...By creating a metrics-based standard, it is open to be used to measure innovation.
Creating a "standard" through the banning of a technology restricts innovation. And GE's announcement of high efficiency incandescent bulbs shows how short-sighted and misdirected implementation-based standards are.
This is very similar to how FLOSS software has been excluded from many governments and other organizations: the "standard" that is applied is one defined by a particular implementation, such as "must comply with Software X from Big Vendor Y", not a measurable metric or agreed-on open standard. With such fuzzy, incomplete or completely opaque "standards" -- often obfuscated by interested parties -- compliance is not possible and the standard itself is an impossible moving target...
In the section "Which Machine Is the Client?", they completely mess up the explanation. What is wrong with just saying "The X server is a display server. X applications are clients (running on your machine or another machine) which request the server (which may be running on your machine) to do something ("draw a line", etc)."
Although the W3C has made great efforts to avoid "submarine
patents", its Patent Policy does not stop patent encumbered W3C recommendations from being created. Simply put, participants in the working group of the recommendation must license any patents they hold which is implicated in a Royalty-free and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) fashion to anyone implementing the recommendation (other details in the policy...).
This does not stop recommendations which are encumbered by patents possessed by non-working group memebers of the W3C and non-W3C members to be ratified.
It's not what I would have wanted, but it ended up a big compromise (some would argue that the policy using RAND was the W3C caving...)...See here for some of the goings-on concerning this policy...
Umm, have YOU read it? It does patent this technology but it also offers a royalty-free patent to anyone willing to put the MS blurb on their implementation, not sue them, etc.
While it is far from the GPL, it is not rampant patenting to stop innovation...
The assumption that an OSS product/application automatically means that it adheres to some Open Standard is false. Just as there are plenty of crappy and/or non-standards compliant proprietary solutions out there, there are also many crappy and/or non-standards compliant OSS solutions.
But at least you have the source in the OSS ones, so you can fix them/have-them fixed, and made standards compliant.
This is a good article, but only presents 2 extremes in the examples (in Java): either use a native OODBMS, or use raw JDBC. The latter is not how anyone doing any medium-to-large scale projects. Instead of using "raw" JDBC to talk to an RDMS, object-relational middleware (like "TopLink", etc.) are used to map the objects to the tables transparently to the programmer. So, you can have code which looks like, and is as easy to understand/use, as the OODMS code in the example, but the back-end is a RDMS.
Show me what drugs you were smoking? As a dyed in the wool Linux user/developer, I haven't seen too many machines which can outperform the 108 node R10K Cray we have in one of our buildings here (yes there are some Beowulf clusters out there, but they can't keep up in the memory bandwidth area). And remember that Linux-on-Intel is terribly limited by the architecture of the bus, etc.
While they are spending $$$, they should try and buy the portion of Netscape that makes the browser from AOL. Then we know that Mozilla won't be screwed up by AOL/NS and it would put RH directly opposing MS.
Gnome/KDE: for script kiddies and windoze wannabe
on
October Gnome Released
·
· Score: 1
I know this is flame bait, but someone has to speak up:
Why all the excitement for these sugar coating GUIs (KDE, GNOME, YADM). Do i really give a ph*ck about themes? Can i impress the people in my office with the incredibly baroque-looking desktop i can configure? Can i write a 100 line Perl CGI?
These are for script kiddies, Perl schmucks and wintel wannabes. You want to develop, make real applications, all you need is emacs, some good elisp packages, and a clean desktop. Yes, I agree that things like the CORBA interfaces to desktop service is an excellent idea. Yes, I know that htere are more than developers out there and they have there needs too. But all you out there talk about is themes, and and whether it plays solitaire and trivial sh*t like that. Don't pretend.
"IRIX is a rock-solid OS, and I cannot imagine using Linux on a production workstation at this point. But, should some fatherly organization pick Linux up, clean it up, and ensure the interface is one I'm familiar with (ksh and Indigo Magic), and applications suddenly find themselves ported to it, I don't see how it would make much of a difference if I don't notice a performance drop."
