Most developers should do their job faster and with better quality and stop arguing with their Product Managers.
Well, Devs *should* argue for things that need to be in there, but yes they should also be professional enough to do what is required to make the product available to customers (certified and all). However, a PM also needs to find a way to make everything fit within the guidelines. It may be that a given feature the PM is arguing for breaks something else that is also extremely important. Thereby if the PM doesn't have a development background then they too are dysfunctional and only being a hindrance to the team and product.
Either way, professionalism goes both way. Work with the team to make the feature some feasible for the product.
How many house fires start because of the roof catching fire? Seems pretty unlikely for freestanding structures...
A massive shitload, actually. It's unusual for it to happen to one house, but it's very common for it to happen to a whole bunch of houses during a general conflagration. During forest fires, it's not unusual for burning debris to be thrown for miles
In areas where such things are common (South West US, California, Eastern Washington) I could probably agree. But they are not common in most of the US.
Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android"... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.
Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explicit about the details.
The question is if the distributed Wix mobile app linked to the GPL code. If it's linked, then you also need to post the source code to the Wix mobile app.
That said, I opened up Wix's GitHub site, did a search for "word" and found 3 repos - 2 were forks, and the third is likely the project in question. Analyzing that third project (licensed under a MIT permissive license) - it's got some Java (Android) and Objective C (iOS) code; and I think you'd be hard pressed to call it linking by any form. Both rely on a third party parser to do the JavaScript interactions (as applicable for each OS) using WordPress JS API names for sake of the parser and interfacing appropriately there. So it's very likely in that gray area of controversy - an area not well covered by the GPL or community norms; and the App store policies don't help matters at all either.
t's to cover proprietary apps using GPL dynamic libraries loaded at run time. Otherwise developers could use GPL code in their proprietary apps by just compiling it into a DLL rather than statically linking at compile time.
Admittedly even Rosen - one of the authors - admits there is a gray area regarding linking and where the boundary falls. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works)
Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not?
Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.
Actually you may be surprised. The Assets may not get covered by the GPL at all; they're probably better licensed under the FDL (Free Documentation License) which is meant to cover non-source material. GPL doesn't cover everything that goes with a program.
>Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
Actually it absolutely IS what matters - which is EXACTLY why THAT is where the GPL draws the line - because it's where the LAW and Court Precedent has drawn the line. Because once the code shares a memory-space, it becomes part of the same greater whole - and THAT is legally a derivate work. If, at no point, do the two pieces of code combine into one thing - then it's not a derivative work - just two programs which coexist and copyright does not apply to that.
Shared Objects (*.so) (dynamic linking) on Linux do not necessarily share the *same* memory space when loaded for use by a program - especially with the Automatic Random Address Loading that has been happening of late to increase security . Focusing on memory space is a misnomer that will not get you very far.
Now, Windows provides an interesting case as it has two types of Dynamic Linking - one which operates identical to the Shared Objects on Linux/Unix, and another that makes a dependency on the associated DLL. The hard dependency on the DLL probably will be triggered more like a Static Link, but it can be quite murky.
So again, you're left with the questions of: (a) is the library essential for the software to run? (b) can it be replaced without modification?
That is, if you didn't have the library at all, would the program still work on its own - possibly in a degraded state? If so, then it's non-essential and not a derivative work. This is how most plug-in style programs function, and thereby a GPL plug-in for a non-GPL-compatible program doesn't affect the main program.
And if you can replace the library without modifying the program then you are solely dependent upon the API. Some communities are okay with that kind of linking without requiring the same license, some are not.
Of course, devs are best to make sure any library is LGPL instead of GPL and you get around a lot of things. Very few libraries are solely GPL or AGPL for exactly that reason.
AFAIK they have only ever delivered Linux-based devices.
As far as I know, no Linux based devices look 100% identical to a Windows CE desktop which is what ended up on my Tomtom one day. I already said it's no longer a current device (because quite frankly who buys a dedicated GPS anymore).
Model please.
As I said, TomTom has been an exclusive Linux-based device manufacturer for >10 years. So either you bought something that isn't really a TomTom (fake) or you have a device so ancient it's not worth bringing up.
Linux actually runs on a lot of stuff you wouldn't even imagine it runs on - and the devices are not slow.
I'm sure it does. But it also doesn't run on a whole heap of devices you imagine it runs on. Point is. The entire world isn't Linux, and there's a shitload of custom code out there, far more than the GP implied.
But it sure runs a whole lot more than you think it does. It's pretty much the backbone of the world right now.
That's not to say custom OSes and code, etc don't come into play - they do; but >5/10 times it'll be Linux; the rest split between QNX, Firmware only systems, VxWorks, Windows Embedded (WinCE/Phone/Embedded/etc - the 10 different brands MS has for the market), IOS (not iOS), and Custom Code. The majority of that you'll also likely find an SSH or Telnet server with BusyBox box behind it.
And, FYI, almost no one writes their own OS for embedded any more; you typically will only see that in Firmware only systems; everything else uses something that already exists, and Linux is the cheapest solution that it most easily ported or more likely already is ported, so minimal work to get moving and release a product. (Note: In these markets it is the same level of effort for getting a commercial OS like Windows or QNX to work as it is to write any required Linux drivers; so there is no difference in required dev time, but there is in the required license expenditures. Support costs are generally equal too. So all-in-all, Linux does end up being cheaper.)
