AI App Similar To Grok

AI App Similar To Grok — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Foundry VTT

Foundry Virtual Tabletop, commonly shortened to Foundry VTT or FVTT, is a commercial, self-hosted virtual tabletop application for role-playing games. It provides a stage for visualizing the game environment and tools allowing the game master and players to organize and track statistics and notes. The software is highly modular and depends on the community-maintained ecosystem of add-on modules that modify the software's behavior and implement different game systems. Perpetual licenses, which include updates, are offered for a one-time fee. == Features == Foundry Virtual Tabletop is a highly modular Node.js web application that is run locally by the Gamemaster or hosted on a remote server. Players connect to their gamemaster's Foundry VTT instance over the network using their web browser. It is system-agnostic in that its core feature-set is not restricted to a specific game system. Systems, specific features and game content are implemented as add-on modules, which can be individually downloaded from a public repository. The module repository contains paid, official content, as well as freely available community-made modules that enhance functionality of the software. As of May 2025, 350 individual game systems are implemented as modules. Individual settings created by the Game Master are termed Worlds in the interface and contain the list of modules that should be loaded as well as world-specific content, which can be added by the gamemaster. This content is grouped into Scenes, Actors, Items and Journals. Battle and world maps are created as Scenes, which contain the backdrop and data on placement of walls, light sources and other entities. Tokens representing Actors, which are player characters, vehicles or NPCs, can be placed on these Scenes to be moved by the user that owns them. Other entities that interact or integrate with actors are termed Items; these can be objects, but also game system-specific concepts such as character classes. Journals are text documents that can link to other entities present in the World or modules. Viewing and editing permissions can be set individually for each entity. The software features a custom lighting engine that determines visibility of certain areas on each battle map depending on the position of players' characters, also revealing areas covered by fog of war. It also contains tools for map creation and comes with a small asset library. == History == Foundry Gaming LLC founder Andrew Clayton, commonly known under his online nickname Atropos, began development of Foundry VTT in 2018 for personal use after becoming dissatisfied with the feature set and business models of other virtual tabletops. Foundry VTT was initially developed for Linux, which remains its primary platform, with support for other platforms having been developed later. Foundry Gaming LLC was incorporated in Spokane, Washington on October 9, 2018, with the software remaining in private beta-testing until May 2020, when it was publicly released. In November 2020, Cubicle 7 partnered with Foundry to bring official content modules for its game system Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to Foundry VTT. Later, in 2025, Clayton would state that this first major publisher deal was of significant importance to Foundry VTT's growth and credits the community developers of the WFRP system module for making it possible in the first place. In November 2023, Paizo partnered with Foundry to bring official content modules for Pathfinder Roleplaying Game to Foundry VTT. In January 2024, Foundry publicly announced its partnership with Wizards of the Coast in bringing official Dungeons & Dragons content to Foundry VTT, with the first official module, Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk, having been released in February 2024. == Development == As of 2023, the Foundry VTT software itself is being developed and managed by a team of 9 people, while a content team of 12 people is working with partnered publishers to compile content into downloadable modules. The content team also develops in-house content published by Foundry Gaming LLC. Stated goals are to create a virtual tabletop software that offers a one-time purchase and content ownership, make use of modern web technologies, and provide a platform for developers to build upon. Clayton has stated that integration of Generative AI into Foundry VTT is not planned, citing ethical and legal concerns and calling its usage within the industry a "betrayal of the creative people who made the TTRPG industry what it is in the first place". == Reception == Foundry VTT is one of the most popular virtual tabletops for TTRPGs; in particular, as a self-hosted web-based VTT, it is known as a modern alternative to the software as a service Roll20. Wargamer named it one of the three "best virtual tabletops for D&D in 2023", noting its active community and high degree of technical complexity, which allows for customization not seen in other products at the cost of a much steeper learning curve. Comic Book Resources called it an "underrated gem" and "incredibly versatile" for similar reasons, while also praising its lighting engine and visual fidelity. As the previously mentioned outlets do, Foundry's modular ecosystem and technical implementation are often mentioned as good features, but also as a source of frustration for new users. In a video interview, Clayton acknowledges this issue and affirms that the development team intends to make usage of more technical features "friction-less" and will reduce module breakage between updates in the future.
Read more →
Snapshot isolation

