Commercial and proprietary are orthogonal in theory but not in practice.
I totally agree, and I may be being anal here (it does happen - a lot), but I find it dangerous to make a sweeping generalisation just because nobody has bothered to do it any other way. GP was using FUD to suggest that the GPL (and, by implication/association open source software in general) is incompatible with a commercial business. Really, "commercial" just refers to the scale of the business, and to a certain extent the fact that you pull in a bunch of revenue. It just so happens that keeping everything proprietary makes this a whole lot easier.
As you say, for pure software products the only thing left to sell is the services. Other types of product, while gaining in popularity, are still effectively niche products - my N900, set-top boxes, routers, Tivo - all of these are able to monetise open source software via the hardware and likely also some services too, (though with the exception of Nokia with the N900, as far as I know, most companies who make the others don't fully understand the implications of the GPL initially), but they are still relatively niche players.
My problem with the statements above, is that if nobody challenges them, they tend to condition people to believe that they are true, so for every comment like that, you get a hundred people believing that GPL is Darth Vader to their Luke Skywalker.
Since the OP has given us no details as to the specifics of the two cases, it's impossible to offer any kind of rational comment.
Though, for your information, the GPL does not "infect" anything. It is a copyright license like any other except that it puts most of the control in the hands of the beholder. To the extent that it "infects" anything, that's all the choice of the developer. Don't want to follow the terms of the GPL? Simple, don't use code that is covered by the GPL in your product. It's exactly the same as any other copyright license. If you don't agree to the terms, don't use it. It's not rocket science, and it's not some kind of virus that needs to be stamped out.
By the way, due to the lack of information from the OP, it's not even clear if the FSF has any standing here - mentioning that they are not willing/able/prepared to fight the good fight is worthless when they may not even own the copyright allegedly being infringed.
I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF doesn't want to push as they'll most certainly loose ground on this one, regardless of the outcome of any legal battle.
I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF simply don't have the right to push for the reason mentioned above.
they'll just make it obvious that GPL has no place anywhere near commercial software, which again, would be a huge blow for GPL software in general.
Are you confusing commercial with proprietary?
You REALLY REALLY don't want to push this one. Just ignore that clause like everyone else and everyone will be better off for it.
You see, there's the problem right there: Exactly what clause are these alleged companies accused of violating? They've provided the source code, Hell, the OP doesn't even mention what version of the GPL they think the companies are violating. I mean, really - how are we supposed to discuss the issue in such a scenario?
Actually, playing Devil's Advocate here - your original post didn't state that your ext2 partitions were legacy partitions and that the application is so mission critical that you can't afford the downtime to upgrade the filesystem, and that therefore you don't consider that journalling offers you any advantage.
Your original post does indeed imply that you are specifically choosing ext2 (hence, effectively disabling journalling).
You failed to explain the reason for using ext2 so people had no choice but to make assumptions.
I've been there myself. I used to work in engineering for a multi-national investment bank. Even now, they have mission critical, customer facing applications running on Solaris 8 and 10 year old hardware that you can't even get approval to open the cabinet in the data center, never mind upgrade to something even remotely supported.
A tiny bit of non-confidential background would have made all the difference.
That's probably because the data wasn't flushed from cache when the crash occured. Ext4 writes file metadata pretty quickly (possibly even immediately), but the actual data is cached and not written until later.
It's a known issue with the interaction of certain programs and the filesystem. Specifically, KDE had big issues with it because it would perform filesystem atomic operations on config files, but would neglect to flush the new data. If the system crashed, the atomic operations had completed but the data wadn't been flushed so all your config files were nicely truncated when you rebooted.
You could argue both ways for whose fault it is, but at the end of the day, the application was making assumptions that the filesystem wasn't agreeing with so bad things happened.
This has been mitigated by the default interval between flushing the cache being reduced from 15 to 5 minutes (I believe), but there's still a window of opportunity for the application to screw up if it makes the same assumption.
To be safest, you have to flush the cache on every write while possibly changing the way the application handles files, and that would absolutely slaughter performance - effectively bypassing the cache altogether.
The key here is that the GPL does not force you to distribute the source unless you distribute the binaries--and even then, you only need to provide the source to the people to whom you distributed the binaries.
