I agree that MySQL is perfectly suitable for many tasks, but I am not sure I agree that it is "much easier to use than fully-grown RDBMSs." SQL Server has a very easy-to-understand interface for creating a database in Enterprise Manager.
Oh. There is a cardbox mode which doesn't require multiple devspaces, logspaces, a backup concept and other advanced stuff?
Kind of unexpected for a database which costs $10,000+ per processor if you just use it to power a small web site--which has to be open to the general public.
(I could have installed MySQL in the time it took me to figure out the licensing terms for SQL Server, I guess.)
MySQL is not really an RDBMS at the moment
on
IBM, MS Critique MySQL
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Open-source databases "don't support as many users, they don't support as much data, and you don't have as many connectivity options," said Jeff Jones, director of strategy for data management solutions at IBM. "They lack some key functionality and lack the scalability and performance, which keeps them out of the enterprise," Jones said.
No, it doesn't keep them out of enterprise. To manage some status data on some non-critical web server, out-of-the-box MySQL is perfectly adequate and much easier to use than fully-grown RDBMSs. Maybe it's a lot less scalable, but then it runs on the hardware you've already got.
But I can understand that it's quite frustrating for the big database vendors that some people do not care about online backup, transactions, stored procedures, views, replication etc. etc. and position even current stable MySQL versions against traditional RDBMSs. (Don't get me wrong, MySQL is fine if you don't need those features. You can already pick a subset of the features which are supported by MySQL in a single table type, and MySQL 5.0 will arrive one day and probably qualify as an RDBMS).
Almost all major players in the security field nowadays sell early access to information on unpublished vulnerablities (or let others sell it). Therefore, "responsible disclosure" is important: not only have vendors a comfortable time frame for dealing with problems, but the information is also more valuable if its distribution is limited for a longer period of time.
Of course, this hasn't got to do much with security anymore, it's all about making profit and a feeling of security. After all, when you learn about a new, critical defect in Windows or some component of the GNU/Linux system, there's already a patch (at least in most cases, and the other ones are so obscure that you don't understand what's going on, so you really can't be bothered by them). So it's not that bad if you run software which is poorly designed and sluggishly implemented, isn't it? The whitehats will keep everything in control, and thanks to the new DMCA law, we can safely tell them from the blackhats!
sigh
(And BTW, the "responsible disclosure" document is referenced quite a lot for a withdrawn Internet Draft.)
It's not that companies like AMD and Intel particularly like this effort.
AFAIK, the Trusted PC started as a project for business use. Software developers could move security checks to the client if it's "trusted" without getting grilled by those strange security people who might accidentally look at the code. So there was (and still is) some market demand.
It just happened that you can sell the same technology to the copyright industry (as "copy control") and to the consumer (as "virus prevention"). I doubt that the technology will match such requirements, but we'll see.
There is a saying that in cryptography, there are three types of elliptic curves: the insecure ones, the inefficient ones, and those that have been patented by Certicom.
I wonder which curves can be used with the code offered by Sun.
First of all, the OS doesn't matter for this benchmark. This is a memory-to-memory copying test.
Even the relatively simple uniprocessor x86 architecture offers OS implementors numerous ways to kill performance (shameless plug: a benchmark example). I would be suprised if SGI achieved this result without some tweaking.
Corporate America already owns large parts of the American Internet (the infrastructure). However, they cannot control who can publish on the Net from America. Not yet.:-(
The method Mike describes does not create snapshots, so you can't use it to create consistent backups: Files can be written while they are read by rsync, and lots of software (including databases) requires cross-file data consistency (some broken software even expects permanent inode numbers!). rsync can be used for backups (if you trust the algorithm), but in most cases, you have to do other things to get a proper backup.
At home, I store xfsdump output encrypted with GnuPG on an almost public (and thus untrusted) machine with lots of disk space (on multiple disks). At work, I do the same, but the untrusted machine is in turn backed up using TSM. In both cases, incremental backups work in the expected way. Of course, all this doesn't solve the snapshot problem (I'd probably need LVM for that), but with the encryption step, you can more easily separate the backup from your real box (without worrying too much about the implications).
$9500 is not too expensive! Definately its so geeky its retro-geek!:)
And in some countries, you can share your digitized copies of records sold in 1950 legally, provided that the composer has been dead for at least 70 years. (The rights of interprets and publishers are not infinite; they expire after 50 years over here.)
Nut balls like Bin Laden I think are more concerned with killing and general mayhem and anarchy.
That's my impression, too. The Internet and computers in general have that "it doesn't work, usually, so get over it" aura, so you can cause hardly any fear by disrupting Internet services, at least among the general public.
Does this mean someone who writes a totally reverse-engineered MP3 codec still has to pay the fee?
I think you mean a clean-room reimplementation, not reverse engineering.
You can infringe patents even if you independently develop the same idea (which is even more drastic than the clean-room reimplementation situation). That's the way patents are designed. A limited-time monopoly to an idea in exchange for complete, public documentation of the idea.
