Most likely they had some MariaDB fanboi (or fangoil) who was willing to do this, but was not willing to upgrade MySQL instead.
Doubtful. More likely they wanted to be able to get decent community support for the forseeable future. Something that's not a given for a previously community-based software product that got gobbled up by a succession of commercial entities.
Oracle has gone to great lengths to make MySQL a second-class citizen to its own database in terms of support, and worse, they're not really getting the whole community part of why people used MySQL in the first place...or maybe they *do* get it and just want MySQL to go away so they can sell Oracle DB.
Either way, the folks at Wikipedia must have seen value in moving to a compatible, open-source, community-based database...just like the one they started with.
Closed-source projects can't be distributed under the GPL (that would be in direct conflict with the terms of the license...you have to make source code available, including any modifications you have made...at least for code that you distribute)...I think that's the degree of exclusion the OP was talking about.
That doesn't mean you can't run a closed-source program on a GPL-licensed OS stack.
The no resale limitation appears to be on the developer version that is out now. If they did that with the commercial one, they would have a giant shitstorm on their hands, both PR and legal.
...for that matter, my HTC (droid DNA) is the first phone I've really loved since my original motorola droid. Then again, it could just be that the droid X2 I suffered with for almost 2 years was such a piece of shit.
What I want to know is what the qualifications for a "Software Programmer Agent" look like. Also, will I need to bathe regularly and get my hair cut? Will I need to have headshots distributed?
Are you just trolling, or do you just not believe that rolling out a simple snmp service that doesn't include any ability to be writeable is possible? Not that commercially-available, generic implementations of SNMP haven't had holes in them, of course they have...that's not the point, and is unrelated to my comment.
Instrumentation has been part of the stack of internet protocols for many years. It's called SNMP, and it's certainly possible to implement as read-only.
Hmm...so, in reading what's there at the link, you're main problem is going to be due to the pervasiveness of bittorrent. It sounds like if you prevented incoming connections for a file you were leeching, you might be OK (not sure about your perceived status as an infringer if you allowed incoming connections, but did not have the entire file). In that case, the problem of identifying the correct party is marginally less potentially incorrect, at least...as long as they're actually checking for responsiveness to requests for bits of a file and not just the presence of an IP address in a list of seeds or peers.
If memory serves, the prohibition on materials protected by copyright is on the distributor of said materials. In the same way I'd get in trouble for publishing unauthorized copies of a famous book that was not in the public domain, I'd get in trouble from distributing unauthorized copies of copyrighted digital media.
The 6-strikes law turns that on its head, and is incompatible with copyright law as we know it (don't get me started on the DMCA). The 35 dollar fee collected not by the judiciary, but commercial entities that provide access to a worldwide network, is just a cherry of aggravation on top of a sundae of stupidity.
The complainers are asking that first, the appropriate entities be addressed (i.e. those distributing the files rather than those obtaining them) and second, that there be something remotely resembling due process (that thing where you're accused, can get legal counsel, might have a trial, etc) before any discussion of a fine.
Money is *not* important for people to be able to live comfortably. Money is important so that we don't have to barter for everything. It increases the efficiency of an economy. My comment about incentive is secondary to the conversation.
*wealth* IS important for people to be able to live comfortably. If you don't create wealth, you may subsist (hunter-gatherers did), but you won't be what most folks would call comfortable...at least not unless you live somewhere tropical with minimal parasitic insects. If there's no wealth to be distributed, then you can't *have* welfare.
Wealth is NOT important in the same way food is important. If you have no food, you can't continue the basic biological processes that keep your organs functioning. If you have no wealth, you can't obtain things that will make life more convenient or comfortable (or allow you to create or obtain more wealth).
We're talking about what making welfare mandatory does to an economy and how a given economy would afford to do that.
You could just as easily say that carbon and oxygen have propped up life for billions of years. Whether that statement means anything is another matter.
We are a booming life form, yes. We will overtake our ability to sustain continued growth on earth if nothing changes, yes. That restraining our population growth is the ultimate answer for survival is where we disagree, I guess.
One area where I am an unabashed optimist is in believing that humans have the ability to think ourselves beyond the limitations imposed by living on earth. Whether it happens before we all kill each other is the big wager, isn't it?
Then again, none of that has anything to do with whether welfare no matter what is a good idea (aside from the growth impact it might have on population).
...If you can have everybody employed and getting paid...
I think that's where the problem lies in this discussion, since that's not what the person I was replying to said. (S)He said that everyone, working or not, should get money...enough to live on.
There is not a fixed amount of money circulating! There are a fixed number of pieces of paper money. If wealth couldn't be created, we'd all be living in the dark ages. Why is everyone responding to a discussion on wealth with comments on money?
