Yes. The first reason that comes to mind is cross-platform encrypted volumes. For example, TrueCrypt is very nice for using encrypted volumes between Windows and Linux systems (e.g., USB Flash drives, portable HDD's, etc.).
Bravo. This is one of the clearest, most succinct descriptions that I've seen of the business/patent landscape that we have today. I've had the unfortunate opportunity to experience this process during some recent employments, and it progressed basically as you describe.
Even more unfortunate is that most investors believe that this is the only way to a proper tech business model in the world today. If you don't do it, your start-up doesn't get funding, etc.
I believe our society has entered the logical end-game you describe. This is a problem that will ONLY get bigger, and will need to be dealt with in the near future for most meaningful development to continue.
By all means, please continue posting rebuttals that entirely ignore the majority of my points made -- in particular the ones that hurt your argument the most.
Much of what you just posted doesn't even bear proper context to the discussion. It's like you're just making stuff up as you go at this point. Example:
(CoughDropAddict): What are you talking about? You've granted almost all of my original statements. That's why line-by-line would have been so boring. Let's take a trip down memory lane.
You then proceed to discuss two of the minor points I made in about 10. And then you only cover about 10% of those minor points. Then you ignore the rest. Is this supposed to be convincing?
(CoughDropAddict): I love the assumption here: that there's some threshold of decency whereby calling you an "idiot" is in a whole different league than more minor insults like "*beep* *beep* *beep* Breaking News Alert."
Boy, thanks. I don't think I need to even respond to that one. LOL
(CoughDropAddict): So we couldn't agree about swapping....
Couldn't agree? Your swapping statement didn't even apply to Java itself, and made the specious assumption that all Java apps "lead[s] to lots of swapping". Many folks these days have enough RAM to never swap out memory AT ALL, regardless of what desktop applications they run.
(CoughDropAddict): I would modify that statement a bit anyway.
I should hope you would!
(CoughDropAddict): You Java people keep saying "Java's way better now! Anyone who says different is stuck in the past!" Java is no more compelling than it was 5 years ago.
(FCGreg): At least you got this correct. I think that any reasonable, well-informed person would agree that Java is much better today than 5 years ago. I also agree that anyone that doesn't realize this MUST be stuck in the past, as one cannot do an objective comparison of Java now and Java 5 years ago and NOT come up with that conclusion.
(CoughDropAddict): Weren't you just complaining about unsubstantiated statements? It's ok, I don't expect you to be consistent.
Huh? I'm not even sure what you're talking about in the last comment. My comments about "unsubstantiated statements" had nothing to do with what you quoted AT ALL. It wasn't even related. And then you (of all people) say it's inconsistent somehow? Inconsistent with what?
OK, I think it's clear to anyone still following this where we both stand. Since that's all I can expect at this point, I think my work here is done.
(CoughDropAddict) Sorry, but you can't pretend to be on the high ground. The only reason I had so much fun ripping into you is because your post was so condescending.... and I have no moral qualms with mocking such behavior.
Mock all you want. It is your right in an environment of free speech. It's really fine with me, as your own words do a much better job of illustrating the quality of your character than mine will probably do.
My post didn't call you any names, and only made light of the fact that you were using tired statements against Java while giving no supporting evidence. Just because you realize you're in a bad light now, don't pretend I'm in the same hole with you.
(CoughDropAddict) I'm not really interested in going line-by-line...
It's OK. I didn't think you would. I've poked some serious holes in your original, generalized statements. I've also spent considerable time addressing your concerns outlined in your follow-up post. Now that things have started to fall apart for you, I guess it's time to go now.
(CoughDropAddict)...on waffling like "OK, maybe you're right that Java starts up slowly when you actually load the JVM"
Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with that. I never said that statement, and it's wrong for you to quote it (especially with quotes) as you have.
To address your underlying point: - For starters, there was NO waffling. I did NOT intone that such a "maybe" ever existed. It is absolutely for-certain that if you're loading an entire virtual machine instead of a natively compiled application there WILL BE initial overhead and increased startup time if the JVM is not already running. Please, if you're going to attempt to argue with me, at least put some forth some solid effort -- it only takes me one or two clicks to see EXACTLY what I did and did not say.
(CoughDropAddict)... or "I never said the Java doesn't take more memory."
