You mean you've talked yourself into something being 'agile' that's more to your liking. 'Agile' is about being responsive to customer needs; too bad you don't like it.
"Our policy became "all new stuff takes two weeks"."
Sounds like you've really caught the spirit of "Agile". Way to be responsive to the customer!
This shows that problems aren't solved by arbitrary process declarations. People who don't want to understand what's needed won't. There will always be rationalizations for crappy work.
That's a pretty sad testament for a computer. You meant to say something positive about it but you nailed its unacceptable flaw on the head. Workstations should be suitable for a wide variety of tasks and have long legs.
Most people wouldn't guess that a premier desktop workstation would be disposable by design. Did you ever think that could be why no one guessed?
(a) It's a television and TVs don't use DVI, and (b) DVI doesn't do 4K anyway.
Why it doesn't include DisplayPort is a better question. It would be nice if more OS'es would support 4K at 30Hz on the interface they DO provide but that's not their fault. What is their fault is the artifacting they produce on the signal they do receive.
This is true. The Seiki 4K is actually 4 smaller panels sandwiched together and you can see the splices. It has awful color and posterizing in dark areas. It has limited refresh which may or may not be a problem (but is a huge problem on OS X) and worst of all, it resamples producing imaging artifacts even when fed a proper resolution signal. It is not suitable for use as a computer monitor.
50" is also too large for the desktop. It's manageable but not ideal. 39" would be better but not if it suffers from all the problems of the 50".
You assume BSD is unhappy with this result. They are not...and the problem isn't MS using BSD's "stuff" and not giving anything back to BSD in return, it's not giving anything to YOU in return. BSD got precisely what they wanted in that transaction, you didn't.
That's an absurd and meaningless statement. It may be valuable, but it's not "why" and you don't speak for everyone. There are others whose opinions are far more principal to that question than yours.
"I have no objection to protocol experiments..."
What a relief! Google can go ahead on now that it has your blessing.
"But we can give you a significant number of users..."
Because they are yours to give?
If there's one thing you make clear here, Bruce Perens, it's conceit.
"Moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary is very much not in the spirit of the GPL."
But it is in the spirit of hypocrisy. Oh, you actually wrote the code? Well, I'm going to tell you what to do with it anyway.
People who own the copyright get to do as they please, as GPL people are so fond of pointing out when it suits their interests. Don't like it? Write your own.
No it's not, it's about something else entirely. Otherwise, Tivo-ization would not be an issue.
GPLv3 addresses Tivo-ization not to preserve access to code but to gain access to hardware. You have to give me what I say or you can't play with my toys. It's not about free code, it's about RMS getting what he wants. It's always been about that.
"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library,..."
It would if RMS got his way. RMS once asserted that including a header file was sufficient. You are in need of an education, your ideology doesn't match reality.
If you want to talk about preserving access to code, the BSD license does that directly. Once released, code under that license is accessible for eternity. Can't get any better than that. It's not good enough for GPL people because they want the license to control what happens to FUTURE code, and increasingly to the future hardware that runs it. It's not about code, it's about getting everything in the future for free as well.
"$150 for a device that means I don't miss calls / txts when out because I didn't hear it go off / was listening to music at the time?"
Except that it doesn't do this unless you use it in a way that enables those notifications...which you could simply do with the phone itself. The phone has a means of notifying silently already. You could also ignore the notifications from the watch thereby justifying the need for the next gadget that costs another $150.
"A new version of MySQL should still be GPL, unless you do a complete rewrite."
No it shouldn't. Even the same version shouldn't be if the licensors don't want it to be. Who cares about the owner's freedoms so long as RMS's are satiated, right?
This just exposes the lie of the GPL...that forcing itself on future software is somehow necessary to protect present interests. Anything released under the GPL will always and forever be released under the GPL. Extending to modifications is overreach to suit an agenda.
What application would a mirroring SSD RAID configuration be "great" for? SSDs do their own "striping" and error correction internally, so what is the failure mode that's so important that RAID-10 SSD would be "great"?
I find consistently that people who talk about RAID don't understand RAID, whether its/. or anywhere else. Self-proclaimed IT experts and architects consistently demonstrate this failure as well. Just look at the morons who proclaim RAID-5 to be dead and RAID-6 about to be because disks are too big. It takes an understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and how to use the parts to make a "great" application. Mirroring SSDs is a pretty low bar.
No it doesn't, it just doesn't have the same parts that are being measured in this specific way. All devices, mechanical or electrical, can "wear" out.
It is also important in heavy load applications, which inherently exist in these asinine discussions, to normalize the wear rate of a device to the rate it is handling load. It wouldn't matter if an SSD wore out in 5 years in a given application if a HDD couldn't do the job at all.