The issue of why factories don't produce cars for free has to do with the costs of production, not with whether or not the process could be automated completely or require less human work to be done. Paying the people who don't produce cars for not doing so redistributes both money *and* wealth. That's not good, because now you're devaluing the work that *is* done and making working people artificially less wealthy. You're saying that everyone is now going to have to work harder to gain wealth or they can just quit trying (which, in turn, makes it that much harder for everyone else who doesn't quit working).
If you want to talk about this and communism, the book Animal Farm had a horse named Boxer who was subjected to an more limited form of this scenario.
The financial crises many countries are dealing with are, indeed, a vicious cycle...mainly because the countries mired in them don't understand how they got there. Governments don't create prosperity, they just get out of the way of people creating prosperity to lesser or greater extents. A government *takes* from the people in order to keep them safe and allow them to prosper. Once a government begins to believe or say that it is giving to its people, then you're about to have trouble.
Not money, wealth, which is a different thing. Money is how you measure wealth and store it without having to resort to bartering.
Increasing the value of goods or raw materials by directed effort is known as work. It's not smoke and mirrors. We're not talking about the same thing.
This isn't a discussion about resources, it's a discussion about wealth and what people spend it on. Third-world dictators won't stay dictators. Our increasing connectedness is making that impossible. The issue is whether success and wealth should be proportionate, and I keep seeing that getting sidestepped. If they are not proportionate (i.e. give everyone money no matter what they do), then where does that money come from? Who does the work that creates the wealth that then gets distributed if we remove the primary incentive to work?
If you're talking about welfare for all, working or not, then the question is where that money comes from.
Is there some endless hole of wealth that is supposed to prop us up? I understand the intent, but the mechanics of this idea have either been very poorly explained or won't work any better than a traditional ponzi scheme.
You sound like you must be from somewhere outside the USA.
American politicians (most of them, at least) don't care one way or the other about the NRA. What they care about is how they look to the (voting) public. If some jackass mental patient shoots and kills a bunch of kids and the media says it has something to do with assault weapons and video games, then the politicians read about it and say "We must DO something!".
Banning toys is easy, since there's nothing in the constitution protecting the right of US citizens to own them. No politician wants to have to do something so official and public as voting to remove a constitutional right...that would be political suicide. They're afraid, yes, but not of the NRA.
Slashdot Mirror
Love that idea. Send it here: mailto:feedback@slashdot.org.
Doubtful. More likely they wanted to be able to get decent community support for the forseeable future. Something that's not a given for a previously community-based software product that got gobbled up by a succession of commercial entities.
Oracle has gone to great lengths to make MySQL a second-class citizen to its own database in terms of support, and worse, they're not really getting the whole community part of why people used MySQL in the first place...or maybe they *do* get it and just want MySQL to go away so they can sell Oracle DB.
Either way, the folks at Wikipedia must have seen value in moving to a compatible, open-source, community-based database...just like the one they started with.
Closed-source projects can't be distributed under the GPL (that would be in direct conflict with the terms of the license...you have to make source code available, including any modifications you have made...at least for code that you distribute)...I think that's the degree of exclusion the OP was talking about.
That doesn't mean you can't run a closed-source program on a GPL-licensed OS stack.
The no resale limitation appears to be on the developer version that is out now. If they did that with the commercial one, they would have a giant shitstorm on their hands, both PR and legal.
...for that matter, my HTC (droid DNA) is the first phone I've really loved since my original motorola droid. Then again, it could just be that the droid X2 I suffered with for almost 2 years was such a piece of shit.
What I want to know is what the qualifications for a "Software Programmer Agent" look like. Also, will I need to bathe regularly and get my hair cut? Will I need to have headshots distributed?
That'd be great. It's not what the article is talking about or what network virtualization is, is all...
That was awesome. Also, now I have a new Wikipedia page to share.
All right, I can't stop myself (and I tried, believe me). Don't you mean "coherent"?
The word "cogent" might fit there, but it sounded like you were irritated by poor grammar, rather than the post being generally unpersuasive...
This might give us a hint...
Best graph ever for lengthening arguments about man-made vs naturally-occurring global warming...
Seriously missing my mod points right now...
Are you just trolling, or do you just not believe that rolling out a simple snmp service that doesn't include any ability to be writeable is possible? Not that commercially-available, generic implementations of SNMP haven't had holes in them, of course they have...that's not the point, and is unrelated to my comment.
Instrumentation has been part of the stack of internet protocols for many years. It's called SNMP, and it's certainly possible to implement as read-only.
Hmm...so, in reading what's there at the link, you're main problem is going to be due to the pervasiveness of bittorrent. It sounds like if you prevented incoming connections for a file you were leeching, you might be OK (not sure about your perceived status as an infringer if you allowed incoming connections, but did not have the entire file). In that case, the problem of identifying the correct party is marginally less potentially incorrect, at least...as long as they're actually checking for responsiveness to requests for bits of a file and not just the presence of an IP address in a list of seeds or peers.
