They may have the best database, but their cli tools really sucks. They don't even have a history.
And the entire database is much to complicated to set up and get running. So yes it might be the best if you got a guy who's only job is to babysit Oracle.
He made no such claim. What he said was that file sharing does not help "indie artists" to be more known because as can be seen from tpb stats, most of what is downloaded is what people already know.
The problem is the protocol used to communicate between ITunes and the server. If it was open it would be possible for third party users to implement their own linux interface. I don't se why Apple would have a problem with that. You would still buy the music from them, and it would not cost them anything.
Have you ever even seen Mainframe pricing? No really have you?
It will cost you at least 10000$ to match the power of a single quad core intel/amd cpu.
And you do not want to run a mainframe(Or other computer that have a cpu bound task) for a decade. I think my current desktop computer have more power then avg mainframe from a decade ago, and when I buy a new development workstation in then next decade, it will most likely have more cpu power then a 1 million $ mainframe you could buy today.
Just to set things in perspective: I am pretty sure, that google have more cpu power, more ram, more hd space and more aggregate io, then all mainframes in USA combined.
If you take the price of a mainframe, and compare that to what google can get for the same money using their current solution, their current solution offers at least 10 times as much cpu performance, and much much more aggregate io(Both hard disk and memory) bandwidth.
There are only 2 reasons to use mainframes now.
1: Development cost. Building software that can scale on commodity hardware is expensive and difficult. It require top notch software developers and project managers. It make sense for Google to do it, because they use so much hardware(>100000 computers at last count).
Quote: So you want the column to be NOT NULL, and yet you can't be bothered to tell the db your desired default value for that column. What EXACTLY do you expect the database to do ?
I want it to reject the insert(And thus the entire transaction, which btw: is unlike mysql becasue mysql will commit a transaction even if part of that transaction failed, but that's an other wtf). Imagine that the date field is used to indicate when something is valid(Say, user have paid for access until this date). There is no usefull default and if the application don't give a date then it's a bug in the application and the database should stop that.
But most of the cost of developing a game is graphics/story/concept/test and other non code related things. Just try to look at the credits for a game. The graphics people outnumber the coders at least 2:1 on all the games I have seen.
But using FS, XFS, or Ext3 will most likely just minimize the risk of this problem, not solving it.
I Once lost power doing bootup with ext3(Fedora Core 5), and the result were that I had some empty(0) byte system files which fucked up my system.
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement, but a solution might be to change posix to require flushing data before renaming, IF the target of the rename is an existing file.
That way you get all the nice features of delayed allocation, and the filesystem can still delay the flushing of the data in this case. It just need to also delay the writing of the metadata in this special case, where the target of a rename exists.
That way you get the best of both worlds, but I don't know if this can be implemented without major changes.
And just to add a note: Girls are in general not worse at math then men. If you look at the math grade after 7 years in school there is no real difference between the genders.
I am curious. How would you solve the Perl problem in windows? If the user don't need to run perl scripts at all, then the solution is simple both with windows and linux. Don't install perl and prevent the user from installing any software(Linux: Mount/home as noexec).
But what if the user need to run a specific set of perl scripts, and nothing more then that?
No it's not impossible. What is impossible is to reject "exactly all dangerous code" but they don't claim to do that.
A simple implementation will simply reject all code. There will not be any way to get dangerous code past that implementation so I have just made what you said was impossible.
What Google does is that they try to verify that the program is not dangerous. And if they can verify(Create a proof) that the program is not dangerous then they run it. Else they reject it. This will result in Google rejecting valid programs which are not dangerous, but if google runs a program it knows its safe to run.
To be really useful you develop the compiler and verify code together, so that the compiler only issue code that it knows the verifier can verify.
Java does something like this. The java compiler only output code that it know that the Jvm can verify as valid, but if you write your bytecode directly, you can write valid non dangerous code that the classloader will reject, because it can't prove that it's not dangerous.
The problem with php is that they made the insecure feature first, and told people to use it. Then they found out it was insecure and fixed it by making an other safer way to do the same thing.
Examples include the entire way mysql is accessed. First they made mysql_query which is very very difficult to make secure, because it require the developer to manually escape all input that need to be escaped. (Not to talk about the fuckup with both having a mysql_escape_string() and then finding out it's not good enough, so they made a mysql_real_escape_string()).
Yes now they have pdo and preparedStatement but it took so long for them to make, that the insecure mysql_* functions are still the default and most mentioned.
And just look at all the magic options(Magic_quotes). Magic_quotes were added as a feature to make database access safe, because the php developers realized that the mysql_* functions were very difficult to use safely. But they totally fucked up the design of the magic_* feature, so a program with magic_quotes sat to on, is now one of the most difficult things to make both safe and usefull.
So if you know exactly which part of php to avoid, then the rest of the language is not really insecure, but the part to avoid is mostly all the things that are mentioned(And thus used) most because it was the first thing they made.
