One should examine at this point whether Putterman crossed the line in his criticism of Taleyarkhan. Unwarranted or excessive criticism is probably just as harmful for the progress of science as scientific fraud.
Did you actually understand the gist of the article, how difficult it is to get through the "orifices" to get to the customers? The carriers are (except Cingular when it came to Jobs apparently) in total control of the delivery system, and can demand anything they want from phone manufacturers.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My point is that these assertions are total bullshit. I've been using unlocked phones on Cingular for many years, and I am using three different unlocked, fully programmable phones right now. Not only do they work on Cingular, they also work in other countries on other carriers with other SIM cards when I travel. And I can (and do) load many different applications on them. And when you buy a locked Cingular phone, you can easily have it unlocked.
I think Verizon and Sprint try to exercise more control, but it's not right to lump Cingular in there.
So, Jobs didn't free users from carrier control, he is trying to establish control over users, with a totally overpriced and feature-deprived phone.
Well golly gee willikers, don't buy one then!
I won't. And I'm trying to convince others not to buy the iPhone either, since I think Apple's behavior should be discouraged and punished by the market. Once they come out with an unlocked, programmable iPhone, then it's maybe worth looking at it again.
Apple could have made the iPhone into the perfect unlocked, carrier-independent phone. They could have created a platform on which people can install OS X "light" software. They could have provided carrier-dependent software like "visual voice mail" as small, add-on applications (preinstalled if you buy the phone from your carrier).
Instead, it looks like you won't be able to buy an unlocked iPhone at all, or even use it with different carriers. And you can't install anything on it. Given its price, that's really an outrage.
I don't want Jobs controlling what my phone does or how it does it anymore than Cingular.
Yes, I know the bit above the folder on GTK shows me the file path, however I would argue [...]
Well, you're at least attempting an argument. One could now make a counterargument and debate this.
The point is, Linus didn't do any of that. He just categorically asserted that more configurability is usually better, as if he were the authority on user interfaces. Not only did he fail to engage in an argument (as the Gnome folks had invited him to), that argument actually has been settled long ago among experts, and the answer is that Linus doesn't know what he is talking about. In fact, in that regard, the OS X and Gnome designers are in full agreement.
RPM and Debian package formats are pretty much "it" when it comes to software distribution on Linux. They are lightyears ahead of anything either Windows or OS X offer. They are consistent for each distribution--everything you need can be installed with a single format and interface--and they work extremely well for keeping everything up to date.
What is particularly evil is the "install on any distribution" or even worse "drag-and-drop" installations because they circumvent all the consistency checks and automated update features of the distributions and standard packaging systems. And "self-updating" distributions are evil because they bother the user with trivia ("Version 1.9.1.23.1 is available; may I waste your time now, or later?") and present a security hole.
Pick one of rpm and deb and stick with it. Both formats can be improved incrementally, and maybe even integrated eventually, but we don't need anything new.
Religion has rarely been the driving force behind great exploration; the domain of religion is merely to conquer and kill after other people have made the discovery.
In any case, the decision to do this won't be based on some grand design for the human race; rather, humans will naturally leave earth when it becomes feasible to do so at reasonable cost. If we survive as a technological society, I'd say that's somewhere in the next 500-1000 years.
Provided, of course, religions don't cause a second dark ages first. Without the Vatican, the industrial revolution might well have happened 1000 years ago.
Now the question is, will people take the patches, or will they keep their heads up their arses and claim that configurability is bad, even when it makes things more logical, and code more readable.
This is from the guy who steadfastly refuses to let the Linux kernel even compile with C++ compilers, let alone move it over to C++. Apparently, power, configurability, and choice are values he cherishes only for other people's projects.
Linus' patch for Gnome is bad. I'm sorry he doesn't understand why complete configurability for the mouse is undesirable, but that's his problem. Furthermore, he actually has a trivial option for getting what he wants: he can use one of half a dozen other window managers, many of them fully configurable.
c) Linus turns around and does what he's told to - he submits patches to fix what he thinks is broken
Yeah, and the Gnome project apparently didn't like the patches. So what? Linus rejects patches and add-ons to the Linux kernel all the time: that's what open source project leaders have to do.