That's true only if you distribute the source alongside the binaries. If you distribute the binaries with an offer to provide the source, then you are, infact, required to provide the source to anybody (regardless of if you distributed the binaries to them) who requests it for a minimum of three years.
Why would you need to upgrade to later firmware versions if you're running Android on your iPhone? Seems to me you would only want to upgrade to later Android versions.
That's how I read it at first, but I think the point is that new iPhones that come with new firmware preinstalled won't be able to take advantage...
In reality, though, if I was fired, I'd suggest to management, even providing a list, of all my accounts and insist that all my passwords were revoked and/or changed, with written confirmation from the company, as soon as possible, just so that I could not be later blamed for someone else's screwup from that point onwards.
This is exactly what I did when I resigned from my sys/net-admin job - insist that all admin level passwords are immediately changed and any elevated privileges assigned to any of my accounts be revoked, and refusing to go near a keyboard until it is done.
It's the only sensible, ethical thing to do - it protects you, and you employer.
Of course, it helped that there was an intense blame culture, everybody's focus was on CYA, at least 3 non admin "trusted" employees had knowledge of the admin passwords (I was the sole admin in the company of 20 employees), and all of my security policies were ignored - not the environment where you want to make yourself a convenient scapegoat while working out your notice period.
Actually, I'm not 100% correct on that point either - so long as the source is distributed at the same time as the binaries, then they've discharged their obligations under the GPL so we were actually both right.
Yes, Oracle can limit who they provide the source to, but only if they supply the source at the same time they provide the binaries (I don't personally know if they do this), otherwise the GPL requires them to make the source available to anyone who has a copy of the binary. Yes, Oracle can charge for supplying the binaries as a commercial transaction, but the sources need to be supplied at a reasonable cost for shipping. Yes, Oracle can choose who to do business with and so have the right to not sell the binaries or distribute the source to anyone other than existing customers.
So, to answer the question in your subject line - *this* is exactly why people misunderstand the GPL. Of course, it serves it's purpose, and if the world hadn't been taken over by lawyers it would probably be a lot simpler, but surely there's a better way?
Basically, the GPL does give Oracle the right to do exactly what you say. You were right, I was right, but the Devil is in the details and apparently even the combined nerd-quotient of Slashdot doesn't get it right first time.
On the plus side - I've got a slightly better understanding of the GPL now.
GPL does not mean they have to give their product away for free to anyone who asks.
It means that whatever pieces of code they use that are under the GPL, they cannot block re-distribution of; and they must provide "access to code to customers who ask". *NOT* to "anyone".
Actually, not quite. In GPLv2 section 3, which you're referring to here,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
They *DO* have to provide source code to any third party who has a copy of the binary
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
And if I want to keep my mods private I will charge one million USD for the source. I am allowed to do this because I initially charged that much for initially distributing the binaries (to one of my shell companies, of course, which then redistributed to you). When I receive payment, the source will be mailed to you in leather-bound hardcopy, in 6pt dingbats font, and you will find that there is a 100,000 to 1 comment-to-code ratio. Enjoy your source distribution!:)
No, you are not allowed to charge an arbitrary sum for providing the source. You can charge an arbitrary sum for the binaries, since that is covered in the commercial distribution clause but the source must be provided at cost, and it must be in a machine readable form. So, the comment to code ratio will be OK, the 6pt Dingbats font is debatable, but the leather bound hard copy, while nice to keep on a shelf is expressly forbidden by the machine readable provision of the GPL.
Am I right that if they only distribute the patched binaries to customers who have support contracts, they only need to make the source available to those customers?
Can they also add clauses to the support contracts so that if those customers are found distributing the source code to others, they don't get to sign up for future support?
No, and no.
The source must be made available to anyone with the binary, regardless of where it came from since the GPL is transferred along with the binary. For the same reason, you cannot place additional restrictions on the use of the binary or source code.
...and make the source code available (via the web?) for the GNU parts. Offering the source for the GNU packages wouldn't cut into their sales much,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the GPL etc require source distribution only for the software covered by GPL that someone has provided to you? If they haven't provided a binary of the updated software, are they required to provide updated SOURCE for that software?