So Microsoft wasn't late to the market. They were right there at the beginning of the smartphone market and had ample opportunity to dominate it. They just blew it. I suspect someone high up in their management chain, maybe even Gates himself, didn't believe this phone-PDA convergence was going to happen.
Very much agree. Microsoft's Vision - from Gates and through Ballmer - was Windows Desktop on everything. They executed their vision very well. It's just that it wasn't what their customers wanted and they were pig headed enough that they refused (still refuse?) to change to something that customers actually wanted.
Windows actually. My last Tomtom crashed spectacularly to a CE desktop. Admittedly that was a while ago.
As pointed out, TomTom is a Linux-based GPS; AFAIK they have only ever delivered Linux-based devices. So you're probably confusing your devices, or you had a really really old TomTom that is nothing like their products over the last 10+ years, but I highly doubt that. (FWIW, TomTom made the news back in the early 2000's b/c MS sued them over FAT FS patents since they used Linux and a FAT/vFAT FS.)
cameras
Mostly just a bit of custom code, unless you count that one camera Samsung made that runs Android, but then you should also count that camera with a Gigapixel sensor that runs full blow Windows 7 on it.
routers, set top boxes
Yep and yep.
thermostats
Errr nope.
wrist watches
Errr what?
Look there's a lot of things in Linux, but don't pretend it's on every device in the house. There's an awful lot of custom code out there and for many of the above if they are running on Linux it's typically the type of device you end up throwing away because it's slow and clunky to use (though no where near as slow as it would be running on Windows, and no prizes for guessing why I don't use that old Tomtom anymore)
Linux actually runs on a lot of stuff you wouldn't even imagine it runs on - and the devices are not slow. The majority of set-top boxes now run Linux; there's a lot of "smart" devices (refrigerators, microwaves, etc) that run Linux. Many of these same devices also use Qt - which has an extremely presence in the embedded world (go figure).
Now, while those devices may run Linux they don't necessarily run it in the same way you think. They might run a minimal (f.e busybox) or custom user land that may not resemble anything you would think of as Linux.
More to the point, Microsoft never sticks to a product line long enough to warrant investment in it.
True.
Microsoft had the leading smartphone OS before it was called a smartphone (remember PocketPC's ?), before RIM's blackberry became the de-facto business device.
False. PocketPC was a desktop clone for small device form factors that sucked so bad it was hilarious. Sure if you wanted Win95/NT4 on a phone it'd have been great...but then, you had to use a stylus to do anything as that was your mouse, and it required a full keyboard. Could it be considered a Smart Phone? Yes, but it absolutely sucked and never really had a very big market share - no where near majority by any means.
Palm and then RIM won b/c they actually did stuff the user cared about in easy to use manners.
Google set their eyes specifically on overtaking RIM and Apple came up and offered something compelling that wasn't a stuffy old blackberry clone.
Yes, Google and Apple aimed at displacing RIM b/c RIM was the de facto standard for anything more than a basic cell phone. If you wanted email, you got a Blackberry. RIM would probably still be a leader in the market if they hadn't screwed up with a highly centralized network design and had a 1 week network outage - which led to a lot of execs getting iPhones and demanding that their IT departments integrate the iPhone so they could use it; both Apple and Google exploited that, though Apple was the clear winner having a superior and flashier product that the Exec's loved.
The end result is that Apple is the Market Leader for the Smartphone, if you're not doing it Apple's way, you are doing it wrong. Google recognized that and changed Android from knocking off Blackberry to knocking off iOS, Nokia meanwhile kept on trucking out phones that appealed to people who didn't care about smartphones. Microsoft's killed it's own market share in order to push Windows Phone 7, then 8, and now 10. Each time halving their market share. So they went from 11% in 2001 to 0.7%.
Microsoft screwed up and lost it's foothold in the mobile scene. Had they never dumped the PocketPC, they might be market leaders today.
Well, if Microsoft hadn't abandoned PocketPC (aka Windows Mobile) then yes they'd probably have a bigger market share, but it'd still be a pittance compared to Apple and Google. As I said, PocketPC was basically the Windows Desktop in a small form factor - it would not be able to compete with Android or iOS. It also didn't have updates of any kind - builds were done by hardware vendors (not Microsoft) and there was no AppStore kind of thing for it. What you got when the device shipped is what it had when you retired it.
But that was always the Microsoft motive operandi - everything was focused around the Windows Desktop Environment or was an extension of it. For mobile, they put out PocketPC/WindowsMobile to exand Windows Desktop to mobile/small form factors; they put out Windows Server to push Windows Desktop into the Server Room; then extended Windows Desktop into the XBox to capture game consoles; they put out Windows 10 IoT to capture things like RasperryPi's (accessible and programmable only via Visual Studios, no direct user-interface).
No, Microsoft has not really learned the lesson of the failed Windows Phone experiment - that they won't ever hold the entire market, that people don't want Windows on everything. They're done a bit better with Azure and responding with LInux capabilities on it - but it still runs on top of Windows and all the overhead that incurs.
Since it can't comply with BCP38 without ISP intervention, which most ISPs seem intent on ignoring, I suggest a complete UDP ban. If that means rewriting DNS and NTP, so be it. As for telnet, it can do die in a fire, as any sane person would use SSH.
