Why go through the faff of stored procedures whn you can just use parameterized queries? As far as I know, you need to have access to the db server to create/edit stored procs, and also, afaik, there's no way to use a source code control system on them.
Because a parameterized query sits in the code, you don't have to touch the db server if you want to do a code update.
Given their spectacular foray into the MP3 player market, and the hideous mess that is Windows Mobile, I wonder exactly what more plans they have for markets they "don't really get"....
I echo this. No drivers exist for my M-Audio FW410, which is one of the few things preventing me going fully to a linux desktop on my main PC. That said, M-Audio havn't released any Vista drivers either, so I'm presuming their driver team only work weekends, or something.
Re:Things like this are easy to fix.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
I thought he failed the psychiatric testing? Says as such in his book... Could be wrong though.
Because name instantly = quality, and there's no concept of the same manufacturer producing different quality lenses at different price points.
Re:Why do this?
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Still not convinced. Dell / HP / etc are like AMD - they build / put together hardware. They're not content producers, they just want to sell metal stuff to the public. They know there's no benefit to the public for DRM, so what's their business benefit in doing this?
Re:Why do this?
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh, totally, but my point was what's the business benefit for them to develop this. Their customers by and large are either indifferent or don't want it, AMD aren't a content producer, so it must just be a fat cheque. They're taking a very big gamble on their customer base, who, traditionally I would wager are the more technically minded type than the average intel customer. People who are more likely to object to this kind of thing.
Why do this?
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Ok, so AMD aren't doing this because it makes their customers happy. Given the choice between two identically performing chips, one of which restricts your ability to do something, I'd bet most people would choose to get the unrestricted one. Whether that's because they need it not to be restricted, or they think they need it in the future, or they just object to the principle, I'm betting few people would go "Gee, well, this one stops me doing this, so I better get that".
So the only reason AMD is doing this is to pander to the content providers. I wonder, what's in it for AMD. Money? Too simplistic somehow. Can't think what else..... Surely it can't just be because Sony/whoever turned up with a big cheque?
Re:My predictions for Wndows over the next year...
on
The End is Nigh for XP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You mean, Dell is saying things that may cause a potential customer to spend more money buying, erm, something from Dell?
Gosh! I never knew how evil and deceptive the world really is!
You buy the support. You get a distribution that has enterprise level support, like, say, Suse, or Redhat, and then you buy the support from those people. If you don't like Red hat, buy your support from Oracle. Or whoever you like.
You are correct, and I believe GP is wrong to assume that matter at absolute zero has no energy. It actually has whatever the zero-point energy is (for it's particles), which all quantum physics and wikipedia-browsers will know is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian:)
I was always under the impression that a mobile phone travelling at 500+ mph on a plane would be hopping from network cell to cell fairly regularly (once every few seconds?). This sort of frequent handover would then a) make it difficult to make, receive and conduct a call and b) cause issues for the phone networks if you've got num_people_per_plane * num_planes_in_sky_over_country people's phones all doing the same hops fairly regularly. Meh.
1. Does Novell's translator work well with OO.org, or Novell's version of Open Office only?
Probably both, Novell aren't doing anything drastic (if at all) to OO.o. They're certainly not putting MS patents in their own version - they can't as it's GPL.
2. Like Mono's port of VB, is the usage of the translator covered by the patent deal between MS and Novell?
Depends. If it's released under GPL or similar, then it doesn't have MS patents in it, and Novell will have checked that. If they're selling the converter, then it's entirely possible it does have patents in it, and will be covered.
3. Why did Novell abandon the Netware range of products?
But in the same way, my windows desktop at home is hardware independent. If I remove the BIOS chip and hard disk from my computer, and plug it into a different computer with the same components, that's technically a different machine, but you could also say that my windows installation is a physical installation rather than a virtual one. The OS doesn't necessarily know it's running on a different CPU.
In my view, an OS instance is an OS instance. GP is right - what's wrong with just another small SW layer between the hardware and the OS? How does that make what the OS instance is any different?
I agree, because of past ventures such as Netware, Novell is more widely known to companies than Redhat. However, awareness of MS and Oracle blows them out of the water.
If I, as a company, have a yearly spend of £50 million with Oracle (quite feasable) I'm going to be more likely to seriously consider Redhat as a supplier if Oracle tells me that they're a good idea, because I have a relationship with and trust Oracle.