In databases, and transaction processing (transaction management), snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database (in practice it reads the last committed values that existed at the time it started), and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot. Snapshot isolation has been adopted by several major database management systems, such as InterBase, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Anywhere, MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server (2005 and later). The main reason for its adoption is that it allows better performance than serializability, yet still avoids most of the concurrency anomalies that serializability avoids (but not all). In practice snapshot isolation is implemented within multiversion concurrency control (MVCC), where generational values of each data item (versions) are maintained: MVCC is a common way to increase concurrency and performance by generating a new version of a database object each time the object is written, and allowing transactions' read operations of several last relevant versions (of each object). Snapshot isolation has been used to criticize the ANSI SQL-92 standard's definition of isolation levels, as it exhibits none of the "anomalies" that the SQL standard prohibited, yet is not serializable (the anomaly-free isolation level defined by ANSI). In spite of its distinction from serializability, snapshot isolation is sometimes referred to as serializable by Oracle. == Definition == A transaction executing under snapshot isolation appears to operate on a personal snapshot of the database, taken at the start of the transaction. When the transaction concludes, it will successfully commit only if the values updated by the transaction have not been changed externally since the snapshot was taken. Such a write–write conflict will cause the transaction to abort. In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies. As a concrete example, imagine V1 and V2 are two balances held by a single person, Phil. The bank will allow either V1 or V2 to run a deficit, provided the total held in both is never negative (i.e. V1 + V2 ≥ 0). Both balances are currently $100. Phil initiates two transactions concurrently, T1 withdrawing $200 from V1, and T2 withdrawing $200 from V2. If the database guaranteed serializable transactions, the simplest way of coding T1 is to deduct $200 from V1, and then verify that V1 + V2 ≥ 0 still holds, aborting if not. T2 similarly deducts $200 from V2 and then verifies V1 + V2 ≥ 0. Since the transactions must serialize, either T1 happens first, leaving V1 = −$100, V2 = $100, and preventing T2 from succeeding (since V1 + (V2 − $200) is now −$200), or T2 happens first and similarly prevents T1 from committing. If the database is under snapshot isolation(MVCC), however, T1 and T2 operate on private snapshots of the database: each deducts $200 from an account, and then verifies that the new total is zero, using the other account value that held when the snapshot was taken. Since neither update conflicts, both commit successfully, leaving V1 = V2 = −$100, and V1 + V2 = −$200. Some systems built using multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) may support (only) snapshot isolation to allow transactions to proceed without worrying about concurrent operations, and more importantly without needing to re-verify all read operations when the transaction finally commits. This is convenient because MVCC maintains a series of recent history consistent states. The only information that must be stored during the transaction is a list of updates made, which can be scanned for conflicts fairly easily before being committed. However, MVCC systems (such as MarkLogic) will use locks to serialize writes together with MVCC to obtain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger "serializability" level of isolation. == Workarounds == Potential inconsistency problems arising from write skew anomalies can be fixed by adding (otherwise unnecessary) updates to the transactions in order to enforce the serializability property. Materialize the conflict Add a special conflict table, which both transactions update in order to create a direct write–write conflict. Promotion Have one transaction "update" a read-only location (replacing a value with the same value) in order to create a direct write–write conflict (or use an equivalent promotion, e.g. Oracle's SELECT FOR UPDATE). In the example above, we can materialize the conflict by adding a new table which makes the hidden constraint explicit, mapping each person to their total balance. Phil would start off with a total balance of $200, and each transaction would attempt to subtract $200 from this, creating a write–write conflict that would prevent the two from succeeding concurrently. However, this approach violates the normal form. Alternatively, we can promote one of the transaction's reads to a write. For instance, T2 could set V1 = V1, creating an artificial write–write conflict with T1 and, again, preventing the two from succeeding concurrently. This solution may not always be possible. In general, therefore, snapshot isolation puts some of the problem of maintaining non-trivial constraints onto the user, who may not appreciate either the potential pitfalls or the possible solutions. The upside to this transfer is better performance. == Terminology == Snapshot isolation is called "serializable" mode in Oracle and PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1, which may cause confusion with the "real serializability" mode. There are arguments both for and against this decision; what is clear is that users must be aware of the distinction to avoid possible undesired anomalous behavior in their database system logic. == History == Snapshot isolation arose from work on multiversion concurrency control databases, where multiple versions of the database are maintained concurrently to allow readers to execute without colliding with writers. Such a system allows a natural definition and implementation of such an isolation level. InterBase, later owned by Borland, was acknowledged to provide SI rather than full serializability in version 4, and likely permitted write-skew anomalies since its first release in 1985. Unfortunately, the ANSI SQL-92 standard was written with a lock-based database in mind, and hence is rather vague when applied to MVCC systems. Berenson et al. wrote a paper in 1995 critiquing the SQL standard, and cited snapshot isolation as an example of an isolation level that did not exhibit the standard anomalies described in the ANSI SQL-92 standard, yet still had anomalous behaviour when compared with serializable transactions. In 2008, Cahill et al. showed that write-skew anomalies could be prevented by detecting and aborting "dangerous" triplets of concurrent transactions. This implementation of serializability is well-suited to multiversion concurrency control databases, and has been adopted in PostgreSQL 9.1, where it is known as Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). When used consistently, this eliminates the need for the above workarounds. The downside over snapshot isolation is an increase in aborted transactions. This can perform better or worse than snapshot isolation with the above workarounds, depending on workload.
Read more →
Vulnerabilities Equities Process

The Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP) is a process used by the U.S. federal government to determine on a case-by-case basis how it should treat zero-day computer security vulnerabilities: whether to disclose them to the public to help improve general computer security, or to keep them secret for offensive use against the government's adversaries. The VEP was first developed during the period 2008–2009, but only became public in 2016, when the government released a redacted version of the VEP in response to a FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Following public pressure for greater transparency in the wake of the Shadow Brokers affair, the U.S. government made a more public disclosure of the VEP process in November 2017. == Participants == According to the VEP plan published in 2017, the Equities Review Board (ERB) is the primary forum for interagency deliberation and determinations concerning the VEP. The ERB meets monthly, but may also be convened sooner if an immediate need arises. The ERB consists of representatives from the following agencies: Office of Management and Budget Office of the Director of National Intelligence (including the Intelligence Community-Security Coordination Center) United States Department of the Treasury United States Department of State United States Department of Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force) Department of Homeland Security (including the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and the United States Secret Service) United States Department of Energy United States Department of Defense (to include the National Security Agency, including Information Assurance and Signals Intelligence elements), United States Cyber Command, and DoD Cyber Crime Center) United States Department of Commerce Central Intelligence Agency The National Security Agency serves as the executive secretariat for the VEP. == Process == According to the November 2017 version of the VEP, the process is as follows: === Submission and notification === When an agency finds a vulnerability, it will notify the VEP secretariat as soon as is possible. The notification will include a description of the vulnerability and the vulnerable products or systems, together with the agency's recommendation to either disseminate or restrict the vulnerability information. The secretariat will then notify all participants of the submission within one business day, requesting them to respond if they have an relevant interest. === Equity and discussions === An agency expressing an interest must indicate whether it concurs with the original recommendation to disseminate or restrict within five business days. If it does not, it will hold discussions with the submitting agency and the VEP secretariat within seven business days to attempt to reach consensus. If no consensus is reached, the participants will suggest options for the Equities Review Board. === Determination to disseminate or restrict === Decisions whether to disclose or restrict a vulnerability should be made quickly, in full consultation with all concerned agencies, and in the overall best interest of the competing interests of the missions of the U.S. government. As far as possible, determinations should be based on rational, objective methodologies, taking into account factors such as prevalence, reliance, and severity. If the review board members cannot reach consensus, they will vote on a preliminary determination. If an agency with an equity disputes that decision, they may, by providing notice to the VEP secretariat, elect to contest the preliminary determination. If no agency contests a preliminary determination, it will be treated as a final decision. === Handling and follow-on actions === If vulnerability information is released, this will be done as quickly as possible, preferably within seven business days. Disclosure of vulnerabilities will be conducted according to guidelines agreed on by all members. The submitting agency is presumed to be most knowledgeable about the vulnerability and, as such, will be responsible for disseminating vulnerability information to the vendor. The submitting agency may elect to delegate dissemination responsibility to another agency on its behalf. The releasing agency will promptly provide a copy of the disclosed information to the VEP secretariat for record keeping. Additionally, the releasing agency is expected to follow up so the ERB can determine whether the vendor's action meets government requirements. If the vendor chooses not to address a vulnerability, or is not acting with urgency consistent with the risk of the vulnerability, the releasing agency will notify the secretariat, and the government may take other mitigation steps. == Criticism == The VEP process has been criticized for a number of deficiencies, including restriction by non-disclosure agreements, lack of risk ratings, special treatment for the NSA, and less than whole-hearted commitment to disclosure as the default option. == UK equivalent == British intelligence agencies—GCHQ in particular—follow a similar approach, also known as the Equities Process, to determine whether to disclose or retain security vulnerabilities. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was amended in 2022 to bring oversight of the operation of the process within the remit of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Details of the process were made public in 2018.
Read more →
Zesta

