What I find interesting is that "computer systems" i.e. networks, disk drives, files, etc. ae well understood by us computer folk. What is "obvious" to us has come from a lot of experience and learning. More over, in constructing things like the internet, we develop a lot of "rules" that make sense within this context.
In the non-nerd world, a lot of the rules created by us nerds run afoul of what most people expect. DNS is a perfect example. To us, it is MADE to serve data. If you put data into DNS, you've made it public. To the rest of the world, however, that doesn't make sense. Its the same issue with HTTP. We see putting stuff on a web site as making it public, but non-nerds see things like deep linking a violation of their site because it does not promote the interaction they expect (viewing ads etc.) and have invested in. To them, you are circumventing their revenue model.
I'm not 100% sure we're 100% right. I don't think we are wrong in our views, but I see the gray area between the two.
Cool! I'm a photog as well. In fact, back in the '70s (high school) I had my own darkroom. Its funny, I find software developers tend to be "artistic," but it seems to be split between photographers and musicians. Well, dave cutler likes to draw too. Who knows.
Anyway, take a look at PostgreSQL. That's my advice. Also, there are a lot of frameworks out there to put u a photo web site. Oh! checkout deviantart.com
Well, PostgreSQL does have ODBC, JDBC, as well as.NET or what ever drivers, but small differences between databases always creep in. MySQL has some very bad non-standard syntax format that creeps in to many projects. You'll see Oracle, MySQL, and "others" and "others" don't always work. It has been my experience that using PostgreSQL, a fair percentage of the time, isn't well supported and esoteric functions of applications don't always work.
I know that it is a generalization, please don't take it as flamebait, but it has been my experience over the years that people supporting MySQL are often clueless about over SQL issues in general.
Sorry about the grammar, I'm distracted while work and trying to post...
I wasn't trying to be a grammar nazi, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
Maybe I'm confused when you say only give lip service to PostgreSQL but fully support MySQL. I assumed you meant support as in able to actually use the two together as opposed to offering to give you customer support.
Exactlyy. The ability to use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL. Most vendors only barely implement a PostgreSQL interface let alone test using it.
Sun doesn't own Tomcat (they do offer their own J2EE stack)
Which is essentially the specification for Tomcat, BTW.
Their all multiple JEE servers supported by multiple vendors, and almost all of them allow you to plug in different db's supported by multiple vendors.
I am having a bit of a problem parsing "Their" in this sentence, neither "There," "they're" seem to fit either. But I am assuming you mean to say: "There are multiple"
This is true, but control over the spec J2EE, the environment (Java), and the leading database (by usage, MySQL), is a huge advantage for Sun and they wouldn't be buying MySQL if it didn't give them an advantage over competition. The question: is their advantage a disadvantage for us?
Also, you say "multiple dbs," I don't agree. Most only support MySQL and/or a few of the big guys like Oracle or MSSQL. I find it difficult to get workable support for PostgreSQL a lot of the time.
Sun also controls the Java specification, but again there are several independent implementations, though here Sun is the dominant player. Sun can't revoke the license it's already given out for these specs, so I don't think there is any worry about their ownership of them.
I think you under estimate flock mentality. If sun changes the spec, and the independent implementations can't because of patents/copyright/etc. than the independents will tend to get less support. We know this is true especially with such a large player.
Yes, but MySQL AB was previously in control of the MySQL database. It's only changing ownership from one corporate entity to another. If it were another company, then maybe I would worry about the future of open-source MySQL, but not with Sun.
That's like saying AMD being bought by Intel is the same as AMD being bought by GE. Corporate motivation is an important aspect of any purchase like this.
Re:It would make MySQL easier to deploy...
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The argument that is basically summed up by "No one got fired for choosing IBM" is why so many companies bloat beyond control. It really is an act of laziness and cowardice.
A good CTO or engineer can research and understand the risks and benefits of using specific technology. A better CTO puts in place risk mitigation, i.e. grow internal talent to handle the new technology.
