Posts tagged general
The Four Horsemen of the General Purpose Computing Apocalypse
Jan 13th
Cory Doctorow’s "keynote to the Chaos Computer Congress" and follow-up post (Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing) on BoingBoing raise the alarm about keeping the Internet and PC "free and open." Doctorow makes excellent points and if you haven’t watched the keynote or read his essay, you should do so right away.
I’m generally in agreement with Doctorow, but I’m not really sure that he goes quite far enough with Lockdown. Doctorow’s focus on the copyright war we’re facing with things like SOPA and PROTECT-IP is well warranted, but I’m not sure it covers everything.
Sponsor
The threat to general purpose computing goes beyond legislation. As I see it, we have at least four major threats to general purpose computing:
- Legislation
- Cloud Computing
- Computing Appliances
- Consumer Indifference
Legislation
Doctorow covers legislation pretty neatly, so I’m not sure there’s much need to go further. But, as he says in Lockdown, "copyright wars are just the beta version of a long coming war on computation." However, Doctorow limits most of his discussion to legislation that might come from parties hostile to general purpose computing.
In many ways, general purpose computing and free/open source software (FOSS) go hand in hand. You can’t really make the most of general purpose computing without FOSS. The fact is that we’re seeing a number of other forces that threaten general purpose computing and FOSS, and they’re not all intentional.
Cloud Computing
Some free software advocates have been warning against cloud computing for some time. While I don’t subscribe to the idea that cloud computing is to be completely avoided, it is worth considering the impact of cloud services on general purpose computing.
By definition, cloud services place limits on a user’s ability to perform general purpose computing. If you’re using a IaaS platform like Amazon Web Services or OpenStack, you’re facing the least amount of restriction. But even with an IaaS, you have limits. Some operating systems may not be available for your IaaS. You may not be able to run some types of services. You cannot modify the hardware, and so on.
As you go up the stack to PaaS and SaaS offerings, you encounter more limits that take users further and further away from general purpose computing. You can write a wide variety of applications for a PaaS like Engine Yard or Heroku, but only using the tools offered and within the constraints of the platforms.
Cloud computing is also a challenge for FOSS. While some of the platforms are built on FOSS or may even be fully open, most have a lot of non-free software that users are unable to examine, modify or distribute outside the service provider.
Using a SaaS platform, you have even less control and flexibility, to the point that most SaaS offerings are essentially appliances rather than computing platforms. Data goes in, data comes out, black box in the middle that users don’t control at all.
Computing Appliances
Doctorow touches on computing appliances briefly in Lockdown, but primarily speaks to the legislative issues related to computing appliances. Specifically, the issues that crop up when manufacturers of computing appliances decide they need legislation to ensure that their appliances are not used for general purpose computing.
For the vast majority of users, restricted computing appliances are just fine. The loss of freedom and functionality that concerns me and folks like Doctorow is of little concern to most users. So what if an iPhone or iPad isn’t a general purpose computer? It’s easy to use. It does what most users want. Why should they lobby for general purpose computer rights from their legislators when they don’t use them?
But legal restrictions are only one facet of the problem. Another part of the problem is the technological challenge that we face with computing appliances. We’re doing an increasing amount of computing using appliances that are capable of general purpose computing, but not designed or fully permitted to do so by their design.
Tablets, smartphones, set-top boxes that feature apps, game consoles and many other devices are likely to replace general-purpose computers for many households. There’s no legislation required here. Even if users can legally root an Android tablet or Roku to turn it into a general purpose computer, it doesn’t lessen the technical challenges. Whether the OS on a device meant as an appliance allows general-purpose computing, it may not be well-suited for the task.
Doctorow talks a bit about the rise of PCs, distributing software via floppies and sneakernet. The early days of computing demanded general purpose computers for users who wanted to play games or connect to the Internet. That’s not the case now.
Even our general purpose computers are starting to come with technical restrictions. Computers equipped with UEFI secure boot, which are expected this year, may in some cases not boot operating systems without the right keys. Apple is slowly but surely restricting apps that run on Mac OS X via its App Store. Granted, you can run whatever you want on Mac OS X that you download outside the App Store, but you have to wonder if that will always be the case.