Say, if Apple gets a bad rap on some feature, repeatedly, on the specialized press
Can you give examples where experts writing in "the specialized press" have "repeatedly" given Gnome bad press? Can you name specific problems (not just "the dialog box sucks") that have received repeated criticism and explain the criticism?
I'd say they'd be pretty much concerned about the comments, and might actually listen. Same with Microsoft.
Can you give examples of where this has happened at Apple and Microsoft?
Whether you send them patches or not, because, so far, they have a bad track record in even looking at the patches people send them, let alone merging them.
Yes, but when 90% of people asked say, for example, that they despise the Gnome file dialog, maybe it's time to step back and reevaluate the decision.
What people? Where's the evidence?
But when the result is massively unpopular, that should be a huge warning sign.
If it were, it should be. I don't see any evidence for that.
I'll admit that it may be more appropriate for new users, and therefore a reasonable choice for distros that are aiming for wide migration away from Windows. I just honestly don't see that lasting forever.
I've been a UNIX and X11 user and developer for more than 20 years, so I think I qualify as an "expert user", and I find no major problem with Gnome. I'm sure user testing would reveal some problems, but nothing that warrants the kind of vitriol you're heaping on the project.
In fact, the only differences to KDE I can even think of are where the Gnome dialog works better.
But if you have specific criticisms and a well reasoned analysis, then I'm sure the Gnome developers will listen to it. Making up statements like "90%" and "massively unpopular", however, just make you look stupid.
That's right, kids: unless you become an expert on how other people might use a computer, you are unqualified to have an opinion on how you would like to use it.
You are quite qualified to have an opinion on how you would like to use it. But good UI design isn't primarily about giving you what you like, it's about giving you what makes you and other users work most effectively, and that frequently differs from what you like.
And never forget that even if you hate a design decision, all of your friends hate it, and everyone on the Internet seems to hate it, your collective opinions are worthless compared to that of a person who once read somewhere that it was a really good idea.
Well, apparently enough people like Gnome that distributions that have made it the primary desktop choice prosper and that lots of people contribute a lot of time and effort to it.
If you yourself really don't like it, just don't use it; there are plenty of alternatives.
If they apply "widely used principles of UI design", why, for example, is the file save dialog so different (and much worse) than in Windows, OS X or KDE ?
Because UI design isn't as simple as "this is the optimal file dialog"; each system may well have well-designed file dialogs that work within its context, yet be different from all the others.
Testing the interface on "real people" is fine, but are they exclusively doing this on people who have next-to-no computer experience ?
Well, while don't you actually look before jumping to conclusions?
I really don't understand why people should be limited in their configuration options for their own sakes. (If developers don't want to be bothered coding all those options, that's another matter).
There are many reasons: documentation, training, support, etc. In fact, in most environments, consistency and simplicity are highly important for usability, while configurability decreases usability and is costly.
Interesting that people would call this "communist". Does this mean that every company that exports a product to Cuba is also "communist"? Does this mean that Microsoft was "communist" as long as Cuba was using Microsoft software?
Free software is a product, and a darned good and cost-effective one at that. That means that, like all products, all sorts of people, institutions, companies, and governments are going to use it.
The root cause of the injustices in Nazi Germany was not hatred of any specific minority, it was vicious persecution of minorities by a state and a majority. Anti-semitism was one consequence of that, but that's just because of demographics. If Europe had been 97% Jewish and 3% Christian, it's the Christians that would have ended up in concentration camps.
It's important to have organizations that remind the world of the horrors of the Nazi regime. But I also think it is counterproductive when such organizations put on their banner that they are dedicated to the protection of a specific minority group. The ADL should decide whether it wants to be a Jewish advocacy group or whether it wants to be an anti-holocaust group; mixing the two is not a good idea.