From the comment field in the GIF file (can you write such long comments into the GIF file using Photoshop?):
NASA's Voyager 2 took this photograph of Saturn on July 21, 1981, when the spacecraft was 33.9 million kÿilometers (21 million miles) from the planet. Two bright, presumably convective cloud patterns are visible in the mid-northern hemisphere and several dark spoke-like features can be seen in the broad B-ring (left of planet). The moons Rhea and dioneÿ appear as blue dots to the south and southeast of Saturn, respectively. Voyager 2 made its closest approach to Saturn on Aug. 25, 1981. The Voyager project is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. This image was converted directly from digital data to GIF format.
(Unfortunately, the Slashdot "filter" doesn't allow me to post the whole comment.)
People already start trying to enforce software patents in Germany. The EPO has issued a lot of patents which can be infringed by software running on a general-purpose computer. Some of them already held up in court. We'll see what happens if someone starts sueing based on one of those modern, trivial patents. It certainly can ruin your day if you are the victim.
A factor of four compared over the Celeron is really disappointing. It would be interesting if we know if they run the hand-coded x86 routines against GCC-compiled x86-64 code. It wouldn't be too bad, then.
Reading the story and the comments, I seems that "algebra" encompasses everything which is remotely mathematical, but is not directly linked to the set of real numbers (or calculus). That's a bit funny because the technical meaning of "algebra" is rather different (and in other languages, "algebra" has largely retained this rather specialized, technical meaning).
It's sad to say, but given all those unpatched bugs in Internet Explorer, this flaw is a minor issue. Why bother with DNS Spoofing etc., when you just can install and start any executable you want on your victim's computer?
It's funny that Microsoft always comments publicly on the minor bugs, but ignores the serious ones, just until they release a patch.
You can't use MSDN Subscriptions for production use, e.g. you may not use the included copy of Microsoft Office to write documentation (but you can use it to test your programs, of course).
Good thing I didn't waste an entire f*cking week compiling Gentoo 1.3 with GCC 3.1. It would have been a STUPID WASTE of time if I had done that. Yeah, good thing I saw this coming.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that MySQL is perfectly suitable for many tasks, but I am not sure I agree that it is "much easier to use than fully-grown RDBMSs." SQL Server has a very easy-to-understand interface for creating a database in Enterprise Manager.
Oh. There is a cardbox mode which doesn't require multiple devspaces, logspaces, a backup concept and other advanced stuff?
Kind of unexpected for a database which costs $10,000+ per processor if you just use it to power a small web site--which has to be open to the general public.
(I could have installed MySQL in the time it took me to figure out the licensing terms for SQL Server, I guess.)
Open-source databases "don't support as many users, they don't support as much data, and you don't have as many connectivity options," said Jeff Jones, director of strategy for data management solutions at IBM. "They lack some key functionality and lack the scalability and performance, which keeps them out of the enterprise," Jones said.
No, it doesn't keep them out of enterprise. To manage some status data on some non-critical web server, out-of-the-box MySQL is perfectly adequate and much easier to use than fully-grown RDBMSs. Maybe it's a lot less scalable, but then it runs on the hardware you've already got.
But I can understand that it's quite frustrating for the big database vendors that some people do not care about online backup, transactions, stored procedures, views, replication etc. etc. and position even current stable MySQL versions against traditional RDBMSs. (Don't get me wrong, MySQL is fine if you don't need those features. You can already pick a subset of the features which are supported by MySQL in a single table type, and MySQL 5.0 will arrive one day and probably qualify as an RDBMS).
Forget transactions -- you can fake that with LOCKs.
Forget RDBMSs, you can fake them using plain ASCII text files.
Almost all major players in the security field nowadays sell early access to information on unpublished vulnerablities (or let others sell it). Therefore, "responsible disclosure" is important: not only have vendors a comfortable time frame for dealing with problems, but the information is also more valuable if its distribution is limited for a longer period of time.
Of course, this hasn't got to do much with security anymore, it's all about making profit and a feeling of security. After all, when you learn about a new, critical defect in Windows or some component of the GNU/Linux system, there's already a patch (at least in most cases, and the other ones are so obscure that you don't understand what's going on, so you really can't be bothered by them). So it's not that bad if you run software which is poorly designed and sluggishly implemented, isn't it? The whitehats will keep everything in control, and thanks to the new DMCA law, we can safely tell them from the blackhats!
sigh
(And BTW, the "responsible disclosure" document is referenced quite a lot for a withdrawn Internet Draft.)
It's not that companies like AMD and Intel particularly like this effort.
AFAIK, the Trusted PC started as a project for business use. Software developers could move security checks to the client if it's "trusted" without getting grilled by those strange security people who might accidentally look at the code. So there was (and still is) some market demand.
It just happened that you can sell the same technology to the copyright industry (as "copy control") and to the consumer (as "virus prevention"). I doubt that the technology will match such requirements, but we'll see.
There is a saying that in cryptography, there are three types of elliptic curves: the insecure ones, the inefficient ones, and those that have been patented by Certicom.
