Requiring the work done to be made OSS is unfair to the companies which do not want to do that. (But now allowing small companies to bid on the tender isn't an issue)
The government is allowed to set requirements on what they want to receive, and how they want it be be delivered. So technically speaking they can request a can of developers for 10.000 hours, and want to have a fair price in a tender for that. Or you can ask for a software license to allow you to do this and that. Hence if a solution company does not want to deliver such, they will not participate in the tender, but they have been allowed to participate and with a lot of experience might have been able to do so under a reduced cost (much experience in the field, able to reuse previous work). Less money spend is good for the tax payer. But this would still only be able to be used inside the government. Because there is a limitation a public body could act as a private body by the legislation of competition. Imagine the government buying all ground, developing real estate, there couldn't be any competition. The article is about should government require open source software to be independent of suppliers. There are quite a lot of examples where government software development is not about the next "Office" software but in CAD, geospatial, photogrammetry, simulation, urban planning where this software might benefit others. If the government would build a new OS-kernel we would likely all agree this is stupid, what about a competitor to ArcGIS/QGis?
Considering the following real case. The City of Amsterdam created a new CAD plugin allowing to the export to contain all properties required for a government exchange. Everything they had seen on the market had issues, hence they developed something new. Other municipalities started to use this software, and one of the commercial suppliers of a competing plugin was not amused. Here the government puts in resources to compete with a market activity - even if they completely hate the product - the proper way to solve this is via a tender, which can obviously request all software assets to be available. The currently legislation prevents unfair competition by provision costs, hence the development costs (labor fees of the civil servant) should be balanced over all private users, unless legislation is made to prevent this. For open data this is for example the European Public Sector Information act.
Recently a Gartner report on open source in The Netherlands made an interesting case why with the current legislation the Dutch (and likely European) governments could not contribute to open source software. Governments may use it, but a software developer disguised as civil servant must never be provide patches or features back to the open source project, nor is the government allowed to publish their work in public, publication should be strictly limited to other governments. This would be prohibited due to unfair competition with software suppliers that build closed source software not having the advantage of government support. Now the case of no-vender-lockin still remains, but unless we first change these kind of laws, harnessing the true power of open source: collaboration, is legally not possible.
You may wonder, they are trying to use the US intelligence service now. Was Germany helpful in the past for example when the Wikileaks cables were published?
Or you need to set up a system where users can pledge a bounty payment for when the project implements a feature or fixes a bug the user wants.
The problem is not the cost of the new feature development. The problem is the cost of maintaining that specific part in the future (long tail). If the feature is delivered and the bounty is awarded for that, that will not keep in mind the cost by the project maintainer(s). Hence it is likely to attract external bounty hunters, coders for hire, but not what is needed to have a stable revenue for the project itself.
Every time storage or bad management of nuclear waste comes up it reminds me of Leslie Dewan. If the Transatomic design just converts the waste to energy that can solve many scenario's. The question is: would it be able to work on this kind of plutonium waste as well?
A license-invalidation could also have been written far more viral, a patent claim against any committer to the source code would result in invalidation. Add such paragraph to any project with significant traction, and with some positive thinking you might kill the entire patent-legal system.[/dreaming]
In The Netherlands there was a recall for two bad EpiPen batches last year. Hence I wonder why the same isn't done in the USA. But for better reasons I switched manufacturer: If you compare EpiPen, Jext and Emerade, you will find that the needle length of Emerade is significantly longer. Therefore penetrating the skin deeper and overcome first world problem: fat. The drug is then delivered in the muscle, where it is supposed to be. Next to that, the operation of the Emerade is more successful without advanced patient instruction and practice.
The GCSB has said that it was impossible to plead the case as it would jeopardize national security.
Should that be understood as: "GCSB - and possibly the government of New Zealand - is controlled by a non-public foreign governance."?
I find it very interesting that not disclosing this information was more important to this entity than getting Kim to the USA for (false claims of) copyright infringements.
I consider Mozilla Firefox being on a decline as a good thing. The Mozilla Firefox development is covered by political statements weighting in the wrong direction. Statements as "Because Internet Explorer does it in the same way" are made over Chrome/Webkit still working as expected. Just read this bugs in hindsight. And this is only what I remembered. Mozilla became a commercial non-profit, with an office in the center of Paris that really can't be imagined. Someone/thing is keeping that alive.