If memory serves, the prohibition on materials protected by copyright is on the distributor of said materials. In the same way I'd get in trouble for publishing unauthorized copies of a famous book that was not in the public domain, I'd get in trouble from distributing unauthorized copies of copyrighted digital media.
The 6-strikes law turns that on its head, and is incompatible with copyright law as we know it (don't get me started on the DMCA). The 35 dollar fee collected not by the judiciary, but commercial entities that provide access to a worldwide network, is just a cherry of aggravation on top of a sundae of stupidity.
The complainers are asking that first, the appropriate entities be addressed (i.e. those distributing the files rather than those obtaining them) and second, that there be something remotely resembling due process (that thing where you're accused, can get legal counsel, might have a trial, etc) before any discussion of a fine.
Money is *not* important for people to be able to live comfortably. Money is important so that we don't have to barter for everything. It increases the efficiency of an economy. My comment about incentive is secondary to the conversation.
*wealth* IS important for people to be able to live comfortably. If you don't create wealth, you may subsist (hunter-gatherers did), but you won't be what most folks would call comfortable...at least not unless you live somewhere tropical with minimal parasitic insects. If there's no wealth to be distributed, then you can't *have* welfare.
Wealth is NOT important in the same way food is important. If you have no food, you can't continue the basic biological processes that keep your organs functioning. If you have no wealth, you can't obtain things that will make life more convenient or comfortable (or allow you to create or obtain more wealth).
We're talking about what making welfare mandatory does to an economy and how a given economy would afford to do that.
You could just as easily say that carbon and oxygen have propped up life for billions of years. Whether that statement means anything is another matter.
We are a booming life form, yes. We will overtake our ability to sustain continued growth on earth if nothing changes, yes. That restraining our population growth is the ultimate answer for survival is where we disagree, I guess.
One area where I am an unabashed optimist is in believing that humans have the ability to think ourselves beyond the limitations imposed by living on earth. Whether it happens before we all kill each other is the big wager, isn't it?
Then again, none of that has anything to do with whether welfare no matter what is a good idea (aside from the growth impact it might have on population).
I think that's where the problem lies in this discussion, since that's not what the person I was replying to said. (S)He said that everyone, working or not, should get money...enough to live on.
There is not a fixed amount of money circulating! There are a fixed number of pieces of paper money. If wealth couldn't be created, we'd all be living in the dark ages. Why is everyone responding to a discussion on wealth with comments on money?
The issue of why factories don't produce cars for free has to do with the costs of production, not with whether or not the process could be automated completely or require less human work to be done. Paying the people who don't produce cars for not doing so redistributes both money *and* wealth. That's not good, because now you're devaluing the work that *is* done and making working people artificially less wealthy. You're saying that everyone is now going to have to work harder to gain wealth or they can just quit trying (which, in turn, makes it that much harder for everyone else who doesn't quit working).
If you want to talk about this and communism, the book Animal Farm had a horse named Boxer who was subjected to an more limited form of this scenario.
The financial crises many countries are dealing with are, indeed, a vicious cycle...mainly because the countries mired in them don't understand how they got there. Governments don't create prosperity, they just get out of the way of people creating prosperity to lesser or greater extents. A government *takes* from the people in order to keep them safe and allow them to prosper. Once a government begins to believe or say that it is giving to its people, then you're about to have trouble.
Not money, wealth, which is a different thing. Money is how you measure wealth and store it without having to resort to bartering.
Increasing the value of goods or raw materials by directed effort is known as work. It's not smoke and mirrors. We're not talking about the same thing.
This isn't a discussion about resources, it's a discussion about wealth and what people spend it on. Third-world dictators won't stay dictators. Our increasing connectedness is making that impossible. The issue is whether success and wealth should be proportionate, and I keep seeing that getting sidestepped. If they are not proportionate (i.e. give everyone money no matter what they do), then where does that money come from? Who does the work that creates the wealth that then gets distributed if we remove the primary incentive to work?
If you're talking about welfare for all, working or not, then the question is where that money comes from. Is there some endless hole of wealth that is supposed to prop us up? I understand the intent, but the mechanics of this idea have either been very poorly explained or won't work any better than a traditional ponzi scheme.
You sound like you must be from somewhere outside the USA.
American politicians (most of them, at least) don't care one way or the other about the NRA. What they care about is how they look to the (voting) public. If some jackass mental patient shoots and kills a bunch of kids and the media says it has something to do with assault weapons and video games, then the politicians read about it and say "We must DO something!".
Banning toys is easy, since there's nothing in the constitution protecting the right of US citizens to own them. No politician wants to have to do something so official and public as voting to remove a constitutional right...that would be political suicide. They're afraid, yes, but not of the NRA.
Damn you to hell. You should use your powers for good, not evil. I will pretend to ignore "chool" and "both correct and correct". Friended.
Some would say that it was more than a case of simultaneous invention...for future inventors (not programmers...inventors) it means very little.