Again, app stores provide special challenges for open source because of the restrictions on licensing. For instance, neither Microsoft or Apple allow copyleft licensing due to their Terms of Service for their respective app stores.
Consumer Indifference
And that brings me to the fourth issue that we really shouldn’t overlook, consumer indifference to general purpose computing. Doctorow notes that for the "vast majority of the world… ideas like Turing completeness and end-to-end are meaningless."
For the vast majority of users, restricted computing appliances are just fine. The loss of freedom and functionality that concerns me and folks like Doctorow is of little concern to most users. So what if an iPhone or iPad isn’t a general purpose computer? It’s easy to use. It does what most users want. Why should they lobby for general purpose computer rights from their legislators when they don’t use them?
Of course, general purpose computing is important to most users for the same reasons that FOSS is important. There’s an enormous loss of opportunity, especially for kids, in not having readily available general purpose computers. But it’s an abstraction to most users, and not something that they’re prepared to demand from the manufacturers or government.
It seems to me that the indifference from users is an even bigger challenge than legislative threats. Convince an NRA-sized voting bloc that any restriction on general purpose computing is a threat to society, and we’d be in good shape. But, at the moment, the vast majority of people just don’t care.
Doctorow says that we haven’t lost the war on general purpose computing, "but we have to win the copyright war first if we want to keep the Internet and the PC free and open." I don’t disagree that winning the copyright war is important, but the first priority needs to be convincing the public at large that general purpose computing is important in the first place. Failing that, we are always going to be fighting a losing battle.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
EU Advocate General: You Can’t Copyright a Programming Language
Nov 29th
In an opinion which, if affirmed by judges, would have dramatic impact on the definition of software and standards – at least in Europe if not eventually worldwide – the Advocate General in a European Court of Justice case involving U.S.-based business analytics firm SAS, has argued that the language in which computer programs are written may be exempt from copyright.
At issue: If you make a programming language that works like an existing one, have you violated copyright if you use a copyrighted manual as your guide? Have you violated copyright if you produce a manual that explains your language using terms that are similar to those in the manual you used as your guide? And finally, the big one: Is a work-alike programming language a violation of copyright in and of itself? You can just imagine the Oracle executives listening intently in the gallery.
Sponsor
The case in question involves SAS’s business process language, which a classical-style procedural language that financial and manufacturing institutions consider the modern-day successor to COBOL and PL/I. A London, U.K.-based company called World Programming Ltd. (WPL) built a work-alike language it calls WPS, apparently not through reverse-engineering but simply using existing SAS manuals as guides. SAS argued that this was a violation of copyright, both of the manuals and of the ABAP language itself, and besides, that WPL violated its license agreement to use SAS software.
A high court ruling in July 2010 reached only a partial conclusion: WPL probably did not violate copyright by creating the WPS language using the SAS manual, but probably did violate copyright by creating a WPS manual to teach it. The judge referred the case up the chain (as the European system permits judges to do) to the Court of Justice. There yesterday, an Advocate General (a person retained by the court to issue opinions that may guide judges in their final decisions) issued a non-binding opinion stating that a programming language should be like any other language: a means of expression that cannot, in and of itself, be claimed as intellectual property.
A statement from the Advocate General’s office in Brussels this morning reads as follows:
In the first place, with regard to the functionality of a computer program, the Advocate General defines it as the set of possibilities offered by a computer system – in other words, the service which the user expects from it.
Starting from that premise, the Advocate General considers that the functionalities of a computer program are not eligible, as such, for copyright protection. The functionalities of a computer program are in fact dictated by a specific and limited purpose. In this, they are similar to ideas. That is why there may be a number of computer programs offering the same functionalities. Thus, if it were accepted that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such, that would amount to making it possible to monopolize ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.
By contrast, the means for achieving the concrete expression of the functionalities of a program may be protected by copyright. Creativity, skill and inventiveness are expressed in the way in which the program is drawn up, in its writing. Thus, the way in which formulae and algorithms are arranged – like the style in which the computer program is written – will be likely to reflect the author’s own intellectual creation and therefore be eligible for protection.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion with very broad effects, in its AT&T v. Microsoft decision in favor of Microsoft: “Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match [the] categorization ‘components’ amenable to ‘combination.’” That ruling indicated that the permutation of a machine plus the program used to run the machine, to do a specific set of functions, was not in and of itself subject to patent. While a function may be patentable, the way you perform that function cannot. So far, European law has coincided for the most part.
