Agreed. I have never seen up-to-date comparisons of MySQL/PgSQL/MsSQL in so many years. We need to once and for all get a few good test sets and see what these puppies can do objectively.
Of course MsSQL has a big lead weight for its cost, although M$ will claim its TCO is still lower- so it damn-well better perform like it's worth $50-$100 per concurrent connection more than the free alternative.
it seems like a simple check, in the same way when it checks for permissions, when doing a list of databases. Seems to make sense.
In a shared database server, it can be important. Although it in a way is security-through-obscurity, many would rather not have their database name 'companyfinances' visible to those with no access. Additionally, on a shared database services, you don't want your customers to know if there are 20 or 200 databases on that server (the number means nothing depending on the size anyway, but looks bad).
Been using RC1/RC2 for some time now. I'm impressed with the role feature, although it won't add much to the average user. The speed has been night and day with 7.3. I also haven't had any problems with the RC's in the slightest except one: a renamed table then wouldn't let me delete the sequence it depended on after the renamed table was deleted. Apparently I wasn't the only one who found it and it has been reported as fixed, though who knows.
My only beef with PgSQL has been there since before the 7's. There is still no way to not show the list of databases to users who have no right or access to those databases. Why should userA with rights to databaseA see that there is a databaseB or databaseC? This really seems like a simple feature, yet nobody will accept it into the release.
You're trying to tell me people don't want to watch pixelated postage-stamp sized television with the need for headphones. I think this is going to take a lot of convinicing to get me to believe that! This has the possibility of the joys of 200x200 pixelated porn (mmm... it's a four-pixel nipple).
[end sarcasm]
Seriously folks. It's neat to see a short clip or series of images (cell phones already have a graphics format like flash movies and small animations and flip-book styles) for things like the weather... but live TV. Jeeze.
PS: The only time you might need it (an emergency or something) I'm sure it'll be too overloaded to get the news.
What packrats. Who saves 16,000 letters over the course of his life. I mean, I understand saving some, but if they have enough to make statements like that about them, I'm more concerned that he kept it all... Crazy! Not to mention copies of sent mail, despite a lack of a photo-copier:)
A portion of these must be America's dumbest criminals. Let's think about this for a second. 8 Criminals were released 39-161 days early. If I was those criminals, I'd give out a giggle, tell my best friend, and then hope nobody else notices. I understand how this went under the radar, because who's going to speak up and say "ummm- excuse me, I had another 39 days of free food coming my way".
But 23 prisoners less 8 prisoners released early leads us to 15 criminals, and their families/friends who didn't notice since 2003 that they were not being released (you'll notice it doesn't give a date for the 'later' prisoners, but only the early ones). Wouldn't you speak up and say "ummm- maybe you should check your paperwork". Wouldn't they have some sense of time/date? I'd say they're pretty re-habilitated if they peacefully sit back and wait for somebody to notice...
To reinforce the point, RIM should also remove the government accounts.
What a double-standard! It's the "we don't want you to infringe on this patent, unless it benefits us *judge looks at Blackberry PIN message on his blackberry*". It's a very American government mentaility, as seen with many other issues such as softwood lumber.
In any case, if this ruling becomes final, I'd provide the ?30? days notice or whatever is in the contract from the government and start sending mail and PINs to/dev/null. Terminate that contract as quickly as possible and give a big middle-finger-in-the-air to the country with the dumbest IP laws in the world.
Have you actually performed side-by-side comparisons using your own data?
Bingo. I couldn't agree with you more. MySQL is fairly lightweight, easy to use for many newbies, and provides some pretty advanced features for most tasks. It has its quirks to be careful of, but ultimately does its job as a DBMS. MySQL is extremely quick on the read, but suffers from locking issues and concurrency issues on the write. So it's fantastic for the Web- which is why you see it so often on hosting providers and other similar providers- it's quick to put Web content into. It's quick to hold userIDs/passwords that aren't updated frequently. It's quick in anything where reads are heavy and writes are sparse. Service providers like it because it's not too resource intensive for read-heavy uses (web sites) and it has a great user model (store users in a database, provide per-database permissions and hide all other customers from seeing other people's databases) for many-user systems.
PostgreSQL does a fantastic job with sites needing more complexity. If you need to start with transactions, need good read/write performance, and feel that data integrity is key (generally things dealing with dollars, accounting systems, online applications, booking systems, etc) then of course the way to go really is PostgreSQL if supported. If it's not (as it is with many hosts), there's always some MySQL transactional support with row-level locking, but it almost seems like a hack. (as a note, PGSQL8.1Beta2 provides support for 'roles', but to my knowledge still doesn't hide other people's databases).
Anyway- Each has it's ups and downs. Service providers love MySQL because it's fast, cheap, easy, and keeps users seperate. PostgreSQL I've seen abused a bit too much for things it's not to be used for, and that has a huge performance hit. Why the bickering? Everyone thinks their tool is bigger:)
Because I used to use 98lite in order to strip out IE from explorer, restoring the windows 95 explorer. This shaved about 10-15 seconds off of your PC bootup time, and that's when PC bootup times were high and your processing power was a P100. I care because I have media player taking over my associations. I have crap installing on its own everywhere, and I have an empty C:\Program Files\xerox\nwwia directory in XP that windows will not let you delete and re-creates itself when you delete it through other means. My question is- why?