And it is true. I had not said, nor did I say in my subsequent posts, that Java doesn't require increased memory usage over a natively compiled, comparable, well-designed, and well-written application. I outlined this in-depth... if you want me to do it again please point out your specific point of confusion.
(CoughDropAddict) You Java people keep saying "Java's way better now! Anyone who says different is stuck in the past!" Java is no more compelling than it was 5 years ago.
At least you got this correct. I think that any reasonable, well-informed person would agree that Java is much better today than 5 years ago. I also agree that anyone that doesn't realize this MUST be stuck in the past, as one cannot do an objective comparison of Java now and Java 5 years ago and NOT come up with that conclusion.
Boy oh boy... we're already to the name-calling stage, are we? I'll maintain my demeanor and not drop to your level. Furthermore, since you finally attempt to quantify some of your previous statements, I can finally address something real.
(CoughDropAddict) Java is perceived as being slow largely because it is so slow to start up, and largely because it takes up so much memory, which leads to lots of swapping.
(FCGreg) The above statement is so generalized that it isn't worth debating. How long must we endure these specious, unfounded, tired, old statements?
(CoughDropAddict) Are you really in such denial that you can't even acknowledge that there is truth to these facts?
--
"FACTS" you say? Until this recent post, you hadn't provided any evidence to support your statement AT ALL. Furthermore, your statements were entirely subjective. I'll address:
"[Java] takes up so much memory": How much is "so much", hmmm? I find that just a LITTLE BIT hard to quantify in literal terms. What is our comparison matrix? If you're going to bash Java with tired arguments, please at least do us the favor of spending some time backing them up in the first place. Then I could have responded to some substance right from the start, instead of drawing it out from you like I did (which was the entire point of my original post). Moving on...
"... which leads to a lot of swapping":Swapping??? What in the world does swapping have to do with Java itself? I could edit large images in GIMP and cause "swapping", but that would HARDLY be cause to say that C/C++ is bloated and causes "lots of swapping". See my point?
Swapping is ENTIRELY a function of the operating system, dependent on many factors, such as oh, let's see, the available amount of RAM on the machine.
Java, like any other language, is capable of writing programs that are very large and consume much memory. However, it is perfectly normal to write Java programs that do NOT consume substantial amounts of RAM compared to similar programs in other languages. Again, my point is that we can't even discuss this properly without being able to quantify it adequately.
"[Java] is so slow to start up": Again, my point is that "slow" is subjective. Compared to what? C/C++? Again, we have to quantify this. I readily admit that a well-designed, well-written C/C++ application will usually begin user-level program execution faster than it's cold-started, stand-alone Java counterpart (i.e., when no VM is already running, starting from "cold"). In such an instance there is no bytecode interpretation to do from the now-native C/C++, no virtual machine to start, no classloader to initialize, etc. However, I see this more as a consequence of the user-space environment than Java itself. In other words, if the VM was already initialized this comparison falls apart (J2EE, for example) -- it generally only holds true for Java desktop applications in the default environment configuration.
To recap, had you said "Java desktop applications are usually slow to start in their own, newly instantiated JVM", I would have dismissed the subjective "slow" and just granted you the point for the sake of discussion.
Moving on to the rest of your post today...
(CoughDropAddict) That's the sound of your favorite language getting spanked by an interpreted language. The Ruby wasn't even byte-code compiled -- it loaded the interpreter, parsed the source file, executed the entire program, then went to go get a cup of coffee waiting for your pre-compiled class file to reach line 1 of public static void main().
Please point out in my original post where I indicated that a HelloWorld in Ruby would execute more
If Java is so fast, where are the popular Java desktop applications that feel snappy?
*beep* *beep* *beep* Breaking News Alert:
"This just in:... Benchmarks have been redesigned with ground-breaking new criteria: The 'Snappy-ness factor'. Details at 11:00..."
Java is perceived as being slow largely because it is so slow to start up, and largely because it takes up so much memory, which leads to lots of swapping.
The above statement is so generalized that it isn't worth debating. How long must we endure these specious, unfounded, tired, old statements?
The techno-groundhog just stuck his head out of his hole, and the results aren't good. I'm afraid we're in for another stretch of winter mired in blindness. It must be all the snow...
I've given you empirical proof that java is significantly slower for doing calculations.
Wrong. You've given a possible test-case, unvalidated except in one test (yours), that MAY show that C/C++ is better for a specific type of calculation operation -- and a very small one at that. If you think THAT is emperical proof, I think you need to go back to Science class.