Having been in the CTO position, and basically following my own advice, I saved my DotCom startup almost $1M dollars on license fees and support contracts. Yes, we went out of business because the business model was flawed, but our technology was on target, did much more than it was expected to, and worked fantastically and because of these steps, we had an extra year that we wouldn't have had otherwise.
This is why small companies are the most innovative.
Correct Sun does not own Tomcat. I did not mean to imply that it does, my bad.
To clearify: Sun does control the J2EE spec from which Tomcat is specified. Sun does control the Java environment. Sun will soon control the MySQL database.
Re:It would make MySQL easier to deploy...
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, having dealt with both MySQL and PostgreSQL for some time, I think MySQL is far more difficult to deploy in a "professional" setting.
MySQL installs really easily AS LONG AS you let it use its defaults. If you wish to install from source with a user other than MySQL and a database location other than $MYSQLHOME/var, it gets to be a pain and there aren't many docs on their site which are clear and easy to find that provide sufficient instruction.
PostgreSQL, on the other hand is fairly simple:
su $DBUSER initdb -D $DBLOCATION pg_ctl -D $DBLOCATION start exit
Violla! done.
Dificult to say...
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
As a long term PostgreSQL proponent, I'm not sure this is good news or bad. Many of the software stacks in open source, regrettably, use only MySQL. This makes it hard for PostgreSQL at times, but it puts the "owners" of MySQL in an excellent position to help some projects while ignoring others.
Sun owns Java. Sun will soon own MySQL. If you have a Tomcat/J2EE environment running open source, you will soon be having to deal with a single vendor with control over your environment, because most systems only give lip service to PostgreSQL but fully support MySQL. Expect the support bills to go up.
On to RedHat and IBM, I think it is time for them to start funding the PostgreSQL project for real. Setup a more corporate entity to guide it and REALLY compensate the guys like Tom, Bruce, et. al. for so much hard work, which IMHO is above and beyond a standard pay check.
The problem with copy protection is that it is totally misunderstood by those attempting to use it. It is 100% perfectly reasonable and possible to prevent a 3rd party from decoding your data. It is 100% unreasonable and impossible to simultaneously allow access to your data and expect it to be impossible to copy. People who use your DVD or music MUST be able to access the data in order to use it. Once you allow access, it is impossible to prevent copying. The mere act of "using" data, at the OS level, is copying the data. Basically, if it can be used, it can be copied.
The impractical part is that this a classic impossible problem but the record and movie companies fail to grasp the simple limitations that facts dictate. It is a classic entropy problem, copying digital data requires almost no resources, therefor it is going to happen. Controlling the copying requires exerting energy and resources. The amount of entropy (copying) if greater than the big companies, even with their considerable resources, can fight.
They need to realize that they can't control copying. They have been trying since the first cassette recorders came out decades ago. Hell, they've been trying since printing presses came out. The trend is, and always has been, to make copying and production easier and cheaper.
The trick is to figure out a new business model. Duh! I'm pretty sure oil lantern produces were fighting tooth and nail against that horrible intellectual property destroying light bulb thing, but that's progress!
But once again, who made Microsoft a monopoly? We, the consumers. 90% of us use Windows. Unless Bill Gates went to the home of every Windows user that you know and held a gun to their head unless they used his products, people CHOSE to give Microsoft THEIR money...Microsoft didn't take it from them, it was given BY them
You really misunderstand what it means to be a monopoly. Consumers had little if any choice in what they wanted to buy. Blackberries only work with Microsoft Exchange. Why? Because Microsoft's monopoly allowed them to set a standard without any industry buy in. Now, they've defined the standard and if blackberry users what to use their email, they best have Windows exchange.
That is how monopolies work. You don't have a choice, you have to buy the monopoly to use something else.
All facetiousness aside, the investors -can- sue the board of directors etc. for malfeasance if M$ does not take every effort to make the maximum possible profit--so that's not really so much 'ethics' as 'staying on the investors' good side'
Well, it seems that a lack of ethics has undone more than one company and harmed its investors. Maybe Microsoft's illegal and unethical maintenance of their monopoly will get them at some point, and their investors will push for more ethical behavior.