I mean, if a program works well enough for a person, what does it matter to you that they don't go looking for something else.
It has nothing to do with me. Look up at the parent I was originally replying to who was saying that one side wants more bundled and another makes lawsuits because too much is bundled. This is the topic at hand. My comment was simply that there is nothing wrong with giving the user the option to install, but it's M$ forcing users to use the additional components that they continue to get in trouble. It's an analysis of the situation at hand.
decide, I'm sick of this
Bingo. You have that choice as a consumer. However with Windows, there is a commitment to the operating system- an investment if you will. You have invested money in other programs that depend on that OS. You have invested time in learning the OS and getting comfortable with its use. It's vendor-lock-in. That's fine, but you then can't take advantage of that by FORCING other products on people. You can upsell them to install your media player, but you can't FORCE them to install your media player.
That's like Domino's giving out Papa Johns coupons.
But it's really not. It's more like papa johns coming over and painting your house the next day when all you really wanted was a damn pizza. You don't advertise your competitors, or even mention them, but the consumer has the choice whether they want to install additional software besides the software they purchase... similarly, you have a choice whether you let papa john's paint your house in their buy-one-turn-your-house-into-a-billboard `deal`.
large percentage of people out there that just really don't give
Indeed. But is it because they don't care or they don't know? Many artists choose to draw by hand... but knowing they have a choice is key. Some people want a car that gets them from point-A to point-B, but how many would prefer a car with heated seats and a sunroof given the choice? You should be able to get a car that does NOT make toast if you want (and man can you) in the same way that you choose a car that DOES make toast. I can get a car without ABS and a radio- which sure beats taking the fuse out of the ABS controller and radio... and can you.
80% of the people out there don't know or even care to know about DiVx or MPEG-4
Of course. They want it to work. They want to click on a joke video someone sends them and have it play... And indeed leave that option there to install everything you could ever need... but for those of us who DO NOT want dated buggy software, why should it be installed if I won't use it?
Why does my Win2k server I built a few days ago to operate as a Web server listen on M$'s netbios ports? Why by default will my IE installation be hijacked. It's called poor programming, but on top of that it's called spreading yourself too thin. Linux is successful because it is extremely focused (some distros are arguably not as much, but the core Linux is).
- start side-track -
I recently installed a 'server' distro. netstat and a port scan shows NO ports open and no services running externally. Good stuff. Then I started SSH and it pops up on port 22. Then I started apache and it open
You're missing the point. We are not saying 'bundle your competitors and provide the choice on your CD', but rather provide the choice in general to not have Media Player, Java, and other fun things (Java is no worry anymore- in fact any IE5 user will get taken to a page that doesn't exist at M$ to install the java that they don't provide... bravo M$).
There's nothing wrong with your pizza shop to include some flyers of local businesses, and maybe even a free sample of something... but you know that there is choice out there. You have the choice to throw it out or use the coupon. You have choice to eat the granola bar that came in the mail-slot or throw it out or return it to the sender. Also, you as a consumer have the knowledge that 'hey- other granola bars exist' just from walking down the supermarket isle.
On the other hand, you don't have a choice as to whether IE is on your system. Given no choice, you don't know better. Mention netscape to many of my customers and they'll ask me why I still haven't upgraded to IE despite netscape being many years old... Not being aware there is an option. Most people don't know Eurdora, Thunderbird and other options exist besides Outlook. I'm not saying advertise other options, but the key is that users take for granted what they have (such as if the granola bar shows up daily on my doorstep, I'd never buy snacks again) and aren't given the opportunity to make a choice other than the default.
So don't bundle Firefox, but do UNBUNDLE IE as a default and required option... Both are independant applications that are subject to the same choice and evaluation that the OS windows/mac/linux/os-2 decision went through. We're giving a fair chance to all products out there. You can include it on the CD, tell people "do you want to install the Internet Explorer web browser" and provide some information. It's a chance to promote the features and have the user choose to opt-in (or opt-out if you have it on by default) of installing IE. For the past 10 years or so (win95-OSR1 I think) you haven't been able to unbundle IE. Having the e on the desktop is the way to go. So many times I tell a customer to get on the Internet and they ask "You mean the E?". This is the mentaility of consumers because it's just there- it is the Internet... Not the other options out there.
-M
Re:Integration versus Bundling, Choice
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 1
Last I checked when Installing Windows XP it allows you to 'customize' the installation by choosing certain components and unchoosing others. In fact, I'm possitive I chose to install IIS when I set up my workstation, but left it off of my secretary's. Insteresting.
I install OS's at various clients rather regularly. The add/remove components box allowing you to choose whether to install say solitaire, network services, Upnp, etc appears in 2000 install, but not in XP. I guess it's too 'complicated' for your average user.
Integration versus Bundling, Choice
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
When MS started trying to make the OS everything to everyone, they were accused of predatory behavior and taken to court numerous times. Now we're complaining that MS Paint isn't powerful enough for graphics editing and that Windows Audio Recorder doesn't hold a candle to other third-party utils?
Bingo. But the topic becomes integration versus bundling. There is nothing wrong with providing a tool, such as including a web browser, chat program, mail program, graphics program, word processor or so on.