Zesta is an online food ordering and delivery platform operating across the African region. Formerly known as Square Eats, the company rebranded to Zesta in 2025. Zesta connects customers with restaurants and stores, offering delivery services for food, groceries, parcel delivery and other essentials. == History == Zesta was originally founded as Square Eats in 2020 by twin brothers Henry Newman and Randall Newman when they were 21 years old. It was launched in Gaborone, Botswana, and quickly gained traction as a leading food delivery service in the country. The company halted operations and took a strategic decision to reinvent the business in 2022. In 2025, the company announced its rebranding to Zesta, highlighting its commitment to evolving beyond food delivery to become a super app. === COVID-19 initiative === During the COVID-19 pandemic, Zesta (then Square Eats) implemented measures to ensure safety and hygiene, including providing free gloves and hand sanitizer to drivers and introducing contactless delivery options. These efforts positioned the platform as a trusted service during the pandemic. == Service == Zesta facilitates delivery from a wide range of merchant partners via a smartphone app, available on iOS and Android platforms, or through its website. Customers can browse their favorite restaurants, place orders, and have meals delivered to their doorstep efficiently.
Read more →
Automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora

The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the word-sense disambiguation (WSD) problem. Unsupervised learning methods rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases. Supervised learning methods depend heavily on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the Senseval exercises. == Existing methods == Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest corpus ever accessible, the World Wide Web, to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as information retrieval (IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true: Web search engines implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. The most direct way of using the Web (and other corpora) to enhance WSD performance is the automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora, the fundamental resource to feed supervised WSD algorithms. Although this is far from being commonplace in the WSD literature, a number of different and effective strategies to achieve this goal have already been proposed. Some of these strategies are: acquisition by direct Web searching (searches for monosemous synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, parsed gloss' words, etc.), Yarowsky algorithm (bootstrapping), acquisition via Web directories, and acquisition via cross-language meaning evidences. == Summary == === Optimistic results === The automatic extraction of examples to train supervised learning algorithms reviewed has been, by far, the best explored approach to mine the web for word-sense disambiguation. Some results are certainly encouraging: In some experiments, the quality of the Web data for WSD equals that of human-tagged examples. This is the case of the monosemous relatives plus bootstrapping with Semcor seeds technique and the examples taken from the ODP Web directories. In the first case, however, Semcor-size example seeds are necessary (and only available for English), and it has only been tested with a very limited set of nouns; in the second case, the coverage is quite limited, and it is not yet clear whether it can be grown without compromising the quality of the examples retrieved. It has been shown that a mainstream supervised learning technique trained exclusively with web data can obtain better results than all unsupervised WSD systems which participated at Senseval-2. Web examples made a significant contribution to the best Senseval-2 English all-words system. === Difficulties === There are, however, several open research issues related to the use of Web examples in WSD: High precision in the retrieved examples (i.e., correct sense assignments for the examples) does not necessarily lead to good supervised WSD results (i.e., the examples are possibly not useful for training). The most complete evaluation of Web examples for supervised WSD indicates that learning with Web data improves over unsupervised techniques, but the results are nevertheless far from those obtained with hand-tagged data, and do not even beat the most-frequent-sense baseline. Results are not always reproducible; the same or similar techniques may lead to different results in different experiments. Compare, for instance, Mihalcea (2002) with Agirre and Martínez (2004), or Agirre and Martínez (2000) with Mihalcea and Moldovan (1999). Results with Web data seem to be very sensitive to small differences in the learning algorithm, to when the corpus was extracted (search engines change continuously), and on small heuristic issues (e.g., differences in filters to discard part of the retrieved examples). Results are strongly dependent on bias (i.e., on the relative frequencies of examples per word sense). It is unclear whether this is simply a problem of Web data, or an intrinsic problem of supervised learning techniques, or just a problem of how WSD systems are evaluated (indeed, testing with rather small Senseval data may overemphasize sense distributions compared to sense distributions obtained from the full Web as corpus). In any case, Web data has an intrinsic bias, because queries to search engines directly constrain the context of the examples retrieved. There are approaches that alleviate this problem, such as using several different seeds/queries per sense or assigning senses to Web directories and then scanning directories for examples; but this problem is nevertheless far from being solved. Once a Web corpus of examples is built, it is not entirely clear whether its distribution is safe from a legal perspective. === Future === Besides automatic acquisition of examples from the Web, there are some other WSD experiments that have profited from the Web: The Web as a social network has been successfully used for cooperative annotation of a corpus (OMWE, Open Mind Word Expert project), which has already been used in three Senseval-3 tasks (English, Romanian and Multilingual). The Web has been used to enrich WordNet senses with domain information: topic signatures and Web directories, which have in turn been successfully used for WSD. Also, some research benefited from the semantic information that the Wikipedia maintains on its disambiguation pages. It is clear, however, that most research opportunities remain largely unexplored. For instance, little is known about how to use lexical information extracted from the Web in knowledge-based WSD systems; and it is also hard to find systems that use Web-mined parallel corpora for WSD, even though there are already efficient algorithms that use parallel corpora in WSD.
Read more →
Global serializability