Php need a feature to be compiled with./configure --remove-all-the-features-we-the-developers-would-wish-we-had-newer-made
That way, you could install that version and atleast get a fatal error, each time someone used a function which should not be used. It would result in much better software, but that version of php would most likely not be able to run much predeveloped software.
No not really. Any new server should be able to handle atleast 300Mbit/s. (And most likely also handle a full 1Gbit/s but that might require a dual cpu system, with a fast disk subsystem)
The only way that 1000 users/day can require more then one server to handle the load, is if each user request require multiple complicated database query to reply to.
(Or if the design/implementation should be featured no "the daily wtf").
Search yahoo on google and you get Results 1 - 10 of about 2,210,000,000 for yahoo [definition]. (0.05 seconds) So there is no reason to force google to do anything.
But I do think that IF google ever choose to refuse to include websites for competiting producs they might get a problem with EU due to their near monopoly situation.
You could, but that would be equal to copyright, because copyright is the right to limit distribution. So you have just removed copyright, and then reintroduced it again in a contract. Maybe it was not such a bad concept in the first place.
I think that they DO still depend on copyright even when doing custom work. Because most custom work is not so custom that it can't easily be modified to solve similary problems.
Example: Without copyright someone could create a complete copy of your new webshop, including all the graphics and special functions for almost no cost. You just had to contact the original developer and buy the code from him. I do mostly special software and websites, but there is no way my customers would by anything, if they did not have full and exclusive right to the code.
The fact that the Music industry is fucked up, is not an argument to abolish copyright.
What we need is that the big and established artists drop their contracts with the big 4, and start selling software directly from iTunes. But they don't care so we have to wait for a new generation of artists who grew up with the web for that to happend.
Most likely just a misconfiguration(I have contacted them). There were a court order to block www.thepiratebay.org and they most likely just blocked the entire thepiratebay.org
And all they do to block it, is to redirect *.thepiratebay.org to their own ip, so you can still access it with ip address.
Slashdot Mirror
They may have the best database, but their cli tools really sucks. They don't even have a history.
And the entire database is much to complicated to set up and get running. So yes it might be the best if you got a guy
who's only job is to babysit Oracle.
He made no such claim. What he said was that file sharing does not help "indie artists" to be more known because as can be seen from tpb stats, most of what is downloaded is what people already know.
The problem is the protocol used to communicate between ITunes and the server. If it was open it would be possible for third party users to implement their own linux interface. I don't se why Apple would have a problem with that. You would still buy the music from them, and it would not cost them anything.
Are you sure it's interpreted? According to the documentation it does use a jit compiler to compile java bytecode to asm.
But most servers in the real world don't have any problem delivering 100Mbit/sec to you.
Have you ever even seen Mainframe pricing? No really have you?
It will cost you at least 10000$ to match the power of a single quad core intel/amd cpu.
And you do not want to run a mainframe(Or other computer that have a cpu bound task) for a decade. I think my current desktop computer have more power then avg mainframe
from a decade ago, and when I buy a new development workstation in then next decade, it will most likely have more cpu power then a 1 million $ mainframe you could buy today.
Just to set things in perspective: I am pretty sure, that google have more cpu power, more ram, more hd space and more aggregate io, then all mainframes in USA combined.
A google mainframe would be stupid.
If you take the price of a mainframe, and compare that to what google can get for the same money using their current solution, their current solution offers at least 10 times as much cpu performance, and much much more aggregate io(Both hard disk and memory) bandwidth.
There are only 2 reasons to use mainframes now.
1: Development cost. Building software that can scale on commodity hardware is expensive and difficult. It require top notch software developers and project managers. It make sense for Google to do it, because they use so much hardware(>100000 computers at last count).
2: Legacy support.
Quote:
So you want the column to be NOT NULL, and yet you can't be bothered to tell the db your desired default value for that column. What EXACTLY do you expect the database to do ?
I want it to reject the insert(And thus the entire transaction, which btw: is unlike mysql becasue mysql will commit a transaction even if part of that transaction failed, but that's an other wtf).
Imagine that the date field is used to indicate when something is valid(Say, user have paid for access until this date). There is no usefull default and if the application don't give a date then it's a bug in the application and the database should stop that.
But most of the cost of developing a game is graphics/story/concept/test and other non code related things. Just try to look at the credits for a game. The graphics people outnumber the coders at least 2:1 on all the games I have seen.
Is writing a new file, and then renaming it over an existing file really a 'typical workload'???
But using FS, XFS, or Ext3 will most likely just minimize the risk of this problem, not solving it.
I Once lost power doing bootup with ext3(Fedora Core 5), and the result were that I had some empty(0) byte system files which fucked up my system.
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement, but a solution might be to change posix to require flushing data before renaming, IF
the target of the rename is an existing file.