The link is not between the operating system and the applications, but the act of choice.
The key to Linux is that inserting a CD doesn't give you every tool you could want, but rather you need to tell it what you want by selecting "hey- I need productivity tools" and clicking it. You need to go "hey I need to dialup to the Internet" and install modem and PPP tools.
Contrast that to windows XP that offers _NO_ choice to software installed. If you think there is choice, you're thinking of Windows 2000 or 98 where they let you check off whether you wanted media player and outlook express (be it that it may only hide them, it still does the same end effect for the user). Windows XP installs do not prompt for software inclusion (maybe if you start tweaking INF files...).
Media player just shows up as the default media player and takes over associations from time to time. IE pops up for a Web URL and has an icon on the desktop by default. An install of XP doesn't give the user a choice to say "you know what- FireFox is the browser for me. no thank you " and then install FireFox. It doesn't give you the option to decline installing media player. Sure you could go through a nest of confusing (to a new user) menus for Start | Settings | Control Panel | Add/remove components | system components | media tools followed by a very full dialog of information.
Given that, there is a degree of tools that are necessary and don't really compete with their counterparts. Notepad is a good example, as well as calculator. These are handy tools that don't mean a lot, and if you do need a powerful solution, you'll get UltraEdit or similar. These are arguably a part of the O/S that may or may not need removing.
So where am I getting at? The key reason why Microsoft got in trouble was it's INTEGRATION (IE as a part of the OS) and LACK OF CHOICE (media player installed by default) and not the fact that it was bundled on the CD. It's that no matter what a user thinks, IE is installed. That no matter what you say, you're getting a copy of media player that will always come up from time to time. That the user is not INFORMED that "hey- I have the option to install media player... maybe there are better/other players out there I should research and find something that is faster".
Okay then... so US Military and a few universities/colleges doing research for them create and design the Internet, as well as provide its first links. More institutions hop on as an effort to share information better between systems, and eventually goes global and becomes considered 'public'.
So why should the US give anything up? The Internet has become a public commodity around the world, but is still the US's brainchild. The whole work has something at stake, which is of course why this is coming to play, but keep it in the US control. If people would like, make agreements (and make them enforcable) that the US can't embargo using the Internet.
ARIN is the AMERICAN registry for internet numbers. The root servers are located all over the world but the 'master' root server is controlled by the US. So what? Until the US screws up, lets give them the benefit of the doubt of doing the same good job they've done for many years.
And the counter-story. I used to be a Microsoft admin, and now have moved to an entirely Linux shop. The reason? Even a fresh install would do crazy things like packet our network (good old M$ SQL Server). The system would crash at least once a month... and if it doesn't, it would need to be rebooted twice a month anyway for 'crucial security updates'. The system could be managed by "any grade-A idiot"- of course the difficulty being that everyone else tried to change things they shouldn't (BTW: this is the biggest reason for misconfigured Windows servers- non-admins playing make-believe).
Compare this to a rock-solid 'just works' situation with our Linux clusters. I haven't had to fix a problem in years. Things just keep working the way they should rather than some new way automatically!
Maybe the problem is that a bunch of Windows admins knowing nothing about Linux started using it without any required training or valuable time on a test-bench finding the quirks, tuning, and learning the system. This is worse than the MindCraft tests where they get M$ to configure and optimize their server and then install a bare RedHat installation and send a few million requests its way.
Please. With knowledge, training, and staff, Linux is a dream. However it does take a new learning process on the UNIX side that most admins don't have... hence failure. It should _NEVER_ take 80 hours (2w*40h) to install a program- you're obviously doing something wrong.
Lets think about this. Company runs millions of dollars in wire all over the city and into your home. Why is the Internet a regulated service? Why should they provide one service without the other? They say it's 'fairness to other phone providers', but what about fairness to other ISPs as well? Why is one service regulated and the other not? Is it just for legacy reasons?
How does the consumer benefit from this? I've done this before as a temporary measure, and paid an extra $10USD/mo for a 'line fee'. But when you can get BASIC service on that line for $20USD, why are we bothering (sans caller-ID, call waiting, long distance plans, and maybe even touch-tone)? What gain is there for a consumer on the other end. You're letting them get their phone elsewhere, but it's obvious that big bell will have the best phone service.
Just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Seems to be artificially controlling a market that doesn't need controlling.
But if I take off my tinfoil hat I start to wonder: WHY do cellphones have cameras? Did YOU ask for your cellphone to have a camera? Did you WANT your cellphone to have a camera? Did you have a USE for your cellphone to have a camera?
It's very simple- it's called vendor-driven technology. Consumers don't _need_ slow Internet on their phones. They don't need it to take 5 minutes to check movie listings. They don't need video to come to their 1" screen. They don't need/want low-quality images from their cell phones.
So who wants this? The cell phone companies. When you take a picture and send it to 10 of your friends at 25c a piece, that's when they get you. When you text message instead of using your free evenings/weekends cell phone, that's when they get you. When you watch a video stream at $2.50 a piece, that's when they get you. These are all things that the NETWORKS want you to use. The camera looses it's novelty after about a week. The MP3 player turns out to be a big battery drain and is lame compared to a real MP3 player that is now smaller than a mini-post-it-note.