And last time I checked, Best Buy, Comcast, and those laptop manufacturers are seperate companies from Microsoft. They could just as easily sell all their computers without Windows.
100% absolutely correct. It is Microsoft MONOPOLY that makes real competition impossible. The barriers to use of another product make it almost impossible to not use Microsoft products.
Of course, the next step in that argument is that no one would buy them. Going along that line of thinking, who is at fault here; Microsoft, or the people and companies that continue to buy and use their products?
"Fault" does not matter. Yes, Microsoft has been found to be illegally maintaining their monopoly, but besides that point, they *are* a monopoly, they *are* harming competition, they *are* eliminating choice.
If you want to say it isn't Microsoft's fault, I disagree, but it is undeniable they are either the cause or benefactor of an anti-competitive environment. We must eliminate the anti-completive environment.
None of your points relate to the monopoly status of Microsoft. If there were valid competition, i.e. vendors *had* to work with standards because those who did not would LOSE business.
Microsoft's monopoly control makes it bad. With greater than 90% of the personal computer market, it does not need to work with others in order to continue to do business. In fact, the normal feedback processes of capitalism are inverted with monopolies. To maintain their position they must push against a level playing field.
The argument "no one forced" the purchase of Microsoft products is patently and provably false. Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing.
Comcast won't support you on a P.C. if you don't use Windows, so you are forced to have a version of Windows in order to get support.
Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation.
Within the bounds of ethics! Microsoft is at a minimum one of the least ethical companies.
On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs, and keeps from being -overtly- anti-competitive--because, let's face it, the maximum possible profit will be made by M$ being a monopoly.
Your "CD delivers a more faithful reproduction of the source audio" is not right either, it's also being remastered towards todays standards where music explodes down your ears.
You are *not* understanding, I have absolutely nothing to say about the various mastering standards, I am saying that audio information is more faithfully reproduced with CDs over of vinyl. What is done before or after, is really not part of the debate, or at least what I am debating.
Yes, of course, the more unadulterated the music is, the better or at least what should be better, and the better way to convey that is a CD.
But ultimately the point of a home stereo is to provide pleasure to the user. If someone says that they enjoy the sound of vinyl more than CDs, who are you or I to tell them that they shouldn't?
I have *never* in any of my posts said that some people don't enjoy vinyl better. That, however, does not make vinyl a better medium through which to store and retrieve audio data. I'm pretty sure that by using an equalizer and noise generator, you can simulate vinyl.
FWIW, I have a stereo that cost me five figures, and I only listen to CDs and FM on it.
Can you honestly claim that it sounds better than something that costs less than $5000? FWIW, my sound system, as configured over the years, probably represents a $3500 purchase today, but I pieced it together based on my room size from a lot of different sources and "last year's models." If I were to have someone put it together new from one source, it would probably cost a lot more.
In order to reasonably reproduce a 20 kHz signal, you'd need at least twice the 44.1 kHz sampling rate
Yes and no. I was working at Brooktree about 20 years ago and we built an arbitrary waveform generator that was able to produce a sine wave more than 4 times the frequency we were able to produce with the generator. We electrically tuned the output to resonate at the frequency we wished to produce, and drove the circuitry at the proper fraction of the frequency we wished to produce. Also, we were able to shape the wave by driving different voltages at different points on the wave form, still below the actual frequency we were trying to produce.
The point of this is that while Nyquist is 100% correct in an abstract, audio doesn't need to be 100% correct, its all an approximation affected by atmospheric pressure, dust, etc. The amount of distortion introduced by vinyl is far more than any affects of the CD.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we made the whole damned ball of wax for our own amusement,
This is a far cry from true. A lot of the things *we* did we did on university, government, and corporate moneys.
What I find interesting is that "computer systems" i.e. networks, disk drives, files, etc. ae well understood by us computer folk. What is "obvious" to us has come from a lot of experience and learning. More over, in constructing things like the internet, we develop a lot of "rules" that make sense within this context.