UDP is used for a lot of stuff - like VOIP and Real-time Streaming (where quality is preferred over quantity - a missing packet doesn't matter as much as getting the general stream), Peer File Sharing (BitTorrent, P2P, etc - quantity of data across a large spread of sources), DNS, and much more. It's literally the back-bone of the Internet.
Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun.
Do you have any idea what kind of energy it takes to send something to the sun? Earth's orbital speed is around 70,000 mph, that's 70,000 mph you have to decelerate your payload.
Well, we don't really care at what speed it hits the sun at, nor what damage is done to the vessel carrying it. For all that matters it could be a simple slingshot manuever to set it on the right trajectory so the craft could even be re-usable - e.g re-usable stage 1 and 2 rockets to move to orbit (see SpaceX), stage 3 connects to an existing orbiter that then takes its times (6 month? year? doesn't really matter) to set the item on trajectory, and returns. Stage 3 departs from orbiter and without using any extra fuel could make it's way into the sun - really, the sun has this awesome thing called a gravity well, and all you need to do is get the stage 3 section into that gravity well and the sun will do the rest. There's numerous methods to do it, and they're all really cheap from space. (FYI - this is basically how a mass cannon works).
BTW, the orbiter doesn't have to actually enter the gravity well, just be able to set the mass on a trajectory that it could not escape the gravity well.
Speaking of the payload, nuclear waste consists of heavy atoms. Heavier than lead, or gold. Have fun getting that even into earth/sun orbit at an acceptable cost.
1 ton of material is the same regardless of whether it is gold, feathers, or nuclear waste.
But then, who said we had to do it by the ton? We could do it in 50kg blocks for all it matters - or allow the orbiter (see above) to collect several groupings of cheaper payloads to send together.
IOW, this is really a lot cheaper than you think. The biggest cost is raising it to space to start with; and that's probably cheaper than drilling into a mountain every few years to make more capacity for additional nuclear materials, and everything else that goes into it.
Just the deaths per terawatt statistics of nuclear compared to everything else should make people rethink nuclear energy.
I wonder what the world would be like had the 3MI not happened, and Carter's permanent moratorium on new power reactor construction not happened. Energy too cheap to meter, perhaps?
There's been new nuclear plants that have gone online since Carter. It's primarily the EPA, Green Peace, and the liberals that don't want and get in the way of Nuclear - despite it being the safest of all energy technologies, with the fewest injuries/deaths world wide - even when you take into account 3MI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. It's one of those delicious ironies - find something that does what they like, and they'll still find something to complain about in order to reject it.
If, of course, you choose to ignore the tiny little problem of nuclear waste, for which the current policy is "it's not my generation's problem".
Call back when we have viable fusion power.
It's only a problem because we allow it to be one. There are many solutions to the problem...most of the best of which we have said no to for primarily political reasons, namely from the Cold War at that.
We could re-use it for things that have lower fissile material requirements, etc.
Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun. It's not like we don't send nuclear material into space already - most satellites are powered through either solar and/or nuclear, and many deep space satellites are nuclear based. Just saying the argument of "what happens if it explodes and goes across the atmosphere" isn't really a valid argument - and even then, we can manage that if we really wanted (separate capsule, appropriately lined, amount of fissile material allowed per capsule, parachutes, etc).
Part of me thinks the judge made this somewhat out of the box ruling with the intent to push this issue that patent trolls waste millions of dollars on up the court system and see if the Supreme court can make a more universal judgment/precedent. But it begs the question, is the Supreme court technically savvy enough to understand the details of software coding and development?
Considering that the Supreme Court has not actually approved any software patents; only the 10th Federal Circuit Courts (the courts specifically dealing with patents) has approved them. Expect the Circuit Court to overrule this judge; but expect the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling.
Even in the cases where the Supreme Court has ruled on cases involving software, they have either (a) invalidated the patent for some reason other than software (e.g Bilski), or it was not a pure software case and fund that software was only a component of the whole (e.g Deihr); in all such cases the Supreme Court has essentially remained silent on the ability of Software itself to be patented, and has also never upheld a software patent.
And a boat cannot do a damned thing unless it is placed in a river. What does that have to do with anything?
Wrong.
A boat may not be useful without being placed in a body of water (ocean, lake, river, etc); but it can do something.
For instance, you can sit in it; you can run the engine(s) if there any are present; you can move it about using a trailer, fork lift, or other means.
Alternatively, you could throw a party on it - if there is sufficient space, or even live on it - even out of water.
Comparatively, with software if it not compiled for a specific computer, then it is no more useful than a book - you can read it, but it cannot do a thing. Furthermore, software will never flip a bit in a computer processor or RAM (often the terminology used to make software patentable), it can only tell a computer processor to do so.
Noah was born pre-Flood. And if you follow the geneologies, they lifespans increasingly shorten with each successive generation; thus not an immediate effect but something that took a few generations to take in.
Also... the bible is not a trusted reference source. It was written by people who weren't there, repeatedly re-written by people with poor translation skills (not to mention political agendas to achieve). Each new interpretation of "The word of God" heralded as an unchanging, perfect holy text. Codswallop!
Is' generally taken that:
Genesis 1:1-2:2 was God's communication of events to Adam.
Genesis 2:3-4 (at least) were Adam's record.