"Forget the fact that we invented RAID as a way to mitigate the fact that hard drives are the least reliable part in a computer,.."
"We" didn't "invent RAID", "we" had nothing to do with it. Credit the creators of RAID for what they did. You clearly weren't part of that team.
No, RAID was not invented " to mitigate the fact that hard drives are the least reliable part in a computer". RAID was developed to enable lower cost drives to be useful in higher performance applications. Part of that is the need to use those drives in *quantity*, and it's quantity that causes potential availability problems with data. The "R" in RAID, Redundant, was a consequence of the goal, not the goal itself.
Finally, hard drives are not "the least reliable part in a computer". Far from it.
Spoken like someone with no knowledge or experience with Insteon.
Curious how you think WiFi light bulbs would *reduce* the amount of RF "flying" around compared to Insteon (which would be powerline). Even in RF form Insteon is low power and low range in comparison...oh, and Insteon is "already here" too as are the networked Insteon bulbs. All you need to use them is a switch and a powerline bridge. No big deal.
"The trash can would make a great high end consumer Mac."
That is, in fact, what it is, or at least would be if they'd offer even a single drive bay.
By any traditional definition of "workstation" it is not one. It is no more a workstation than the Mini is. Both need additional products to make them functional as such.
"Not only that, but the new Mac Pro is probably the most original desktop computer design since.. desktop computers were invented."
Really? Because it sure seems derivative to me, and entirely self-serving on Apple's part. It's a disposable appliance with little configurability, serviceability or expandability---just like all of Apple's development for quite a while now. It follows their trend away from "desktop computer design" and it represents THE threat to traditional desktop computing. It does not do what you want it to, it does what Apple wants it to. Other than the shape, it's hard to distinguish it from a game console. Take it or leave it, the Apple way.
If it were square rather than round it could be far more expandable, but then it would be obviously derivative even to people like you.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you've talked yourself into something being 'agile' that's more to your liking. 'Agile' is about being responsive to customer needs; too bad you don't like it.
"Our policy became "all new stuff takes two weeks"."
Sounds like you've really caught the spirit of "Agile". Way to be responsive to the customer!
This shows that problems aren't solved by arbitrary process declarations. People who don't want to understand what's needed won't. There will always be rationalizations for crappy work.
"The sites cannot be directly compared. Reddit is a pure message board, Slashdot a news aggregator."
For sites that can't be directly compared, you sure did a rather direct job.
That's a pretty sad testament for a computer. You meant to say something positive about it but you nailed its unacceptable flaw on the head. Workstations should be suitable for a wide variety of tasks and have long legs.
Most people wouldn't guess that a premier desktop workstation would be disposable by design. Did you ever think that could be why no one guessed?
(a) It's a television and TVs don't use DVI, and
(b) DVI doesn't do 4K anyway.
Why it doesn't include DisplayPort is a better question. It would be nice if more OS'es would support 4K at 30Hz on the interface they DO provide but that's not their fault. What is their fault is the artifacting they produce on the signal they do receive.
This is true. The Seiki 4K is actually 4 smaller panels sandwiched together and you can see the splices. It has awful color and posterizing in dark areas. It has limited refresh which may or may not be a problem (but is a huge problem on OS X) and worst of all, it resamples producing imaging artifacts even when fed a proper resolution signal. It is not suitable for use as a computer monitor.
50" is also too large for the desktop. It's manageable but not ideal. 39" would be better but not if it suffers from all the problems of the 50".
You assume BSD is unhappy with this result. They are not...and the problem isn't MS using BSD's "stuff" and not giving anything back to BSD in return, it's not giving anything to YOU in return. BSD got precisely what they wanted in that transaction, you didn't.
Usually when you find an Apple-related comment this ignorant its from a pro-Apple perspective.
"Thankfully Jobs does not have to live with the consequences of this...as he died..."
You're not only a fool but an asshole.
"That's why we have Linux."
That's an absurd and meaningless statement. It may be valuable, but it's not "why" and you don't speak for everyone. There are others whose opinions are far more principal to that question than yours.
"I have no objection to protocol experiments..."
What a relief! Google can go ahead on now that it has your blessing.
"But we can give you a significant number of users..."
Because they are yours to give?
If there's one thing you make clear here, Bruce Perens, it's conceit.
Sounds like neither of you are worth having. Your co-worker for never writing anything of quality and you for never writing anything at all.
"what gcc will do if you multiply two uint64_t values"
stop doing that then.
"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project."
You should read what the FSF says about that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
"Moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary is very much not in the spirit of the GPL."
But it is in the spirit of hypocrisy. Oh, you actually wrote the code? Well, I'm going to tell you what to do with it anyway.
People who own the copyright get to do as they please, as GPL people are so fond of pointing out when it suits their interests. Don't like it? Write your own.