That way you get all the nice features of delayed allocation, and the filesystem can still delay the flushing of the data in this case.
It just need to also delay the writing of the metadata in this special case, where the target of a rename exists.
That way you get the best of both worlds, but I don't know if this can be implemented without major changes.
Is throttling really cheaper?
Have you tried to compare the price of just buying more bandwidth with what it will cost you to setup and maintain the packed shaping?
Microsoft does that too. Or atleast did 5 years ago when I tried to report a bug to them.
And just to add a note:
Girls are in general not worse at math then men. If you look at the math grade after 7 years in school there is no real difference between the genders.
I am curious. How would you solve the Perl problem in windows? /home as noexec).
If the user don't need to run perl scripts at all, then the solution is simple both with windows and linux. Don't install perl and prevent the user from installing any software(Linux: Mount
But what if the user need to run a specific set of perl scripts, and nothing more then that?
No what he is saying is that you can't arrest him, just because some other user break the law.
No it's not impossible. What is impossible is to reject "exactly all dangerous code" but they don't claim to do that.
A simple implementation will simply reject all code. There will not be any way to get dangerous code past that implementation so I have just made what you said was impossible.
What Google does is that they try to verify that the program is not dangerous. And if they can verify(Create a proof) that the program is not dangerous then they run it. Else they reject it.
This will result in Google rejecting valid programs which are not dangerous, but if google runs a program it knows its safe to run.
To be really useful you develop the compiler and verify code together, so that the compiler only issue code that it knows the verifier can verify.
Java does something like this. The java compiler only output code that it know that the Jvm can verify as valid, but if you write your bytecode directly, you can write valid non dangerous code that
the classloader will reject, because it can't prove that it's not dangerous.
The problem with php is that they made the insecure feature first, and told people to use it. Then they found out it was insecure and fixed it by making an other safer way to do the same thing.
Examples include the entire way mysql is accessed. First they made mysql_query which is very very difficult to make secure, because it require the developer to manually escape all
input that need to be escaped. (Not to talk about the fuckup with both having a mysql_escape_string() and then finding out it's not good enough, so they made a mysql_real_escape_string()).
Yes now they have pdo and preparedStatement but it took so long for them to make, that the insecure mysql_* functions are still the default and most mentioned.
And just look at all the magic options(Magic_quotes). Magic_quotes were added as a feature to make database access safe, because the php developers realized that the mysql_* functions were very difficult to use safely.
But they totally fucked up the design of the magic_* feature, so a program with magic_quotes sat to on, is now one of the most difficult things to make both safe and usefull.
So if you know exactly which part of php to avoid, then the rest of the language is not really insecure, but the part to avoid is mostly all the things that are mentioned(And thus used) most because it was the first thing they made.
Php need a feature to be compiled with ./configure --remove-all-the-features-we-the-developers-would-wish-we-had-newer-made
That way, you could install that version and atleast get a fatal error, each time someone used a function which should not be used. It would result in much better software, but that version of php would most likely not be able to run much predeveloped software.
No not really. Any new server should be able to handle atleast 300Mbit/s.
(And most likely also handle a full 1Gbit/s but that might require a dual cpu system, with a fast disk subsystem)
The only way that 1000 users/day can require more then one server to handle the load, is if each user request require multiple complicated database query to reply to.
(Or if the design/implementation should be featured no "the daily wtf").
Search yahoo on google and you get Results 1 - 10 of about 2,210,000,000 for yahoo [definition]. (0.05 seconds)
So there is no reason to force google to do anything.
But I do think that IF google ever choose to refuse to include websites for competiting producs they might get a problem
with EU due to their near monopoly situation.
So what you are saying is that Linux is ready for the desktop :}
The last time I downloaded a binary package was postgresql 8.3, and that installed with no problems on Fedora Core 5
But there is NO way to buy Windows XP now, so that would not help at all.
You could, but that would be equal to copyright, because copyright is the right to limit distribution.
So you have just removed copyright, and then reintroduced it again in a contract. Maybe it was not such a bad concept in the first place.
I think that they DO still depend on copyright even when doing custom work. Because most custom work is not so custom that it can't easily be modified to solve similary problems.
Example: Without copyright someone could create a complete copy of your new webshop, including all the graphics and special functions for almost no cost. You just had to contact the original developer
and buy the code from him.
I do mostly special software and websites, but there is no way my customers would by anything, if they did not have full and exclusive right to the code.
The fact that the Music industry is fucked up, is not an argument to abolish copyright.
What we need is that the big and established artists drop their contracts with the big 4, and start selling software directly from iTunes. But they don't care so we have to wait for a new generation of artists who grew up with the web for that to happend.
Most likely just a misconfiguration(I have contacted them). There were a court order to block www.thepiratebay.org and they most likely just blocked the entire thepiratebay.org
And all they do to block it, is to redirect *.thepiratebay.org to their own ip, so you can still access it with ip address.