Genesis 4-9 were Noah's record.
Genesis 10 was a record of Noah's sons.
Genesis 11-25 was the record of Abraham (Abram).
Now keep in mind that per the Genealogical records, Adam knew God, and Adam and Noah's parents would have been able to know Adam; furthermore, Noah would have known Methuselah who would have certainly known Adam. Thereby Genesis 1-9 are fully accountable via eyewitness, the witness of which is likely Enoch who will likely be one of the witness' in Revelations.
Furthermore, again per Genealogical records, Abram as a young man would have been able to know Noah, certainly his father would have been able to. Thereby extending the eyewitness recording through the life of Abram; likewise it can be extended down through Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Joseph - overlapping significantly with records from Egypt for most of the life of Joseph, and therefore verifiable via historic record through events that impacted the whole Mesopotamian Region during that time; likewise the start of the book of Exodus is also historically verifiable through the records of Egypt.
Now, how many of those records have survived since the fir of the Library of Alexandria is a different matter; though they should be able to be verifiable through other historic sources as well.
A hypotheses that goes around some Christan circles is that with the lack of all the extra water in the sky (Gen 1:7) people were exposed to higher levels of radiation (UV, etc). This causing higher mutation/genetic entropy resulting in shorter life spans.
So the Science makes a flawed assumption - that everything today works and looks like it always has. IOW, what we measure today f.e for the barometric pressure was always the barometric pressure on the earth. However, the events of Genesis 6 shows that we cannot necessarily make that assumption - it is likely flawed.
Now as to your reference, Genesis 1 refers the waters above and the waters below, with the waters below being gathered and having set boundaries - oceans, lakes, etc. We're not really told what the waters above were, but they are only referred to again in Genesis 6-9 as the flood starts.
Speculation is:
a barrier of water the surrounded the earth
a higher humidity throughout the entire atmosphere (thus a different barometric pressure, among other things)
Personally, I think it was likely a higher humidity/barometric pressure, and more uniform atmosphere around the entire earth. In either case, it would be hard to determine based on current Scientific methods; and may even be impossible unless someone was actually there to record data.
Funny... refuting chapter 6 with Jeanne Calment living to 122 in contemporary times.
Bases covered, you see.
You should pay attention to that Presley quote in your sig. A better formulation, though, is:
Objective reality is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it isn't going away.
You can quote me if you like.:)
Wrong there too....122 is rounded is 120. So it doesn't refute anything, and you can always look at it as a general average - so expecting that the average would not be able to exceed that. However, even then...122 is an outlier (statistically) and even today the number of people >100 are generally outliers compared to the greater population and that hasn't changed much.
So in all honesty, 122 doesn't refute Genesis Chapter 6; and therefore your reference to 930 years from Genesis 5 when trying to refute Genesis 6 is wholly wrong and without any merit due to basics of frames of reference.
Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years
Yes, sure, that's why Jeanne Calment lived to 122.
Not to mention that whole 930-years thing laid out in chapter five of the Book of Genesis (OT.) But by all means, pick the passages that support the pop culture blather of the day, and ignore the rest.
The Lord is clearly all-powerful... and innumerate. Or dishonest. Or fiction.
Funny...refuting something that occurs in Chapter 6 with information from Chapter 5.
And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.
Noah was born pre-Flood. And if you follow the geneologies, they lifespans increasingly shorten with each successive generation; thus not an immediate effect but something that took a few generations to take in.
So I guess the LORD forgot, eh? And don't forget about Adad, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor and of course Abraham.
Most of those you quote were Pre-Flood; however, that doesn't change the lifespan curve that occurred post flood. Abram (who could have known Noah as their lifetimes slightly overlapped) made it to 175 (Genesis 25:7). Joseph (3 generations later) only made it to 110. Genesis 50:22-26.
As with Death in Genesis 3, the shorted lifespan did not happen immediately. Could it have? Probably, but that would have had several major consequences:
Slower re-population of the earth post-flood
Inability to communicate the past to future generations using eye-witnesses that were able to fully establish what actually happened through numerous generations across the vast majority of the populace.
This will certainly save a lot of money for enterprises. I expect it will be the RARE company that will actually need 5Gbps per workstation. Most can probably get by on 100Mbps.
Anyone that upgrades to VOIP will need a 1Gbps network, preferably with CAT6; CAT5e is okay but CAT6 really enables it.
I don't see why.
If the cable is the same the jacks use all the cables. At least when I put the head on the cables I connected them all.
It's a matter of the frequency tolerance and ability for the cable to carry the requisite signals. CAT5 doesn't have the tolerance for 1GBps transmission while CAT5e does, but CAT6 and CAT7 do even better as the signal tolerances are significantly improved and able to push higher frequencies.
Most likely, when they say that you don't need to tear out the cables, they're referring to CAT6 cable installations. It you have CAT5 you'll definitely need to upgrade the cable; you will *likely* need to upgrade if you only have CAT5e. Nearly everyone has CAT5e at minimum and many have been upgrading already to CAT6; so if they can pull the 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps on CAT6 then most everyone will be quite happy that the investment they just did (in the last 5 years) to handle 1Gbps will be easily upgradeable to the new standard with just router and NIC changes - much like the 100Mbps to 1Gbps switch was with CAT5e installations.