I wonder which curves can be used with the code offered by Sun.
Java is already proven and adopted industry-wide.
Industry adoption is not an argument. Otherwise, CS courses wouls have to concentrate on COBOL and Visual Basic.
First of all, the OS doesn't matter for this benchmark. This is a memory-to-memory copying test.
Even the relatively simple uniprocessor x86 architecture offers OS implementors numerous ways to kill performance (shameless plug: a benchmark example). I would be suprised if SGI achieved this result without some tweaking.
Corporate America already owns large parts of the American Internet (the infrastructure). However, they cannot control who can publish on the Net from America. Not yet. :-(
The method Mike describes does not create snapshots, so you can't use it to create consistent backups: Files can be written while they are read by rsync, and lots of software (including databases) requires cross-file data consistency (some broken software even expects permanent inode numbers!). rsync can be used for backups (if you trust the algorithm), but in most cases, you have to do other things to get a proper backup.
At home, I store xfsdump output encrypted with GnuPG on an almost public (and thus untrusted) machine with lots of disk space (on multiple disks). At work, I do the same, but the untrusted machine is in turn backed up using TSM. In both cases, incremental backups work in the expected way. Of course, all this doesn't solve the snapshot problem (I'd probably need LVM for that), but with the encryption step, you can more easily separate the backup from your real box (without worrying too much about the implications).
$9500 is not too expensive! Definately its so geeky its retro-geek! :)
And in some countries, you can share your digitized copies of records sold in 1950 legally, provided that the composer has been dead for at least 70 years. (The rights of interprets and publishers are not infinite; they expire after 50 years over here.)
Nut balls like Bin Laden I think are more concerned with killing and general mayhem and anarchy.
That's my impression, too. The Internet and computers in general have that "it doesn't work, usually, so get over it" aura, so you can cause hardly any fear by disrupting Internet services, at least among the general public.
Does this mean someone who writes a totally reverse-engineered MP3 codec still has to pay the fee?
I think you mean a clean-room reimplementation, not reverse engineering.
You can infringe patents even if you independently develop the same idea (which is even more drastic than the clean-room reimplementation situation). That's the way patents are designed. A limited-time monopoly to an idea in exchange for complete, public documentation of the idea.
From the comment field in the GIF file (can you write such long comments into the GIF file using Photoshop?):
NASA's Voyager 2 took this photograph of Saturn on July 21, 1981,
when the spacecraft was 33.9 million kÿilometers (21 million
miles) from the planet. Two bright, presumably convective cloud
patterns are visible in the mid-northern hemisphere and several
dark spoke-like features can be seen in the broad B-ring (left of
planet). The moons Rhea and dioneÿ appear as blue dots to the
south and southeast of Saturn, respectively. Voyager 2 made its
closest approach to Saturn on Aug. 25, 1981. The Voyager project
is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif. This image was converted directly from digital data to
GIF format.
(Unfortunately, the Slashdot "filter" doesn't allow me to post the whole comment.)
People already start trying to enforce software patents in Germany. The EPO has issued a lot of patents which can be infringed by software running on a general-purpose computer. Some of them already held up in court. We'll see what happens if someone starts sueing based on one of those modern, trivial patents. It certainly can ruin your day if you are the victim.
Are you sure that European patents have no effect in Malta? ;-)
It seems that the EPO council has got a member from Malta...
I don't think it makes much difference in most countries if you infringe a patent deliberately or negliently (or because of ignorance).
Most interesting of all, will the FSF actually do what it always said it'd do, and protect this GPLd software?
I don't think the FSF owns the copyright, so it cannot enforce it.
A factor of four compared over the Celeron is really disappointing. It would be interesting if we know if they run the hand-coded x86 routines against GCC-compiled x86-64 code. It wouldn't be too bad, then.
Reading the story and the comments, I seems that "algebra" encompasses everything which is remotely mathematical, but is not directly linked to the set of real numbers (or calculus). That's a bit funny because the technical meaning of "algebra" is rather different (and in other languages, "algebra" has largely retained this rather specialized, technical meaning).
Knuth goes on to give the translation: Rules of equating and restoring.
;-)
And he had to pay $2.56 for it, IIRC.
It's sad to say, but given all those unpatched bugs in Internet Explorer, this flaw is a minor issue. Why bother with DNS Spoofing etc., when you just can install and start any executable you want on your victim's computer?
It's funny that Microsoft always comments publicly on the minor bugs, but ignores the serious ones, just until they release a patch.
You can't use MSDN Subscriptions for production use, e.g. you may not use the included copy of Microsoft Office to write documentation (but you can use it to test your programs, of course).
Good thing I didn't waste an entire f*cking week compiling Gentoo 1.3 with GCC 3.1. It would have been a STUPID WASTE of time if I had done that. Yeah, good thing I saw this coming.
Yes, it's very nice that it was mentioned in the announcement for GCC 3.1.1.
In many countries, there is in fact a difference: you may copy music for your own, private purposes, but you may not do so with software.