99% of people don't want or need these services, but use them because they are available to them for a limited time... and that's a money-making opportunity.
Most people don't want a big screen just for showing numbers- but the cell phone providers want a HUGE screen so that you can watch movies, receive pictures, and play games. Funny how that works.
Well distribution is cheap, but yes they need money for other things. But fine- given $4.59 in paper of $4.00 in electronic, given that a simple reader costs $40.00 makes perfect sense for the convinience and fun of having one.
E-books and the screen readers out now are an answer to a question nobody asked. I'm a fan of manuals and whatnot in PDF (as most of them go in the trash or recycling anyway) but not novels. If novels are to make it, they need to be small, simple, plain text, and coming in an easy-to-use device that does only what a book does now.
This is the perfect example of the problem. It's like buying a $800 computer and then getting the 'well for $40 you can get a better video board, and another $40 and a bigger hard drive' and suddenly you have a $1200 computer.
I'm saying lets keep it simple. A forward, back, and 'mark' button. Hold the mark button to set a bookmark, press it to go back to it (maybe a confirmation for accidental purposes). Maybe even add the ability to add a few marks. All it needs is a byte, line, or page offset.
Write in the margins means you need a keyboard or input device. That takes up space, means you need to be able to hold it and type (it is portable). 'Searches' are unreasonable. When was the last time you could do a fuzzy quicksearch in the latest novel from Amazon or Chapters?
Assume the device is for _READING_. Reading a book or small manual. Okay maybe adding hyperlinks for manuals would make sense. But lets scrap pictures, postscript, searching, and adding notes to margins and you have a _VERY_ simple consumer-grade device.
Think of what a palmpilot does- we need a palm pilot or pocket organizer (which you can get for $50-$100 max)- But specialize it. Read plain text, we'll add hyperlinks, and basic navigation buttons. A simple device that is practical to use. If my father can't use it, it's not consumer-grade. The forward/back he'd get. The 'fuzzy search', not so much.
Hmm, adding to the above list, when you can forget your ebook at a bus stop / park bench / other location, and not worry about it because it only cost you $10 (or less). In other words, not for a long, long time.
Well here becomes the issue- Why is this so? Think about the actual cost to develop and produce a very simple device that will display text. Forget crazy postscript formats. Plain text in a screen about five inches high by three across just like a real book. A couple hardware buttons for forward/back (with an ability to scroll like anything) and oh.... 16-32MB of onboard Flash memory. A display doesn't need to be backlit, as those $5 handheld video games (back when I was a kid...) that run on a couple AA's work very nicely.
So maybe we're all overthinking this. We assume an e-book reader needs to cost hundreds of dollars and be rather complicated. We assume it needs to be backlit and hold hundreds of books. Make them $20-$25 devides with a prev/next button that displays only text in an easy-to-read font adn we're set.
Think about it- Is this something that consumers are driving or manufacturers. Consumers don't need colour displays and touchscreens on their reader. That's why they're heavy. They need plain text input documents and to have a small device with a low-power processor (my XT (8086) and WordPerfect used to run circles around any modern 'tablet'-style e-book reader)- none of this PDF stuff.
So there's my comment on the reader. Now the other thing to ask is do 99.99% of consumers want e-books or is it publishers who want to save the coin and cut out the middle-man?
1- P2P is often used to spread legal music, software, and files. Think of how many Indie bands have files out there and are trying to make a name for themselves. Think of how many home-made car (aka: rice) videos are on there for us to see. Think of how many interviews are on P2P networks. think of how much freeware and shareware is available on these same networks. So how can you say they have 'intent'. Lets say there are 10 legal files for every illegal file- that's still pretty good. Problem is the illegal files get downloaded 10x as much, but then you still have a 50-50 network.
2- This is obviously the wrong approach. If person X doesn't get their movie from P2P, they'll join a group and get it from some private FTP site. They'll find it on the Web. They'll spread it out through direct file transfers. They'll pass it around class on CDs and DVD-Rs. They'll get it around. Hell they'll even print it off frame-by-frame and make a damn-flip-book for all I care.
The RIAA again needs to Embrace the technology. Provide an alternative. Clearly consumers (us) are saying "well it's either (a) not worth X dollars for this movie or CD, or (b) something is preventing me from getting it (DRM, whining babies at the theatre, poor quality, etc).
So solve the issue. Provide a legal download service that assures the quality and won't have a cam release on an angle and many will flock. Clearly there is a need or want here that people are fulfilling. There is something they are not meeting in traditional means. Feed that need/want and you can actually make some coin off of it.
As always though, they'll figure 5-8 people watch a movie at a time and want to charge you $50-$80 for a single movie though... which isn't quite right, in the same way that you should be saving the distribution and duplication costs in music downloads (but usually don't).
Incidently I found an open source mail client that has a lot of similar functions: Round Cube I haveinstalled that and it is almost as impressive. [roundcube.net]
Unfortunately the 'planned feature' list is a little bit of the essentials, namely:
(the other things are all 'optional' bonus features by my watch), but if you were to deploy it in a workable environment, the first and third would bug a lot of people (and probably aren't overly hard to add).