In concurrency control of databases, transaction processing (transaction management), and other transactional distributed applications, global serializability (or modular serializability) is a property of a global schedule of transactions. A global schedule is the unified schedule of all the individual database (and other transactional object) schedules in a multidatabase environment (e.g., federated database). Complying with global serializability means that the global schedule is serializable, has the serializability property, while each component database (module) has a serializable schedule as well. In other words, a collection of serializable components provides overall system serializability, which is usually incorrect. A need in correctness across databases in multidatabase systems makes global serializability a major goal for global concurrency control (or modular concurrency control). With the proliferation of the Internet, Cloud computing, Grid computing, and small, portable, powerful computing devices (e.g., smartphones), as well as increase in systems management sophistication, the need for atomic distributed transactions and thus effective global serializability techniques, to ensure correctness in and among distributed transactional applications, seems to increase. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple (and possibly distributed) databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system, where different databases may use different types of concurrency control, is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability globally would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. Achieving global serializability effectively over different types of concurrency control has been open for several years. == The global serializability problem == === Problem statement === The difficulties described above translate into the following problem: Find an efficient (high-performance and fault tolerant) method to enforce Global serializability (global conflict serializability) in a heterogeneous distributed environment of multiple autonomous database systems. The database systems may employ different concurrency control methods. No limitation should be imposed on the operations of either local transactions (confined to a single database system) or global transactions (span two or more database systems). === Quotations === Lack of an appropriate solution for the global serializability problem has driven researchers to look for alternatives to serializability as a correctness criterion in a multidatabase environment (e.g., see Relaxing global serializability below), and the problem has been characterized as difficult and open. The following two quotations demonstrate the mindset about it by the end of the year 1991, with similar quotations in numerous other articles: "Without knowledge about local as well as global transactions, it is highly unlikely that efficient global concurrency control can be provided... Additional complications occur when different component DBMSs [Database Management Systems] and the FDBMSs [Federated Database Management Systems] support different concurrency mechanisms... It is unlikely that a theoretically elegant solution that provides conflict serializability without sacrificing performance (i.e., concurrency and/or response time) and availability exists." === Proposed solutions === Several solutions, some partial, have been proposed for the global serializability problem. Among them: Global conflict graph (serializability graph, precedence graph) checking Distributed Two-phase locking (Distributed 2PL) Distributed Timestamp ordering Tickets (local logical timestamps which define local total orders, and are propagated to determine global partial order of transactions) == Relaxing global serializability == Some techniques have been developed for relaxed global serializability (i.e., they do not guarantee global serializability; see also Relaxing serializability). Among them (with several publications each): Quasi serializability Two-level serializability Another common reason nowadays for Global serializability relaxation is the requirement of availability of internet products and services. This requirement is typically answered by large scale data replication. The straightforward solution for synchronizing replicas' updates of a same database object is including all these updates in a single atomic distributed transaction. However, with many replicas such a transaction is very large, and may span several computers and networks that some of them are likely to be unavailable. Thus such a transaction is likely to end with abort and miss its purpose. Consequently, Optimistic replication (Lazy replication) is often utilized (e.g., in many products and services by Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and alike), while global serializability is relaxed and compromised for eventual consistency. In this case relaxation is done only for applications that are not expected to be harmed by it. Classes of schedules defined by relaxed global serializability properties either contain the global serializability class, or are incomparable with it. What differentiates techniques for relaxed global conflict serializability (RGCSR) properties from those of relaxed conflict serializability (RCSR) properties that are not RGCSR is typically the different way global cycles (span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph are handled. No distinction between global and local cycles exists for RCSR properties that are not RGCSR. RCSR contains RGCSR. Typically RGCSR techniques eliminate local cycles, i.e., provide local serializability (which can be achieved effectively by regular, known concurrency control methods); however, obviously they do not eliminate all global cycles (which would achieve global serializability).
Read more →
2018 Google data breach

The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.
Read more →
Anderson's rule (computer science)

In the field of computer security, Anderson's rule refers to a principle formulated by Ross J. Anderson: systems that handle sensitive personal information involve a trilemma of security, functionality, and scale, of which you can choose any two. A system that has information on many data subjects and to which many people require access is hard to secure unless its functionality is severely restricted. If it has rich functionality, you may have to restrict the number of people with access, or accept that some information will leak.
Read more →
Image

An image or picture is a visual representation. An image can be two-dimensional, such as a drawing, painting, or photograph, or three-dimensional, such as a carving or sculpture. Images may be displayed through other media, including a projection on a surface, activation of electronic signals, or digital displays; they can also be reproduced through mechanical means, such as photography, printmaking, or photocopying. Images can also be animated through digital or physical processes. In the context of signal processing, an image is a distributed amplitude of color(s). In optics, the term image (or optical image) refers specifically to the reproduction of an object formed by light waves coming from the object. A volatile image exists or is perceived only for a short period. This may be a reflection of an object by a mirror, a projection of a camera obscura, or a scene displayed on a cathode-ray tube. A fixed image, also called a hard copy, is one that has been recorded on a material object, such as paper or textile. A mental image exists in an individual's mind as something one remembers or imagines. The subject of an image does not need to be real; it may be an abstract concept such as a graph or function or an imaginary entity. For a mental image to be understood outside of an individual's mind, however, there must be a way of conveying that mental image through the words or visual productions of the subject. == Characteristics == === Two-dimensional images === The broader sense of the word 'image' also encompasses any two-dimensional figure, such as a map, graph, pie chart, painting, or banner. In this wider sense, images can also be rendered manually, such as by drawing, the art of painting, or the graphic arts (such as lithography or etching). Additionally, images can be rendered automatically through printing, computer graphics technology, or a combination of both methods. A two-dimensional image does not need to use the entire visual system to be a visual representation. An example of this is a grayscale ("black and white") image, which uses the visual system's sensitivity to brightness across all wavelengths without taking into account different colors. A black-and-white visual representation of something is still an image, even though it does not fully use the visual system's capabilities. On the other hand, some processes can be used to create visual representations of objects that are otherwise inaccessible to the human visual system. These include microscopy for the magnification of minute objects, telescopes that can observe objects at great distances, X-rays that can visually represent the interior structures of the human body (among other objects), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET scans), and others. Such processes often rely on detecting electromagnetic radiation that occurs beyond the light spectrum visible to the human eye and converting such signals into recognizable images. === Three-dimensional images === Aside from sculpture and other physical activities that can create three-dimensional images from solid material, some modern techniques, such as holography, can create three-dimensional images that are reproducible but intangible to human touch. Some photographic processes can now render the illusion of depth in an otherwise "flat" image, but "3-D photography" (stereoscopy) or "3-D film" are optical illusions that require special devices such as eyeglasses to create the illusion of depth. === Moving images === "Moving" two-dimensional images are actually illusions of movement perceived when still images are displayed in sequence, each image lasting less, and sometimes much less, than a fraction of a second. The traditional standard for the display of individual frames by a motion picture projector has been 24 frames per second (FPS) since at least the commercial introduction of "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, which necessitated a standard for synchronizing images and sounds. Even in electronic formats such as television and digital image displays, the apparent "motion" is actually the result of many individual lines giving the impression of continuous movement. This phenomenon has often been described as "persistence of vision": a physiological effect of light impressions remaining on the retina of the eye for very brief periods. Even though the term is still sometimes used in popular discussions of movies, it is not a scientifically valid explanation. Other terms emphasize the complex cognitive operations of the brain and the human visual system. "Flicker fusion", the "phi phenomenon", and "beta movement" are among the terms that have replaced "persistence of vision", though no one term seems adequate to describe the process. == Cultural and other uses == Image-making seems to have been common to virtually all human cultures since at least the Paleolithic era. Prehistoric examples of rock art—including cave paintings, petroglyphs, rock reliefs, and geoglyphs—have been found on every inhabited continent. Many of these images seem to have served various purposes: as a form of record-keeping; as an element of spiritual, religious, or magical practice; or even as a form of communication. Early writing systems, including hieroglyphics, ideographic writing, and even the Roman alphabet, owe their origins in some respects to pictorial representations. === Meaning and signification === Images of any type may convey different meanings and sensations for individual viewers, regardless of whether the image's creator intended them. An image may be taken simply as a more or less "accurate" copy of a person, place, thing, or event. It may represent an abstract concept, such as the political power of a ruler or ruling class, a practical or moral lesson, an object for spiritual or religious veneration, or an object—human or otherwise—to be desired. It may also be regarded for its purely aesthetic qualities, rarity, or monetary value. Such reactions can depend on the viewer's context. A religious image in a church may be regarded differently than the same image mounted in a museum. Some might view it simply as an object to be bought or sold. Viewers' reactions will also be guided or shaped by their education, class, race, and other contexts. The study of emotional sensations and their relationship to any given image falls into the categories of aesthetics and the philosophy of art. While such studies inevitably deal with issues of meaning, another approach to signification was suggested by the American philosopher, logician, and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. "Images" are one type of the broad category of "signs" proposed by Peirce. Although his ideas are complex and have changed over time, the three categories of signs that he distinguished stand out: The "icon," which relates to an object by resemblance to some quality of the object. A painted or photographed portrait is an icon by virtue of its resemblance to the painting's or photograph's subject. A more abstract representation, such as a map or diagram, can also be an icon. The "index," which relates to an object by some real connection. For example, smoke may be an index of fire, or the temperature recorded on a thermometer may be an index of a patient's illness or health. The "symbol," which lacks direct resemblance or connection to an object but whose association is arbitrarily assigned by the creator or dictated by cultural and historical habit, convention, etc. The color red, for example, may connote rage, beauty, prosperity, political affiliation, or other meanings within a given culture or context; the Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman claimed that his use of the color in his 1972 film Cries and Whispers came from his personal visualization of the human soul. A single image may exist in all three categories at the same time. The Statue of Liberty provides an example. While there have been countless two-dimensional and three-dimensional "reproductions" of the statue (i.e., "icons" themselves), the statue itself exists as an "icon" by virtue of its resemblance to a human woman (or, more specifically, previous representations of the Roman goddess Libertas or the female model used by the artist Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi). an "index" representing New York City or the United States of America in general due to its placement in New York Harbor, or with "immigration" from its proximity to the immigration center at Ellis Island. a "symbol" as a visualization of the abstract concept of "liberty" or "freedom" or even "opportunity" or "diversity". === Critiques of imagery === The nature of images, whether three-dimensional or two-dimensional, created for a specific purpose or only for aesthetic pleasure, has continued to provoke questions and even condemnation at different times and places. In his dialogue, The Republic, the Greek philosopher Plato described our apparent reality as a copy of a higher order of universal forms.
Read more →
FoundationDB

