1/3 of the people living in Estonia do not speak fluent estonian (or do not speak the language at all). Those are the descendants of the former occupation forces, Russians who are encouraged by their nations leaders to stay on the formerly occupied territories and to resist integration. Strangely enough the EU and the world community fail to approve of Estonia-s attempt to assimilate the next generation by making estonian the mandatory teaching language at schools, i.e. to acquire adequate skills inte local tongue. (For clarity I must add that Estonia in no way tries to prevent studying or using russian; the objective is to make the russian descendants adopt estonian in addition to their own language.)
I just can't imagine MS abandoning WP. It would not make sense. Not today, nor tomorrow. From the consumers perspecitve, however, I fail to see how and why anyone would opt to buy a phone with a 12 month usable lifespan. I got myself a Dell Streak 5" phone. It was running Android 2.2 and was eventually uppgraded to 2.3. Dell abandoned their Streak line of devices and had it not been for the open-source nature of Android I would have been out of options. Windows Phone 7.x owners must be pretty unhappy inside; they got themselves devices that can not be updated to any meaningful extent. The same seems to be happening to WP8 owners. Don't get me wrong; this strategy has worked well for the manufacturers for many years! Users buy new phones when the old ones become obsolete. In the smartphone-market, however, the cost for upgrading is high. If the user is forced to buy a new phone every year, the consumers will navigate towards cheaper low-end devices. And belive me: That is not what the manufacturers want! Nor do they want their customers turn to open-source alternatives when their devices no longer recieve new updates.
Isn't it funny that the entire LHC spec is 1.600 pages, while the OOXML documentation, as submitted by Microsoft, is a full 6.000 pages. Does this reflect a difference in complexity, or is it a sign of something else?
Meny have pointed out that such a device is useless w/o a temperature gradient. However, when such a gradient exists, there is a solution that is much more potent, commercially available and suitable for use in most environments that I can think of right now. I'm of course talking about the Stirling engine! During extremely favourable conditions such a device, combined with a generator, can turn as much as 30% of the energy in the gradient into electrical power!!! That, my friends, is a lot! A more polite and probable outcome, like 10%, is still excellent when there is a source of heat that would otherwise go to waste. This new device may fill some nische, but once enegry prices have risen enough the Sterling enginge will be king!
The book referenced by you is named " Microsoft Windows NT OS/2 Design Workbook", and may well be Microsoft's design specification for what was to become the Windows NT Kernel. This may be the original MICROSOFT document, but it was preceeded by the OS/2 version 3 design specification (which outlined the the featureset of the upcoming, portable, version of the OS/2 kernel).
The report from Garther suggests that they will have to. In addition, they have attempted to (for Vista) and failed. And are trying again for Windows 7.
But when pigs can't fly then fattening up will not help them achieve their goal.
Sorry, but I belive that Microsoft FUD has fogged some brains here! True, Dave Cuttler was hired to implement the new kernel (and also true that the Windows API was implemented on top of that), but since I have the complete documentation available I stick to the truth: Even though Windows NT kernel is re-implemented from scratch, it was based on the original OS/2 version 3 kernel specification. It closely maps to the 32-bit OS/2 kernel functionality, with the following two exceptions: - Intel had hardware support for four levels of insulations (called Ring 0.. Ring 3). The OS/2 kernel, written specificatlly for the Intel processor, made use of three out of those four levels. The NT kernel was written to support RISC processors (because that was the target of the original OS/2 version 3.0 specification). Thus the NT kernel only recognized two levels, privileged and unprivileged code. - Similarly, the OS/2 kernel made use of the hardware registries and hardware support for implementing the memory page tables. The NT kernel, ment to be portable, implemented the same entirely in software. (This, by the way, made the NT kernels rather slow on older processors).