Slashdot Mirror
Most developers should do their job faster and with better quality and stop arguing with their Product Managers.
Well, Devs *should* argue for things that need to be in there, but yes they should also be professional enough to do what is required to make the product available to customers (certified and all). However, a PM also needs to find a way to make everything fit within the guidelines. It may be that a given feature the PM is arguing for breaks something else that is also extremely important. Thereby if the PM doesn't have a development background then they too are dysfunctional and only being a hindrance to the team and product.
Either way, professionalism goes both way. Work with the team to make the feature some feasible for the product.
How many house fires start because of the roof catching fire? Seems pretty unlikely for freestanding structures...
A massive shitload, actually. It's unusual for it to happen to one house, but it's very common for it to happen to a whole bunch of houses during a general conflagration. During forest fires, it's not unusual for burning debris to be thrown for miles
In areas where such things are common (South West US, California, Eastern Washington) I could probably agree. But they are not common in most of the US.
Stolen -- incorrect and inflammatory verb use.
Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android" ... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.
Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explicit about the details.
The question is if the distributed Wix mobile app linked to the GPL code. If it's linked, then you also need to post the source code to the Wix mobile app.
Depends on how it is linked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - but you could be riding a dangerous line.
That said, I opened up Wix's GitHub site, did a search for "word" and found 3 repos - 2 were forks, and the third is likely the project in question. Analyzing that third project (licensed under a MIT permissive license) - it's got some Java (Android) and Objective C (iOS) code; and I think you'd be hard pressed to call it linking by any form. Both rely on a third party parser to do the JavaScript interactions (as applicable for each OS) using WordPress JS API names for sake of the parser and interfacing appropriately there. So it's very likely in that gray area of controversy - an area not well covered by the GPL or community norms; and the App store policies don't help matters at all either.
t's to cover proprietary apps using GPL dynamic libraries loaded at run time. Otherwise developers could use GPL code in their proprietary apps by just compiling it into a DLL rather than statically linking at compile time.
Admittedly even Rosen - one of the authors - admits there is a gray area regarding linking and where the boundary falls. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works)
Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.
Actually you may be surprised. The Assets may not get covered by the GPL at all; they're probably better licensed under the FDL (Free Documentation License) which is meant to cover non-source material. GPL doesn't cover everything that goes with a program.
>Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
Actually it absolutely IS what matters - which is EXACTLY why THAT is where the GPL draws the line - because it's where the LAW and Court Precedent has drawn the line. Because once the code shares a memory-space, it becomes part of the same greater whole - and THAT is legally a derivate work. If, at no point, do the two pieces of code combine into one thing - then it's not a derivative work - just two programs which coexist and copyright does not apply to that.
Shared Objects (*.so) (dynamic linking) on Linux do not necessarily share the *same* memory space when loaded for use by a program - especially with the Automatic Random Address Loading that has been happening of late to increase security . Focusing on memory space is a misnomer that will not get you very far.
Now, Windows provides an interesting case as it has two types of Dynamic Linking - one which operates identical to the Shared Objects on Linux/Unix, and another that makes a dependency on the associated DLL. The hard dependency on the DLL probably will be triggered more like a Static Link, but it can be quite murky.
So again, you're left with the questions of: (a) is the library essential for the software to run? (b) can it be replaced without modification? That is, if you didn't have the library at all, would the program still work on its own - possibly in a degraded state? If so, then it's non-essential and not a derivative work. This is how most plug-in style programs function, and thereby a GPL plug-in for a non-GPL-compatible program doesn't affect the main program.
And if you can replace the library without modifying the program then you are solely dependent upon the API. Some communities are okay with that kind of linking without requiring the same license, some are not.
Of course, devs are best to make sure any library is LGPL instead of GPL and you get around a lot of things. Very few libraries are solely GPL or AGPL for exactly that reason.
AFAIK they have only ever delivered Linux-based devices.
As far as I know, no Linux based devices look 100% identical to a Windows CE desktop which is what ended up on my Tomtom one day. I already said it's no longer a current device (because quite frankly who buys a dedicated GPS anymore).
Model please.
As I said, TomTom has been an exclusive Linux-based device manufacturer for >10 years. So either you bought something that isn't really a TomTom (fake) or you have a device so ancient it's not worth bringing up.
Linux actually runs on a lot of stuff you wouldn't even imagine it runs on - and the devices are not slow.
I'm sure it does. But it also doesn't run on a whole heap of devices you imagine it runs on. Point is. The entire world isn't Linux, and there's a shitload of custom code out there, far more than the GP implied.
But it sure runs a whole lot more than you think it does. It's pretty much the backbone of the world right now.
That's not to say custom OSes and code, etc don't come into play - they do; but >5/10 times it'll be Linux; the rest split between QNX, Firmware only systems, VxWorks, Windows Embedded (WinCE/Phone/Embedded/etc - the 10 different brands MS has for the market), IOS (not iOS), and Custom Code. The majority of that you'll also likely find an SSH or Telnet server with BusyBox box behind it.
And, FYI, almost no one writes their own OS for embedded any more; you typically will only see that in Firmware only systems; everything else uses something that already exists, and Linux is the cheapest solution that it most easily ported or more likely already is ported, so minimal work to get moving and release a product. (Note: In these markets it is the same level of effort for getting a commercial OS like Windows or QNX to work as it is to write any required Linux drivers; so there is no difference in required dev time, but there is in the required license expenditures. Support costs are generally equal too. So all-in-all, Linux does end up being cheaper.)