In all fairness, it's an very new project, and they've come a long way- so kudos to them. Also yeah yeah- open source contribute patches... Maybe I just will...;)
The poor will mostly not return. Why should they? They'll get better educations and better living conditions living in the projects of Dallas and Phoenix
Debatable. There's a high cost to relocating, be it the cost of purchasing/renting property, transit to the new location, or even more often neglected, the time spent without any income and trying to find it.
The rich and upper middle class will move right back into the city. For them, the culture of the city
How much culture is left? Once the historic 100-150 year old city is hindered (or partly hindered) there's left a new city? What's the appeal over any new city?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I have never seen up-to-date comparisons of MySQL/PgSQL/MsSQL in so many years. We need to once and for all get a few good test sets and see what these puppies can do objectively.
Of course MsSQL has a big lead weight for its cost, although M$ will claim its TCO is still lower- so it damn-well better perform like it's worth $50-$100 per concurrent connection more than the free alternative.
-M
it seems like a simple check, in the same way when it checks for permissions, when doing a list of databases. Seems to make sense.
In a shared database server, it can be important. Although it in a way is security-through-obscurity, many would rather not have their database name 'companyfinances' visible to those with no access. Additionally, on a shared database services, you don't want your customers to know if there are 20 or 200 databases on that server (the number means nothing depending on the size anyway, but looks bad).
-M
Been using RC1/RC2 for some time now. I'm impressed with the role feature, although it won't add much to the average user. The speed has been night and day with 7.3. I also haven't had any problems with the RC's in the slightest except one: a renamed table then wouldn't let me delete the sequence it depended on after the renamed table was deleted. Apparently I wasn't the only one who found it and it has been reported as fixed, though who knows.
My only beef with PgSQL has been there since before the 7's. There is still no way to not show the list of databases to users who have no right or access to those databases. Why should userA with rights to databaseA see that there is a databaseB or databaseC? This really seems like a simple feature, yet nobody will accept it into the release.
-M
Let us get this straight.
You're trying to tell me people don't want to watch pixelated postage-stamp sized television with the need for headphones. I think this is going to take a lot of convinicing to get me to believe that! This has the possibility of the joys of 200x200 pixelated porn (mmm... it's a four-pixel nipple).
[end sarcasm]
Seriously folks. It's neat to see a short clip or series of images (cell phones already have a graphics format like flash movies and small animations and flip-book styles) for things like the weather... but live TV. Jeeze.
PS: The only time you might need it (an emergency or something) I'm sure it'll be too overloaded to get the news.
Two quotes (adding nothing useful to this thread)
"Turn it up, turn it up!!!" (grandpa during the THX trailler at a movie)
Is it even on? I can't hear a thing: "It's whisper quiet" (Dr Nick making 'all that juice out of one bag of oranges')
-M
What packrats. Who saves 16,000 letters over the course of his life. I mean, I understand saving some, but if they have enough to make statements like that about them, I'm more concerned that he kept it all... Crazy! Not to mention copies of sent mail, despite a lack of a photo-copier :)
-M
A portion of these must be America's dumbest criminals. Let's think about this for a second. 8 Criminals were released 39-161 days early. If I was those criminals, I'd give out a giggle, tell my best friend, and then hope nobody else notices. I understand how this went under the radar, because who's going to speak up and say "ummm- excuse me, I had another 39 days of free food coming my way".
But 23 prisoners less 8 prisoners released early leads us to 15 criminals, and their families/friends who didn't notice since 2003 that they were not being released (you'll notice it doesn't give a date for the 'later' prisoners, but only the early ones). Wouldn't you speak up and say "ummm- maybe you should check your paperwork". Wouldn't they have some sense of time/date? I'd say they're pretty re-habilitated if they peacefully sit back and wait for somebody to notice...
-M
What a double-standard! It's the "we don't want you to infringe on this patent, unless it benefits us *judge looks at Blackberry PIN message on his blackberry*". It's a very American government mentaility, as seen with many other issues such as softwood lumber.
In any case, if this ruling becomes final, I'd provide the ?30? days notice or whatever is in the contract from the government and start sending mail and PINs to
-M
Bingo. I couldn't agree with you more. MySQL is fairly lightweight, easy to use for many newbies, and provides some pretty advanced features for most tasks. It has its quirks to be careful of, but ultimately does its job as a DBMS. MySQL is extremely quick on the read, but suffers from locking issues and concurrency issues on the write. So it's fantastic for the Web- which is why you see it so often on hosting providers and other similar providers- it's quick to put Web content into. It's quick to hold userIDs/passwords that aren't updated frequently. It's quick in anything where reads are heavy and writes are sparse. Service providers like it because it's not too resource intensive for read-heavy uses (web sites) and it has a great user model (store users in a database, provide per-database permissions and hide all other customers from seeing other people's databases) for many-user systems.
PostgreSQL does a fantastic job with sites needing more complexity. If you need to start with transactions, need good read/write performance, and feel that data integrity is key (generally things dealing with dollars, accounting systems, online applications, booking systems, etc) then of course the way to go really is PostgreSQL if supported. If it's not (as it is with many hosts), there's always some MySQL transactional support with row-level locking, but it almost seems like a hack. (as a note, PGSQL8.1Beta2 provides support for 'roles', but to my knowledge still doesn't hide other people's databases).
