or speak sense to Sony), much like happened with the PSP.
Whilst I can understand and to some extent sympathise with the desire to take down the PyratByran, Wikileaks is in no way part of the same phenomenon. It's a site exposing what we, the great unwashed, are not supposed to know.
It's the apple stuff people are only getting two years out of.
I'm not so big on their PCs, but all my friends with iPods seem to be on their third or fourth by now. I'm not saying they break or anything, but these guys are finding some reason to keep buying more and more.
My little 20G archos is still running fine after god knows how long.
Please enlighten us as to what it is that Macs do better. Video framerates and cpu crunching, plus memory banwidth/speed are pretty good performance benchmarks, especially between very very similar systems.
Pray tell us how the performance of genuine Mac hardware "just feels better" and has magic imbued only by the tender kiss of Steve Jobs.
yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.
If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.
Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.
"Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more open standards based approach to its file formats. The ISO standard Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are moving towards."
So you're moving towards bribery and pollution of international standards bodies and open mockery of the idea of open and standard formats?
Sorry, but after that I would have told him where he could shove it.
Ideally you have one that can react to a crisis (natural disaster or invasion) but is very, very slow to get anything else done. The less meddling the bettter.
I'ds actually like it if the government was required to spend 50% of its time debating and repealing existing law, instead of just layering on more and more.
The poster you were replying to was referring to using software either without obtaining a license or using it outside of the terms of that license.
The only way you can have "unlicensed software" the way you're talking about it (as in, there's no license that applies) would be for the original author to decleare it public domain. Possibly also when the copyright expires, but that's pretty unlikely with software!
OK, it's just that your previous post implied that you could distribute the linked work as long as you dodn't distribute the GPL'd stuff with it.
As my understanding goes, if you have:
-Closed source app A -GPL library B -LGLP library C
You can't dynamically link A to B and distribute A (without GPLing the code). You can dynamically link A to C and distribute A.
The post I originally replied to implied that you could do the former. I still don't believe you can, unless you do some crazy trick like have a GPL module the dynamically loads your nVidia blob and feeds it symbols from the kernel in a callnback style way. Which is still a bit iffy to me...
And I think (I could be wrong) that we have reached agreement.
I'm fairly sure linking isn't allowed. Please see the other response tree to my post.
It's not whether you distribute the things together, it's whether you distribute your stuff at all.
The GPL explicitly provides that it cannot be used that way. The LGPL is the one for libraries that allow non-GPL stuff to be linked to them. There is a brief discussion of the way ATI/nVidia do things here:
Umm, no. You're thinking of the LGPL. You can't even link to GPL code without agreeing to the terms. And either way you need to make the source for the (L)GPL'd bits available if you distribute them.
Sure, sure, someone is buying, but I would have thought the Do Not Call and "I'm blocking you by your caller ID" crowd would be a massively lower return/hit rate than even their usual abysmal hit rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Only terrorists use encryption.
Only terrorists modify firmware.
Only terroroists have something to hide.
Only terrorists use Archos...
Whils that last one is flippant, I can see it getting that way in the minds of the minimum wage monkeys at airports.
"what, you're not using apple? you're either a cheapskate or a vagabond"
If IBM think youy have enough money, IBM will ram mainframs down your throat. This is for the people who want a green datacentre but for who System Z might be a little out of reach.
"If you have redundant hardware and a SAN, why not just use normal servers, and have redundancy for them?"
Because you don't need anywhere near as much redundancy. You don't have to double up every server, just have enoug capacity for if one or two real boxes fail.
I guess I live in a server software world where the software isn't all that hungry, but you want the high availability, server encapsulation and load balancing offered by ESX.
And come back up in seconds on redundant hardware or spare capacity running in the same VM cloud off the same SAN.
Strangely enough they though of that.
"Gotta tell that to my friends at work"
By your comments I take it you mean you have experience with VMware workstation. Try using ESXi and coming back to me on that. You're out of date.
Oh, has it?