FoundationDB is a free and open-source multi-model distributed NoSQL database owned by Apple Inc. with a shared-nothing architecture. The product was designed around a "core" database, with additional features supplied in "layers." The core database exposes an ordered key–value store with transactions. The transactions are able to read or write multiple keys stored on any machine in the cluster while fully supporting ACID properties. Transactions are used to implement a variety of data models via layers. The FoundationDB Alpha program began in January 2012 and concluded on March 4, 2013, with their public Beta release. Their 1.0 version was released for general availability on August 20, 2013. On March 24, 2015, it was reported that Apple has acquired the company. A notice on the FoundationDB web site indicated that the company has "evolved" its mission and would no longer offer downloads of the software. On April 19, 2018, Apple open sourced the software, releasing it under the Apache 2.0 license. == Main features == The main features of FoundationDB include the following: Ordered key–value store In addition to supporting standard key-based reads and writes, the ordering property enables range reads that can efficiently scan large swaths of data. Transactions Transaction processing employs multiversion concurrency control for reads and optimistic concurrency for writes. Transactions can span multiple keys stored on multiple machines. ACID properties FoundationDB guarantees serializable isolation and strong durability via redundant storage on disk before transactions are considered committed. Layers Layers map new data models, APIs, and query languages to the FoundationDB core. They employ FoundationDB's ability to update multiple data elements in a single transaction, ensuring consistency. An example is their SQL layer. Commodity clusters FoundationDB is designed for deployment on distributed clusters of commodity hardware running Linux. Replication FoundationDB stores each piece of data on multiple machines according to a configurable replication factor. Triple replication is the recommended mode for clusters of 5 or more machines. Scalability FoundationDB is designed to support horizontal scaling through the addition of machines to a cluster while automatically handling data replication and partitioning. Systems supported FoundationDB supports packages for Linux, Windows, and macOS. The Linux version supports production clusters, while the Windows and macOS versions support local operation for development purposes. Configurations on Amazon EC2 are also supported. Programming language bindings FoundationDB supports language bindings for Python, Go, Ruby, Node.js, Java, PHP, and C, all of which are made available with the product. == Design limitations == The design of FoundationDB results in several limitations: Long transactions FoundationDB does not support transactions running over five seconds. Large transactions Transaction size cannot exceed 10 MB of total written keys and values. Large keys and values Keys cannot exceed 10 kB in size. Values cannot exceed 100 kB in size. == History == FoundationDB, headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, was started in 2009 by Nick Lavezzo, Dave Rosenthal, and Dave Scherer, drawing on their experience in executive and technology roles at their previous company, Visual Sciences. In March 2015 the FoundationDB Community site was updated to state that the company had changed directions and would no longer be offering downloads of its product. The company was acquired by Apple Inc., which was confirmed March 25, 2015. On April 19, 2018, Apple open sourced the software, releasing it under the Apache 2.0 license.
Read more →
WebGPU Shading Language