Anyway- Each has it's ups and downs. Service providers love MySQL because it's fast, cheap, easy, and keeps users seperate. PostgreSQL I've seen abused a bit too much for things it's not to be used for, and that has a huge performance hit. Why the bickering? Everyone thinks their tool is bigger
-M
Because I used to use 98lite in order to strip out IE from explorer, restoring the windows 95 explorer. This shaved about 10-15 seconds off of your PC bootup time, and that's when PC bootup times were high and your processing power was a P100. I care because I have media player taking over my associations. I have crap installing on its own everywhere, and I have an empty C:\Program Files\xerox\nwwia directory in XP that windows will not let you delete and re-creates itself when you delete it through other means. My question is- why?
It has nothing to do with me. Look up at the parent I was originally replying to who was saying that one side wants more bundled and another makes lawsuits because too much is bundled. This is the topic at hand. My comment was simply that there is nothing wrong with giving the user the option to install, but it's M$ forcing users to use the additional components that they continue to get in trouble. It's an analysis of the situation at hand.
Bingo. You have that choice as a consumer. However with Windows, there is a commitment to the operating system- an investment if you will. You have invested money in other programs that depend on that OS. You have invested time in learning the OS and getting comfortable with its use. It's vendor-lock-in. That's fine, but you then can't take advantage of that by FORCING other products on people. You can upsell them to install your media player, but you can't FORCE them to install your media player.
But it's really not. It's more like papa johns coming over and painting your house the next day when all you really wanted was a damn pizza. You don't advertise your competitors, or even mention them, but the consumer has the choice whether they want to install additional software besides the software they purchase... similarly, you have a choice whether you let papa john's paint your house in their buy-one-turn-your-house-into-a-billboard `deal`.
Indeed. But is it because they don't care or they don't know? Many artists choose to draw by hand... but knowing they have a choice is key. Some people want a car that gets them from point-A to point-B, but how many would prefer a car with heated seats and a sunroof given the choice? You should be able to get a car that does NOT make toast if you want (and man can you) in the same way that you choose a car that DOES make toast. I can get a car without ABS and a radio- which sure beats taking the fuse out of the ABS controller and radio... and can you.
Of course. They want it to work. They want to click on a joke video someone sends them and have it play... And indeed leave that option there to install everything you could ever need... but for those of us who DO NOT want dated buggy software, why should it be installed if I won't use it?
Why does my Win2k server I built a few days ago to operate as a Web server listen on M$'s netbios ports? Why by default will my IE installation be hijacked. It's called poor programming, but on top of that it's called spreading yourself too thin. Linux is successful because it is extremely focused (some distros are arguably not as much, but the core Linux is).
- start side-track -
I recently installed a 'server' distro. netstat and a port scan shows NO ports open and no services running externally. Good stuff. Then I started SSH and it pops up on port 22. Then I started apache and it open
You're missing the point. We are not saying 'bundle your competitors and provide the choice on your CD', but rather provide the choice in general to not have Media Player, Java, and other fun things (Java is no worry anymore- in fact any IE5 user will get taken to a page that doesn't exist at M$ to install the java that they don't provide... bravo M$).
There's nothing wrong with your pizza shop to include some flyers of local businesses, and maybe even a free sample of something... but you know that there is choice out there. You have the choice to throw it out or use the coupon. You have choice to eat the granola bar that came in the mail-slot or throw it out or return it to the sender. Also, you as a consumer have the knowledge that 'hey- other granola bars exist' just from walking down the supermarket isle.
On the other hand, you don't have a choice as to whether IE is on your system. Given no choice, you don't know better. Mention netscape to many of my customers and they'll ask me why I still haven't upgraded to IE despite netscape being many years old... Not being aware there is an option. Most people don't know Eurdora, Thunderbird and other options exist besides Outlook. I'm not saying advertise other options, but the key is that users take for granted what they have (such as if the granola bar shows up daily on my doorstep, I'd never buy snacks again) and aren't given the opportunity to make a choice other than the default.
So don't bundle Firefox, but do UNBUNDLE IE as a default and required option... Both are independant applications that are subject to the same choice and evaluation that the OS windows/mac/linux/os-2 decision went through. We're giving a fair chance to all products out there. You can include it on the CD, tell people "do you want to install the Internet Explorer web browser" and provide some information. It's a chance to promote the features and have the user choose to opt-in (or opt-out if you have it on by default) of installing IE. For the past 10 years or so (win95-OSR1 I think) you haven't been able to unbundle IE. Having the e on the desktop is the way to go. So many times I tell a customer to get on the Internet and they ask "You mean the E?". This is the mentaility of consumers because it's just there- it is the Internet... Not the other options out there.
-M
I install OS's at various clients rather regularly. The add/remove components box allowing you to choose whether to install say solitaire, network services, Upnp, etc appears in 2000 install, but not in XP. I guess it's too 'complicated' for your average user.
Bingo. But the topic becomes integration versus bundling. There is nothing wrong with providing a tool, such as including a web browser, chat program, mail program, graphics program, word processor or so on.
The link is not between the operating system and the applications, but the act of choice.