Bastards! Always with the closing of things. Hopefully someone will find a close-proof way sooner or later (or speak sense to Sony), much like happened with the PSP.
Commodity hardware and a solution like VMware ESX.
High availability, built in redundancy, cheap per-unit cost. What's not to like?
Works for your mission critical apps and your less critical stuff.
These chips have been around for a while, and yes, there's a BIOS option to disable them.
Programs that rely on them won't run like that, but you can disable easily enough.
Umm, it's been done. It still needs work, but the access to thye 3d hardware has happened.
There's a very long thread about it here - http://forums.ps2dev.org/viewtopic.php?t=8364&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=211
Whilst I can understand and to some extent sympathise with the desire to take down the PyratByran, Wikileaks is in no way part of the same phenomenon. It's a site exposing what we, the great unwashed, are not supposed to know.
Fuck this!
Gutsy question, you're a shark.
As far as I can see it's the opposite.
It's the apple stuff people are only getting two years out of.
I'm not so big on their PCs, but all my friends with iPods seem to be on their third or fourth by now.
I'm not saying they break or anything, but these guys are finding some reason to keep buying more and more.
My little 20G archos is still running fine after god knows how long.
EULA's aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Which is no paper at all.
Please enlighten us as to what it is that Macs do better. Video framerates and cpu crunching, plus memory banwidth/speed are pretty good performance benchmarks, especially between very very similar systems.
Pray tell us how the performance of genuine Mac hardware "just feels better" and has magic imbued only by the tender kiss of Steve Jobs.
yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.
If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.
Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.
"Solve" is a bit of a strong word, but this does seem like a novel approach.
"Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more open standards based approach to its file formats. The ISO standard Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are moving towards."
So you're moving towards bribery and pollution of international standards bodies and open mockery of the idea of open and standard formats?
Sorry, but after that I would have told him where he could shove it.
Was there anyone that didn't know this?
A crippled government is a good government.
Ideally you have one that can react to a crisis (natural disaster or invasion) but is very, very slow to get anything else done. The less meddling the bettter.
I'ds actually like it if the government was required to spend 50% of its time debating and repealing existing law, instead of just layering on more and more.
The poster you were replying to was referring to using software either without obtaining a license or using it outside of the terms of that license.
The only way you can have "unlicensed software" the way you're talking about it (as in, there's no license that applies) would be for the original author to decleare it public domain. Possibly also when the copyright expires, but that's pretty unlikely with software!
OK, it's just that your previous post implied that you could distribute the linked work as long as you dodn't distribute the GPL'd stuff with it.
As my understanding goes, if you have:
-Closed source app A
-GPL library B
-LGLP library C
You can't dynamically link A to B and distribute A (without GPLing the code). You can dynamically link A to C and distribute A.
The post I originally replied to implied that you could do the former. I still don't believe you can, unless you do some crazy trick like have a GPL module the dynamically loads your nVidia blob and feeds it symbols from the kernel in a callnback style way. Which is still a bit iffy to me...
And I think (I could be wrong) that we have reached agreement.
I'm fairly sure linking isn't allowed. Please see the other response tree to my post.
It's not whether you distribute the things together, it's whether you distribute your stuff at all.
The GPL explicitly provides that it cannot be used that way. The LGPL is the one for libraries that allow non-GPL stuff to be linked to them. There is a brief discussion of the way ATI/nVidia do things here:
http://lwn.net/Articles/184996/
Which seems to imply they don't link to the kernel with their non-GPL code.
Please explain these Fair Dealing and Fair Use concepts further. I'm interested in how they override the GPL, I don't think they do.
Umm, no. You're thinking of the LGPL. You can't even link to GPL code without agreeing to the terms. And either way you need to make the source for the (L)GPL'd bits available if you distribute them.
look like the Six Apart place, only less well decorated. I hate cube farms and am glad they're not the fashion in the UK. Open Plan for the win.
Sure, sure, someone is buying, but I would have thought the Do Not Call and "I'm blocking you by your caller ID" crowd would be a massively lower return/hit rate than even their usual abysmal hit rate.