And, it's not a silver bullet. For example, I considered rewriting a VB app in PerlQt and running it on Linux. Turns out it wouldn't work because we'd have to migrate from SQL Server as well.
I use FreeTDS and Python's Sybase module to get at SQL Server databases. I bet Perl has similar library too, but I haven't checked because I don't do Perl.
Even if not, there are good reasons for preferring Python to VB, even if you would still rather use Perl given the chance.
I've had great success with Openserver 5.5, although it only runs Progress
So you'd be looking to replace both then?:)
I'm currently using Progress on HP-UX, working around some of its deficiencies with a bit of Python, and shifting stuff to PostgreSQL where appropriate. The deficiencies? Interoperability, mostly.
If you can get agreement to drop SCO like the steaming dog-turd that it is, I think Progress will run OK on Linux.
I have to disagree with you here. More than 80% of all code is written not to sell but to use.
If your company (like mine) needs agile systems and application development closely tied to business needs that are always changing, then it is going to need someone in-house (like me).
And no way do I get a 6-figure salary, but I'm comfortable:) I am not threatened in the least: because one good coder cannot be replaced by 6 average coders, even if they are in total cheaper.
They will take 6 times as long, lack clarity of understanding in the problem domain, and their code will suck like a neutron star.
This is also why I love Free software and don't care if I never get paid to write software for sale - I will always get paid OK to write software for use, and Free software gives me many more options for getting it done.
The idea of continental drift, if my schooling doesn't fail me, was not invented by a geologist, and was, in fact, called bunk by many of said field. Popular support never makes anything right.
OK, but Alfred Wegener was not just some amateur. He was a PhD with a scientific rather than hobbyist interest in geophysics. Continental Drift wasn't a wild unfounded claim, but rather an unusual hypothesis backed by a lot of fossil data.
What it lacked was a mechanism whereby billions of tons of granite could be slid around like the tiles on an 8-puzzle. Understandably it didn't get wholehearted support until that mechanism was understood.
I wonder if someone is deliberately trying to torpedo Caldera? This is irresponsible journalism without any corroboration. If it IS true, I give them a couple of months maximum.
And by the way, they can take my Debian when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. (insert obligatory Debian "woody" joke here).
(still slightly bitter that the scouring of the shire will not be in return of the king:)
Fuck! WHAT?! If this is true, I have to ask whether it could have been included had they not inserted half an hour of non-Tolkien crap into T2T (Aragorn's Arwen-Angst, Aragorn Falls in River, Haldir Does Helm's Deep, Faramir Fails to Show His Quality etc.)
Let's look at this "clearly defined" term closely.
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
IANAL, but I am a picky, pedantic, bloody-minded
and argumentative computer programmer (is there any other kind?;)
First off, the "ordinary course of its operation" is itself suspect. Be "ordinary" or go to jail?
There's a grey area here, in that if your
circumstances force you to access your legally-obtained data in an unusual way, you could argue
that that is ordinary for people in your
circumstances, and in those circumstances the
"ordinary course of [the access control method's]
operation" is for it not to operate at all.
Next, "requires". Requires how? It can't mean
"legally requires", because that would make the
DMCA circular - without it, publishers can't already impose legal requirements on how you read their books. Of course if it means "requires" in
the absolute sense that the encryption is
unbreakable, the law becomes redundant. In between I would suggest that an obviously naive encryption method could easily be said not to
"require" assistance from the copyright holder.
Now, "with the authority of the copyright holder".
That is plainly incorrect. The technological measure can only tell if you have the right key,
not that you have the authority of the copyright
holder to use it. Therefore NO access control
mechanism could be considered "effective" by this definition. A bit-for-bit illegal copy of a DVD will play on a standard DVD player - ineffective.
A password-protected zip file can be opened by
anyone who has obtained the password, however
illegally they did so - ineffective.
If you think any lawyer could shoot holes in these
arguments you're probably right. But equally, a
good lawyer could make them stand up. There is
ambiguity.
No, if your head completely stops the quark matter, the town you live in becomes a smoking crater.
I don't know if the calculation stands up to scrutiny of course (mantle material is a lot denser than your head, which is basically water), but it *was* for just your head's share of the track though Earth.
Re:Multiple universes?
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 2
Note to God: Remember to make English better in next universe
<span accent="glasgow"> Aw, that's no very nice. Dinna mock the afflicted.</span>
Simple, just make all religions a profit/non-profit organization under the law, and give them no special abilities. Problem solved.
I slightly disagree with the way you put that, although I agree with your probable intent. Religions aren't organisations (although churches may be).
Proper separation of church and state means NO legal definition of religion or a church, and NO laws or regulations about such entities.