Unlike you, the Gnome developers don't actually decide things based on their opinions alone, they apply widely used principles of UI design and they test their interfaces on "real people".
Gnome is doing a good job at what they're doing. If people like Linus and you want to help, learn something about UI design first. Then, you can either contribute suggestions for specific improvements justified based on accepted UI design criteria, or you can participate in user testing. Your and Linus's opinions, on the other hand, are pretty much worthless.
Linus is a kernel developer. The kind of skills it takes to develop a good kernel have little to do with the kinds of skills it takes to develop a good user interface. But Linus is hardly alone in that; the Windows and Solaris kernel developers are doing something even worse: they are designing user interface functionality into the kernel. Apparently, this kind of hubris is common among kernel developers.
Kernels are like plumbing: you want someone that keeps the hot water coming and the shit flowing, and doing that takes a certain kind of skill (although it's not rocket science). But you don't want your plumber to design your bathroom for you, tell you how to use the toilet, or even pick your colors. In fact, the best thing for plumbers and plumbing is to be entirely out of sight.
So, Linus: the smart thing for you is to keep out of UI questions. Keep the kernel going, that's all people ask of you.
Microsoft has strong words for IBM, which it accuses of deliberately trying to sabotage Microsoft's attempt to get Open XML certified as a standard by the ECMA.
Quite deliberately, in fact. And quite justifiably so.
The only decent thing for Microsoft is to either withdraw the submission, or... no, that is the only decent thing to do. Even if Microsoft put their patent into the public domain, the fact remains that Microsoft Office XML is a piece of shit.
...had Microsoft released Visual Studio as free software 10 years ago, that almost certainly would have been seen as predatory behavior. [...] IBM released Eclipse for free, and it's killed off all the commercial Java IDEs out there. Sure, the source is available - but why isn't that seen as predatory?
Issues of monopoly aside, it's not "predatory" precisely because IBM is making the source available, without reserving any special rights for themselves. They may be destroying someone else's market, but they are not "preying" on it, meaning, they are not doing it to take away someone else's market share for their own benefit.
It's also not a "loss leader" because it probably doesn't cost them anything to release it (they couldn't have made a business out of Eclipse anyway), and they are not planning on recouping the money later. They simply think that it's a good thing for the market and their business as a whole to have an open source IDE around. And they have been right: Eclipse has been spectacularly successful driving innovation and the development of common software tools.
In contrast, a "free" binary-only release (Microsoft) or a dual-license release in which the releasing company retains special rights (Troll Tech, Sun), often is predatory. That is, companies that do that in the hope that they can destroy their competitor's market with a free offering and then profit from the remaining market niche. And they do it to get naive users hooked on products that, in the end, are often going to cost the users more than if they had gone with a closed source in the first place.
So, to see whether something that comes under some form of open source license is "predatory" or not requires looking at what exactly is being released and how. AFAIK, most or all of IBM's releases have been non-predatory.
In effect Open Source has become a free pass for all sorts of competitive actions that would once have been--at a minimum--roundly criticized.
Quite wrong. If Microsoft had released and continued to maintain Visual Studio under the GPL, BSD, or Apache license in 1997, they might have destroyed the market for other IDE vendors (they did anyway, as you may have noticed), but it wouldn't have been predatory, since they would actually have given up all future revenue from that product for themselves. There would have been no justification to criticize them over that.
It's part of the way today's software world works, and in many ways it provides direct advantages to IT customers. However, don't mistake it for altruism
The notion that open source software is altruistic is a myth created and perpetuated by its enemies. The reason to adopt, and contribute to, open source software is and has always been simple: it gives its contributors and users a business advantage.
And the reason to criticize predatory open source releases is not because they are self-serving, it's because they are bad for users; that is, if you use open source software for which some company retains a commercial license, the software probably has self-serving restrictions on commercial use and the software will probably evolve to serve the interests of the releasing company, not the users.