Furthermore, go take a look at some benchmarking studies. If you tried to pass off your little loop as anything demonstrable or emperical, you'd be laughed right out of the building.
You obviously ARE a java zealot or you wouldn't be outright lieing just to try to prove your point.
Wow, in only two posts you've already resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. By the way, the only one around here that sounds like a zealot is you, I'm afraid.
Te nosce.
Java is significantly slower. That's all there is to it.
Wow again. There's a solid, reliable, fact-based statement if I've EVER heard one!
By the way, since you're posts are so poor and seem to promote nothing other than baseless, argumentative discussion, I've formed the opinion that you are a troll. Goodbye now, bridge-dweller.
True, it's not the exact same source code that's in the downloadable.NET runtime, and it's missing a lot of the libraries that make.NET what it is.... ----------
<sarcasm>
But other than all that... it's a pretty good match!
</sarcasm>
Please spare us the repetition of this specious argument. Since you cannot even tell us with any degree of certainty how much of Rotor is used in.NET, nor which parts of the framework, we can't even have a discussion about it in this context.
Oh wait... you have it on good authority from an unnamed source that MS uses "pretty much all of it". Hardly a good basis for discussion.
Java is not an open spec. It is owned and controlled entirely by Sun.
Please, please. How many times does this have to be rehashed here on Slashdot and the Internet in general, especially when good, detailed information is so easily accessible? The Java "language" is an open specification. How do you think GCJ and other projects are able to do their work? Sun's JRE source code is quite a different story, for example, but that's not what I was referring to.
They accept feedback from other members of the JCP, but all the decisions are made by Sun.
This is incorrect, actually. The final "decisions" are made by the applicable Expert Group for the submitted JSR, which is made up of industry "experts" from many different companies, possibly including Sun, but often not. For a nice breakdown of the entire process, please see here:
2) It's kind of dubious, IMO, to be promoting a product of one company.
I'm not exactly sure why this is "dubious". In any case, I have to take issue with the rest of this.
Java is an open language, an open spec, and is NOT the product of "one company" in the generic sense that you imply. Notice I didn't say "Open Source", but neither did you. Open Source is a very different and specific thing, and that's not what I'm talking about.
If I were to offer another example in such a general stance, I could say that PHP is mainly the product of Zend. Of course, this isn't correct unless qualified for basis, which is all I'm asking for here.
I bet here and now you *never* had a problem due to the non-atomicity of CVS.
Well, you just lost your bet if you made it with me. It happens (although thankfully not regularly in most cases). Whatever... I don't even have the time (or desire) to prove it to you. It shouldn't be necessary.
I'm waiting.
For goodness sake, why??? Don't you have anything better to do?!
Now I will ask about how is this *any* different from a CVS environment where you have rsync copies, hard symlinks or just plain tarred backpus....
It probably isn't, aside from the technical details you've offered yourself. That isn't what the author was discussing. He was merely pointing out that if you're following any kind of industry standard practice for protecting your repository data, you need not worry about the anti-Subversion FUD of the original posts.
Boy, here comes the FUD-train. This is essentially all the article you posted contains. For example, consider the following:
The author lists minuscule details about his configuration. In other words, was he accessing the repository through the file-system, or through SVNServe process, or through Apache mod_dav_svn, etc.?
If it was through the file-system, were his file permissions correct? Had he followed the copious warnings in the Subversion manual about allowing "Multiple repository access methods"? Without such information we have NO WAY OF VALIDATING anything he says as true, correct, valid, appropriate (you get the picture).
Exactly WHAT VERSION of Subversion was this? There is a general date from back in 2004 near the bottom of the rant, but there is no indication if this date belongs to the article-at-large or not. Furthermore, this in itself gives us NO IDEA which version he was on. Was it even a non-beta version?
Now, I'm not trying to deride the author too badly, but trying make a point. If you're willing to take such undocumented, unsupported information on faith, why not take the word of thousands of happy Subversion users and administrators (not to mention the likes of the Apache project, KDE, and hundreds of others)?
I have managed MANY Subversion repositories over the last couple of years, with glorious success and ZERO complaints -- ALL WITH THE BDB BACK-END. I'm all smiles. I suggest you disregard such poorly-documented FUD. Instead, try actually READING the SVN book, which covers all of these aspects in heavy detail, possibly combined with the SVN users and/or developers mailing lists.