Indeed. Big companies are where the money is, and if they're not a linux shop already, they're nervous of unknown companies like Novell and Redhat coming along and selling something to replace their unix/windows/whatever boxes with.
With Oracle/Microsoft behind it, buying linux looks a bit more attractive.
Last time I checked, I couldn't get the thinkvantage network profile utility to even install under vista ("Wrong plaform found") and the changelog indicates that there are no Cisco extensions (LEAP) implemented in the vista versions.
They're close, but lets not say everything is properly supported yet.
On reflection, we may be talking at cross purposes here. I'm deliberately talking about the incorporation of new technologies into linux. This is an entirely separate issue of whether there are current patent infringments in windows, and in linux. I should have been clearer.
Obviously, Novell want to make linux very attractive to large corporates. These businesses are interested in linux for a number of reasons, but have a few reservations. One of these reservations is that they won't interoperate very well with their existing windows/netware/whatever platforms. Another reservation is the big unknown about *existing* patent infringments in linux. I think I've covered how Novell will get around the first issue without violating the GPL (write proprietary software and don't distribute it with anything else that's GPL).
For the second issue, both MS and Novell recognise that they probably infringe on each other's patents. Novell in particular knows that AD infringes on patents they filed to do with Netware, and we suspect that MS may have a claim against various parts of linux. The only way to find out for sure who is infringing on who is to do a complete independant code audit of both opensuse and windows. This won't be done for obvious reasons. Now, Novell could do their own review of SUSE, find all the parts where they think they infringe, rewrite those bits and submit those patches to the community. That'd be great, but they're not going to do that. An easier way is to just agree to not sue each other's customers. The main thing this acheives is that big business can now buy SUSE/SLED and know they won't be sued by MS. This doesn't say anything about the GPL really, it's just Novell showing the enterprise customers that they're serious about looking after their needs.
The fact is, if there are MS patents existing currently in linux, then that's an issue that'll be resolved when MS decide they're ready to point it out. The beauty of open-source is that you just re-write it. Novell giving MS money doesn't change anything, except for their customers, and we all know that customers are irrational things that want the strangest things.
Slashdot Mirror
Why go through the faff of stored procedures whn you can just use parameterized queries? As far as I know, you need to have access to the db server to create/edit stored procs, and also, afaik, there's no way to use a source code control system on them.
Because a parameterized query sits in the code, you don't have to touch the db server if you want to do a code update.
Given their spectacular foray into the MP3 player market, and the hideous mess that is Windows Mobile, I wonder exactly what more plans they have for markets they "don't really get"....
I echo this. No drivers exist for my M-Audio FW410, which is one of the few things preventing me going fully to a linux desktop on my main PC. That said, M-Audio havn't released any Vista drivers either, so I'm presuming their driver team only work weekends, or something.
I thought he failed the psychiatric testing? Says as such in his book... Could be wrong though.
Because name instantly = quality, and there's no concept of the same manufacturer producing different quality lenses at different price points.
Still not convinced. Dell / HP / etc are like AMD - they build / put together hardware. They're not content producers, they just want to sell metal stuff to the public. They know there's no benefit to the public for DRM, so what's their business benefit in doing this?
Oh, totally, but my point was what's the business benefit for them to develop this. Their customers by and large are either indifferent or don't want it, AMD aren't a content producer, so it must just be a fat cheque. They're taking a very big gamble on their customer base, who, traditionally I would wager are the more technically minded type than the average intel customer. People who are more likely to object to this kind of thing.
Ok, so AMD aren't doing this because it makes their customers happy. Given the choice between two identically performing chips, one of which restricts your ability to do something, I'd bet most people would choose to get the unrestricted one. Whether that's because they need it not to be restricted, or they think they need it in the future, or they just object to the principle, I'm betting few people would go "Gee, well, this one stops me doing this, so I better get that".
So the only reason AMD is doing this is to pander to the content providers. I wonder, what's in it for AMD. Money? Too simplistic somehow. Can't think what else..... Surely it can't just be because Sony/whoever turned up with a big cheque?
You mean, Dell is saying things that may cause a potential customer to spend more money buying, erm, something from Dell?
Gosh! I never knew how evil and deceptive the world really is!
You buy the support. You get a distribution that has enterprise level support, like, say, Suse, or Redhat, and then you buy the support from those people. If you don't like Red hat, buy your support from Oracle. Or whoever you like.