Open source is successful because it is self-serving for all its participants. Predatory open source, on the other hand, is self-limiting: usually, if it's predatory and the releaser has some scheme of benefiting from it in the long term, people figure out that those benefits are going to come out of their own pocket and reject it.
I'd vote for the DESESE (Deleting Senile Senators) act, forcing mandatory retirement for people who behave like this. I mean, the guy is incapable of even reading out a speech prepared for him by his handlers. People like Ted Stevens shouldn't be in politics anymore, they should be in an institution.
There wasn't much information on the web site, but everything is in Wikipedia (look under C-Store, the BSD-licensed open source version). It really is just a column-oriented database.
Apparently what is probably the premier desktop-oriented Linux distro doesn't think it's stable enough to include, but it's just as good - nay, better - than Aqua and Aero ?
Look who's talking: OS X 10.4 has most OpenGL acceleration disabled by default because Apple doesn't consider it release-ready; to enable them, you have to dig around with low-level settings. The only hardware-accelerated desktop operations in 10.4 appear to be texture operations. And Vista apparently has serious problems with 3D graphics drivers not quite doing what they are supposed to (see FPS story earlier).
Don't kid yourself: none of this stuff is new and neither Apple nor Microsoft pioneered it. The reason they are all coming to market with this functionality in mainstream systems at around the same time now is because hardware is finally cheap enough and fast enough to do so. If Linux were a little later to market (I don't think it actually is), it has to do with getting drivers out of recalcitrant vendors, not with Linux "following" Apple or Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
One should examine at this point whether Putterman crossed the line in his criticism of Taleyarkhan. Unwarranted or excessive criticism is probably just as harmful for the progress of science as scientific fraud.
Did you actually understand the gist of the article, how difficult it is to get through the "orifices" to get to the customers? The carriers are (except Cingular when it came to Jobs apparently) in total control of the delivery system, and can demand anything they want from phone manufacturers.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My point is that these assertions are total bullshit. I've been using unlocked phones on Cingular for many years, and I am using three different unlocked, fully programmable phones right now. Not only do they work on Cingular, they also work in other countries on other carriers with other SIM cards when I travel. And I can (and do) load many different applications on them. And when you buy a locked Cingular phone, you can easily have it unlocked.
I think Verizon and Sprint try to exercise more control, but it's not right to lump Cingular in there.
So, Jobs didn't free users from carrier control, he is trying to establish control over users, with a totally overpriced and feature-deprived phone.
Well golly gee willikers, don't buy one then!
I won't. And I'm trying to convince others not to buy the iPhone either, since I think Apple's behavior should be discouraged and punished by the market. Once they come out with an unlocked, programmable iPhone, then it's maybe worth looking at it again.
Apple could have made the iPhone into the perfect unlocked, carrier-independent phone. They could have created a platform on which people can install OS X "light" software. They could have provided carrier-dependent software like "visual voice mail" as small, add-on applications (preinstalled if you buy the phone from your carrier).
Instead, it looks like you won't be able to buy an unlocked iPhone at all, or even use it with different carriers. And you can't install anything on it. Given its price, that's really an outrage.
I don't want Jobs controlling what my phone does or how it does it anymore than Cingular.
Yes, I know the bit above the folder on GTK shows me the file path, however I would argue [...]
Well, you're at least attempting an argument. One could now make a counterargument and debate this.
The point is, Linus didn't do any of that. He just categorically asserted that more configurability is usually better, as if he were the authority on user interfaces. Not only did he fail to engage in an argument (as the Gnome folks had invited him to), that argument actually has been settled long ago among experts, and the answer is that Linus doesn't know what he is talking about. In fact, in that regard, the OS X and Gnome designers are in full agreement.
RPM and Debian package formats are pretty much "it" when it comes to software distribution on Linux. They are lightyears ahead of anything either Windows or OS X offer. They are consistent for each distribution--everything you need can be installed with a single format and interface--and they work extremely well for keeping everything up to date.