I'm sorry, but the article you post is essentially FUD. For example, consider the following:
The author lists minuscule details about his configuration. In other words, was he accessing the repository through the file-system, or through SVNServe process, or through Apache mod_dav_svn, etc.?
If it was through the file-system, were his file permissions correct? Had he followed the copious warnings in the Subversion manual about allowing "Multiple repository access methods"? Without such information we have NO WAY OF VALIDATING anything he says as true, correct, valid, appropriate (you get the picture).
Exactly WHAT VERSION of Subversion was this? There is a general date from back in 2004 near the bottom of the rant, but there is no indication if this date belongs to the article-at-large or not. Furthermore, this in itself gives us NO IDEA which version he was on. Was it even a non-beta version?
Now, I'm not trying to deride the author too badly, but trying make a point. If you're willing to take such undocumented, unsupported information on faith, why not take the word of thousands of happy Subversion users and administrators (not to mention the likes of the Apache project, KDE, and hundreds of others)?
I have managed MANY Subversion repositories over the last couple of years, with glorious success and ZERO complaints -- ALL WITH THE BDB BACK-END. I'm all smiles. I suggest you disregard such poorly-documented FUD. Instead, try actually READING the SVN book, which covers all of these aspects in heavy detail, possibly combined with the SVN users and/or developers mailing lists.
No, he doesn't need to use the tool. A licensed user excercises the tool while Tridge watches the packets go back and forth from client to server. -------- I think you just made my point for me.
And even what the poster said isn't necessary. All that is necessary is a general knowledge about the job a given tool (application, etc.) performs. Based on that, a knowledgeable engineer can simply observe the operations in process (across the network, for example) to derive compatibility. Beside, in this case, compatibility is ALL THAT MATTERED ANYWAY. He wasn't trying to recreate BitKeeper, but rather create a tool of his own that was compatible with a BK repository.
Furthermore, you are dodging the point, and you know it. You have ZERO fact to back-up your assertion -- it is merely FUD based on your personal opinion.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm certainly going to call you on it.
Well, since you see fit to call Tridge a liar, I'll point you to some information on just how he can ethically accomplish such tasks. Let's start with an informative post from this very thread (right near the top):
All of your questions are answered, such as "How did he test it?" and "How does he know it's interoperable?". You may also decide to browse the SAMBA site, or at least Google the Web a little bit before you hurl baseless insults like a fool.
Then, after actually getting yourself a modicum of information, maybe you can post back here with an apology before you get modded "Flaimbait" or "Troll".
I'll second that. Our company (large enterprise) has been using TrackStudio now for about a year. We love it. It is by far the most flexible Issue Management and general tracking system I've seen/used.
We did a thorough analysis of the issue tracking market before purchasing this product, comprising both Open Source and proprietary products. This product won by a long shot, with Jira coming in second, and Bugzilla, Track+, and many others coming in behind (in some cases VERY FAR behind).
TrackStudio has two purchase models: Buy it or host it. You can buy it for $1000 (covers an entire enterprise). Otherwise you can have them host it for your company for a nominal monthly fee and no up-front costs (I forget how much per month, but it was pretty small, maybe $40).
Ouch, it pains me to hear this. We have enough perception problems with Linux on the desktop without having these things happen.
I know that hindsight is 20/20, but I'm a little surprised you chose Gnome for your desktop when converting Windows users. KDE is well known for being a great transition platform for Windows users, since theming and settings can give you a similar/identical user interface that can be "enhanced" as they get more comfortable without MS.
I don't suppose you can still change to KDE, can you?
I'd like to stay on topic here... but since you've planted some digs against Gentoo, I feel compelled to respond.
I run many production systems for different purposes using Gentoo Linux as the OS. Gentoo can be whatever you want it to be. For me it is a stable, customized, highly efficient server, desktop, whatever. There is nothing any more manual about using this distro than any other, depending on the administrator and system setup/configuration.
While I agree with your comment that Gentoo is not for everyone, neither is a high-powered sports-car. Your limited experience with it as a desktop machine doesn't warrant a blanket discounting of the distro for server uses or anything else.
Quote from the article:
Its 100% GPL compliant and the full ISO is free to anyone with an Internet connection.
There have been heated discussions in the past (on the Yoper forums and here, I believe) as to whether or not Yoper is actually compliant with the GPL. When last I checked, Yoper was distributing their compiled ISO's but we couldn't get current sources from anywhere. Attempts at getting this from them was met with stiff resistance and arguing. All we were able to locate was sources from their "beta" version (old).
