well, now that Oracle OWNS Java, the equation as to their level of interest would change, wouldn't it?

I'd think MySQL is one of the reasons Oracle bought Sun. Whatever its failings, MySQL is the "default" choice for most new (small) deployments (I mean, to the extent there's the LAMP acronym for it), the ones that are too small for Oracle to care about.

Now that Oracle has it, they're in a position to "upsell" them once they get far enough. They now control both the high end AND the low end ("... the horizontal and the vertical..."). I'd expect an upper limit to the effort put into scaling MySQL up ("we already have a high-end DB, why waste the effort?"), but I don't see them abandoning it.

and now, IBM execs are starting to wonder if maybe they shouldn't have walked away

Agreed. I think what this means is that Oracle DOES want Sun's hardware. Maybe not SPARC (which I guess they could hive off completely to Fujitsu), but they now can provide every single item in the checklist.

and let's not forget Larry Ellison's foray into network computing...

Actually. I think it might well go the other way. That Oracle decided to fork/clone Red Hat shows one thing - Oracle WANTS to have an OS.

Now they have one.

We're nerds. This is about the functioning of the justice system; law and order. In a society where there are no rules, the ones who will be getting oppressed and exploited are going to be us. The ones who'll be having the rules bent their way are going to be the thugs, not us. News about law and order and freedom, their functioning or lack thereof, is news for nerds.

I think that just shifts the problem from CPU power to bandwidth (which is already a problem area).

this is why PCs evolved in the first place - mainframes were essentially a server with ... very poor, very high latency bandwidth (driving to the office to get punched cards... that's a 1 day ping time).

the raw performance figures keep going up, but the relationship shifts back and forth. putting all the smarts in the cloud just makes bandwidth that much more critical. if you can't have the bandwidth, maybe it makes sense to have the smarts at the end nodes.

I'd second that. Creationism seems to appeal to the segment of the religio-fundies that thrive on a "siege mentality", that "everybody is against us". What's useful to them is a large number of people "attacking" them, they don't (and won't) care about the legitimacy or quality of the criticisms of their ideas.

Does anybody offer a "degree in evolution"?

What all these guys are doing is providing ideas for the next set of worm writers

This is soundbite-y but not really meaningful. Being afraid to walk into a cage with a hungry lion in it will keep you alive.

The parent post seem to make a lot of sense, and even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't really answer. That there were a "portion of engineers" who felt that way doesn't necessarily mean that was the final reason why they did it.

And I'm not sure I agree with the "Sun ought to have put everything into the GPL" thing. Why? The GPL and the FSF movement is a wonderful thing, but *Sun* does not *owe* their code to the movement such that they ought to do everything for the benefit of it, without considering other ramifications to things they may also care about.

heh :-)

well, I'm thinking human populations are more effectively limited by other humans (whether chaotically, via war, or through progress, which tends to lead to family planning), the "contribution" of malaria et al seems minimal in comparison. plus its not like ALL mosquitos carry malaria, there are plenty of geographical zones where they're just pests and won't kill you?

actually, when I wrote my original post I did think about smallpox. but as a virus does it count as a "species"?

also, smallpox just affects us, but getting rid of mosquitos would also make things better for other mammals; exterminating smallpox, all the benefits accrue to us. what about mosquitos?

actually, I already know. that's why I said "generally". and, if it whooshed over your head, what I'm curious about is, would it be safe to just exterminate any/all parasites (beginning with the mosquito)?

y'know....

generally, every life form slots in somewhere in the ecosystem "in balance" - it either keeps something else from overrunning the place (rabbits becoming a pest in Australia due to lack of predators), or is, say, a food supply for something else (rabbits in places where there ARE predators)

what I want to know is, is there such a slot for the mosquito? what "purpose" do they serve? are they a food supply for anybody, or do they just make life miserable for everything else? would there be problems for the ecosystem if the mosquito becomes extinct? because if there isn't, I can't think of a better candidate for extermination than the mosquito. if we could get rid of them, would they be the first species humanity exterminated AND made the world a better place by doing so?

(yes, i know, it's gonna take a LOT of laser-shooting robot drones to rid the planet of 'em... hrm, maybe that's how skynet REALLY comes about :-)

this is a guy you'd know, otherwise you wouldn't have his phone number (and in any case, he wouldn't want to get your MMS if he doesn't know you). if it's an MMS worth sending, why not just call/message him and ask him for his email address? And once you've got it you don't need to ask him again (same as how you got his phone number in the first place)

(there's actually a practical problem here in the iPhone's lack of copy-paste, but that's another matter :-)