Yes, if the updated binary was originally distributed from them since the GPL is implicitly transferred along with the binaries. If you got the binaries from somebody who got them from Sun, Sun still have to provide to you upon request a copy of the source code the binary was built from. They are permitted to charge reasonable costs for distributing the source, however.
Does the GPL REALLY mean that someone is required to support the code you got from them forever for free? Can I call up Walnut Creek and demand that they send me a CD of the all the updates for all the software I bought from them?
No, only for a minimum of three years, and the GPL says nothing about support - only that the source be available upon request.
By that measure then no need for Toyota to recall anything. You paid for the current version of the vehicle so they can just charge to fix your death trap. As long as its reasonable, labor, parts of course! I'm waiting for someone to set a legal precedent here. The day a software company becomes liable for negligence will forever change IT. I can see it happening at a hospital where access to vital information was lost and someone dies.
Except the motor industry (probably more specifically *safety* in the motor industry) is regulated, the software industry is not. So Toyota are legally required to ensure their car designs/manufacturing processes result in their cars meeting certain minimum safety standards, Oracle/Sun is not legally required to ensure their software does anything.
If they give you the binaries, they need to give you the source. But if they choose not to give you the binaries (i.e. you elect not to pay for a Solaris contract), they are not obligated to give you anything (binaries or source)
Correct, but as soon as they distribute the binaries to a single person or organisation, the GPL is also implicitly transferred, and so is Sun's (or Oracles) obligation to provide the source code to any third party who obtains the binary under the GPL from that person or organisation. So they are not obligated to provide you with the binaries, but they are obligated to provide you with the source if you got those binaries from another route. Though, this is time-limited. a quick scan of the GPLv2 shows that this is limited to "at least three years".
Additionally, there is NOTHING requiring Oracle to separate their GPL and non-GPL patch components to support people who aren't paying for support.
Precisely, the GPL specifically permits commercial distribution (i.e. for profit) of binaries, but always requires the source code to be made available at cost (i.e. not for profit)
Remember, there's nothing stopping Oracle from charging for GPL source code, and they only have to provide access to the source code to the people they distribute the binaries to.
Wrong. GPLv2 section 3 specifically requires the source code to be made available to any third party, regardless of where they got the binaries:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
GPLv3 section 10 specifically grants all recipients of the code (binary or source) the same license that you have, including the right to distribution:
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
Both versions of the GPL prevent you from placing further restrictions on third party licensees. So long as Oracle make the source code available at cost, they have likely fulfilled their obligations under the GPL.
Except you're forgetting what the first 'D' represents - Distributed.
The attack will be coming from a large number of compromised hosts distributed around the globe. While the particular load on any one data center will be lower, the size of modern botnets means that they will still be knocked off the Internet in any case.
Problem is, those calls are probably monitored and if they don't try to get the sale, well, that's a black mark against them - too many of those and they're trying to find another job.
It's just not personally worth it to them, such is the environment that's encouraged in call centers like that.
The thing that everybody seems to forget about availability figures, is that they do not refer simply to downtime. They are actually referring to scheduled downtime.
It's entirely possible to have a 5 nines service, but still be offline for a month out of the year - it's still 5 nines if that month is all unscheduled.
Besides, with a 5 nines guarantee, you're gonna have SLAs coverin eveything - though most SLAs are so vague that returning your phone call can be considered to have met their obligations under the SLA so you're still pwned.
Wow, nice contribution. You totally miss the point, which is that writing arbitrary magnetic fields to an arbitrary physical location on the platter is the very last thing you want to do during data recovery. Now, if you just want to write arbitrary data at arbitrary logical locations on the disk, then you can already do that with the disk in it's current state.
Neither of these scenarios are remotely data recovery, since by definition, you are overwriting data.
For what it's worth, I'd disagree that once you can read a human language, that you can also write it since there are visual and linguistic cues in written language that you have to provide when writing. In most people, the two are closely linked, but I'd be willing to bet that while learning to read/write, your reading aptitude probably has a slight lead over your writing aptitude.
Slashdot Mirror
Commercial and proprietary are orthogonal in theory but not in practice.