Since their site is currently Slashdotted, can anyone confirm whether this is still the case?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The first reason that comes to mind is cross-platform encrypted volumes. For example, TrueCrypt is very nice for using encrypted volumes between Windows and Linux systems (e.g., USB Flash drives, portable HDD's, etc.).
Bravo. This is one of the clearest, most succinct descriptions that I've seen of the business/patent landscape that we have today. I've had the unfortunate opportunity to experience this process during some recent employments, and it progressed basically as you describe.
Even more unfortunate is that most investors believe that this is the only way to a proper tech business model in the world today. If you don't do it, your start-up doesn't get funding, etc.
I believe our society has entered the logical end-game you describe. This is a problem that will ONLY get bigger, and will need to be dealt with in the near future for most meaningful development to continue.
The lawyers must be enjoying themselves.
By all means, please continue posting rebuttals that entirely ignore the majority of my points made -- in particular the ones that hurt your argument the most.
Much of what you just posted doesn't even bear proper context to the discussion. It's like you're just making stuff up as you go at this point. Example:
You then proceed to discuss two of the minor points I made in about 10. And then you only cover about 10% of those minor points. Then you ignore the rest. Is this supposed to be convincing?
Boy, thanks. I don't think I need to even respond to that one. LOL
Couldn't agree? Your swapping statement didn't even apply to Java itself, and made the specious assumption that all Java apps "lead[s] to lots of swapping". Many folks these days have enough RAM to never swap out memory AT ALL , regardless of what desktop applications they run.
I should hope you would!
Huh? I'm not even sure what you're talking about in the last comment. My comments about "unsubstantiated statements" had nothing to do with what you quoted AT ALL. It wasn't even related. And then you (of all people) say it's inconsistent somehow? Inconsistent with what?
OK, I think it's clear to anyone still following this where we both stand. Since that's all I can expect at this point, I think my work here is done.
Mock all you want. It is your right in an environment of free speech. It's really fine with me, as your own words do a much better job of illustrating the quality of your character than mine will probably do.
My post didn't call you any names, and only made light of the fact that you were using tired statements against Java while giving no supporting evidence. Just because you realize you're in a bad light now, don't pretend I'm in the same hole with you.
It's OK. I didn't think you would. I've poked some serious holes in your original, generalized statements. I've also spent considerable time addressing your concerns outlined in your follow-up post. Now that things have started to fall apart for you, I guess it's time to go now.
Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with that. I never said that statement, and it's wrong for you to quote it (especially with quotes) as you have.
To address your underlying point: - For starters, there was NO waffling. I did NOT intone that such a "maybe" ever existed. It is absolutely for-certain that if you're loading an entire virtual machine instead of a natively compiled application there WILL BE initial overhead and increased startup time if the JVM is not already running. Please, if you're going to attempt to argue with me, at least put some forth some solid effort -- it only takes me one or two clicks to see EXACTLY what I did and did not say.
And it is true. I had not said, nor did I say in my subsequent posts, that Java doesn't require increased memory usage over a natively compiled, comparable, well-designed, and well-written application. I outlined this in-depth... if you want me to do it again please point out your specific point of confusion.
At least you got this correct. I think that any reasonable, well-informed person would agree that Java is much better today than 5 years ago. I also agree that anyone that doesn't realize this MUST be stuck in the past, as one cannot do an objective comparison of Java now and Java 5 years ago and NOT come up with that conclusion.
Good day to you.
--
"FACTS" you say? Until this recent post, you hadn't provided any evidence to support your statement AT ALL. Furthermore, your statements were entirely subjective. I'll address:
Swapping is ENTIRELY a function of the operating system, dependent on many factors, such as oh, let's see, the available amount of RAM on the machine.
Java, like any other language, is capable of writing programs that are very large and consume much memory. However, it is perfectly normal to write Java programs that do NOT consume substantial amounts of RAM compared to similar programs in other languages. Again, my point is that we can't even discuss this properly without being able to quantify it adequately.
To recap, had you said "Java desktop applications are usually slow to start in their own, newly instantiated JVM", I would have dismissed the subjective "slow" and just granted you the point for the sake of discussion.
Moving on to the rest of your post today...
Please point out in my original post where I indicated that a HelloWorld in Ruby would execute more
If Java is so fast, where are the popular Java desktop applications that feel snappy?