You are correct, and I believe GP is wrong to assume that matter at absolute zero has no energy. It actually has whatever the zero-point energy is (for it's particles), which all quantum physics and wikipedia-browsers will know is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian :)
I was always under the impression that a mobile phone travelling at 500+ mph on a plane would be hopping from network cell to cell fairly regularly (once every few seconds?). This sort of frequent handover would then a) make it difficult to make, receive and conduct a call and b) cause issues for the phone networks if you've got num_people_per_plane * num_planes_in_sky_over_country people's phones all doing the same hops fairly regularly. Meh.
You know, they have a big fuck-off "No thanks, please take me straight to the download page >>" link at the top of the downloads page?
I think you mean THIRTY-FIVE BILLION!!!!!! more.
Or hasn't that joke been done yet?
Not wanting to defent Viacom, but I'm sure they'll be fairly keen to point out that they actually pay their staff...
Either:
They'll settle, and millions of companies will line up to sue Google.
or....
Google will do an IBM/SCO on their ass and bankrupt them.
Place your bets!
Mod this guy up, he has a point.
How would you go about "proving" this?
Probably both, Novell aren't doing anything drastic (if at all) to OO.o. They're certainly not putting MS patents in their own version - they can't as it's GPL.
Depends. If it's released under GPL or similar, then it doesn't have MS patents in it, and Novell will have checked that. If they're selling the converter, then it's entirely possible it does have patents in it, and will be covered.
Wasn't it rubbish? There's more money in SLED.
The deal is that MS won't sue Novell's *customers*, not Novell themselves.
But in the same way, my windows desktop at home is hardware independent. If I remove the BIOS chip and hard disk from my computer, and plug it into a different computer with the same components, that's technically a different machine, but you could also say that my windows installation is a physical installation rather than a virtual one. The OS doesn't necessarily know it's running on a different CPU.
In my view, an OS instance is an OS instance. GP is right - what's wrong with just another small SW layer between the hardware and the OS? How does that make what the OS instance is any different?
I agree, because of past ventures such as Netware, Novell is more widely known to companies than Redhat. However, awareness of MS and Oracle blows them out of the water.
If I, as a company, have a yearly spend of £50 million with Oracle (quite feasable) I'm going to be more likely to seriously consider Redhat as a supplier if Oracle tells me that they're a good idea, because I have a relationship with and trust Oracle.
Indeed. Big companies are where the money is, and if they're not a linux shop already, they're nervous of unknown companies like Novell and Redhat coming along and selling something to replace their unix/windows/whatever boxes with.
With Oracle/Microsoft behind it, buying linux looks a bit more attractive.
Last time I checked, I couldn't get the thinkvantage network profile utility to even install under vista ("Wrong plaform found") and the changelog indicates that there are no Cisco extensions (LEAP) implemented in the vista versions.
They're close, but lets not say everything is properly supported yet.
On reflection, we may be talking at cross purposes here. I'm deliberately talking about the incorporation of new technologies into linux. This is an entirely separate issue of whether there are current patent infringments in windows, and in linux. I should have been clearer.
Obviously, Novell want to make linux very attractive to large corporates. These businesses are interested in linux for a number of reasons, but have a few reservations. One of these reservations is that they won't interoperate very well with their existing windows/netware/whatever platforms. Another reservation is the big unknown about *existing* patent infringments in linux. I think I've covered how Novell will get around the first issue without violating the GPL (write proprietary software and don't distribute it with anything else that's GPL).
For the second issue, both MS and Novell recognise that they probably infringe on each other's patents. Novell in particular knows that AD infringes on patents they filed to do with Netware, and we suspect that MS may have a claim against various parts of linux. The only way to find out for sure who is infringing on who is to do a complete independant code audit of both opensuse and windows. This won't be done for obvious reasons. Now, Novell could do their own review of SUSE, find all the parts where they think they infringe, rewrite those bits and submit those patches to the community. That'd be great, but they're not going to do that. An easier way is to just agree to not sue each other's customers. The main thing this acheives is that big business can now buy SUSE/SLED and know they won't be sued by MS. This doesn't say anything about the GPL really, it's just Novell showing the enterprise customers that they're serious about looking after their needs.
The fact is, if there are MS patents existing currently in linux, then that's an issue that'll be resolved when MS decide they're ready to point it out. The beauty of open-source is that you just re-write it. Novell giving MS money doesn't change anything, except for their customers, and we all know that customers are irrational things that want the strangest things.