I totally agree, and I may be being anal here (it does happen - a lot), but I find it dangerous to make a sweeping generalisation just because nobody has bothered to do it any other way. GP was using FUD to suggest that the GPL (and, by implication/association open source software in general) is incompatible with a commercial business. Really, "commercial" just refers to the scale of the business, and to a certain extent the fact that you pull in a bunch of revenue. It just so happens that keeping everything proprietary makes this a whole lot easier.
As you say, for pure software products the only thing left to sell is the services. Other types of product, while gaining in popularity, are still effectively niche products - my N900, set-top boxes, routers, Tivo - all of these are able to monetise open source software via the hardware and likely also some services too, (though with the exception of Nokia with the N900, as far as I know, most companies who make the others don't fully understand the implications of the GPL initially), but they are still relatively niche players.
My problem with the statements above, is that if nobody challenges them, they tend to condition people to believe that they are true, so for every comment like that, you get a hundred people believing that GPL is Darth Vader to their Luke Skywalker.
He can't sue, because he has no standing. He's not the copyright owner.
Since the OP has given us no details as to the specifics of the two cases, it's impossible to offer any kind of rational comment.
Though, for your information, the GPL does not "infect" anything. It is a copyright license like any other except that it puts most of the control in the hands of the beholder. To the extent that it "infects" anything, that's all the choice of the developer. Don't want to follow the terms of the GPL? Simple, don't use code that is covered by the GPL in your product. It's exactly the same as any other copyright license. If you don't agree to the terms, don't use it. It's not rocket science, and it's not some kind of virus that needs to be stamped out.
By the way, due to the lack of information from the OP, it's not even clear if the FSF has any standing here - mentioning that they are not willing/able/prepared to fight the good fight is worthless when they may not even own the copyright allegedly being infringed.
I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF doesn't want to push as they'll most certainly loose ground on this one, regardless of the outcome of any legal battle.
I'm more inclined to believe this is something the FSF simply don't have the right to push for the reason mentioned above.
they'll just make it obvious that GPL has no place anywhere near commercial software, which again, would be a huge blow for GPL software in general.
Are you confusing commercial with proprietary?
You REALLY REALLY don't want to push this one. Just ignore that clause like everyone else and everyone will be better off for it.
You see, there's the problem right there: Exactly what clause are these alleged companies accused of violating? They've provided the source code, Hell, the OP doesn't even mention what version of the GPL they think the companies are violating. I mean, really - how are we supposed to discuss the issue in such a scenario?
Actually, playing Devil's Advocate here - your original post didn't state that your ext2 partitions were legacy partitions and that the application is so mission critical that you can't afford the downtime to upgrade the filesystem, and that therefore you don't consider that journalling offers you any advantage.
Your original post does indeed imply that you are specifically choosing ext2 (hence, effectively disabling journalling).
You failed to explain the reason for using ext2 so people had no choice but to make assumptions.
I've been there myself. I used to work in engineering for a multi-national investment bank. Even now, they have mission critical, customer facing applications running on Solaris 8 and 10 year old hardware that you can't even get approval to open the cabinet in the data center, never mind upgrade to something even remotely supported.
A tiny bit of non-confidential background would have made all the difference.
Just saying.
That's probably because the data wasn't flushed from cache when the crash occured. Ext4 writes file metadata pretty quickly (possibly even immediately), but the actual data is cached and not written until later.
It's a known issue with the interaction of certain programs and the filesystem. Specifically, KDE had big issues with it because it would perform filesystem atomic operations on config files, but would neglect to flush the new data. If the system crashed, the atomic operations had completed but the data wadn't been flushed so all your config files were nicely truncated when you rebooted.
You could argue both ways for whose fault it is, but at the end of the day, the application was making assumptions that the filesystem wasn't agreeing with so bad things happened.
This has been mitigated by the default interval between flushing the cache being reduced from 15 to 5 minutes (I believe), but there's still a window of opportunity for the application to screw up if it makes the same assumption.
To be safest, you have to flush the cache on every write while possibly changing the way the application handles files, and that would absolutely slaughter performance - effectively bypassing the cache altogether.
Speed or data integrity - pick one.
It sucks, but there you have it.
The key here is that the GPL does not force you to distribute the source unless you distribute the binaries--and even then, you only need to provide the source to the people to whom you distributed the binaries.