*beep* *beep* *beep* Breaking News Alert: ... Benchmarks have been redesigned with ground-breaking new criteria: The 'Snappy-ness factor'. Details at 11:00 ..."
"This just in:
Java is perceived as being slow largely because it is so slow to start up, and largely because it takes up so much memory, which leads to lots of swapping.
The above statement is so generalized that it isn't worth debating. How long must we endure these specious, unfounded, tired, old statements?
The techno-groundhog just stuck his head out of his hole, and the results aren't good. I'm afraid we're in for another stretch of winter mired in blindness. It must be all the snow...
I've given you empirical proof that java is significantly slower for doing calculations.
Wrong. You've given a possible test-case, unvalidated except in one test (yours), that MAY show that C/C++ is better for a specific type of calculation operation -- and a very small one at that. If you think THAT is emperical proof, I think you need to go back to Science class.
Furthermore, go take a look at some benchmarking studies. If you tried to pass off your little loop as anything demonstrable or emperical, you'd be laughed right out of the building.
You obviously ARE a java zealot or you wouldn't be outright lieing just to try to prove your point.
Wow, in only two posts you've already resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. By the way, the only one around here that sounds like a zealot is you, I'm afraid.
Te nosce.
Java is significantly slower. That's all there is to it.
Wow again. There's a solid, reliable, fact-based statement if I've EVER heard one!
By the way, since you're posts are so poor and seem to promote nothing other than baseless, argumentative discussion, I've formed the opinion that you are a troll. Goodbye now, bridge-dweller.
----------
<sarcasm>
But other than all that... it's a pretty good match!
</sarcasm>
Sheesh.
Please spare us the repetition of this specious argument. Since you cannot even tell us with any degree of certainty how much of Rotor is used in .NET, nor which parts of the framework, we can't even have a discussion about it in this context.
Oh wait... you have it on good authority from an unnamed source that MS uses "pretty much all of it". Hardly a good basis for discussion.
Sorry.
Please, please. How many times does this have to be rehashed here on Slashdot and the Internet in general, especially when good, detailed information is so easily accessible? The Java "language" is an open specification. How do you think GCJ and other projects are able to do their work? Sun's JRE source code is quite a different story, for example, but that's not what I was referring to.
They accept feedback from other members of the JCP, but all the decisions are made by Sun.
This is incorrect, actually. The final "decisions" are made by the applicable Expert Group for the submitted JSR, which is made up of industry "experts" from many different companies, possibly including Sun, but often not. For a nice breakdown of the entire process, please see here:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-1999/jw-Hope that helps.
I think it's just you. Sorry.
Maybe you should go back and read the sentences about "Java". ;-)
Seriously, his implications are clearly directed at Java and Eclipse being a powerful combination to "explore the basic practices of OOP".I'm not exactly sure why this is "dubious". In any case, I have to take issue with the rest of this.
Java is an open language, an open spec, and is NOT the product of "one company" in the generic sense that you imply. Notice I didn't say "Open Source", but neither did you. Open Source is a very different and specific thing, and that's not what I'm talking about.
If I were to offer another example in such a general stance , I could say that PHP is mainly the product of Zend. Of course, this isn't correct unless qualified for basis, which is all I'm asking for here.
Just my two cents...
Thank you. This needed to be said, and I was about to do it.
Please mod this parent up to at least the level of the rant to which it applies.
Well, you just lost your bet if you made it with me. It happens (although thankfully not regularly in most cases). Whatever... I don't even have the time (or desire) to prove it to you. It shouldn't be necessary.
I'm waiting.For goodness sake, why??? Don't you have anything better to do?!
Now I will ask about how is this *any* different from a CVS environment where you have rsync copies, hard symlinks or just plain tarred backpus....It probably isn't, aside from the technical details you've offered yourself. That isn't what the author was discussing. He was merely pointing out that if you're following any kind of industry standard practice for protecting your repository data, you need not worry about the anti-Subversion FUD of the original posts.
Now, I'm not trying to deride the author too badly, but trying make a point. If you're willing to take such undocumented, unsupported information on faith, why not take the word of thousands of happy Subversion users and administrators (not to mention the likes of the Apache project, KDE, and hundreds of others)?