The difference in the SAS v. WPL case abroad has to do with whether the programming language constitutes the function, the expression of that function, or the means by which an expression is… expressed. These are three different things, only one of which is subject to legal protection that we know of, though perhaps two. If the judges of the Court of Justice affirm the Advocate General’s opinion, a new precedent may be set whereupon the concept of any programming language is thus, by definition, public property.
That might have a serious impact on Oracle’s case against Google, which hinges on Sun Microsystems’ acquiescence to Google’s creation of a Java work-alike virtual machine for Android. Sun’s having permitted and even publicly blessed Google’s work, were never expressed in formal, legal documents; so when Oracle acquired Sun, Oracle made the case that Google violated the patents that Oracle acquired from Sun. Granted, patents and copyrights are not to be confused with one another; patents protect a concept, while copyrights protect an expression. Still, if the expression of a concept cannot be copyrighted, it certainly is unlikely to become patented. The SAS case speaks to the problem of means of expression as worthy of legal exclusivity, and if WPL wins in London, Oracle’s case against Google may not carry much weight in Europe.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Josh Ward Appointed New General Manager Of SEO Web Hosting – TheHostingNews.com (press release)
Sep 5th
 TheHostingNews.com (press release) |
Josh Ward Appointed New General Manager Of SEO Web Hosting
TheHostingNews.com (press release) (The Hosting News) – SEO Web Hosting, a multiple IP web hosting company with offices in Atlanta, GA, and Durham, NC, announced that it has hired Josh Ward as the company's new General Manager. Josh Ward started his career at Baer engineering as “IT … |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Web Host SEO Web Hosting Names Josh Ward General Manager – Web Host Industry Review (blog)
Sep 2nd
 Web Host Industry Review (blog) |
Web Host SEO Web Hosting Names Josh Ward General Manager
Web Host Industry Review (blog) (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) — SEO host SEO Web Hosting (www.seowebhosting.net) announced on Thursday that it has named Josh Ward general manager. SEO Web Hosting has offices in Atlanta, Georgia, and Durham, … Josh Ward Appointed New General Manager Of SEO Web Hosting |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Josh Ward Appointed New General Manager Of SEO Web Hosting – PR Web (press release)
Sep 1st
|
Josh Ward Appointed New General Manager Of SEO Web Hosting
PR Web (press release) Professionals with solid management experience and a firm understanding of current search engine optimization techniques are truly hard to find,” SEO Web Hosting, a multiple IP web hosting company with offices in Atlanta, GA, and Durham, NC, … Josh Ward Appointed New General Manager Of SEO Web Hosting |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Go for Google App Engine Reaches General Availability
Jul 22nd
Google’s Go programming language is now supported in Google App Engine for all users. Google made the Go SDK available during I/O this year, but most developers have not been able to take advantage of it yet. You can get started here.
Go was created internally at Google starting in 2007, though it wasn’t announced until 2009. Google reports using the language in production.
Sponsor
The Go FAQ lists the following as advantages of the programming language:
- It is possible to compile a large Go program in a few seconds on a single computer.
- Go provides a model for software construction that makes dependency analysis easy and avoids much of the overhead of C-style include files and libraries.
- Go’s type system has no hierarchy, so no time is spent defining the relationships between types. Also, although Go has static types the language attempts to make types feel lighter weight than in typical OO languages.
- Go is fully garbage-collected and provides fundamental support for concurrent execution and communication.
- By its design, Go proposes an approach for the construction of system software on multicore machines.
Google App Engine was launched with support for Python in 2008 and added Java support in 2009.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
PHP Fog – a Heroku for PHP Service – Reaches General Availability
May 11th
Following a private beta, the platform-as-a-service (hosted on Amazon Web Services) PHP Fog is now generally available following a private beta. It has a free option offering 100MG of storage, a single domain name and 15GB of bandwidth. Paid plans start at $29 a month.