---- Wikipediaa should not always be trusted to be accurate. This time, however I can cofirm Wikipedias version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1): "Windows NT was originally intended to be OS/2 3.0, the third version of the operating system developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM. When Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, it was so successful that Microsoft decided to change the primary application programming interface for the still-unreleased NT OS/2 (as it was then known) from an extended OS/2 API to an extended Windows API. This decision caused tension between Microsoft and IBM, and the collaboration ultimately fell apart. IBM continued OS/2 development alone, while Microsoft continued work on the newly-renamed Windows NT." Windows NT originally was a thinly disguied implementation of thje OS/2 version 3 specification. Microsoft FUD wants you to belive differently.
If you visit the following Microsoft page (http://www.microsoft.com.nsatc.net/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/os2comp.mspx?mfr=true) you will be able to se for yourself to what extent OS/2 was supported in the origial Windows NT. The web page claims to say that OS/2 device drivers do not work in Windows NT. In the Alpha and beta versions of I86 NT the OS/2 device drivers worked fine. I can not warrant that they still did that in the final product. The claim above that Windows NT did not contain any 16 bit code is totally untrue: The kernel, being a micro kerrnel, may not have had any 16-bit code in it (since it was compiled with a 32-bit compiler, but for the longest time a good part of t he Win API was 16-bit (for backward compatibility reasons).
The message of my initial comment thus is still valid: Microsoft has never developed a full-fledged operating system from scratch. And maybe they never will.
You are correct in that these features do not appear in any commercial version of OS/2. I did not claim that; only that Windows NT was based on the original OS/2 version 3.0 specification (more on that below!). Regardless: I may be incorrect, but...... IRPS was introduced in NT 3.51 as part of the new device driver model. Windows NT 3.1 (the original Windows NT) did NOT contain that feature).... Deferred Procedure Calls (DPCs) is part if Windows Driver Model (WDM) which was fully implemented only in Windows 2000 (see http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc264476.aspx).
However, these are tiny details of the bigger picture. The main feature set: Threads, pre-emptive multitasking, priority-based scheduling, support for SMP, layered architecture, pluggable file systems, application level insulation (i.e. one application can't take everything down), paged memory management (page swapping instead of segment swapping) all originate from the original OS/2 v3.0 specification*). NB! This is different from the actual commercial product "OS/2 version 3.0" , which is derived from the OS/2 2.x code base! Confusing, I know! The history behind this is as follows: IBM and Microsoft co-developed OS/2 1.x [16-bit operating system]. When it became time to migrate to 32-bit Microsoft claimed that it was difficult for them to travel between Seattle and Bocca Raton, Florida, where IBM labs resided. They convinced IBM to take upon themselves the implementation of the first, Intel-only, 32-bit version [which became OS/2 2.0 and base for later versions of OS/2], and to leave Microsoft to work on the next-gen portable OS/2 [which was to be some future 3.x version of OS/2]. However, Microsoft soon abandoned OS/2 and used the know-how and specifications for developing Windows NT.
You may be too young to remember, and possibly mis-informed. (The winner gets to write the history, as you may recall!).
I, however, worked intensely with Microsoft on OS/2 (as an independent, not as an employee) and I was one of the few external Windows NT Alpha testers. At that point I saw what direction Microsoft had taken, and discontinued my cooperation with the company. I do have all the printed material and data media in a safe place, should documenting the history ever become nescesary.
--------------- *) In addition to the specification itself Microsoft had access to IBMs reference implementations in source code format both as IBM's 32-bit OS/2 and in "OS/2 for PowerPC" (a product that never made it to the market).
Windows NT was developed by Dave Cuttler (of DEC VMS team) based on a operating system specification developed by IBM. (It was supposed to be released under the name OS/2 version 3). Microsoft implemented the Windowing API on top of that operating system.
The fact is that Microsoft has never developed a commercial operating system from scratch!!!
They have only incremented the original Windows NT (a.k.a. OS/2 v3.0) code base, for example by:
- replacing the OS/2 file system delivered in Windows NT with the more modern NTFS
- re-writing the OS/2 deveice driver layer of Windows NT with a new, 32-bit and C-based API [the original NT device driver model was 16-bit and assembler-based]
- moving the implementation of the graphics API into the ring-0 kernel [big mistake!]