As example; lets assume that in some cases insufficient funds would be the root cause of criminal activities. The justice system wants to provide retribution for society, but also would need to prepare the inmate at some time to join that same society again. But without a job, means of living, a motivation, that is just not going to happen hence the prison system provides education, a tablet for e-learning can help with that, like books currently do.
In The Netherlands some evidence based online psychology companies have emerged in the last 5 years. One of them is a spin off of the University of Amsterdam. I can also imagine that psychology programs assists with anger management and all kind of other issues that at this moment aren't really considered due to the lack of funds and therefore manpower.
I am not suggesting that that all people can change, given their past. But if nobody cares about what happens at the first day of them exiting the venue, that sounds like a really poor policy, after spending an Europe average of 102 euro per day (The Netherlands 202 euro) per inmate. That tablet would account for at most one prison day, if any evidence concludes that it would change behavior in a positive way, it is already a proper investment.
I hope nobody gets it in their minds to make inmates peddle or watch ads to reimburse their privileged tablet. And I can think of many other tasks...
Next to that, like pen and paper a tablet could be the same kind of tool. But what does really make the behavioral difference required when freedom is granted back?
The website mentions the Asus Chromebook as competitor but isn't the Toshiba Chromebook 2 (CB30-B-104) the device to compare against with respect to price, weight, features, resolution?
The only thing that would be legal is the copying for personal use (hence: no reselling). Thus the franchise remains in tact. Similar to that the box office still makes money because people want to see a movie in a cinema or what to own a blu ray disk, instead of downloading it to a harddisk.
A lens passes light, in some sense it is a filter. The filter passes through information. Typically a lens is qualified in either lines-per-inch of megapixel. How can you check this out yourself? Just make a photo of a subject far away and tell if you can make a distinction between one row of pixels and the adjacent row. Typically the light blends because your sensor is better than the lens. unless you have some very nice (read: $$$) prime lens.
But in another subject. Why is this really news? The Elphel Eyesis 4pi designs are online for 5 years. http://wiki.elphel.com/index.p...
If he is doing exactly what I am doing receiving unencrypted Tetra communications, and notified the police that that is possible because badly configured systems. And did not rebroadcast this tetra information, how this can possibly violate the Geneva convention and ECHR for receiving broadcast signals?
Also important:
4. It should work, and not annoy me to figure out why and how it is broken.
For any competent user that is able to use a debugger the ability to actually figure out what is broken, and save significant amount of time doing so, is something that doesn't work for closed source software. Close source embraces a philosophy that any outsider is not competent and the product is pure magic. The fact that no public bugtrackers exists for close source software magnifies the root cause.
So people like to put expensive DBs on expensive servers?
Anyway, I have no idea what that web site is trying to say. I can't find a single mention of Postgres anywhere. It's all MSSQL, Sybase, Oracle, DB2, and some databases I've never heard of. Does the benchmarking software only run on those databases or something?
Check out the why: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wi... The entire industry including some open source databases target this benchmark. Obviously you don't have to play ball, but others are doing.
Splitting a query into parallel chunks only helps when your database server is idle, you know.
Many applications do not have many clients at the same time, but require peak performance. An example is GIS applications, the more obvious is crunching data for visualisation.
It sounds to me that your needs are different than what the rest of us expect from a database. Data warehousing perhaps?
We are talking about software that can handle hundreds of gigabytes of data. But the parent suggest PostgreSQL as example for the diversity SQL Server has to offer. If some article on PostgreSQL is written and someone replies SQLite does all that... what will your reply be?
Most database products (even open source ones) compete very well against PostgreSQL because the support of parallel query execution has been supported for years. PostgreSQL has only recently added some features in the direction. And we are not talking about N clients to 1 server, but 1 server with 1 query where only 1 CPU is used in the PostgreSQL case, and others automatically spread the workload.
Some other tricks from SQLserver are obviously the integration services (Extract-Transform-Load) and Analysis Services. Again you could use open source third party product such as Talend et al. Now I am aware these kind of smart clients should be seen as tooling on top of a database itself. But as long as those tools work very closely with one database... it basically prevents you from using anything else unless you want to integrate your own solution.
PostgreSQL has such amount of features, that as data integration toolkit it is great. But for performance I would not use a vanilla instance... since even tuning and automatically indexing is not something that the database does for you. And BTW... for performance look in this list. http://www.tpc.org/tpch/result...
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree. And that is why tenders with smart requirements are loving this.
