No, it's not throwing tantrum. RMS has a philosophy that users of software should have certain freedoms / rights (use, study & modify, redistribute, distribute). That's the gist of GPL and why he founded GNU. BSD-style license does not guarantee these freedoms, and Stallman sees wider adoption of projects using those licenses as a threat to free software. I do work on BSD-licensed projects, but I certainly do share his fear that this poses serious threat to free software in the long run.

I don't think it's a conspiracy or somehow widely orchestrated effort - more likely it's simply easier not to guarantee those rights and thus more attractive for commercial companies (participating in those projects), but I believe the threat to the freedoms is real.

Good advice - when checking reviews for a product (e.g. on Amazon), always sort them by time and check how the ratings change. Many products get good reviews first, then it dives. You won't see this otherwise.

I'm not using Chrome or IE, and I don't care how secure their sandboxes are. I simply don't agree with the DRM concept in general, because it limits my rights, the problems with reporting security issues, and it only affects the customers (not the actual pirates). And no, running a JS code is not the same as running the EME plugin.

Given how much they praise Adobe (which is one of the worst companies cosidering approach to open-source), I doubt they'll have the courage to do that.

Believe that or no, they actually care about standards. That's why both the companies lobbied for this at W3C.

Yeah. And the point is? What has this to do with DRM?

Oh, analogies with physical world ... I always loved the one that said "but it's exactly the same as stealing a car".

Anyway, the analogy is stupid for a number of reasons:

(1) With a lock on my door, I'm protecting my property, that I'm not willing to share with anyone else. DRM protects something that is being shared (sold) with customers.

(2) While a lock on a door may be broken / lockpicked, it needs to happen every single time. Whereas when a DRM scheme is broken, it's broken one and for all.

(3) While a lock may be lockpicked, that need to happen in public, in limited time etc. Whereas breaking DRM may happen in a nice calm place, take arbitrary amount of time etc.

(4) I certainly don't put a lock on the main door, while leaving the back door and all the windows open. Yet we'll get DRM in the browser and unprotected DVDs, blurays etc.

So let me reiterate - all the paying customers will get a binary blob from Adobe into their browsers (and I'm one of those who got the nice rootkit surprise from Sony a few years ago), but the actual pirates won't even notice this. Either they'll break or workaround the DRM somehow (which really won't be all that difficult), or they'll use a different source (e.g. dvds/blurays, ...).

And not only that the paying customers will have to install the blob - it's actually illegal to analyze the code, researchers are afraid to even report security issues in it because of possible prosecution.

Which is pretty much the problem with the DRM - the purpose is not to protect the content directly (because of all the weaknesses), but to make the prosecution easier (breaking the DRM vs. violating copyright etc.).

Hmmmmm, you're probably right. Not a native speaker here, and I parsed it differently the first time ...

No, it's not. Or at least, there are no clear arguments to support this claim (see the article from Cory Doctorow in Guardian, explaining this in more detail: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...).

The only vague argument available is along the lines "netflix transfers a lot of data => it's important => we'll loose a lot of users if we don't support EME". Which is quite weak implication, IMNSHO. For example it's absolutely unsupported claim that users will abandon Firefox completely - there were times when I had to use IE occasionally, because dumb webdesigners made it work only with IE. But I was using FF or some other browser, because it was superior in every other aspect.

Second, it absolutely absolutely ignores countries not covered by Netflix - which is pretty much everywhere outside America and northern part of Europe.

And finally, this DRM is as futile as all the other DRM technologies - it's going to be broken sooner or later (rather sooner), and there are other ways to pirate movies. DVDs/blurays, recording DVB-T ... so the only people not suffering by this are going to be pirates. Just like with all the previous technologies.

Anyway, I always thought the goal of Mozilla is not to acquire the highest browser marketshare, but to offer a truly open-source alternative. Also, browser is not the only project they have. This could have been a great education opportunity - showing a page briefly explaining the DRM issues, why Mozilla decided not to implement it, etc.

Partnership with Adobe, one of the companies most hostile towards open-source, that's a slap in the face.

However, Mozilla is not the only offender here - the first step was done by W3C, who allowed EME to be become part of the standard.

Where are my mod points when I need them?

What? How is yelling "fire" in a theater similar to publicly warning people about issues with DRM? That's one of the weirdest analogies I heard in a very long time.

Anyway, please explain how is DRM beneficial to the society, that it's worth limiting such freedoms as reporting bugs in the DRM technology.

Nothing. Because the postgres community didn't mean this to be "aim at the NoSQL market." The fact that angry tapir puts that into an abstract on ./ does not make it 'community opinion'.

Right. Implementing this without SQL is so much simpler.

Oh wait ...

So what exactly does 'web 2.0' mean? Because I can tell you it's a completely vague term, used to create hype around so many disparate concepts it lost all the meaning it once had. And even if you manage come up with some definition, do you really think the business wonks will understand it / should be responsible for choosing the technology?

Wootery implied nothing about Postgres being incapable database system, just that the 'web 2.0' is a buzzword. That says nothing about Postgres (or rather Postgres-XL, because that's what the website is about). And IMO he's right. Also, the ad hominem arguments are annoying.

BTW Postgres is not a company. It's an open-source project, with a community developing it, so there's no 'chief marketing guru' position to apply for.

Except that the transactions in MongoDB can touch only a single document. Which kinda makes the whole ACID idea pointless, because that's about consistency of the whole database. Saying "it's ACID, but only within a single document" is a bit like "you can have any color, as long as it's black".

I'm not sure about CouchDB - I know it used the same approach (single-document transactions), but maybe that changed a bit.

One of the absolutely terrible things coming from the whole NoSQL movement is redefinition of existing terms. "Consistency" is a great example of that, "availability" is another one.

Except that indexes are only BASE. Good luck with querying it ....

I don't know whether angry tapir knows what relational means, but I see nothing in his post IMHO suggesting he has no clue. JSON is great for storing non-relational data (hierarchies, data without fixed set of columns, ...). Not all data are purely relational, it's often a mix.

Well, yes and no. PostgreSQL had a text-only JSON data type since long time, and was able to index keys using expression indexes. That's nothing new.

The 9.4 improvements are that the (a) JSONB is stored in a binary form, and (b) a lot of ideas from HSTORE data type, plus new ones were implemented. That means that you can create "universal" index without prior knowledge of what keys will be interesting. So then you can ask for data containing arbitrary keys, sets of keys, values, documents etc. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs...

Sure, it's not perfect and the index may get somehow big, but well ...