If a group of people want to found a charity or other kind of organisation run by their church, the fact that it is run by a church should be have no bearing on its legal status, for good or ill.
If a group of people want to gather for worship, the law should have NO ability to recognise that gathering as an organisation or regulate it in any special way.
Scientology a religion? They seem to be on the same level, so who are you to judge otherwise?
The "who are you to...?" line of reasoning takes us nowhere. Who are you to invoke it? Everyone can have an opinion about that which cannot be tested against objective reality.
But the past behaviour of the Scientologists does not compare favourably with (for example) the Quakers. That's not a matter of faith - it's objective fact, unless you *pretend* that there is no moral framework to judge between malice and compassion, dishonesty and honesty, greed and sharing. And nobody honestly believes there is no such moral framework when someone is doing something bad to *them*!
Still, it's not the job of the state to judge whether an entire set of beliefs is acceptable - it should just try to make good calls about whether the actions of individuals do enough harm to justify restrictions on their freedom (i.e. prison).
I cry "TROLL!" Poster is missing the point, willfully I think.
Q1) What stops the experienced IT staff (who understand the systems and the people using them) from using free software to cut the development time and/or licensing costs of the project?
Q2) How do a "couple of kids" brought in at short notice put something usable together quicker than 5 experienced staff who were already working on it. (Unless the 5 staff were idiots ripe for firing anyway)?
Answers: "Nothing" and "Not likely to happen".
I am a programmer. I write software for use within the manufacturing industry where I work. I use free software to do so whenever possible.
It often allows me to be more productive thereby increasing my job security. It also allows me to see inside it, and opens up options that would never be available with closed software. So I can be more creative, thereby increasing my job security.
Those 5 IT staff (if they existed) should have been cruising freshmeat from day 1 of the project, eh?
I stand by my assertion. a) I'm not sure that chess is a sport as such. b) Powered armour would facilitate chess played with much larger chesspieces, which could be removed from the board in more interesting ways: B - C6 N x B (gauss cannon)
So please submit bug reports for the documentation. You don't have to be a coder for that, or even know anything about how the software is supposed to work. If any part of the documentation is incorrect, out of date, unclear or even mis-spelled, that's a bug. Report it - politely:)
True, developers are often having too much fun coding, and it's hard to make yourself go to the documentation and keep it up to date. But a bug report can give you that little nudge to get it done. And the more specific the suggestions for improvement, the more everyone benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
only if you install a runic font...
I use FreeTDS and Python's Sybase module to get at SQL Server databases. I bet Perl has similar library too, but I haven't checked because I don't
do Perl.
Even if not, there are good reasons for preferring Python to VB, even if you would still rather use Perl given the chance.
Why is hemp any better for making methanol than plain old grass? Anyway, methanol is really toxic. Ethanol is safer.
As for the hemp, let us grow hemp and use it to get stoned! At least we won't buy it from drug dealers. But that's off-topic...
And you can get fuel off the drinks trolley!
But damn I like your sig!
- thttpd
- FreeTDS
- Python Sybase module
Works very nicely. As a bonus, any Python you write will work OK (with minimal changes) if you decide to move one or more databases to PostgreSQL.So you'd be looking to replace both then?
I'm currently using Progress on HP-UX, working around some of its deficiencies with a bit of Python, and shifting stuff to PostgreSQL where appropriate. The deficiencies? Interoperability, mostly.
If you can get agreement to drop SCO like the steaming dog-turd that it is, I think Progress will run OK on Linux.
But they speak and write English better on average than /. posters.
I have to disagree with you here. More than 80% of all code is written not to sell but to use.
:) I am not threatened in the least: because one good coder cannot be replaced by 6 average coders, even if they are in total cheaper.
If your company (like mine) needs agile systems and application development closely tied to business needs that are always changing, then it is going to need someone in-house (like me).
And no way do I get a 6-figure salary, but I'm comfortable
They will take 6 times as long, lack clarity of understanding in the problem domain, and their code will suck like a neutron star.
This is also why I love Free software and don't care if I never get paid to write software for sale - I will always get paid OK to write software for use, and Free software gives me many more options for getting it done.
Japanese particles English sentence in OK is, ka?
...and the seatbelts. :)
OK, but Alfred Wegener was not just some amateur. He was a PhD with a scientific rather than hobbyist interest in geophysics.
Continental Drift wasn't a wild unfounded claim, but rather an unusual hypothesis backed by a
lot of fossil data.
What it lacked was a mechanism whereby billions of
tons of granite could be slid around like the tiles on an 8-puzzle. Understandably it didn't
get wholehearted support until that mechanism
was understood.