I have managed MANY Subversion repositories over the last couple of years, with glorious success and ZERO complaints -- ALL WITH THE BDB BACK-END. I'm all smiles. I suggest you disregard such poorly-documented FUD. Instead, try actually READING the SVN book, which covers all of these aspects in heavy detail, possibly combined with the SVN users and/or developers mailing lists.
Now, I'm not trying to deride the author too badly, but trying make a point. If you're willing to take such undocumented, unsupported information on faith, why not take the word of thousands of happy Subversion users and administrators (not to mention the likes of the Apache project, KDE, and hundreds of others)?
I have managed MANY Subversion repositories over the last couple of years, with glorious success and ZERO complaints -- ALL WITH THE BDB BACK-END. I'm all smiles. I suggest you disregard such poorly-documented FUD. Instead, try actually READING the SVN book, which covers all of these aspects in heavy detail, possibly combined with the SVN users and/or developers mailing lists.
--------
I think you just made my point for me.
And even what the poster said isn't necessary. All that is necessary is a general knowledge about the job a given tool (application, etc.) performs. Based on that, a knowledgeable engineer can simply observe the operations in process (across the network, for example) to derive compatibility. Beside, in this case, compatibility is ALL THAT MATTERED ANYWAY . He wasn't trying to recreate BitKeeper, but rather create a tool of his own that was compatible with a BK repository.
Furthermore, you are dodging the point, and you know it. You have ZERO fact to back-up your assertion -- it is merely FUD based on your personal opinion.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm certainly going to call you on it.
Well, since you see fit to call Tridge a liar, I'll point you to some information on just how he can ethically accomplish such tasks. Let's start with an informative post from this very thread (right near the top):
Slashdot reference
All of your questions are answered, such as "How did he test it?" and "How does he know it's interoperable?". You may also decide to browse the SAMBA site, or at least Google the Web a little bit before you hurl baseless insults like a fool.
Then, after actually getting yourself a modicum of information, maybe you can post back here with an apology before you get modded "Flaimbait" or "Troll".
See http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137 319&cid=11488591 for a little snippet of info.
I'll second that. Our company (large enterprise) has been using TrackStudio now for about a year. We love it. It is by far the most flexible Issue Management and general tracking system I've seen/used.
We did a thorough analysis of the issue tracking market before purchasing this product, comprising both Open Source and proprietary products. This product won by a long shot, with Jira coming in second, and Bugzilla, Track+, and many others coming in behind (in some cases VERY FAR behind).
TrackStudio has two purchase models: Buy it or host it. You can buy it for $1000 (covers an entire enterprise). Otherwise you can have them host it for your company for a nominal monthly fee and no up-front costs (I forget how much per month, but it was pretty small, maybe $40).
Ouch, it pains me to hear this. We have enough perception problems with Linux on the desktop without having these things happen.
I know that hindsight is 20/20, but I'm a little surprised you chose Gnome for your desktop when converting Windows users. KDE is well known for being a great transition platform for Windows users, since theming and settings can give you a similar/identical user interface that can be "enhanced" as they get more comfortable without MS.
I don't suppose you can still change to KDE, can you?
I'd like to stay on topic here... but since you've planted some digs against Gentoo, I feel compelled to respond.
I run many production systems for different purposes using Gentoo Linux as the OS. Gentoo can be whatever you want it to be. For me it is a stable, customized, highly efficient server, desktop, whatever. There is nothing any more manual about using this distro than any other, depending on the administrator and system setup/configuration.
While I agree with your comment that Gentoo is not for everyone, neither is a high-powered sports-car. Your limited experience with it as a desktop machine doesn't warrant a blanket discounting of the distro for server uses or anything else.
I'll stop feeding the trolls now. :)
Its 100% GPL compliant and the full ISO is free to anyone with an Internet connection.
There have been heated discussions in the past (on the Yoper forums and here, I believe) as to whether or not Yoper is actually compliant with the GPL. When last I checked, Yoper was distributing their compiled ISO's but we couldn't get current sources from anywhere. Attempts at getting this from them was met with stiff resistance and arguing. All we were able to locate was sources from their "beta" version (old).
Since their site is currently Slashdotted, can anyone confirm whether this is still the case?
Your URL is borked. Try this one:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=56077&cid=544If you've decided to order your releases on a yearly/quarterly cycle, what's wrong with that?
This is not at all what Sun is doing, and actually has nothing to do with anything in this thread, other than you're discussing release numbers.
Please do us the favor and stay on-topic.