That's an elegant metaphor, but someone has misled you.
An algorithm is a precise specification of a process
whose outcome is defined by the initial conditions. To cite
your example, quicksort is an algorithm -- the outcome of the
sorting process is well defined, given the inputs.
But typical implementations of quicksort use a heuristic
to choose the pivot element -- median of three, media of five, middle
element, etc. These are heuristics because their goal is to choose
the median value, but they can't make any guarantee that it will find the
median. They can't even guarantee that they will find a good value. In fact,
they generally don't even consider all of their inputs! They could choose
bad values every time... but on average they don't, and quicksort is fast.
Another way of looking at it is that if an algorithm is correct, it
will produce a correct answer for all valid inputs. A heuristic might
produce incorrect answers for valid inputs, but it's correct often enough
so that it might still be worth using -- especially if a correct algorithm
is not known.
You may point out that randomized algorithms have a similar property --
but the difference is that with randomized algorithms the probability of
error can be made arbitrarily small. With heuristics, there's no telling.
Then we went back on Apollo missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
We would have been back for Apollo 13 also, but there were
equipment problems that were not detected until after launch.
I calculate we've been back five times. You might have a
different way of calculating.
By my calculation, by the time the Chinese
make it to the moon for the first time,
we'll have already been back to
the moon five times. Been there, done that,
brought back rocks.
Of course, it's a question who will be
the first to get back the sixth time.
The patent protection only works if the patent applies.
There's so much posturing here that it's hard to tell what
each side really wants out of this. NetApp has stated that they
have no quarrel with people who are using ZFS. Their beef is with
Sun for giving away something that Sun doesn't own. That seems like
a reasonable position, and they're willing to put their money where
their mouth is and put it to the courts to decide.
Regarding ZFS adoption... I've heard of people playing with it.
But outside of marketing literature, I have yet to run across a
deployment of ZFS in a Fortune 500 datacenter. Sun servers, yes.
Sun storage, nope. Not for years.
What if Sun infringes the patents?
If the courts find this to be the case, then they'll have to pay.
My guess is that they'll settle long before then, however, because
Sun really looks bad here. When their own engineers publicly acknowledge
that they knowingly copied patented ideas from WAFL, it seems like they're
in a rather weak position. But IANAL. (and neither are you...)
How would this affect the CDDL?
This has nothing to do with the CDDL.
In Europe?
Huh?
The FUD created probably slows ZFS adoption at least in the US.
It's hard to slow something down that doesn't appear to be moving.
A lot of NetApp engineers are posting on this subject and defending their company with spreading FUDD.
Thank goodness nobody from Sun would ever think of spreading FUDD!
Sorry, haven't really noticed. Other than a lot of people who haven't even read the entire summary, much less
the deposition, most people seem to be trying to keep things rational.
According to the filing, this dispute originated with a claim by StorageTek,
which was later bought by Sun (and Sun decided to continue to claim). Tracing
the timeline, it's clear that Sun was trying to squeeze money out of NetApp before
ZFS ever shipped.
It's also alledged, in the filing, that NetApp is more concerned about the
fact that Sun is giving away ZFS and its snapshot IP, which NetApp claims are its
own. NetApp was OK with letting ZFS use this technology, but not with Sun giving
it away to everyone else via OpenSolaris.
I'm interested finding out more about how bullet time
appeared in earlier cinema, but I think there must be
a typo in your link because the Zoopraxiscope has nothing
whatsoever to do with bullet time. Please post the
correct link.
Nah, that was years ago. That sound you're
hearing is the scraping of desperate fingernails
on the bedrock far below where the barely-remembered
barrel used to be.
For all their foibles, the telcos are regulated, at
least in some sense of the word -- either by laws or by
competition. Google doesn't like laws or competition.
They'd love to acquire another monopoly they can leverage.
I guess if you don't understand the math behind Google's pagerank then you might be unimformed enough to buy into the idea that people can "guide" you through billions of pieces of data...that are constantly changing.
I guess if you don't understand the math behind Google's pagerandk then you might be uninformed enough to
not know that this is exactly what pagerank does!
People make decisions about what to link to what, and what to click on... and pagerank just observes
and later regurgitates this info.
I've always been fuzzy on where z/OS ends and z/VM begins,
so you're probably right, but the point remains the same --
this isn't about Linux, it's about something that starts with
a "z".
I was hoping for some insight into the
interesting interfaces. What I saw was a
description that seems to apply equally well
to anything UNIXy post BSD 4.3. (except for
the fawning over the GNU stuff, of course.)
Disappointing.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I can't upload HoTCS, and I doubt you have a copy sitt, but the following links might be useful.
That's an elegant metaphor, but someone has misled you.
An algorithm is a precise specification of a process whose outcome is defined by the initial conditions. To cite your example, quicksort is an algorithm -- the outcome of the sorting process is well defined, given the inputs.