Requiring the work done to be made OSS is unfair to the companies which do not want to do that. (But now allowing small companies to bid on the tender isn't an issue)
The government is allowed to set requirements on what they want to receive, and how they want it be be delivered. So technically speaking they can request a can of developers for 10.000 hours, and want to have a fair price in a tender for that. Or you can ask for a software license to allow you to do this and that. Hence if a solution company does not want to deliver such, they will not participate in the tender, but they have been allowed to participate and with a lot of experience might have been able to do so under a reduced cost (much experience in the field, able to reuse previous work). Less money spend is good for the tax payer. But this would still only be able to be used inside the government. Because there is a limitation a public body could act as a private body by the legislation of competition. Imagine the government buying all ground, developing real estate, there couldn't be any competition. The article is about should government require open source software to be independent of suppliers. There are quite a lot of examples where government software development is not about the next "Office" software but in CAD, geospatial, photogrammetry, simulation, urban planning where this software might benefit others. If the government would build a new OS-kernel we would likely all agree this is stupid, what about a competitor to ArcGIS/QGis?
Considering the following real case. The City of Amsterdam created a new CAD plugin allowing to the export to contain all properties required for a government exchange. Everything they had seen on the market had issues, hence they developed something new. Other municipalities started to use this software, and one of the commercial suppliers of a competing plugin was not amused. Here the government puts in resources to compete with a market activity - even if they completely hate the product - the proper way to solve this is via a tender, which can obviously request all software assets to be available. The currently legislation prevents unfair competition by provision costs, hence the development costs (labor fees of the civil servant) should be balanced over all private users, unless legislation is made to prevent this. For open data this is for example the European Public Sector Information act.
Recently a Gartner report on open source in The Netherlands made an interesting case why with the current legislation the Dutch (and likely European) governments could not contribute to open source software. Governments may use it, but a software developer disguised as civil servant must never be provide patches or features back to the open source project, nor is the government allowed to publish their work in public, publication should be strictly limited to other governments. This would be prohibited due to unfair competition with software suppliers that build closed source software not having the advantage of government support. Now the case of no-vender-lockin still remains, but unless we first change these kind of laws, harnessing the true power of open source: collaboration, is legally not possible.
You may wonder, they are trying to use the US intelligence service now. Was Germany helpful in the past for example when the Wikileaks cables were published?
I wonder how this relates to the Radionics work of Royal Rife.
Or you need to set up a system where users can pledge a bounty payment for when the project implements a feature or fixes a bug the user wants.
The problem is not the cost of the new feature development. The problem is the cost of maintaining that specific part in the future (long tail). If the feature is delivered and the bounty is awarded for that, that will not keep in mind the cost by the project maintainer(s). Hence it is likely to attract external bounty hunters, coders for hire, but not what is needed to have a stable revenue for the project itself.
Could you maybe post a reference that they "reduced" the claimns not being a waste burner anymore?
Every time storage or bad management of nuclear waste comes up it reminds me of Leslie Dewan. If the Transatomic design just converts the waste to energy that can solve many scenario's. The question is: would it be able to work on this kind of plutonium waste as well?
What has to actually change to prevent these kind of out of proportion, justice and claims?
A license-invalidation could also have been written far more viral, a patent claim against any committer to the source code would result in invalidation. Add such paragraph to any project with significant traction, and with some positive thinking you might kill the entire patent-legal system.[/dreaming]
In The Netherlands there was a recall for two bad EpiPen batches last year. Hence I wonder why the same isn't done in the USA. But for better reasons I switched manufacturer: If you compare EpiPen, Jext and Emerade, you will find that the needle length of Emerade is significantly longer. Therefore penetrating the skin deeper and overcome first world problem: fat. The drug is then delivered in the muscle, where it is supposed to be. Next to that, the operation of the Emerade is more successful without advanced patient instruction and practice.
The GCSB has said that it was impossible to plead the case as it would jeopardize national security.
Should that be understood as: "GCSB - and possibly the government of New Zealand - is controlled by a non-public foreign governance."?
I find it very interesting that not disclosing this information was more important to this entity than getting Kim to the USA for (false claims of) copyright infringements.
He did patent another line based compression patent, before this work. [i]Octrooi[/i] in Dutch: http://jansloot.telcomsoft.nl/...
I consider Mozilla Firefox being on a decline as a good thing. The Mozilla Firefox development is covered by political statements weighting in the wrong direction. Statements as "Because Internet Explorer does it in the same way" are made over Chrome/Webkit still working as expected. Just read this bugs in hindsight. And this is only what I remembered. Mozilla became a commercial non-profit, with an office in the center of Paris that really can't be imagined. Someone/thing is keeping that alive.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
As example; lets assume that in some cases insufficient funds would be the root cause of criminal activities. The justice system wants to provide retribution for society, but also would need to prepare the inmate at some time to join that same society again. But without a job, means of living, a motivation, that is just not going to happen hence the prison system provides education, a tablet for e-learning can help with that, like books currently do.
