How do people that naive get all that money in the first place? If I had a girlfriend who needed $200,000 to save her own ass she'd be S.O.L. if she came to me for it.
While that's true in theory, my rough estimate based from first-hand experience is that only around 15% of the deployments of these "standard frameworks" stay standard enough for that to be true. The rest of the time the client expects the full customization capability of a site written from scratch along with this supposed "easily replaceable" coder. The code base tends to end up getting chopped all to hell and by the time they're done (IF they get done) it no longer shares enough in common with the official distribution to either benefit from future updates and compatibility with 3rd party contributed modules or to benefit from any time/cost saving that standardized, reusable code is supposed to afford.
You know you're right. I know you're right. The problem is that there are so many horribly inexperienced, disorganized, and utterly belligerently incompetent web programmers out there that they give the few of us who actually know our asses from a hole in the ground a bad name. The perception amongst the broader small and medium sized business community (a.k.a. 90% of all available clients) is that if you're not using a framework you can't possibly know what you're doing. They think there's no possible way someone could be experienced enough to make a secure, efficient, and stable website simple enough that it might cost less to build it from scratch and maintain it than the "equivalent" product created via an infinite amount of Joomla or Drupal customization.
Though it seems like nobody who has only bought websites and never made one themselves has ever survived the financial damage of making this mistake the first time, so the myth persists because none of the clients out there know their asses from a hole in the ground either.
1. a skeletal structure designed to support or enclose something. 2. a frame or structure composed of parts fitted and joined together. 3. something housewives and little girls use to pretend that they can write software. 4. work done in, on, or with a frame.
Since when is the whole world required to pander to your fragile and easily bruised ego? I'm sorry but the "I can't use Linux because everyone is mean to me." argument is starting to get a little old. How about taking responsibility for your own incompetence for once? How about sitting down and reading the documentation on your own to find out what makes them think they're all so much better than you? Or did you think literacy would not be an important factor in your ability to comprehend advanced technology?
Really? I wish the cruise control on my Acura was that bad ass. I can't even get it to engage above like 60mph or something like that. It is practically useless where I live.
Keep in mind that HTML5 (which is a standard that requires browsers to support video natively) was not spearheaded or even until recently even greeted with cooperation by the W3C or any OSS body. It was introduced and pushed forward primarily by a corporate alliance composed of big for-profit players including Adobe and Microsoft who felt that the W3C had actually done something WRONG with their recent XHTML standard - "something wrong" such as leveling the playing field. HTML5 is essentially Adobe and Microsoft's retaliation to XHTML 1.0/1.1. The W3C only started backing HTML5 late in the game when it was clear that their lack of participation would do nothing other than eliminate their relevance as a web-standards governing body.
Don't get me wrong, I think HTML5 is pure evil and will be the doom of the internet and I think the things that make it the most popular (like requiring native video support of browsers) are the exact opposite of what we should be requiring out of web browsers, but it is clear that the corporations have spoken; they have decreed that supporting future web standards will require behaving as "grown ups" (i.e. forking over a shit ton of cash for licensing of some questionable proprietary shit that the commercial players have some vested interest in promoting) which includes but is not limited to measures that put not-for-profit organizations like Mozilla at an artificially-created technical compatibility disadvantage to offset their own lack of capability to increase their own software's market share thorough quality, features, security, reliability or cross-platform compatibility or the like.
It is a serious question but it misses out on the relevant *point* of HTML5 in regards to this discussion - which is that browsers need to have native support for video content. Many Mozilla plugins already DO support h.264 - but that is irrelevant to HTML5 which requires *native* video support.
I call bullshit on your claim that Mozilla "enables" Flash in any way. Flash supports the general plugin architecture Mozilla and other browsers inherited from Netscape 4, which predates the existence of Flash entirely. The problem with the h.264 thing is that using it for HTML5 implies that the browser would have to support it natively. Mozilla does NOT support Flash natively. There is absolutely no comparison, your argument is rubbish based on inaccurate, misinformed technical assumptions.
I also love how they carry around highly sensitive EM field readers and assume the spikes in the readings are ghosts - meanwhile carrying around tons of electronic recording and communication devices (like cellphones and digital cameras).
Did you read the article? Nobody said anything about freedom of speech. This is entirely about keeping companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from stifling competition.
The problem is that maintaining this type of lack of control requires *some* amount of careful regulation. Any purely anarchistic system will eventually give birth to a totalitarian establishment unless measures are put in place to prevent it before hand.
How about you switch your ISP to Comcast then get a Netflix streaming only account and try to use it. Then after that come back here and tell me you still want to have ISPs writing laws.
Slashdot Mirror
hahaha
How do people that naive get all that money in the first place? If I had a girlfriend who needed $200,000 to save her own ass she'd be S.O.L. if she came to me for it.
While that's true in theory, my rough estimate based from first-hand experience is that only around 15% of the deployments of these "standard frameworks" stay standard enough for that to be true. The rest of the time the client expects the full customization capability of a site written from scratch along with this supposed "easily replaceable" coder. The code base tends to end up getting chopped all to hell and by the time they're done (IF they get done) it no longer shares enough in common with the official distribution to either benefit from future updates and compatibility with 3rd party contributed modules or to benefit from any time/cost saving that standardized, reusable code is supposed to afford.