- replacing the OS/2 multitaskin DOS compatibility (i.e. the text window of Windows) with a less DOS-compatible one, which was supposed to run on multiple processor architectures.
The effort to create a new operating system core for Vista failed because of lack of in-house knowlege.
The task of writing a new core OS (under the Windows API) seems to be too difficult for a company run by marketing people and lawyers.
Well, compare the MS version to Gmail's: "Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service."
Which one are you more comfortable with?
Yeah! Thoght so!
And now to the real issue: Why would MS compose Terms and Conditions that are so fundamentally different from what one would expect?
In such case, since You have entered into an agreement with Microsoft, you can not post anything to Hotmail unless you are the copyright hoder.
Indeed, the Terms and Conditions specifically state: "By Posting a Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in these Terms of Use including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions."
So be ware that by posting ANYTHING to HotMail you are exposing yourself to the wrath of MS and/or the actual holder of the rights!
So after some further investigation I have concluded that: 1) You don't actually seem to give up your own copyright to whatever you post; you only accept to share the copyright with Microsoft. I.e. You grant them every right that the copyright law gives you (as being the original copyright holder). So whatever you posted on HotMail now should be re-labelled "(c) Me and Microsoft". 2) In addition, if the posting contains any graphics, pictures, art or similar, You also grant a royalty-free but revocable license to the general public.
I firmly belive that anything posted to HotMail becomes "(c) Me and Microsoft". However, I do not understand why the second part (regading images) would benefit MS, or why they seem to think that such a clause is nescesary. Can anyone enlighten me on this?
If I'm not mistaken the HotMail EULA states that every piece of data that is sent through HotMail becomes "(c) Copyright Microsoft Corp". So the data that they are deleting is their own. They can do whatever they want with their own data. Right? (The above condition is the reason why I don't use HotMail, by the way. I don't send mails to people with HotMail accounts either. How much copyrighted information, PM's, manuals have you donated to Microsoft this way? Ever sent any of your company's memos to a HotMail account? Does your boss know that you gave away their copyright?)
So what is all the excitement about!? 1) Thís is a buffer overflow error (i.e. an implementation error) in Suns JRE (not in any other vendors Java; IBM and others seem to be safe). 2) It is an overflow in the image library, so it is unlikely that this will affect mobile phones, PDA's and other hard-to-patch devices. 3) There is a new, patched, release available for every affected platform and for every affected java version. 4) Buffer overflow errors (similar or worse than this) which need to be patched, are detected if not daily then at least weekly in the most commonly used operating system on this planet.
What is the big hype about? Is Java becomming too popular? Is this a FUD campaign?
I'm sorry to burst everyones bubles, but I'm 49, self-employed, and work as a consultant on the bleeding edge of the software industry. Yes, all my old colleagues have drifted to other careers; they gradually were replaced by younger guys. However, I belive that the reason for their departure from the profession was lack of time, not lack of lust. If you have family and kids you just don't have the time to absorb new tech the way you used to. You have to get home, do homework with the kids, fix the house, go on a vacation with your spouse and entertain the neighbours. So late nights in front of the screen is no longer an option. Also, a programmer is a bit like a dentist: One starts off with a good salary, but there is no real career ahead. Just more of the same for 40 years. Not everyone finds that exciting. A third reason for leaving the profession is that many people (partly because of the above) loose momentum. They maintain old tech using old knowlege, and start realizing that they can't keep up. After a while they spend more time hiding their lack of current knowlege than they do writing new code. They brag about old times and try to use new buzwords in a clumsy manner. Then they start walking the corridors with binders under their arm, pretending to be in a hurry (when they really are headed for the loo). In the end they find an opening in a different area of the company, where they can get a break. I have seen too many of those uncomfortable guys in gray jackets who used to be good, but now only look uncomfortable when topics like web services, portals, AJAX or SOA are on the agenda.