What is particularly evil is the "install on any distribution" or even worse "drag-and-drop" installations because they circumvent all the consistency checks and automated update features of the distributions and standard packaging systems. And "self-updating" distributions are evil because they bother the user with trivia ("Version 1.9.1.23.1 is available; may I waste your time now, or later?") and present a security hole.
Pick one of rpm and deb and stick with it. Both formats can be improved incrementally, and maybe even integrated eventually, but we don't need anything new.
Religion has rarely been the driving force behind great exploration; the domain of religion is merely to conquer and kill after other people have made the discovery.
In any case, the decision to do this won't be based on some grand design for the human race; rather, humans will naturally leave earth when it becomes feasible to do so at reasonable cost. If we survive as a technological society, I'd say that's somewhere in the next 500-1000 years.
Provided, of course, religions don't cause a second dark ages first. Without the Vatican, the industrial revolution might well have happened 1000 years ago.
Who said it was? Linus certainly didn't.
RTFA
Now the question is, will people take the patches, or will they keep their heads up their arses and claim that configurability is bad, even when it makes things more logical, and code more readable.
This is from the guy who steadfastly refuses to let the Linux kernel even compile with C++ compilers, let alone move it over to C++. Apparently, power, configurability, and choice are values he cherishes only for other people's projects.
Linus' patch for Gnome is bad. I'm sorry he doesn't understand why complete configurability for the mouse is undesirable, but that's his problem. Furthermore, he actually has a trivial option for getting what he wants: he can use one of half a dozen other window managers, many of them fully configurable.
c) Linus turns around and does what he's told to - he submits patches to fix what he thinks is broken
Yeah, and the Gnome project apparently didn't like the patches. So what? Linus rejects patches and add-ons to the Linux kernel all the time: that's what open source project leaders have to do.
So why is it wrong when Gnome does that to him?
As I was saying: the Gnome developers do testing and apply principles of UI design. Either help them with that, or don't waste their time.
(Your childish demagoguery isn't worth responding to.)
Say, if Apple gets a bad rap on some feature, repeatedly, on the specialized press
Can you give examples where experts writing in "the specialized press" have "repeatedly" given Gnome bad press? Can you name specific problems (not just "the dialog box sucks") that have received repeated criticism and explain the criticism?
I'd say they'd be pretty much concerned about the comments, and might actually listen. Same with Microsoft.
Can you give examples of where this has happened at Apple and Microsoft?
Whether you send them patches or not, because, so far, they have a bad track record in even looking at the patches people send them, let alone merging them.
Sounds to me they are doing their job.
Yes, but when 90% of people asked say, for example, that they despise the Gnome file dialog, maybe it's time to step back and reevaluate the decision.
What people? Where's the evidence?
But when the result is massively unpopular, that should be a huge warning sign.
If it were, it should be. I don't see any evidence for that.
I'll admit that it may be more appropriate for new users, and therefore a reasonable choice for distros that are aiming for wide migration away from Windows. I just honestly don't see that lasting forever.
I've been a UNIX and X11 user and developer for more than 20 years, so I think I qualify as an
"expert user", and I find no major problem with Gnome. I'm sure user testing would reveal some problems, but nothing that warrants the kind of vitriol you're heaping on the project.
In fact, the only differences to KDE I can even think of are where the Gnome dialog works better.
But if you have specific criticisms and a well reasoned analysis, then I'm sure the Gnome developers will listen to it. Making up statements like "90%" and "massively unpopular", however, just make you look stupid.
That's right, kids: unless you become an expert on how other people might use a computer, you are unqualified to have an opinion on how you would like to use it.
You are quite qualified to have an opinion on how you would like to use it. But good UI design isn't primarily about giving you what you like, it's about giving you what makes you and other users work most effectively, and that frequently differs from what you like.
And never forget that even if you hate a design decision, all of your friends hate it, and everyone on the Internet seems to hate it, your collective opinions are worthless compared to that of a person who once read somewhere that it was a really good idea.