"The GPL is all about preserving access to code."
No it's not, it's about something else entirely. Otherwise, Tivo-ization would not be an issue.
GPLv3 addresses Tivo-ization not to preserve access to code but to gain access to hardware. You have to give me what I say or you can't play with my toys. It's not about free code, it's about RMS getting what he wants. It's always been about that.
"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, ..."
It would if RMS got his way. RMS once asserted that including a header file was sufficient. You are in need of an education, your ideology doesn't match reality.
If you want to talk about preserving access to code, the BSD license does that directly. Once released, code under that license is accessible for eternity. Can't get any better than that. It's not good enough for GPL people because they want the license to control what happens to FUTURE code, and increasingly to the future hardware that runs it. It's not about code, it's about getting everything in the future for free as well.
The world as we know it might not even exist without Alan Turing. His contributions went well beyond computer science.
"$150 for a device that means I don't miss calls / txts when out because I didn't hear it go off / was listening to music at the time?"
Except that it doesn't do this unless you use it in a way that enables those notifications...which you could simply do with the phone itself. The phone has a means of notifying silently already. You could also ignore the notifications from the watch thereby justifying the need for the next gadget that costs another $150.
"Ah, the good old "it doesn't happen to me, he's a liar" reasoning. ...Rates that that drive me crazy don't drive everyone else crazy."
Ah, the good old "I am special" reasoning.
"A new version of MySQL should still be GPL, unless you do a complete rewrite."
No it shouldn't. Even the same version shouldn't be if the licensors don't want it to be. Who cares about the owner's freedoms so long as RMS's are satiated, right?
This just exposes the lie of the GPL...that forcing itself on future software is somehow necessary to protect present interests. Anything released under the GPL will always and forever be released under the GPL. Extending to modifications is overreach to suit an agenda.
What application would a mirroring SSD RAID configuration be "great" for? SSDs do their own "striping" and error correction internally, so what is the failure mode that's so important that RAID-10 SSD would be "great"?
I find consistently that people who talk about RAID don't understand RAID, whether its /. or anywhere else. Self-proclaimed IT experts and architects consistently demonstrate this failure as well. Just look at the morons who proclaim RAID-5 to be dead and RAID-6 about to be because disks are too big. It takes an understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and how to use the parts to make a "great" application. Mirroring SSDs is a pretty low bar.
You are a custom PC builder that promotes OCZ? I guess that's how the bell curve gets filled out.
After you use one, you'll understand why you are wrong.
"An HDD has infinite endurance."
No it doesn't, it just doesn't have the same parts that are being measured in this specific way. All devices, mechanical or electrical, can "wear" out.
It is also important in heavy load applications, which inherently exist in these asinine discussions, to normalize the wear rate of a device to the rate it is handling load. It wouldn't matter if an SSD wore out in 5 years in a given application if a HDD couldn't do the job at all.
"Forget the fact that we invented RAID as a way to mitigate the fact that hard drives are the least reliable part in a computer,.."
"We" didn't "invent RAID", "we" had nothing to do with it. Credit the creators of RAID for what they did. You clearly weren't part of that team.
No, RAID was not invented " to mitigate the fact that hard drives are the least reliable part in a computer". RAID was developed to enable lower cost drives to be useful in higher performance applications. Part of that is the need to use those drives in *quantity*, and it's quantity that causes potential availability problems with data. The "R" in RAID, Redundant, was a consequence of the goal, not the goal itself.
Finally, hard drives are not "the least reliable part in a computer". Far from it.
Spoken like someone with no knowledge or experience with Insteon.
Curious how you think WiFi light bulbs would *reduce* the amount of RF "flying" around compared to Insteon (which would be powerline). Even in RF form Insteon is low power and low range in comparison...oh, and Insteon is "already here" too as are the networked Insteon bulbs. All you need to use them is a switch and a powerline bridge. No big deal.
"The trash can would make a great high end consumer Mac."
That is, in fact, what it is, or at least would be if they'd offer even a single drive bay.
By any traditional definition of "workstation" it is not one. It is no more a workstation than the Mini is. Both need additional products to make them functional as such.
"Not only that, but the new Mac Pro is probably the most original desktop computer design since.. desktop computers were invented."
Really? Because it sure seems derivative to me, and entirely self-serving on Apple's part. It's a disposable appliance with little configurability, serviceability or expandability---just like all of Apple's development for quite a while now. It follows their trend away from "desktop computer design" and it represents THE threat to traditional desktop computing. It does not do what you want it to, it does what Apple wants it to. Other than the shape, it's hard to distinguish it from a game console. Take it or leave it, the Apple way.
If it were square rather than round it could be far more expandable, but then it would be obviously derivative even to people like you.