So Microsoft wasn't late to the market. They were right there at the beginning of the smartphone market and had ample opportunity to dominate it. They just blew it. I suspect someone high up in their management chain, maybe even Gates himself, didn't believe this phone-PDA convergence was going to happen.
Very much agree. Microsoft's Vision - from Gates and through Ballmer - was Windows Desktop on everything. They executed their vision very well. It's just that it wasn't what their customers wanted and they were pig headed enough that they refused (still refuse?) to change to something that customers actually wanted.
GPS navigators
Windows actually. My last Tomtom crashed spectacularly to a CE desktop. Admittedly that was a while ago.
As pointed out, TomTom is a Linux-based GPS; AFAIK they have only ever delivered Linux-based devices. So you're probably confusing your devices, or you had a really really old TomTom that is nothing like their products over the last 10+ years, but I highly doubt that. (FWIW, TomTom made the news back in the early 2000's b/c MS sued them over FAT FS patents since they used Linux and a FAT/vFAT FS.)
cameras
Mostly just a bit of custom code, unless you count that one camera Samsung made that runs Android, but then you should also count that camera with a Gigapixel sensor that runs full blow Windows 7 on it.
routers, set top boxes
Yep and yep.
thermostats
Errr nope.
wrist watches
Errr what?
Look there's a lot of things in Linux, but don't pretend it's on every device in the house. There's an awful lot of custom code out there and for many of the above if they are running on Linux it's typically the type of device you end up throwing away because it's slow and clunky to use (though no where near as slow as it would be running on Windows, and no prizes for guessing why I don't use that old Tomtom anymore)
Linux actually runs on a lot of stuff you wouldn't even imagine it runs on - and the devices are not slow. The majority of set-top boxes now run Linux; there's a lot of "smart" devices (refrigerators, microwaves, etc) that run Linux. Many of these same devices also use Qt - which has an extremely presence in the embedded world (go figure).
Now, while those devices may run Linux they don't necessarily run it in the same way you think. They might run a minimal (f.e busybox) or custom user land that may not resemble anything you would think of as Linux.
More to the point, Microsoft never sticks to a product line long enough to warrant investment in it.
True.
Microsoft had the leading smartphone OS before it was called a smartphone (remember PocketPC's ?), before RIM's blackberry became the de-facto business device.
False. PocketPC was a desktop clone for small device form factors that sucked so bad it was hilarious. Sure if you wanted Win95/NT4 on a phone it'd have been great...but then, you had to use a stylus to do anything as that was your mouse, and it required a full keyboard. Could it be considered a Smart Phone? Yes, but it absolutely sucked and never really had a very big market share - no where near majority by any means.
Palm and then RIM won b/c they actually did stuff the user cared about in easy to use manners.
Google set their eyes specifically on overtaking RIM and Apple came up and offered something compelling that wasn't a stuffy old blackberry clone.
Yes, Google and Apple aimed at displacing RIM b/c RIM was the de facto standard for anything more than a basic cell phone. If you wanted email, you got a Blackberry. RIM would probably still be a leader in the market if they hadn't screwed up with a highly centralized network design and had a 1 week network outage - which led to a lot of execs getting iPhones and demanding that their IT departments integrate the iPhone so they could use it; both Apple and Google exploited that, though Apple was the clear winner having a superior and flashier product that the Exec's loved.
The end result is that Apple is the Market Leader for the Smartphone, if you're not doing it Apple's way, you are doing it wrong. Google recognized that and changed Android from knocking off Blackberry to knocking off iOS, Nokia meanwhile kept on trucking out phones that appealed to people who didn't care about smartphones. Microsoft's killed it's own market share in order to push Windows Phone 7, then 8, and now 10. Each time halving their market share. So they went from 11% in 2001 to 0.7%.
Microsoft screwed up and lost it's foothold in the mobile scene. Had they never dumped the PocketPC, they might be market leaders today.
Well, if Microsoft hadn't abandoned PocketPC (aka Windows Mobile) then yes they'd probably have a bigger market share, but it'd still be a pittance compared to Apple and Google. As I said, PocketPC was basically the Windows Desktop in a small form factor - it would not be able to compete with Android or iOS. It also didn't have updates of any kind - builds were done by hardware vendors (not Microsoft) and there was no AppStore kind of thing for it. What you got when the device shipped is what it had when you retired it.
But that was always the Microsoft motive operandi - everything was focused around the Windows Desktop Environment or was an extension of it. For mobile, they put out PocketPC/WindowsMobile to exand Windows Desktop to mobile/small form factors; they put out Windows Server to push Windows Desktop into the Server Room; then extended Windows Desktop into the XBox to capture game consoles; they put out Windows 10 IoT to capture things like RasperryPi's (accessible and programmable only via Visual Studios, no direct user-interface).
No, Microsoft has not really learned the lesson of the failed Windows Phone experiment - that they won't ever hold the entire market, that people don't want Windows on everything. They're done a bit better with Azure and responding with LInux capabilities on it - but it still runs on top of Windows and all the overhead that incurs.