A few months ago, PHP PaaSes were rare. PHP Fog competed with Orchestra and few others. But in recent weeks VMware and Red Hat have announced new PaaS offerings that include PHP support. Still, given the popularity of PHP-based applications like Drupal, Joomla and WordPress, there could be room for several PHP platforms on the market.
Sponsor
One handy feature is PHP Fog’s app store-like offering for deploying popular PHP applications like the ones mentioned, as well as PHP frameworks like CakePHP,CodeIgniter and Zend.
The private beta was not without its stumbling blocks – the service was hacked in March. But even Heroku has had security issues in the past and recovered. PHP Fog has explained the many steps it’s taking to improve its security.
PHP Fog is based in Portland, OR and raised $1.8 million in venture capital from Madrona Venture Group,with participation from First Round Capital, Founders Co-Op, and a number of angel investors. in January.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Everyone Wants A Piece Of Google: More Antitrust Saber-Rattling By States Attorneys General
Mar 24th
Bloomberg is reporting that Ohio Attorney General (AG) Mike DeWine is the latest figure considering an antitrust investigation against Google. So is Wisconsin’s AG, but specifically around the proposed ITA acquisition. Texas is already conducting its own broad antitrust investigation against…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
European Advocate General Finds Against Trademark Bidding in Interflora Case
Mar 24th
The European Advocate General is recommending that the Court of Justice of the European Union rule against retailer Marks & Spencer for bidding on the trademarked terms of Interflora, the flower delivery network company. If the Court of Justice acts on the findings, it could effectively spell…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
View full post on Search Engine Land: News & Info About SEO, PPC, SEM, Search Engines & Search Marketing
MySQL Fork Drizzle Finally Releases First General Availability Version
Mar 17th
Drizzle, a lightweight fork of MySQL, released its first general availability version today. Drizzle is designed for multicore environments and cloud applications. Unlike NoSQL databases, Drizzle still uses structure queried language. Instead, it attempts to improve performance by cutting the database server down to its core.
Sponsor
The project was started by Sun employees in 2008, and Rackspace hired the team to work on Drizzle full time in Adrian Otto:
Drizzle dispenses with views, triggers, prepared statements, and much more. Instead additional features can be added via plugins. Drizzle makes no attempt at backwards compatibility with legacy systems such as 32-bit environments. Here’s a partial list of what Drizzle has kept or dispensed with, from a post by tk on the Rackspace blog:
1 – Micro-Kernel Design, with modular interfaces to plug in features and functions without touching the core code. API’s for Replication, Storage Engines, Logging, Authentication, Client Protocols, etc.
2 – No triggers or stored procedures. That stuff is bloat as done in MySQL, and Drizzle has other ways to deal with these needs. These capabilities can be added in later as needed such that they are done right.
3 – Only UTF8 support, not a multitude of language encodings and collations. Keep it simple. This is the web.
4 – Way Less Source Code, where MySQL has well over a million lines of code, Drizzle is just under 300K lines.
5 – Drizzle Client Protocol, that’s pluggable and Asynchronous capable with built-in sharding support and built-in checksum support and BSD license so you can package it in commercial software with no license drama.
6 – Default Storage Engine is InnoDB, for ACID compliance but others can still be used. MyISAM is gone. Long live the Queen!
7 – Pluggable AAA, so integrating with your LDAP user database through PAM is simple as pie, if if you don’t want any auth (think memcached) just don’t load the plugin, and get a nice performance boost.
8 – Replication will be everything you ever wanted in a replication system. You hate MySQL replication? You now love Drizzle.
9 – Logging is pluggable so you can log to Syslog, a query analyzer, Gearman, or whatever you want to plug in.
10 – Query Rewriting is supported. If you have a misbehaving application, you can fix it at the database if desired.
11 – The Data Dictionary is redone so that no internal tables materialize, and there is only a single code execution path. This means all your base run faster.
12 – FRM Files are Gone. Yep, ever been snagged by the contents of an FRM file not matching what’s in the database? Cry no more.
13 – The MySQL Client Protocol is supported so you can use Drizzle with most applications without modification.
14 – It’s Easy to Build from Source. Ever tried to compile MySQL from source. Hah! Yeah, drizzle builds like butter.
We covered Drizzle in our look at non-relational databases back in 2009.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