In the non-nerd world, a lot of the rules created by us nerds run afoul of what most people expect. DNS is a perfect example. To us, it is MADE to serve data. If you put data into DNS, you've made it public. To the rest of the world, however, that doesn't make sense. Its the same issue with HTTP. We see putting stuff on a web site as making it public, but non-nerds see things like deep linking a violation of their site because it does not promote the interaction they expect (viewing ads etc.) and have invested in. To them, you are circumventing their revenue model.
I'm not 100% sure we're 100% right. I don't think we are wrong in our views, but I see the gray area between the two.
Cool! I'm a photog as well. In fact, back in the '70s (high school) I had my own darkroom. Its funny, I find software developers tend to be "artistic," but it seems to be split between photographers and musicians. Well, dave cutler likes to draw too. Who knows.
Anyway, take a look at PostgreSQL. That's my advice. Also, there are a lot of frameworks out there to put u a photo web site. Oh! checkout deviantart.com
Well, PostgreSQL does have ODBC, JDBC, as well as .NET or what ever drivers, but small differences between databases always creep in. MySQL has some very bad non-standard syntax format that creeps in to many projects. You'll see Oracle, MySQL, and "others" and "others" don't always work. It has been my experience that using PostgreSQL, a fair percentage of the time, isn't well supported and esoteric functions of applications don't always work.
I know that it is a generalization, please don't take it as flamebait, but it has been my experience over the years that people supporting MySQL are often clueless about over SQL issues in general.
Yes I know they are employed, but it would be good for the core guys to get some stupid money for their years of work and dedication. Don't you think?
Sorry about the grammar, I'm distracted while work and trying to post...
I wasn't trying to be a grammar nazi, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
Maybe I'm confused when you say only give lip service to PostgreSQL but fully support MySQL. I assumed you meant support as in able to actually use the two together as opposed to offering to give you customer support.
Exactlyy. The ability to use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL. Most vendors only barely implement a PostgreSQL interface let alone test using it.
Sun doesn't own Tomcat (they do offer their own J2EE stack)
Which is essentially the specification for Tomcat, BTW.
Their all multiple JEE servers supported by multiple vendors, and almost all of them allow you to plug in different db's supported by multiple vendors.
I am having a bit of a problem parsing "Their" in this sentence, neither "There," "they're" seem to fit either. But I am assuming you mean to say: "There are multiple"
This is true, but control over the spec J2EE, the environment (Java), and the leading database (by usage, MySQL), is a huge advantage for Sun and they wouldn't be buying MySQL if it didn't give them an advantage over competition. The question: is their advantage a disadvantage for us?
Also, you say "multiple dbs," I don't agree. Most only support MySQL and/or a few of the big guys like Oracle or MSSQL. I find it difficult to get workable support for PostgreSQL a lot of the time.
Sun also controls the Java specification, but again there are several independent implementations, though here Sun is the dominant player. Sun can't revoke the license it's already given out for these specs, so I don't think there is any worry about their ownership of them.
I think you under estimate flock mentality. If sun changes the spec, and the independent implementations can't because of patents/copyright/etc. than the independents will tend to get less support. We know this is true especially with such a large player.
Yes, but MySQL AB was previously in control of the MySQL database. It's only changing ownership from one corporate entity to another. If it were another company, then maybe I would worry about the future of open-source MySQL, but not with Sun.
That's like saying AMD being bought by Intel is the same as AMD being bought by GE. Corporate motivation is an important aspect of any purchase like this.
The argument that is basically summed up by "No one got fired for choosing IBM" is why so many companies bloat beyond control. It really is an act of laziness and cowardice.
A good CTO or engineer can research and understand the risks and benefits of using specific technology. A better CTO puts in place risk mitigation, i.e. grow internal talent to handle the new technology.
Having been in the CTO position, and basically following my own advice, I saved my DotCom startup almost $1M dollars on license fees and support contracts. Yes, we went out of business because the business model was flawed, but our technology was on target, did much more than it was expected to, and worked fantastically and because of these steps, we had an extra year that we wouldn't have had otherwise.
This is why small companies are the most innovative.