WebGPU Shading Language (WGSL, internet media type: text/wgsl) is a high-level shading language and the normative shader language for the WebGPU API on the web. WGSL's syntax is influenced by Rust and is designed with strong static validation, explicit resource binding, and portability in mind for secure execution in browsers. In web contexts, WebGPU implementations accept WGSL source and perform compilation to platform-specific intermediate forms (for example, to SPIR‑V, DXIL, or MSL via the user agent), but such backends are not exposed to web content. == History and background == Graphics on the web historically used WebGL, with shaders written in GLSL ES. As applications demanded more modern GPU features and finer control over compute and graphics pipelines, the W3C's GPU for the Web Community Group and Working Group created WebGPU and its companion shading language, WGSL, to provide a secure, portable model suitable for the web platform. WGSL was developed to be human-readable, avoid undefined behavior common in legacy shading languages, and align closely with WebGPU's resource and validation model. == Design goals == WGSL's design emphasizes: Safety and determinism suitable for web security constraints (extensive static validation and well-defined semantics). Portability across diverse GPU backends via an abstract resource model shared with WebGPU. Readability and explicitness (no preprocessor, minimal implicit conversions, explicit address spaces and bindings). Alignment with modern GPU features (compute, storage buffers, textures, atomics) while retaining a familiar C/Rust-like syntax. == Language overview == === Types and values === Core scalar types include bool, i32, u32, and f32. Vectors (e.g., vec2, vec3, vec4) and matrices (up to 4×4) are available for floating-point element types. Optional f16 (half precision) may be enabled via a WebGPU feature; availability is implementation-dependent. Atomic types (atomic, atomic) support limited atomic operations in qualified address spaces. === Variables and address spaces === Variables are declared with let (immutable), var (mutable), or const (compile-time constant). Storage classes (address spaces) include function, private, workgroup, uniform, and storage with read or read_write access as applicable. WGSL defines explicit layout and alignment rules; attributes such as @align, @size, and @stride control data layout for buffer interoperability. === Functions and control flow === Functions use explicit parameter and return types. Control flow includes if, switch, for, while, and loop constructs, with break/continue. Recursion is disallowed; entry-point call graphs must be acyclic. === Entry points and attributes === Shaders define stage entry points with @vertex, @fragment, or @compute. Attributes annotate bindings and interfaces, including @group, @binding (resource binding), @location (user-defined I/O), @builtin (stage built-ins such as position or global_invocation_id), @interpolate, and @workgroup_size. === Resources === WGSL exposes buffers (uniform, storage), textures (sampled, storage, and multisampled variants), and samplers (filtering/non-filtering/comparison). The binding model is explicit via descriptor sets called groups and bindings, matching WebGPU's pipeline layout model. == Compilation and validation == Browsers compile WGSL to platform-appropriate representations and native driver formats; the specific compilation pipeline is not observable by web content. WGSL source undergoes strict parsing and static validation, and WebGPU enforces robust resource access rules to avoid out-of-bounds memory hazards, contributing to predictable behavior across implementations. == Shader stages == WGSL supports three pipeline stages: vertex, fragment, and compute. === Vertex shaders === Vertex shaders transform per-vertex inputs and produce values for rasterization, including a clip-space position written to the position builtin. ==== Example ==== === Fragment shaders === Fragment shaders run per-fragment and compute color (and optionally depth) outputs written to color attachments. ==== Example ==== If half-precision (vec4h, shorthand for vec4) is desired, the code must be prefaced with a enable f16; statement. === Compute shaders === Compute shaders run in workgroups and are used for general-purpose GPU computations. ==== Example ==== == Differences from GLSL and HLSL == Compared with legacy shading languages, WGSL: Omits a preprocessor and requires explicit types and conversions. Uses explicit address spaces and binding annotations aligned with WebGPU's model. Enforces strict validation to avoid undefined behavior common in other shading languages. Defines a portable, web-focused feature set; 16-bit types and other features are opt-in and may depend on device capabilities.
Read more →
Crackme

A crackme is a small computer program designed to test a programmer's reverse engineering skills. Crackmes are made as a legal way to crack software, since no intellectual property is being infringed. == Description == Crackmes often incorporate protection schemes and algorithms similar to those used in proprietary software. However, they can sometimes be more challenging because they may use advanced packing or protection techniques, making the underlying algorithm harder to analyze and modify. == Keygenme == A keygenme is specifically designed for the reverser to not only identify the protection algorithm used in the application but also create a small key generator (keygen) in the programming language of their choice. Most keygenmes, when properly manipulated, can be made self-keygenning. For example, during validation, they might generate the correct key internally and compare it to the user's input. This allows the key generation algorithm to be easily replicated. Anti-debugging and anti-disassembly routines are often used to confuse debuggers or render disassembly output useless. Code obfuscation is also used to further complicate reverse engineering.
Read more →
Schema-agnostic databases

Schema-agnostic databases or vocabulary-independent databases aim at supporting users to be abstracted from the representation of the data, supporting the automatic semantic matching between queries and databases. Schema-agnosticism is the property of a database of mapping a query issued with the user terminology and structure, automatically mapping it to the dataset vocabulary. The increase in the size and in the semantic heterogeneity of database schemas bring new requirements for users querying and searching structured data. At this scale it can become unfeasible for data consumers to be familiar with the representation of the data in order to query it. At the center of this discussion is the semantic gap between users and databases, which becomes more central as the scale and complexity of the data grows. == Description == The evolution of data environments towards the consumption of data from multiple data sources and the growth in the schema size, complexity, dynamicity and decentralisation (SCoDD) of schemas increases the complexity of contemporary data management. The SCoDD trend emerges as a central data management concern in Big Data scenarios, where users and applications have a demand for more complete data, produced by independent data sources, under different semantic assumptions and contexts of use, which is the typical scenario for Semantic Web Data applications. The evolution of databases in the direction of heterogeneous data environments strongly impacts the usability, semiotics and semantic assumptions behind existing data accessibility methods such as structured queries, keyword-based search and visual query systems. With schema-less databases containing potentially millions of dynamically changing attributes, it becomes unfeasible for some users to become aware of the 'schema' or vocabulary in order to query the database. At this scale, the effort in understanding the schema in order to build a structured query can become prohibitive. == Schema-agnostic queries == Schema-agnostic queries can be defined as query approaches over structured databases which allow users satisfying complex information needs without the understanding of the representation (schema) of the database. Similarly, Tran et al. defines it as "search approaches, which do not require users to know the schema underlying the data". Approaches such as keyword-based search over databases allow users to query databases without employing structured queries. However, as discussed by Tran et al.: "From these points, users however have to do further navigation and exploration to address complex information needs. Unlike keyword search used on the Web, which focuses on simple needs, the keyword search elaborated here is used to obtain more complex results. Instead of a single set of resources, the goal is to compute complex sets of resources and their relations." The development of approaches to support natural language interfaces (NLI) over databases have aimed towards the goal of schema-agnostic queries. Complementarily, some approaches based on keyword search have targeted keyword-based queries which express more complex information needs. Other approaches have explored the construction of structured queries over databases where schema constraints can be relaxed. All these approaches (natural language, keyword-based search and structured queries) have targeted different degrees of sophistication in addressing the problem of supporting a flexible semantic matching between queries and data, which vary from the completely absence of the semantic concern to more principled semantic models. While the demand for schema-agnosticism has been an implicit requirement across semantic search and natural language query systems over structured data, it is not sufficiently individuated as a concept and as a necessary requirement for contemporary database management systems. Recent works have started to define and model the semantic aspects involved on schema-agnostic queries. === Schema-agnostic structured queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries following the syntax of a structured standard (for example SQL, SPARQL). The syntax and semantics of operators are maintained, while different terminologies are used. ==== Example 1 ==== SELECT ?y { BillClinton hasDaughter ?x . ?x marriedTo ?y . } which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: ==== Example 2 ==== which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: === Schema-agnostic keyword queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries using keyword queries. In this case the syntax and semantics of operators are different from the structured query syntax. ==== Example ==== "Bill Clinton daughter married to" "Books by William Goldman with more than 300 pages" == Semantic complexity == As of 2016 the concept of schema-agnostic queries has been developed primarily in academia. Most of schema-agnostic query systems have been investigated in the context of Natural Language Interfaces over databases or over the Semantic Web. These works explore the application of semantic parsing techniques over large, heterogeneous and schema-less databases. More recently, the individuation of the concept of schema-agnostic query systems and databases have appeared more explicitly within the literature. Freitas et al. provide a probabilistic model on the semantic complexity of mapping schema-agnostic queries.
Read more →
IDMS