In The Netherlands some evidence based online psychology companies have emerged in the last 5 years. One of them is a spin off of the University of Amsterdam. I can also imagine that psychology programs assists with anger management and all kind of other issues that at this moment aren't really considered due to the lack of funds and therefore manpower.
I am not suggesting that that all people can change, given their past. But if nobody cares about what happens at the first day of them exiting the venue, that sounds like a really poor policy, after spending an Europe average of 102 euro per day (The Netherlands 202 euro) per inmate. That tablet would account for at most one prison day, if any evidence concludes that it would change behavior in a positive way, it is already a proper investment.
I hope nobody gets it in their minds to make inmates peddle or watch ads to reimburse their privileged tablet. And I can think of many other tasks... Next to that, like pen and paper a tablet could be the same kind of tool. But what does really make the behavioral difference required when freedom is granted back?
The website mentions the Asus Chromebook as competitor but isn't the Toshiba Chromebook 2 (CB30-B-104) the device to compare against with respect to price, weight, features, resolution?
The only thing that would be legal is the copying for personal use (hence: no reselling). Thus the franchise remains in tact. Similar to that the box office still makes money because people want to see a movie in a cinema or what to own a blu ray disk, instead of downloading it to a harddisk.
At what percentage would it be justified in to change the law, and not make it illegal anymore?
A lens passes light, in some sense it is a filter. The filter passes through information. Typically a lens is qualified in either lines-per-inch of megapixel. How can you check this out yourself? Just make a photo of a subject far away and tell if you can make a distinction between one row of pixels and the adjacent row. Typically the light blends because your sensor is better than the lens. unless you have some very nice (read: $$$) prime lens.
But in another subject. Why is this really news? The Elphel Eyesis 4pi designs are online for 5 years. http://wiki.elphel.com/index.p...
If he is doing exactly what I am doing receiving unencrypted Tetra communications, and notified the police that that is possible because badly configured systems. And did not rebroadcast this tetra information, how this can possibly violate the Geneva convention and ECHR for receiving broadcast signals?
Also important:
4. It should work, and not annoy me to figure out why and how it is broken.
For any competent user that is able to use a debugger the ability to actually figure out what is broken, and save significant amount of time doing so, is something that doesn't work for closed source software. Close source embraces a philosophy that any outsider is not competent and the product is pure magic. The fact that no public bugtrackers exists for close source software magnifies the root cause.
So people like to put expensive DBs on expensive servers?
Anyway, I have no idea what that web site is trying to say. I can't find a single mention of Postgres anywhere. It's all MSSQL, Sybase, Oracle, DB2, and some databases I've never heard of. Does the benchmarking software only run on those databases or something?
Check out the why: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wi... The entire industry including some open source databases target this benchmark. Obviously you don't have to play ball, but others are doing.
Splitting a query into parallel chunks only helps when your database server is idle, you know.
Many applications do not have many clients at the same time, but require peak performance. An example is GIS applications, the more obvious is crunching data for visualisation.
It sounds to me that your needs are different than what the rest of us expect from a database. Data warehousing perhaps?
We are talking about software that can handle hundreds of gigabytes of data. But the parent suggest PostgreSQL as example for the diversity SQL Server has to offer. If some article on PostgreSQL is written and someone replies SQLite does all that... what will your reply be?
Most database products (even open source ones) compete very well against PostgreSQL because the support of parallel query execution has been supported for years. PostgreSQL has only recently added some features in the direction. And we are not talking about N clients to 1 server, but 1 server with 1 query where only 1 CPU is used in the PostgreSQL case, and others automatically spread the workload.
Some other tricks from SQLserver are obviously the integration services (Extract-Transform-Load) and Analysis Services. Again you could use open source third party product such as Talend et al. Now I am aware these kind of smart clients should be seen as tooling on top of a database itself. But as long as those tools work very closely with one database... it basically prevents you from using anything else unless you want to integrate your own solution.
PostgreSQL has such amount of features, that as data integration toolkit it is great. But for performance I would not use a vanilla instance... since even tuning and automatically indexing is not something that the database does for you. And BTW... for performance look in this list. http://www.tpc.org/tpch/result...