Correct Sun does not own Tomcat. I did not mean to imply that it does, my bad.
To clearify: Sun does control the J2EE spec from which Tomcat is specified. Sun does control the Java environment. Sun will soon control the MySQL database.
Sorry, having dealt with both MySQL and PostgreSQL for some time, I think MySQL is far more difficult to deploy in a "professional" setting.
MySQL installs really easily AS LONG AS you let it use its defaults. If you wish to install from source with a user other than MySQL and a database location other than $MYSQLHOME/var, it gets to be a pain and there aren't many docs on their site which are clear and easy to find that provide sufficient instruction.
PostgreSQL, on the other hand is fairly simple:
su $DBUSER
initdb -D $DBLOCATION
pg_ctl -D $DBLOCATION start
exit
Violla! done.
As a long term PostgreSQL proponent, I'm not sure this is good news or bad. Many of the software stacks in open source, regrettably, use only MySQL. This makes it hard for PostgreSQL at times, but it puts the "owners" of MySQL in an excellent position to help some projects while ignoring others.
Sun owns Java. Sun will soon own MySQL. If you have a Tomcat/J2EE environment running open source, you will soon be having to deal with a single vendor with control over your environment, because most systems only give lip service to PostgreSQL but fully support MySQL. Expect the support bills to go up.
On to RedHat and IBM, I think it is time for them to start funding the PostgreSQL project for real. Setup a more corporate entity to guide it and REALLY compensate the guys like Tom, Bruce, et. al. for so much hard work, which IMHO is above and beyond a standard pay check.
Nothing to add, but lets just say my imagination had more resolution than my HDTV.
The problem with copy protection is that it is totally misunderstood by those attempting to use it. It is 100% perfectly reasonable and possible to prevent a 3rd party from decoding your data. It is 100% unreasonable and impossible to simultaneously allow access to your data and expect it to be impossible to copy. People who use your DVD or music MUST be able to access the data in order to use it. Once you allow access, it is impossible to prevent copying. The mere act of "using" data, at the OS level, is copying the data. Basically, if it can be used, it can be copied.
The impractical part is that this a classic impossible problem but the record and movie companies fail to grasp the simple limitations that facts dictate. It is a classic entropy problem, copying digital data requires almost no resources, therefor it is going to happen. Controlling the copying requires exerting energy and resources. The amount of entropy (copying) if greater than the big companies, even with their considerable resources, can fight.
They need to realize that they can't control copying. They have been trying since the first cassette recorders came out decades ago. Hell, they've been trying since printing presses came out. The trend is, and always has been, to make copying and production easier and cheaper.
The trick is to figure out a new business model. Duh! I'm pretty sure oil lantern produces were fighting tooth and nail against that horrible intellectual property destroying light bulb thing, but that's progress!
ranted you said PCs, but I say that's an irrelevant distinction in this case
No, that is PRECISELY the distinction.
But once again, who made Microsoft a monopoly? We, the consumers. 90% of us use Windows. Unless Bill Gates went to the home of every Windows user that you know and held a gun to their head unless they used his products, people CHOSE to give Microsoft THEIR money...Microsoft didn't take it from them, it was given BY them
You really misunderstand what it means to be a monopoly. Consumers had little if any choice in what they wanted to buy. Blackberries only work with Microsoft Exchange. Why? Because Microsoft's monopoly allowed them to set a standard without any industry buy in. Now, they've defined the standard and if blackberry users what to use their email, they best have Windows exchange.
That is how monopolies work. You don't have a choice, you have to buy the monopoly to use something else.
So what is your definition of a PC laptop then?
The canonical name "P.C." brings with it BIOS compatibility, ability to boot of standard boot sectors.
All facetiousness aside, the investors -can- sue the board of directors etc. for malfeasance if M$ does not take every effort to make the maximum possible profit--so that's not really so much 'ethics' as 'staying on the investors' good side'
Well, it seems that a lack of ethics has undone more than one company and harmed its investors. Maybe Microsoft's illegal and unethical maintenance of their monopoly will get them at some point, and their investors will push for more ethical behavior.