You know you're right. I know you're right. The problem is that there are so many horribly inexperienced, disorganized, and utterly belligerently incompetent web programmers out there that they give the few of us who actually know our asses from a hole in the ground a bad name. The perception amongst the broader small and medium sized business community (a.k.a. 90% of all available clients) is that if you're not using a framework you can't possibly know what you're doing. They think there's no possible way someone could be experienced enough to make a secure, efficient, and stable website simple enough that it might cost less to build it from scratch and maintain it than the "equivalent" product created via an infinite amount of Joomla or Drupal customization.
Though it seems like nobody who has only bought websites and never made one themselves has ever survived the financial damage of making this mistake the first time, so the myth persists because none of the clients out there know their asses from a hole in the ground either.
framework
[freym-wurk]
–noun
1.
a skeletal structure designed to support or enclose something.
2.
a frame or structure composed of parts fitted and joined together.
3.
something housewives and little girls use to pretend that they can write software.
4.
work done in, on, or with a frame.
I agree with you. All I meant to do was point out that even if they can stop the piracy they're never gonna get their money.
unfortunately the truth of this statement will be entirely missed by the greater public.
+5 informative, for having the real answer
+5 hilarious
so does this mean nobody will mind if i install linux on it?
...which of course is assuming that Intel isn't paying Dell to buy up AMD then liquidate them to eliminate competition in the CPU market...
Since when is the whole world required to pander to your fragile and easily bruised ego? I'm sorry but the "I can't use Linux because everyone is mean to me." argument is starting to get a little old. How about taking responsibility for your own incompetence for once? How about sitting down and reading the documentation on your own to find out what makes them think they're all so much better than you? Or did you think literacy would not be an important factor in your ability to comprehend advanced technology?
SNS (Shiny New Shit syndrome) is a very serious condition that can negatively impact the reliability of your computer.
1) Distribute pothole detection app to citizens.
2) Observe network overload when they all drive down Wilshire Blvd. at rush hour.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Really? I wish the cruise control on my Acura was that bad ass. I can't even get it to engage above like 60mph or something like that. It is practically useless where I live.
Does this mean that the EM radiation from all these computers and old CRT monitors actually *is* making me smarter?
Keep in mind that HTML5 (which is a standard that requires browsers to support video natively) was not spearheaded or even until recently even greeted with cooperation by the W3C or any OSS body. It was introduced and pushed forward primarily by a corporate alliance composed of big for-profit players including Adobe and Microsoft who felt that the W3C had actually done something WRONG with their recent XHTML standard -
"something wrong" such as leveling the playing field. HTML5 is essentially Adobe and Microsoft's retaliation to XHTML 1.0/1.1. The W3C only started backing HTML5 late in the game when it was clear that their lack of participation would do nothing other than eliminate their relevance as a web-standards governing body.
Don't get me wrong, I think HTML5 is pure evil and will be the doom of the internet and I think the things that make it the most popular (like requiring native video support of browsers) are the exact opposite of what we should be requiring out of web browsers, but it is clear that the corporations have spoken; they have decreed that supporting future web standards will require behaving as "grown ups" (i.e. forking over a shit ton of cash for licensing of some questionable proprietary shit that the commercial players have some vested interest in promoting) which includes but is not limited to measures that put not-for-profit organizations like Mozilla at an artificially-created technical compatibility disadvantage to offset their own lack of capability to increase their own software's market share thorough quality, features, security, reliability or cross-platform compatibility or the like.
It is a serious question but it misses out on the relevant *point* of HTML5 in regards to this discussion - which is that browsers need to have native support for video content. Many Mozilla plugins already DO support h.264 - but that is irrelevant to HTML5 which requires *native* video support.
I call bullshit on your claim that Mozilla "enables" Flash in any way. Flash supports the general plugin architecture Mozilla and other browsers inherited from Netscape 4, which predates the existence of Flash entirely. The problem with the h.264 thing is that using it for HTML5 implies that the browser would have to support it natively. Mozilla does NOT support Flash natively. There is absolutely no comparison, your argument is rubbish based on inaccurate, misinformed technical assumptions.
I also love how they carry around highly sensitive EM field readers and assume the spikes in the readings are ghosts - meanwhile carrying around tons of electronic recording and communication devices (like cellphones and digital cameras).
I love how they used compressed audio formats on digital recorders to listen for "voices."
Slip them a well-measured dose of LSD.
Did you read the article? Nobody said anything about freedom of speech. This is entirely about keeping companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from stifling competition.
The problem is that maintaining this type of lack of control requires *some* amount of careful regulation. Any purely anarchistic system will eventually give birth to a totalitarian establishment unless measures are put in place to prevent it before hand.
How about you switch your ISP to Comcast then get a Netflix streaming only account and try to use it. Then after that come back here and tell me you still want to have ISPs writing laws.