But typical implementations of quicksort use a heuristic to choose the pivot element -- median of three, media of five, middle element, etc. These are heuristics because their goal is to choose the median value, but they can't make any guarantee that it will find the median. They can't even guarantee that they will find a good value. In fact, they generally don't even consider all of their inputs! They could choose bad values every time... but on average they don't, and quicksort is fast.
Another way of looking at it is that if an algorithm is correct, it will produce a correct answer for all valid inputs. A heuristic might produce incorrect answers for valid inputs, but it's correct often enough so that it might still be worth using -- especially if a correct algorithm is not known.
You may point out that randomized algorithms have a similar property -- but the difference is that with randomized algorithms the probability of error can be made arbitrarily small. With heuristics, there's no telling.
Sheesh! Someone needs to spend some time with a dictionary.
If only we could have a gradual (or sudden) awareness of the power of heuristics and modeling ...
Did this story get caught in a time warp, or is the poster simply an Eclipse shill (and not a particularly good one)?
Eclipse has worked for years on OS X. So, for that matter, has NetBeans. They're both cross-platform and always have been.
We went there first in the Apollo 11 mission.
Then we went back on Apollo missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. We would have been back for Apollo 13 also, but there were equipment problems that were not detected until after launch.
I calculate we've been back five times. You might have a different way of calculating.
By my calculation, by the time the Chinese make it to the moon for the first time, we'll have already been back to the moon five times. Been there, done that, brought back rocks.
Of course, it's a question who will be the first to get back the sixth time.
Actually, it's fairly well known to suck as a learning language.
Or at least some people think so.
No.
And where have you been living for the past twenty years or so, that this is still a question in your mind? I ask because I'd like to live there...
There's so much posturing here that it's hard to tell what each side really wants out of this. NetApp has stated that they have no quarrel with people who are using ZFS. Their beef is with Sun for giving away something that Sun doesn't own. That seems like a reasonable position, and they're willing to put their money where their mouth is and put it to the courts to decide.
Regarding ZFS adoption... I've heard of people playing with it. But outside of marketing literature, I have yet to run across a deployment of ZFS in a Fortune 500 datacenter. Sun servers, yes. Sun storage, nope. Not for years.
It's hard to slow something down that doesn't appear to be moving.
A lot of NetApp engineers are posting on this subject and defending their company with spreading FUDD.
Thank goodness nobody from Sun would ever think of spreading FUDD!
Sorry, haven't really noticed. Other than a lot of people who haven't even read the entire summary, much less the deposition, most people seem to be trying to keep things rational.
Nobody is claiming that NetApp invented snapshots. Well, nobody sane.
What NetApp did patent is a really elegant and efficient way to implement snapshots.
Read the patents ...
According to the filing, this dispute originated with a claim by StorageTek, which was later bought by Sun (and Sun decided to continue to claim). Tracing the timeline, it's clear that Sun was trying to squeeze money out of NetApp before ZFS ever shipped.
It's also alledged, in the filing, that NetApp is more concerned about the fact that Sun is giving away ZFS and its snapshot IP, which NetApp claims are its own. NetApp was OK with letting ZFS use this technology, but not with Sun giving it away to everyone else via OpenSolaris.
I'm interested finding out more about how bullet time appeared in earlier cinema, but I think there must be a typo in your link because the Zoopraxiscope has nothing whatsoever to do with bullet time. Please post the correct link.
If there is one.
Let's put a note on our calendars to touch base in one year and see how it plays out.
Nah, that was years ago. That sound you're hearing is the scraping of desperate fingernails on the bedrock far below where the barely-remembered barrel used to be.
For all their foibles, the telcos are regulated, at least in some sense of the word -- either by laws or by competition. Google doesn't like laws or competition. They'd love to acquire another monopoly they can leverage.
I guess if you don't understand the math behind Google's pagerank then you might be unimformed enough to buy into the idea that people can "guide" you through billions of pieces of data...that are constantly changing.
I guess if you don't understand the math behind Google's pagerandk then you might be uninformed enough to not know that this is exactly what pagerank does!
People make decisions about what to link to what, and what to click on... and pagerank just observes and later regurgitates this info.
I've always been fuzzy on where z/OS ends and z/VM begins, so you're probably right, but the point remains the same -- this isn't about Linux, it's about something that starts with a "z".
The story here is about consolidation, virtualization, etc.
Linux is a small part of the technology involved here. z/OS is the real story here.
What TFA neglects to mention is that there's
no record of any recent earthquakes in the area,
nor are there any holes in the ground.
So the word "mystery" seems about right.
Indeed.
I was hoping for some insight into the interesting interfaces. What I saw was a description that seems to apply equally well to anything UNIXy post BSD 4.3. (except for the fawning over the GNU stuff, of course.) Disappointing.
From the headline, I thought that creationism had ended and someone had put up a museum so we would never forget or repeat the blunders of the past.
No such luck.
Nobody who saw the 20' high meat-eating monster lived long enough to paint a picture. Hard to paint whilst being digested.
Gee, maybe this creationism stuff is logically consistent.
Nah, just kidding.