You are crazy (FUD, flame bait). Our SGI boxen are down 5-10 times more often than our Linux servers. And a pile of people out there are using Linux in major mission-critical production environments. Yes, it can be more stable, but...
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/dsj/11/0/11_11-DS4/_article
Second URL should be: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007%5B0330:NMFTES%5D2.0.CO;2
I made a diagram (derived from a diagram in an earlier publication) that presents this data (and metadata) loss really well: Research Data and Metadata at Risk: Degradation over Time as part of a paper I co-authored on this subject, Facilitating Data Sharing in the Behavioral Sciences.
I am glad they chose to use standards (or metrics) --based criteria, instead of technolopgy (or implementation) --based criteria.
I blogged about the issue of standards vs. technology in the light bulb debate and the parallels in the Open Source world last March ( Software, light bulbs & standards: Banning incandescent bulbs akin to banning FLOSS ).
Ha! Gotcha! I don't really care. ;-)
In the section "Which Machine Is the Client?", they completely mess up the explanation. What is wrong with just saying "The X server is a display server. X applications are clients (running on your machine or another machine) which request the server (which may be running on your machine) to do something ("draw a line", etc)."
This does not stop recommendations which are encumbered by patents possessed by non-working group memebers of the W3C and non-W3C members to be ratified.
It's not what I would have wanted, but it ended up a big compromise (some would argue that the policy using RAND was the W3C caving...) ...See here for some of the goings-on concerning this policy...
Sorry... :-(
Umm, have YOU read it? It does patent this technology but it also offers a royalty-free patent to anyone willing to put the MS blurb on their implementation, not sue them, etc.
While it is far from the GPL, it is not rampant patenting to stop innovation...
Actually, it's "Bidness". :-)
Yor momma!
But at least you have the source in the OSS ones, so you can fix them/have-them fixed, and made standards compliant.
I never said they were the same....
Hi Micros*ft mole.
Molee molee molee!!
Why not just use LaTeX? It is great! It is better than OpenOffice (flame-bait??). Sorry. It is all I need. Why should I use some MS-Word wannabe?? ;-)
Nothing beats TeX quality formating. I use it to do my hair as well.
Just check out what google(tm) gives you for the search terms: object relational mapping.
yabba
Show me what drugs you were smoking?
As a dyed in the wool Linux user/developer, I haven't seen too many machines which can outperform the 108 node R10K Cray we have in one of our buildings here (yes there are some Beowulf clusters out there, but they can't keep up in the memory bandwidth area). And remember that Linux-on-Intel is terribly limited by the architecture of the bus, etc.
This kind of FUD is not helping...
While they are spending $$$, they should try and buy the portion of Netscape that makes the browser from AOL. Then we know that Mozilla won't be screwed up by AOL/NS and it would put RH directly opposing MS.
I know this is flame bait, but someone has to speak up:
Why all the excitement for these sugar coating GUIs (KDE, GNOME, YADM). Do i really give a ph*ck about themes? Can i impress the people in my office with the incredibly baroque-looking desktop i can configure? Can i write a 100 line Perl CGI?
These are for script kiddies, Perl schmucks and wintel wannabes. You want to develop, make real applications, all you need is emacs, some good elisp packages, and a clean desktop. Yes, I agree that things like the CORBA interfaces to desktop service is an excellent idea. Yes, I know that htere are more than developers out there and they have there needs too. But all you out there talk about is themes, and and whether it plays solitaire and trivial sh*t like that. Don't pretend.
Sorry, i haven't seen an IDE better than a well-configured emacs. Try 'JDE' for a great java IDE for emacs!!
this point. But, should some fatherly organization pick Linux up, clean it up, and ensure the interface is one I'm familiar with (ksh and Indigo Magic), and applications suddenly find themselves ported to it, I don't see how it would make much of a difference if I don't notice a performance drop."
You are crazy (FUD, flame bait). Our SGI boxen are down 5-10 times more often than our Linux servers. And a pile of people out there are using Linux in major mission-critical production environments. Yes, it can be more stable, but...
What do you expect from a company which has on its home page(http://www.unisys.com/):
"Enterprise NT Rising
From desktop to data
center,Windows NT is taking over
the enterprise."