Either he's being ironic, or he browses at +6 :)
I wonder if someone is deliberately trying to torpedo Caldera? This is irresponsible journalism without any corroboration. If it IS true, I give them a couple of months maximum.
And by the way, they can take my Debian when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. (insert obligatory Debian "woody" joke here).
Fuck! WHAT?! If this is true, I have to ask whether it could have been included had they not inserted half an hour of non-Tolkien crap into T2T (Aragorn's Arwen-Angst, Aragorn Falls in River, Haldir Does Helm's Deep, Faramir Fails to Show His Quality etc.)
"There is no emoticon for what I'm feeling!"
First off, the "ordinary course of its operation" is itself suspect. Be "ordinary" or go to jail? There's a grey area here, in that if your circumstances force you to access your legally-obtained data in an unusual way, you could argue that that is ordinary for people in your circumstances, and in those circumstances the "ordinary course of [the access control method's] operation" is for it not to operate at all.
Next, "requires". Requires how? It can't mean "legally requires", because that would make the DMCA circular - without it, publishers can't already impose legal requirements on how you read their books. Of course if it means "requires" in the absolute sense that the encryption is unbreakable, the law becomes redundant. In between I would suggest that an obviously naive encryption method could easily be said not to "require" assistance from the copyright holder.
Now, "with the authority of the copyright holder". That is plainly incorrect. The technological measure can only tell if you have the right key, not that you have the authority of the copyright holder to use it. Therefore NO access control mechanism could be considered "effective" by this definition. A bit-for-bit illegal copy of a DVD will play on a standard DVD player - ineffective. A password-protected zip file can be opened by anyone who has obtained the password, however illegally they did so - ineffective.
If you think any lawyer could shoot holes in these arguments you're probably right. But equally, a good lawyer could make them stand up. There is ambiguity.
No, if your head completely stops the quark matter, the town you live in becomes a smoking crater.
I don't know if the calculation stands up to scrutiny of course (mantle material is a lot denser than your head, which is basically water), but
it *was* for just your head's share of the track though Earth.
<span accent="glasgow"> Aw, that's no very nice. Dinna mock the afflicted.</span>
I slightly disagree with the way you put that,
although I agree with your probable intent.
Religions aren't organisations (although churches may be).
Proper separation of church and state means NO legal definition of religion or a church, and NO
laws or regulations about such entities.
If a group of people want to found a charity or
other kind of organisation run by their church,
the fact that it is run by a church should be
have no bearing on its legal status, for good or
ill.
If a group of people want to gather for worship,
the law should have NO ability to recognise that
gathering as an organisation or regulate it in any special way.
The "who are you to
tested against objective reality.
But the past behaviour of the Scientologists does not compare favourably with (for example) the Quakers. That's not a matter of faith - it's objective fact, unless you *pretend* that there is no moral framework to judge between malice and compassion, dishonesty and honesty, greed and sharing. And nobody honestly believes there is no such moral framework when someone is doing something bad to *them*!
Still, it's not the job of the state to judge whether an entire set of beliefs is acceptable - it should just try to make good calls about whether the actions of individuals do enough harm to justify restrictions on their freedom (i.e. prison).
I cry "TROLL!" Poster is missing the point, willfully I think.
Q1) What stops the experienced IT staff (who understand the systems and the people using them) from using free software to cut the development time and/or licensing costs of the project?
Q2) How do a "couple of kids" brought in at short notice put something usable together quicker than 5 experienced staff who were already working on it. (Unless the 5 staff were idiots ripe for firing anyway)?
Answers: "Nothing" and "Not likely to happen".
I am a programmer. I write software for use within the manufacturing industry where I work.
I use free software to do so whenever possible.
It often allows me to be more productive thereby increasing my job security.
It also allows me to see inside it, and opens up options that would never be available with closed software. So I can be more creative, thereby increasing my job security.
Those 5 IT staff (if they existed) should have been cruising freshmeat from day 1 of the project, eh?
Cool! A functional declaration for a close-up rear view of a goat. ;)
I stand by my assertion.
a) I'm not sure that chess is a sport as such.
b) Powered armour would facilitate chess played with much larger chesspieces, which could be removed from the board in more interesting ways:
B - C6
N x B (gauss cannon)
If there's any sport that couldn't be improved by the introduction of powered armour, I've certainly never heard of it.
So please submit bug reports for the documentation. You don't have to be a coder for that, or even know anything about how the software is supposed to work. If any part of the documentation is incorrect, out of date, unclear or even mis-spelled, that's a bug. Report it - politely :)
True, developers are often having too much fun coding, and it's hard to make yourself go to the documentation and keep it up to date. But a bug report can give you that little nudge to get it done. And the more specific the suggestions for improvement, the more everyone benefits.