Well, apparently enough people like Gnome that distributions that have made it the primary desktop choice prosper and that lots of people contribute a lot of time and effort to it.
If you yourself really don't like it, just don't use it; there are plenty of alternatives.
If they apply "widely used principles of UI design", why, for example, is the file save dialog so different (and much worse) than in Windows, OS X or KDE ?
Because UI design isn't as simple as "this is the optimal file dialog"; each system may well have well-designed file dialogs that work within its context, yet be different from all the others.
Testing the interface on "real people" is fine, but are they exclusively doing this on people who have next-to-no computer experience ?
Well, while don't you actually look before jumping to conclusions?
I really don't understand why people should be limited in their configuration options for their own sakes. (If developers don't want to be bothered coding all those options, that's another matter).
There are many reasons: documentation, training, support, etc. In fact, in most environments, consistency and simplicity are highly important for usability, while configurability decreases usability and is costly.
Interesting that people would call this "communist". Does this mean that every company that exports a product to Cuba is also "communist"? Does this mean that Microsoft was "communist" as long as Cuba was using Microsoft software?
Free software is a product, and a darned good and cost-effective one at that. That means that, like all products, all sorts of people, institutions, companies, and governments are going to use it.
The root cause of the injustices in Nazi Germany was not hatred of any specific minority, it was vicious persecution of minorities by a state and a majority. Anti-semitism was one consequence of that, but that's just because of demographics. If Europe had been 97% Jewish and 3% Christian, it's the Christians that would have ended up in concentration camps.
It's important to have organizations that remind the world of the horrors of the Nazi regime. But I also think it is counterproductive when such organizations put on their banner that they are dedicated to the protection of a specific minority group. The ADL should decide whether it wants to be a Jewish advocacy group or whether it wants to be an anti-holocaust group; mixing the two is not a good idea.
Unlike you, the Gnome developers don't actually decide things based on their opinions alone, they apply widely used principles of UI design and they test their interfaces on "real people".
Gnome is doing a good job at what they're doing. If people like Linus and you want to help, learn something about UI design first. Then, you can either contribute suggestions for specific improvements justified based on accepted UI design criteria, or you can participate in user testing. Your and Linus's opinions, on the other hand, are pretty much worthless.
Linus is a kernel developer. The kind of skills it takes to develop a good kernel have little to do with the kinds of skills it takes to develop a good user interface. But Linus is hardly alone in that; the Windows and Solaris kernel developers are doing something even worse: they are designing user interface functionality into the kernel. Apparently, this kind of hubris is common among kernel developers.
Kernels are like plumbing: you want someone that keeps the hot water coming and the shit flowing, and doing that takes a certain kind of skill (although it's not rocket science). But you don't want your plumber to design your bathroom for you, tell you how to use the toilet, or even pick your colors. In fact, the best thing for plumbers and plumbing is to be entirely out of sight.
So, Linus: the smart thing for you is to keep out of UI questions. Keep the kernel going, that's all people ask of you.
Microsoft has strong words for IBM, which it accuses of deliberately trying to sabotage Microsoft's attempt to get Open XML certified as a standard by the ECMA.
Quite deliberately, in fact. And quite justifiably so.
The only decent thing for Microsoft is to either withdraw the submission, or... no, that is the only decent thing to do. Even if Microsoft put their patent into the public domain, the fact remains that Microsoft Office XML is a piece of shit.
...had Microsoft released Visual Studio as free software 10 years ago, that almost certainly would have been seen as predatory behavior. [...] IBM released Eclipse for free, and it's killed off all the commercial Java IDEs out there. Sure, the source is available - but why isn't that seen as predatory?
Issues of monopoly aside, it's not "predatory" precisely because IBM is making the source available, without reserving any special rights for themselves. They may be destroying someone else's market, but they are not "preying" on it, meaning, they are not doing it to take away someone else's market share for their own benefit.