That's true only if you distribute the source alongside the binaries. If you distribute the binaries with an offer to provide the source, then you are, infact, required to provide the source to anybody (regardless of if you distributed the binaries to them) who requests it for a minimum of three years.
block it in their upcoming firmware version
Why would you need to upgrade to later firmware versions if you're running Android on your iPhone? Seems to me you would only want to upgrade to later Android versions.
That's how I read it at first, but I think the point is that new iPhones that come with new firmware preinstalled won't be able to take advantage...
In reality, though, if I was fired, I'd suggest to management, even providing a list, of all my accounts and insist that all my passwords were revoked and/or changed, with written confirmation from the company, as soon as possible, just so that I could not be later blamed for someone else's screwup from that point onwards.
This is exactly what I did when I resigned from my sys/net-admin job - insist that all admin level passwords are immediately changed and any elevated privileges assigned to any of my accounts be revoked, and refusing to go near a keyboard until it is done.
It's the only sensible, ethical thing to do - it protects you, and you employer.
Of course, it helped that there was an intense blame culture, everybody's focus was on CYA, at least 3 non admin "trusted" employees had knowledge of the admin passwords (I was the sole admin in the company of 20 employees), and all of my security policies were ignored - not the environment where you want to make yourself a convenient scapegoat while working out your notice period.
Actually, I'm not 100% correct on that point either - so long as the source is distributed at the same time as the binaries, then they've discharged their obligations under the GPL so we were actually both right.
Yes, Oracle can limit who they provide the source to, but only if they supply the source at the same time they provide the binaries (I don't personally know if they do this), otherwise the GPL requires them to make the source available to anyone who has a copy of the binary. Yes, Oracle can charge for supplying the binaries as a commercial transaction, but the sources need to be supplied at a reasonable cost for shipping. Yes, Oracle can choose who to do business with and so have the right to not sell the binaries or distribute the source to anyone other than existing customers.
So, to answer the question in your subject line - *this* is exactly why people misunderstand the GPL. Of course, it serves it's purpose, and if the world hadn't been taken over by lawyers it would probably be a lot simpler, but surely there's a better way?
Basically, the GPL does give Oracle the right to do exactly what you say. You were right, I was right, but the Devil is in the details and apparently even the combined nerd-quotient of Slashdot doesn't get it right first time.
On the plus side - I've got a slightly better understanding of the GPL now.
Touché, that'll teach me to read a bit more thoroughly instead of only searching for "third party".
Unless they've been stung by a Scorpion, in which case the venom will kill or paralyse them, thus preventing them from breathing.
GPL does not mean they have to give their product away for free to anyone who asks.
It means that whatever pieces of code they use that are under the GPL, they cannot block re-distribution of; and they must provide "access to code to customers who ask". *NOT* to "anyone".
Actually, not quite. In GPLv2 section 3, which you're referring to here,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
They *DO* have to provide source code to any third party who has a copy of the binary
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
And if I want to keep my mods private I will charge one million USD for the source. I am allowed to do this because I initially charged that much for initially distributing the binaries (to one of my shell companies, of course, which then redistributed to you). When I receive payment, the source will be mailed to you in leather-bound hardcopy, in 6pt dingbats font, and you will find that there is a 100,000 to 1 comment-to-code ratio. Enjoy your source distribution! :)
No, you are not allowed to charge an arbitrary sum for providing the source. You can charge an arbitrary sum for the binaries, since that is covered in the commercial distribution clause but the source must be provided at cost, and it must be in a machine readable form. So, the comment to code ratio will be OK, the 6pt Dingbats font is debatable, but the leather bound hard copy, while nice to keep on a shelf is expressly forbidden by the machine readable provision of the GPL.
Am I right that if they only distribute the patched binaries to customers who have support contracts, they only need to make the source available to those customers?
Can they also add clauses to the support contracts so that if those customers are found distributing the source code to others, they don't get to sign up for future support?
No, and no.
The source must be made available to anyone with the binary, regardless of where it came from since the GPL is transferred along with the binary. For the same reason, you cannot place additional restrictions on the use of the binary or source code.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the GPL etc require source distribution only for the software covered by GPL that someone has provided to you? If they haven't provided a binary of the updated software, are they required to provide updated SOURCE for that software?