The key to Linux is that inserting a CD doesn't give you every tool you could want, but rather you need to tell it what you want by selecting "hey- I need productivity tools" and clicking it. You need to go "hey I need to dialup to the Internet" and install modem and PPP tools.
Contrast that to windows XP that offers _NO_ choice to software installed. If you think there is choice, you're thinking of Windows 2000 or 98 where they let you check off whether you wanted media player and outlook express (be it that it may only hide them, it still does the same end effect for the user). Windows XP installs do not prompt for software inclusion (maybe if you start tweaking INF files...).
Media player just shows up as the default media player and takes over associations from time to time. IE pops up for a Web URL and has an icon on the desktop by default. An install of XP doesn't give the user a choice to say "you know what- FireFox is the browser for me. no thank you " and then install FireFox. It doesn't give you the option to decline installing media player. Sure you could go through a nest of confusing (to a new user) menus for Start | Settings | Control Panel | Add/remove components | system components | media tools followed by a very full dialog of information.
Given that, there is a degree of tools that are necessary and don't really compete with their counterparts. Notepad is a good example, as well as calculator. These are handy tools that don't mean a lot, and if you do need a powerful solution, you'll get UltraEdit or similar. These are arguably a part of the O/S that may or may not need removing.
So where am I getting at? The key reason why Microsoft got in trouble was it's INTEGRATION (IE as a part of the OS) and LACK OF CHOICE (media player installed by default) and not the fact that it was bundled on the CD. It's that no matter what a user thinks, IE is installed. That no matter what you say, you're getting a copy of media player that will always come up from time to time. That the user is not INFORMED that "hey- I have the option to install media player... maybe there are better/other players out there I should research and find something that is faster".
-M
Okay then... so US Military and a few universities/colleges doing research for them create and design the Internet, as well as provide its first links. More institutions hop on as an effort to share information better between systems, and eventually goes global and becomes considered 'public'.
So why should the US give anything up? The Internet has become a public commodity around the world, but is still the US's brainchild. The whole work has something at stake, which is of course why this is coming to play, but keep it in the US control. If people would like, make agreements (and make them enforcable) that the US can't embargo using the Internet.
ARIN is the AMERICAN registry for internet numbers. The root servers are located all over the world but the 'master' root server is controlled by the US. So what? Until the US screws up, lets give them the benefit of the doubt of doing the same good job they've done for many years.
PS: I'm not an American.
And the counter-story. I used to be a Microsoft admin, and now have moved to an entirely Linux shop. The reason? Even a fresh install would do crazy things like packet our network (good old M$ SQL Server). The system would crash at least once a month... and if it doesn't, it would need to be rebooted twice a month anyway for 'crucial security updates'. The system could be managed by "any grade-A idiot"- of course the difficulty being that everyone else tried to change things they shouldn't (BTW: this is the biggest reason for misconfigured Windows servers- non-admins playing make-believe).
Compare this to a rock-solid 'just works' situation with our Linux clusters. I haven't had to fix a problem in years. Things just keep working the way they should rather than some new way automatically!
Maybe the problem is that a bunch of Windows admins knowing nothing about Linux started using it without any required training or valuable time on a test-bench finding the quirks, tuning, and learning the system. This is worse than the MindCraft tests where they get M$ to configure and optimize their server and then install a bare RedHat installation and send a few million requests its way.
Please. With knowledge, training, and staff, Linux is a dream. However it does take a new learning process on the UNIX side that most admins don't have... hence failure. It should _NEVER_ take 80 hours (2w*40h) to install a program- you're obviously doing something wrong.
-M
Lets think about this. Company runs millions of dollars in wire all over the city and into your home. Why is the Internet a regulated service? Why should they provide one service without the other? They say it's 'fairness to other phone providers', but what about fairness to other ISPs as well? Why is one service regulated and the other not? Is it just for legacy reasons?
How does the consumer benefit from this? I've done this before as a temporary measure, and paid an extra $10USD/mo for a 'line fee'. But when you can get BASIC service on that line for $20USD, why are we bothering (sans caller-ID, call waiting, long distance plans, and maybe even touch-tone)? What gain is there for a consumer on the other end. You're letting them get their phone elsewhere, but it's obvious that big bell will have the best phone service.
Just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Seems to be artificially controlling a market that doesn't need controlling.
-M
It's very simple- it's called vendor-driven technology. Consumers don't _need_ slow Internet on their phones. They don't need it to take 5 minutes to check movie listings. They don't need video to come to their 1" screen. They don't need/want low-quality images from their cell phones.
So who wants this? The cell phone companies. When you take a picture and send it to 10 of your friends at 25c a piece, that's when they get you. When you text message instead of using your free evenings/weekends cell phone, that's when they get you. When you watch a video stream at $2.50 a piece, that's when they get you. These are all things that the NETWORKS want you to use. The camera looses it's novelty after about a week. The MP3 player turns out to be a big battery drain and is lame compared to a real MP3 player that is now smaller than a mini-post-it-note.
99% of people don't want or need these services, but use them because they are available to them for a limited time... and that's a money-making opportunity.
Most people don't want a big screen just for showing numbers- but the cell phone providers want a HUGE screen so that you can watch movies, receive pictures, and play games. Funny how that works.