Since it can't comply with BCP38 without ISP intervention, which most ISPs seem intent on ignoring, I suggest a complete UDP ban. If that means rewriting DNS and NTP, so be it. As for telnet, it can do die in a fire, as any sane person would use SSH.
UDP is used for a lot of stuff - like VOIP and Real-time Streaming (where quality is preferred over quantity - a missing packet doesn't matter as much as getting the general stream), Peer File Sharing (BitTorrent, P2P, etc - quantity of data across a large spread of sources), DNS, and much more. It's literally the back-bone of the Internet.
And I'm considering anti drone and anti police state countermeasures
Exactliy. If they want the a UAV weapon then they'll find the citizens have them too no matter what FAA may say.
Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun.
Do you have any idea what kind of energy it takes to send something to the sun? Earth's orbital speed is around 70,000 mph, that's 70,000 mph you have to decelerate your payload.
Well, we don't really care at what speed it hits the sun at, nor what damage is done to the vessel carrying it. For all that matters it could be a simple slingshot manuever to set it on the right trajectory so the craft could even be re-usable - e.g re-usable stage 1 and 2 rockets to move to orbit (see SpaceX), stage 3 connects to an existing orbiter that then takes its times (6 month? year? doesn't really matter) to set the item on trajectory, and returns. Stage 3 departs from orbiter and without using any extra fuel could make it's way into the sun - really, the sun has this awesome thing called a gravity well, and all you need to do is get the stage 3 section into that gravity well and the sun will do the rest. There's numerous methods to do it, and they're all really cheap from space. (FYI - this is basically how a mass cannon works).
BTW, the orbiter doesn't have to actually enter the gravity well, just be able to set the mass on a trajectory that it could not escape the gravity well.
Speaking of the payload, nuclear waste consists of heavy atoms. Heavier than lead, or gold. Have fun getting that even into earth/sun orbit at an acceptable cost.
1 ton of material is the same regardless of whether it is gold, feathers, or nuclear waste.
But then, who said we had to do it by the ton? We could do it in 50kg blocks for all it matters - or allow the orbiter (see above) to collect several groupings of cheaper payloads to send together.
IOW, this is really a lot cheaper than you think. The biggest cost is raising it to space to start with; and that's probably cheaper than drilling into a mountain every few years to make more capacity for additional nuclear materials, and everything else that goes into it.
mod parent up
Just the deaths per terawatt statistics of nuclear compared to everything else should make people rethink nuclear energy.
I wonder what the world would be like had the 3MI not happened, and Carter's permanent moratorium on new power reactor construction not happened. Energy too cheap to meter, perhaps?
There's been new nuclear plants that have gone online since Carter. It's primarily the EPA, Green Peace, and the liberals that don't want and get in the way of Nuclear - despite it being the safest of all energy technologies, with the fewest injuries/deaths world wide - even when you take into account 3MI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. It's one of those delicious ironies - find something that does what they like, and they'll still find something to complain about in order to reject it.
If, of course, you choose to ignore the tiny little problem of nuclear waste, for which the current policy is "it's not my generation's problem". Call back when we have viable fusion power.
It's only a problem because we allow it to be one. There are many solutions to the problem...most of the best of which we have said no to for primarily political reasons, namely from the Cold War at that.
We could re-use it for things that have lower fissile material requirements, etc.
Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun. It's not like we don't send nuclear material into space already - most satellites are powered through either solar and/or nuclear, and many deep space satellites are nuclear based. Just saying the argument of "what happens if it explodes and goes across the atmosphere" isn't really a valid argument - and even then, we can manage that if we really wanted (separate capsule, appropriately lined, amount of fissile material allowed per capsule, parachutes, etc).
Part of me thinks the judge made this somewhat out of the box ruling with the intent to push this issue that patent trolls waste millions of dollars on up the court system and see if the Supreme court can make a more universal judgment/precedent. But it begs the question, is the Supreme court technically savvy enough to understand the details of software coding and development?
Considering that the Supreme Court has not actually approved any software patents; only the 10th Federal Circuit Courts (the courts specifically dealing with patents) has approved them. Expect the Circuit Court to overrule this judge; but expect the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling.
Even in the cases where the Supreme Court has ruled on cases involving software, they have either (a) invalidated the patent for some reason other than software (e.g Bilski), or it was not a pure software case and fund that software was only a component of the whole (e.g Deihr); in all such cases the Supreme Court has essentially remained silent on the ability of Software itself to be patented, and has also never upheld a software patent.
And a boat cannot do a damned thing unless it is placed in a river. What does that have to do with anything?
Wrong.
A boat may not be useful without being placed in a body of water (ocean, lake, river, etc); but it can do something.
For instance, you can sit in it; you can run the engine(s) if there any are present; you can move it about using a trailer, fork lift, or other means. Alternatively, you could throw a party on it - if there is sufficient space, or even live on it - even out of water.
Comparatively, with software if it not compiled for a specific computer, then it is no more useful than a book - you can read it, but it cannot do a thing. Furthermore, software will never flip a bit in a computer processor or RAM (often the terminology used to make software patentable), it can only tell a computer processor to do so.
Noah was born pre-Flood. And if you follow the geneologies, they lifespans increasingly shorten with each successive generation; thus not an immediate effect but something that took a few generations to take in.
Also... the bible is not a trusted reference source. It was written by people who weren't there, repeatedly re-written by people with poor translation skills (not to mention political agendas to achieve). Each new interpretation of "The word of God" heralded as an unchanging, perfect holy text. Codswallop!