Yes, if the updated binary was originally distributed from them since the GPL is implicitly transferred along with the binaries. If you got the binaries from somebody who got them from Sun, Sun still have to provide to you upon request a copy of the source code the binary was built from. They are permitted to charge reasonable costs for distributing the source, however.
Does the GPL REALLY mean that someone is required to support the code you got from them forever for free? Can I call up Walnut Creek and demand that they send me a CD of the all the updates for all the software I bought from them?
No, only for a minimum of three years, and the GPL says nothing about support - only that the source be available upon request.
By that measure then no need for Toyota to recall anything. You paid for the current version of the vehicle so they can just charge to fix your death trap. As long as its reasonable, labor, parts of course! I'm waiting for someone to set a legal precedent here. The day a software company becomes liable for negligence will forever change IT. I can see it happening at a hospital where access to vital information was lost and someone dies.
Except the motor industry (probably more specifically *safety* in the motor industry) is regulated, the software industry is not. So Toyota are legally required to ensure their car designs/manufacturing processes result in their cars meeting certain minimum safety standards, Oracle/Sun is not legally required to ensure their software does anything.
Industry-wide needs to pro-consumer policy
Only problem with that is Sun/Oracle aren't selling to consumers.
If they give you the binaries, they need to give you the source. But if they choose not to give you the binaries (i.e. you elect not to pay for a Solaris contract), they are not obligated to give you anything (binaries or source)
Correct, but as soon as they distribute the binaries to a single person or organisation, the GPL is also implicitly transferred, and so is Sun's (or Oracles) obligation to provide the source code to any third party who obtains the binary under the GPL from that person or organisation. So they are not obligated to provide you with the binaries, but they are obligated to provide you with the source if you got those binaries from another route. Though, this is time-limited. a quick scan of the GPLv2 shows that this is limited to "at least three years".
Additionally, there is NOTHING requiring Oracle to separate their GPL and non-GPL patch components to support people who aren't paying for support.
Precisely, the GPL specifically permits commercial distribution (i.e. for profit) of binaries, but always requires the source code to be made available at cost (i.e. not for profit)
Remember, there's nothing stopping Oracle from charging for GPL source code, and they only have to provide access to the source code to the people they distribute the binaries to.
Wrong. GPLv2 section 3 specifically requires the source code to be made available to any third party, regardless of where they got the binaries:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange
GPLv3 section 10 specifically grants all recipients of the code (binary or source) the same license that you have, including the right to distribution:
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
Both versions of the GPL prevent you from placing further restrictions on third party licensees. So long as Oracle make the source code available at cost, they have likely fulfilled their obligations under the GPL.
Except you're forgetting what the first 'D' represents - Distributed.
The attack will be coming from a large number of compromised hosts distributed around the globe. While the particular load on any one data center will be lower, the size of modern botnets means that they will still be knocked off the Internet in any case.
Problem is, those calls are probably monitored and if they don't try to get the sale, well, that's a black mark against them - too many of those and they're trying to find another job.
It's just not personally worth it to them, such is the environment that's encouraged in call centers like that.
The thing that everybody seems to forget about availability figures, is that they do not refer simply to downtime. They are actually referring to scheduled downtime.
It's entirely possible to have a 5 nines service, but still be offline for a month out of the year - it's still 5 nines if that month is all unscheduled.
Besides, with a 5 nines guarantee, you're gonna have SLAs coverin eveything - though most SLAs are so vague that returning your phone call can be considered to have met their obligations under the SLA so you're still pwned.
Wow, nice contribution. You totally miss the point, which is that writing arbitrary magnetic fields to an arbitrary physical location on the platter is the very last thing you want to do during data recovery. Now, if you just want to write arbitrary data at arbitrary logical locations on the disk, then you can already do that with the disk in it's current state.
Neither of these scenarios are remotely data recovery, since by definition, you are overwriting data.
For what it's worth, I'd disagree that once you can read a human language, that you can also write it since there are visual and linguistic cues in written language that you have to provide when writing. In most people, the two are closely linked, but I'd be willing to bet that while learning to read/write, your reading aptitude probably has a slight lead over your writing aptitude.
Except he's asking about writing to the platters - data recovery would only ever need to read.