Just so you know, that is not a P.C. laptop, it is a Macintosh, but you knew that.
And last time I checked, Best Buy, Comcast, and those laptop manufacturers are seperate companies from Microsoft. They could just as easily sell all their computers without Windows.
100% absolutely correct. It is Microsoft MONOPOLY that makes real competition impossible. The barriers to use of another product make it almost impossible to not use Microsoft products.
Of course, the next step in that argument is that no one would buy them. Going along that line of thinking, who is at fault here; Microsoft, or the people and companies that continue to buy and use their products?
"Fault" does not matter. Yes, Microsoft has been found to be illegally maintaining their monopoly, but besides that point, they *are* a monopoly, they *are* harming competition, they *are* eliminating choice.
If you want to say it isn't Microsoft's fault, I disagree, but it is undeniable they are either the cause or benefactor of an anti-competitive environment. We must eliminate the anti-completive environment.
None of your points relate to the monopoly status of Microsoft. If there were valid competition, i.e. vendors *had* to work with standards because those who did not would LOSE business.
Microsoft's monopoly control makes it bad. With greater than 90% of the personal computer market, it does not need to work with others in order to continue to do business. In fact, the normal feedback processes of capitalism are inverted with monopolies. To maintain their position they must push against a level playing field.
The argument "no one forced" the purchase of Microsoft products is patently and provably false. Go to Best Buy or Staples and buy a P.C. laptop without Windows. Just go ahead and try. The barriers put in the way are amazing.
Comcast won't support you on a P.C. if you don't use Windows, so you are forced to have a version of Windows in order to get support.
coercion is a form of force.
Microsoft has a bit of a juggling act to do. On one hand, they're bound to make the maximum possible profit for their investors as a corporation.
Within the bounds of ethics! Microsoft is at a minimum one of the least ethical companies.
On the other side, they have to do so in a way that keeps various governments off their backs, and keeps from being -overtly- anti-competitive--because, let's face it, the maximum possible profit will be made by M$ being a monopoly.
Ummm, that's ethics as well.
Your "CD delivers a more faithful reproduction of the source audio" is not right either, it's also being remastered towards todays standards where music explodes down your ears.
You are *not* understanding, I have absolutely nothing to say about the various mastering standards, I am saying that audio information is more faithfully reproduced with CDs over of vinyl. What is done before or after, is really not part of the debate, or at least what I am debating.
Yes, of course, the more unadulterated the music is, the better or at least what should be better, and the better way to convey that is a CD.
But ultimately the point of a home stereo is to provide pleasure to the user. If someone says that they enjoy the sound of vinyl more than CDs, who are you or I to tell them that they shouldn't?
I have *never* in any of my posts said that some people don't enjoy vinyl better. That, however, does not make vinyl a better medium through which to store and retrieve audio data. I'm pretty sure that by using an equalizer and noise generator, you can simulate vinyl.
FWIW, I have a stereo that cost me five figures, and I only listen to CDs and FM on it.
Can you honestly claim that it sounds better than something that costs less than $5000? FWIW, my sound system, as configured over the years, probably represents a $3500 purchase today, but I pieced it together based on my room size from a lot of different sources and "last year's models." If I were to have someone put it together new from one source, it would probably cost a lot more.
In order to reasonably reproduce a 20 kHz signal, you'd need at least twice the 44.1 kHz sampling rate
Yes and no. I was working at Brooktree about 20 years ago and we built an arbitrary waveform generator that was able to produce a sine wave more than 4 times the frequency we were able to produce with the generator. We electrically tuned the output to resonate at the frequency we wished to produce, and drove the circuitry at the proper fraction of the frequency we wished to produce. Also, we were able to shape the wave by driving different voltages at different points on the wave form, still below the actual frequency we were trying to produce.
The point of this is that while Nyquist is 100% correct in an abstract, audio doesn't need to be 100% correct, its all an approximation affected by atmospheric pressure, dust, etc. The amount of distortion introduced by vinyl is far more than any affects of the CD.