-M
Well distribution is cheap, but yes they need money for other things. But fine- given $4.59 in paper of $4.00 in electronic, given that a simple reader costs $40.00 makes perfect sense for the convinience and fun of having one.
E-books and the screen readers out now are an answer to a question nobody asked. I'm a fan of manuals and whatnot in PDF (as most of them go in the trash or recycling anyway) but not novels. If novels are to make it, they need to be small, simple, plain text, and coming in an easy-to-use device that does only what a book does now.
-M
This is the perfect example of the problem. It's like buying a $800 computer and then getting the 'well for $40 you can get a better video board, and another $40 and a bigger hard drive' and suddenly you have a $1200 computer.
I'm saying lets keep it simple. A forward, back, and 'mark' button. Hold the mark button to set a bookmark, press it to go back to it (maybe a confirmation for accidental purposes). Maybe even add the ability to add a few marks. All it needs is a byte, line, or page offset.
Write in the margins means you need a keyboard or input device. That takes up space, means you need to be able to hold it and type (it is portable). 'Searches' are unreasonable. When was the last time you could do a fuzzy quicksearch in the latest novel from Amazon or Chapters?
Assume the device is for _READING_. Reading a book or small manual. Okay maybe adding hyperlinks for manuals would make sense. But lets scrap pictures, postscript, searching, and adding notes to margins and you have a _VERY_ simple consumer-grade device.
Think of what a palmpilot does- we need a palm pilot or pocket organizer (which you can get for $50-$100 max)- But specialize it. Read plain text, we'll add hyperlinks, and basic navigation buttons. A simple device that is practical to use. If my father can't use it, it's not consumer-grade. The forward/back he'd get. The 'fuzzy search', not so much.
-M
Well here becomes the issue- Why is this so? Think about the actual cost to develop and produce a very simple device that will display text. Forget crazy postscript formats. Plain text in a screen about five inches high by three across just like a real book. A couple hardware buttons for forward/back (with an ability to scroll like anything) and oh.... 16-32MB of onboard Flash memory. A display doesn't need to be backlit, as those $5 handheld video games (back when I was a kid...) that run on a couple AA's work very nicely.
So maybe we're all overthinking this. We assume an e-book reader needs to cost hundreds of dollars and be rather complicated. We assume it needs to be backlit and hold hundreds of books. Make them $20-$25 devides with a prev/next button that displays only text in an easy-to-read font adn we're set.
Think about it- Is this something that consumers are driving or manufacturers. Consumers don't need colour displays and touchscreens on their reader. That's why they're heavy. They need plain text input documents and to have a small device with a low-power processor (my XT (8086) and WordPerfect used to run circles around any modern 'tablet'-style e-book reader)- none of this PDF stuff.
So there's my comment on the reader. Now the other thing to ask is do 99.99% of consumers want e-books or is it publishers who want to save the coin and cut out the middle-man?
-M
How about (right-click-on-shortcut) 'Run As' or 'Run as different credentials' (shortcut properties | advanced).
Wouldn't those work nicely?
-M
1- P2P is often used to spread legal music, software, and files. Think of how many Indie bands have files out there and are trying to make a name for themselves. Think of how many home-made car (aka: rice) videos are on there for us to see. Think of how many interviews are on P2P networks. think of how much freeware and shareware is available on these same networks. So how can you say they have 'intent'. Lets say there are 10 legal files for every illegal file- that's still pretty good. Problem is the illegal files get downloaded 10x as much, but then you still have a 50-50 network.
2- This is obviously the wrong approach. If person X doesn't get their movie from P2P, they'll join a group and get it from some private FTP site. They'll find it on the Web. They'll spread it out through direct file transfers. They'll pass it around class on CDs and DVD-Rs. They'll get it around. Hell they'll even print it off frame-by-frame and make a damn-flip-book for all I care.
The RIAA again needs to Embrace the technology. Provide an alternative. Clearly consumers (us) are saying "well it's either (a) not worth X dollars for this movie or CD, or (b) something is preventing me from getting it (DRM, whining babies at the theatre, poor quality, etc).
So solve the issue. Provide a legal download service that assures the quality and won't have a cam release on an angle and many will flock. Clearly there is a need or want here that people are fulfilling. There is something they are not meeting in traditional means. Feed that need/want and you can actually make some coin off of it.
As always though, they'll figure 5-8 people watch a movie at a time and want to charge you $50-$80 for a single movie though... which isn't quite right, in the same way that you should be saving the distribution and duplication costs in music downloads (but usually don't).
-M
Unfortunately the 'planned feature' list is a little bit of the essentials, namely:
* Forwarding messages with attachments
* Richtext/HTML composing
* Spell checking
(the other things are all 'optional' bonus features by my watch), but if you were to deploy it in a workable environment, the first and third would bug a lot of people (and probably aren't overly hard to add).
In all fairness, it's an very new project, and they've come a long way- so kudos to them. Also yeah yeah- open source contribute patches... Maybe I just will...
-M
Malibu Stacey: Now with new Hat!
-M
Debatable. There's a high cost to relocating, be it the cost of purchasing/renting property, transit to the new location, or even more often neglected, the time spent without any income and trying to find it.
How much culture is left? Once the historic 100-150 year old city is hindered (or partly hindered) there's left a new city? What's the appeal over any new city?
-M