The Integrated Database Management System (IDMS) is a network model (CODASYL) database management system for mainframes. It was first developed at BFGoodrich and later marketed by Cullinane Database Systems (renamed Cullinet in 1983). Since 1989 the product has been owned by Computer Associates (now CA Technologies), who renamed it Advantage CA-IDMS and later simply to CA IDMS. In 2018 Broadcom acquired CA Technologies, renaming it back to IDMS. == History == The roots of IDMS go back to the pioneering database management system called Integrated Data Store (IDS), developed at General Electric by a team led by Charles Bachman and first released in 1964. In the early 1960s IDS was taken from its original form, by the computer group of the BFGoodrich Chemical Division, and re-written in a language called Intermediate System Language (ISL). ISL was designed as a portable system programming language able to produce code for a variety of target machines. Since ISL was actually written in ISL, it was able to be ported to other machine architectures with relative ease, and then to produce code that would execute on them. The Chemical Division computer group had given some thought to selling copies of IDMS to other companies, but was told by management that they were not in the software products business. Eventually, a deal was struck with John Cullinane to buy the rights and market the product. Because Cullinane was required to remit royalties back to B.F. Goodrich, all add-on products were listed and billed as separate products – even if they were mandatory for the core IDMS product to work. This sometimes confused customers. The original platforms were the GE 235 computer and GE DATANET-30 message switching computer: later the product was ported to IBM mainframes and to DEC and ICL hardware. The IBM-ported version runs on IBM mainframe systems (System/360, System/370, System/390, zSeries, System z9). In the mid-1980s, it was claimed that some 2,500 IDMS licenses had been sold. Users included the Strategic Air Command, Ford of Canada, Ford of Europe, Jaguar Cars, Clarks Shoes UK, Axa/PPP, MAPFRE, Royal Insurance, Tesco, Manulife, Hudson's Bay Company, Cleveland Clinic, Bank of Canada, General Electric, Aetna and BT in the UK. A version for use on the Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-11 series of computers was sold to DEC and was marketed as DBMS-11. In 1976 the source code was licensed to ICL, who ported the software to run on their 2900 series mainframes, and subsequently also on the older 1900 range. ICL continued development of the software independently of Cullinane, selling the original ported product under the name ICL 2900 IDMS and an enhanced version as IDMSX. In this form it was used by many large UK users, an example being the Pay-As-You-Earn system operated by Inland Revenue. Many of these IDMSX systems for UK Government were still running in 2013. In the early to mid-1980s, relational database management systems started to become more popular, encouraged by increasing hardware power and the move to minicomputers and client–server architecture. Relational databases offered improved development productivity over CODASYL systems, and the traditional objections based on poor performance were slowly diminishing. Cullinet attempted to continue competing against IBM's DB2 and other relational databases by developing a relational front-end and a range of productivity tools. These included Automatic System Facility (ASF), which made use of a pre-existing IDMS feature called LRF (Logical Record Facility). ASF was a fill-in-the-blanks database generator that would also develop a mini-application to maintain the tables. It is difficult to judge whether such features may have been successful in extending the selling life of the product, but they made little impact in the long term. Those users who stayed with IDMS were primarily interested in its high performance, not in its relational capabilities. It was widely recognized (helped by a high-profile campaign by E. F. Codd, the father of the relational model) that there was a significant difference between a relational database and a network database with a relational veneer. In 1989 Computer Associates continued after Cullinet acquisition with the development and released Release 12.0 with full SQL in 1992–93. CA Technologies continued to market and support the CA IDMS and enhanced IDMS in subsequent releases by TCP/IP support, two phase commit support, XML publishing, zIIP specialty processor support, Web-enabled access in combination with CA IDMS Server, SQL Option and GUI database administration via CA IDMS Visual DBA tool. CA-IDMS systems are today still running businesses worldwide. Many customers have opted to web-enable their applications via the CA-IDMS SQL Option which is part of CA Technologies' Dual Database Strategy. == Integrated Data Dictionary == One of the sophisticated features of IDMS was its built-in Integrated data dictionary (IDD). The IDD was primarily developed to maintain database definitions. It was itself an IDMS database. DBAs (database administrators) and other users interfaced with the IDD using a language called Data Dictionary Definition Language (DDDL). IDD was also used to store definitions and code for other products in the IDMS family such as ADS/Online and IDMS-DC. IDD's power was that it was extensible and could be used to create definitions of just about anything. Some companies used it to develop in-house documentation. == Overview == === Logical Data Model === The data model offered to users is the CODASYL network model. The main structuring concepts in this model are records and sets. Records essentially follow the COBOL pattern, consisting of fields of different types: this allows complex internal structure such as repeating items and repeating groups. The most distinctive structuring concept in the Codasyl model is the set. Not to be confused with a mathematical set, a Codasyl set represents a one-to-many relationship between records: one owner, many members. The fact that a record can be a member in many different sets is the key factor that distinguishes the network model from the earlier hierarchical model. As with records, each set belongs to a named set type (different set types model different logical relationships). Sets are in fact ordered, and the sequence of records in a set can be used to convey information. A record can participate as an owner and member of any number of sets. Records have identity, the identity being represented by a value known as a database key. In IDMS, as in most other Codasyl implementations, the database key is directly related to the physical address of the record on disk. Database keys are also used as pointers to implement sets in the form of linked lists and trees. This close correspondence between the logical model and the physical implementation (which is not a strictly necessary part of the Codasyl model, but was a characteristic of all successful implementations) is responsible for the efficiency of database retrieval, but also makes operations such as database loading and restructuring rather expensive. Records can be accessed directly by database key, by following set relationships, or by direct access using key values. Initially the only direct access was through hashing, a mechanism known in the Codasyl model as CALC access. In IDMS, CALC access is implemented through an internal set, linking all records that share the same hash value to an owner record that occupies the first few bytes of every disk page. In subsequent years, some versions of IDMS added the ability to access records using BTree-like indexes. === Storage === IDMS organizes its databases as a series of files. These files are mapped and pre-formatted into so-called areas. The areas are subdivided into pages which correspond to physical blocks on the disk. The database records are stored within these blocks. The DBA allocates a fixed number of pages in a file for each area. The DBA then defines which records are to be stored in each area, and details of how they are to be stored. IDMS intersperses special space-allocation pages throughout the database. These pages are used to keep track of the free space available in each page in the database. To reduce I/O requirements, the free space is only tracked for all pages when the free space for the area falls below 30%. Four methods are available for storing records in an IDMS database: Direct, Sequential, CALC, and VIA. The Fujitsu/ICL IDMSX version extends this with two more methods, Page Direct, and Random. In direct mode the target database key is specified by the user and is stored as close as possible to that DB key, with the actual DB key on which the record is stored being returned to the application program. Sequential placement (not to be confused with indexed sequential), simply places each new record at the end of the area. This option is rarely used. CALC uses a hashing algo
Read more →
Snapshot isolation