It's also not a "loss leader" because it probably doesn't cost them anything to release it (they couldn't have made a business out of Eclipse anyway), and they are not planning on recouping the money later. They simply think that it's a good thing for the market and their business as a whole to have an open source IDE around. And they have been right: Eclipse has been spectacularly successful driving innovation and the development of common software tools.
In contrast, a "free" binary-only release (Microsoft) or a dual-license release in which the releasing company retains special rights (Troll Tech, Sun), often is predatory. That is, companies that do that in the hope that they can destroy their competitor's market with a free offering and then profit from the remaining market niche. And they do it to get naive users hooked on products that, in the end, are often going to cost the users more than if they had gone with a closed source in the first place.
So, to see whether something that comes under some form of open source license is "predatory" or not requires looking at what exactly is being released and how. AFAIK, most or all of IBM's releases have been non-predatory.
In effect Open Source has become a free pass for all sorts of competitive actions that would once have been--at a minimum--roundly criticized.
Quite wrong. If Microsoft had released and continued to maintain Visual Studio under the GPL, BSD, or Apache license in 1997, they might have destroyed the market for other IDE vendors (they did anyway, as you may have noticed), but it wouldn't have been predatory, since they would actually have given up all future revenue from that product for themselves. There would have been no justification to criticize them over that.
It's part of the way today's software world works, and in many ways it provides direct advantages to IT customers. However, don't mistake it for altruism
The notion that open source software is altruistic is a myth created and perpetuated by its enemies. The reason to adopt, and contribute to, open source software is and has always been simple: it gives its contributors and users a business advantage.
And the reason to criticize predatory open source releases is not because they are self-serving, it's because they are bad for users; that is, if you use open source software for which some company retains a commercial license, the software probably has self-serving restrictions on commercial use and the software will probably evolve to serve the interests of the releasing company, not the users.
Open source is successful because it is self-serving for all its participants. Predatory open source, on the other hand, is self-limiting: usually, if it's predatory and the releaser has some scheme of benefiting from it in the long term, people figure out that those benefits are going to come out of their own pocket and reject it.
I'd vote for the DESESE (Deleting Senile Senators) act, forcing mandatory retirement for people who behave like this. I mean, the guy is incapable of even reading out a speech prepared for him by his handlers. People like Ted Stevens shouldn't be in politics anymore, they should be in an institution.
There wasn't much information on the web site, but everything is in Wikipedia (look under C-Store, the BSD-licensed open source version). It really is just a column-oriented database.
Where does it say that Vertica is going to be open source?
In any case, if people wonder how they get 100x speedups, it's probably related to Stonebraker's previous company called Streambase.
Apparently what is probably the premier desktop-oriented Linux distro doesn't think it's stable enough to include, but it's just as good - nay, better - than Aqua and Aero ?
Look who's talking: OS X 10.4 has most OpenGL acceleration disabled by default because Apple doesn't consider it release-ready; to enable them, you have to dig around with low-level settings. The only hardware-accelerated desktop operations in 10.4 appear to be texture operations. And Vista apparently has serious problems with 3D graphics drivers not quite doing what they are supposed to (see FPS story earlier).
Don't kid yourself: none of this stuff is new and neither Apple nor Microsoft pioneered it. The reason they are all coming to market with this functionality in mainstream systems at around the same time now is because hardware is finally cheap enough and fast enough to do so. If Linux were a little later to market (I don't think it actually is), it has to do with getting drivers out of recalcitrant vendors, not with Linux "following" Apple or Microsoft.
Your post is a complete no-sequitur. Do you just post that sort of drivel in response to anything?
The Emperor doesn't have any clothes on. The EU isn't such a good idea, are you starting to see why?
No, I don't. Occasionally, the EU passes bad laws, just like any national legislature does, and just like the US Congress does.
There is something just the littlest bit ironic about posts complaining of gullible Americans that originate in EU countries.
There is evidently a whole lot of stupidity and name calling on both sides of the ocean.
Frightened and vindictive little bureaucrats in little jobs always do things like this.
It's you who strike me as a "frightened and vindictive little" mind, actually.