Is' generally taken that:
Genesis 1:1-2:2 was God's communication of events to Adam.
Genesis 2:3-4 (at least) were Adam's record.
Genesis 4-9 were Noah's record.
Genesis 10 was a record of Noah's sons.
Genesis 11-25 was the record of Abraham (Abram).
Now keep in mind that per the Genealogical records, Adam knew God, and Adam and Noah's parents would have been able to know Adam; furthermore, Noah would have known Methuselah who would have certainly known Adam. Thereby Genesis 1-9 are fully accountable via eyewitness, the witness of which is likely Enoch who will likely be one of the witness' in Revelations.
Furthermore, again per Genealogical records, Abram as a young man would have been able to know Noah, certainly his father would have been able to. Thereby extending the eyewitness recording through the life of Abram; likewise it can be extended down through Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Joseph - overlapping significantly with records from Egypt for most of the life of Joseph, and therefore verifiable via historic record through events that impacted the whole Mesopotamian Region during that time; likewise the start of the book of Exodus is also historically verifiable through the records of Egypt.
Now, how many of those records have survived since the fir of the Library of Alexandria is a different matter; though they should be able to be verifiable through other historic sources as well.
A hypotheses that goes around some Christan circles is that with the lack of all the extra water in the sky (Gen 1:7) people were exposed to higher levels of radiation (UV, etc). This causing higher mutation/genetic entropy resulting in shorter life spans.
So the Science makes a flawed assumption - that everything today works and looks like it always has. IOW, what we measure today f.e for the barometric pressure was always the barometric pressure on the earth. However, the events of Genesis 6 shows that we cannot necessarily make that assumption - it is likely flawed. Now as to your reference, Genesis 1 refers the waters above and the waters below, with the waters below being gathered and having set boundaries - oceans, lakes, etc. We're not really told what the waters above were, but they are only referred to again in Genesis 6-9 as the flood starts. Speculation is:
Personally, I think it was likely a higher humidity/barometric pressure, and more uniform atmosphere around the entire earth. In either case, it would be hard to determine based on current Scientific methods; and may even be impossible unless someone was actually there to record data.
Funny... refuting chapter 6 with Jeanne Calment living to 122 in contemporary times.
Bases covered, you see.
You should pay attention to that Presley quote in your sig. A better formulation, though, is:
Objective reality is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it isn't going away.
You can quote me if you like. :)
Wrong there too....122 is rounded is 120. So it doesn't refute anything, and you can always look at it as a general average - so expecting that the average would not be able to exceed that. However, even then...122 is an outlier (statistically) and even today the number of people >100 are generally outliers compared to the greater population and that hasn't changed much.
So in all honesty, 122 doesn't refute Genesis Chapter 6; and therefore your reference to 930 years from Genesis 5 when trying to refute Genesis 6 is wholly wrong and without any merit due to basics of frames of reference.
In short, you're argument is without merit.
Yes, sure, that's why Jeanne Calment lived to 122.
Not to mention that whole 930-years thing laid out in chapter five of the Book of Genesis (OT.) But by all means, pick the passages that support the pop culture blather of the day, and ignore the rest.
The Lord is clearly all-powerful... and innumerate. Or dishonest. Or fiction.
Funny...refuting something that occurs in Chapter 6 with information from Chapter 5.
Yeah but Genesis 9:29 also says:
And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.
Noah was born pre-Flood. And if you follow the geneologies, they lifespans increasingly shorten with each successive generation; thus not an immediate effect but something that took a few generations to take in.
So I guess the LORD forgot, eh? And don't forget about Adad, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor and of course Abraham.
Most of those you quote were Pre-Flood; however, that doesn't change the lifespan curve that occurred post flood. Abram (who could have known Noah as their lifetimes slightly overlapped) made it to 175 (Genesis 25:7). Joseph (3 generations later) only made it to 110. Genesis 50:22-26.
As with Death in Genesis 3, the shorted lifespan did not happen immediately. Could it have? Probably, but that would have had several major consequences:
This will certainly save a lot of money for enterprises. I expect it will be the RARE company that will actually need 5Gbps per workstation. Most can probably get by on 100Mbps.
Anyone that upgrades to VOIP will need a 1Gbps network, preferably with CAT6; CAT5e is okay but CAT6 really enables it.
I don't see why. If the cable is the same the jacks use all the cables. At least when I put the head on the cables I connected them all.
It's a matter of the frequency tolerance and ability for the cable to carry the requisite signals. CAT5 doesn't have the tolerance for 1GBps transmission while CAT5e does, but CAT6 and CAT7 do even better as the signal tolerances are significantly improved and able to push higher frequencies.
Most likely, when they say that you don't need to tear out the cables, they're referring to CAT6 cable installations. It you have CAT5 you'll definitely need to upgrade the cable; you will *likely* need to upgrade if you only have CAT5e. Nearly everyone has CAT5e at minimum and many have been upgrading already to CAT6; so if they can pull the 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps on CAT6 then most everyone will be quite happy that the investment they just did (in the last 5 years) to handle 1Gbps will be easily upgradeable to the new standard with just router and NIC changes - much like the 100Mbps to 1Gbps switch was with CAT5e installations.