In databases, and transaction processing (transaction management), snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database (in practice it reads the last committed values that existed at the time it started), and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot. Snapshot isolation has been adopted by several major database management systems, such as InterBase, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Anywhere, MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server (2005 and later). The main reason for its adoption is that it allows better performance than serializability, yet still avoids most of the concurrency anomalies that serializability avoids (but not all). In practice snapshot isolation is implemented within multiversion concurrency control (MVCC), where generational values of each data item (versions) are maintained: MVCC is a common way to increase concurrency and performance by generating a new version of a database object each time the object is written, and allowing transactions' read operations of several last relevant versions (of each object). Snapshot isolation has been used to criticize the ANSI SQL-92 standard's definition of isolation levels, as it exhibits none of the "anomalies" that the SQL standard prohibited, yet is not serializable (the anomaly-free isolation level defined by ANSI). In spite of its distinction from serializability, snapshot isolation is sometimes referred to as serializable by Oracle. == Definition == A transaction executing under snapshot isolation appears to operate on a personal snapshot of the database, taken at the start of the transaction. When the transaction concludes, it will successfully commit only if the values updated by the transaction have not been changed externally since the snapshot was taken. Such a write–write conflict will cause the transaction to abort. In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies. As a concrete example, imagine V1 and V2 are two balances held by a single person, Phil. The bank will allow either V1 or V2 to run a deficit, provided the total held in both is never negative (i.e. V1 + V2 ≥ 0). Both balances are currently $100. Phil initiates two transactions concurrently, T1 withdrawing $200 from V1, and T2 withdrawing $200 from V2. If the database guaranteed serializable transactions, the simplest way of coding T1 is to deduct $200 from V1, and then verify that V1 + V2 ≥ 0 still holds, aborting if not. T2 similarly deducts $200 from V2 and then verifies V1 + V2 ≥ 0. Since the transactions must serialize, either T1 happens first, leaving V1 = −$100, V2 = $100, and preventing T2 from succeeding (since V1 + (V2 − $200) is now −$200), or T2 happens first and similarly prevents T1 from committing. If the database is under snapshot isolation(MVCC), however, T1 and T2 operate on private snapshots of the database: each deducts $200 from an account, and then verifies that the new total is zero, using the other account value that held when the snapshot was taken. Since neither update conflicts, both commit successfully, leaving V1 = V2 = −$100, and V1 + V2 = −$200. Some systems built using multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) may support (only) snapshot isolation to allow transactions to proceed without worrying about concurrent operations, and more importantly without needing to re-verify all read operations when the transaction finally commits. This is convenient because MVCC maintains a series of recent history consistent states. The only information that must be stored during the transaction is a list of updates made, which can be scanned for conflicts fairly easily before being committed. However, MVCC systems (such as MarkLogic) will use locks to serialize writes together with MVCC to obtain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger "serializability" level of isolation. == Workarounds == Potential inconsistency problems arising from write skew anomalies can be fixed by adding (otherwise unnecessary) updates to the transactions in order to enforce the serializability property. Materialize the conflict Add a special conflict table, which both transactions update in order to create a direct write–write conflict. Promotion Have one transaction "update" a read-only location (replacing a value with the same value) in order to create a direct write–write conflict (or use an equivalent promotion, e.g. Oracle's SELECT FOR UPDATE). In the example above, we can materialize the conflict by adding a new table which makes the hidden constraint explicit, mapping each person to their total balance. Phil would start off with a total balance of $200, and each transaction would attempt to subtract $200 from this, creating a write–write conflict that would prevent the two from succeeding concurrently. However, this approach violates the normal form. Alternatively, we can promote one of the transaction's reads to a write. For instance, T2 could set V1 = V1, creating an artificial write–write conflict with T1 and, again, preventing the two from succeeding concurrently. This solution may not always be possible. In general, therefore, snapshot isolation puts some of the problem of maintaining non-trivial constraints onto the user, who may not appreciate either the potential pitfalls or the possible solutions. The upside to this transfer is better performance. == Terminology == Snapshot isolation is called "serializable" mode in Oracle and PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1, which may cause confusion with the "real serializability" mode. There are arguments both for and against this decision; what is clear is that users must be aware of the distinction to avoid possible undesired anomalous behavior in their database system logic. == History == Snapshot isolation arose from work on multiversion concurrency control databases, where multiple versions of the database are maintained concurrently to allow readers to execute without colliding with writers. Such a system allows a natural definition and implementation of such an isolation level. InterBase, later owned by Borland, was acknowledged to provide SI rather than full serializability in version 4, and likely permitted write-skew anomalies since its first release in 1985. Unfortunately, the ANSI SQL-92 standard was written with a lock-based database in mind, and hence is rather vague when applied to MVCC systems. Berenson et al. wrote a paper in 1995 critiquing the SQL standard, and cited snapshot isolation as an example of an isolation level that did not exhibit the standard anomalies described in the ANSI SQL-92 standard, yet still had anomalous behaviour when compared with serializable transactions. In 2008, Cahill et al. showed that write-skew anomalies could be prevented by detecting and aborting "dangerous" triplets of concurrent transactions. This implementation of serializability is well-suited to multiversion concurrency control databases, and has been adopted in PostgreSQL 9.1, where it is known as Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). When used consistently, this eliminates the need for the above workarounds. The downside over snapshot isolation is an increase in aborted transactions. This can perform better or worse than snapshot isolation with the above workarounds, depending on workload.
Read more →