I guess that programmers are like athlets: If they don't know when to quit they become pathethic. Which brings me back to where I started: I'm 49 and still in the business and I have a family and a house. Which makes me...? [Fact: I'm paid premium money and sent criss-crossing the country to implement the newest technologies, since the large software houses can't find the knowlege anywhere else]
Slashdot Mirror
1/3 of the people living in Estonia do not speak fluent estonian (or do not speak the language at all).
Those are the descendants of the former occupation forces, Russians who are encouraged by their nations leaders to stay on the formerly occupied territories and to resist integration.
Strangely enough the EU and the world community fail to approve of Estonia-s attempt to assimilate the next generation by making estonian the mandatory teaching language at schools, i.e. to acquire adequate skills inte local tongue. (For clarity I must add that Estonia in no way tries to prevent studying or using russian; the objective is to make the russian descendants adopt estonian in addition to their own language.)
I just can't imagine MS abandoning WP. It would not make sense. Not today, nor tomorrow.
From the consumers perspecitve, however, I fail to see how and why anyone would opt to buy a phone with a 12 month usable lifespan.
I got myself a Dell Streak 5" phone. It was running Android 2.2 and was eventually uppgraded to 2.3. Dell abandoned their Streak line of devices and had it not been for the open-source nature of Android I would have been out of options.
Windows Phone 7.x owners must be pretty unhappy inside; they got themselves devices that can not be updated to any meaningful extent. The same seems to be happening to WP8 owners.
Don't get me wrong; this strategy has worked well for the manufacturers for many years! Users buy new phones when the old ones become obsolete. In the smartphone-market, however, the cost for upgrading is high. If the user is forced to buy a new phone every year, the consumers will navigate towards cheaper low-end devices. And belive me: That is not what the manufacturers want! Nor do they want their customers turn to open-source alternatives when their devices no longer recieve new updates.
Isn't it funny that the entire LHC spec is 1.600 pages, while the OOXML documentation, as submitted by Microsoft, is a full 6.000 pages.
Does this reflect a difference in complexity, or is it a sign of something else?
Meny have pointed out that such a device is useless w/o a temperature gradient. However, when such a gradient exists, there is a solution that is much more potent, commercially available and suitable for use in most environments that I can think of right now. I'm of course talking about the Stirling engine!
During extremely favourable conditions such a device, combined with a generator, can turn as much as 30% of the energy in the gradient into electrical power!!! That, my friends, is a lot!
A more polite and probable outcome, like 10%, is still excellent when there is a source of heat that would otherwise go to waste. This new device may fill some nische, but once enegry prices have risen enough the Sterling enginge will be king!
The book referenced by you is named "
Microsoft Windows NT OS/2 Design Workbook", and may well be Microsoft's design specification for what was to become the Windows NT Kernel.
This may be the original MICROSOFT document, but it was preceeded by the OS/2 version 3 design specification (which outlined the the featureset of the upcoming, portable, version of the OS/2 kernel).
I do not see any mention of that in you post?!
Singularity is a research project, not a commercial OS!
But sure, go ahead! Base Windows 7 on Singularity!
The report from Garther suggests that they will have to.
In addition, they have attempted to (for Vista) and failed. And are trying again for Windows 7.
But when pigs can't fly then fattening up will not help them achieve their goal.
Sorry, but I belive that Microsoft FUD has fogged some brains here! .. Ring 3). The OS/2 kernel, written specificatlly for the Intel processor, made use of three out of those four levels. The NT kernel was written to support RISC processors (because that was the target of the original OS/2 version 3.0 specification). Thus the NT kernel only recognized two levels, privileged and unprivileged code.
True, Dave Cuttler was hired to implement the new kernel (and also true that the Windows API was implemented on top of that), but since I have the complete documentation available I stick to the truth:
Even though Windows NT kernel is re-implemented from scratch, it was based on the original OS/2 version 3 kernel specification. It closely maps to the 32-bit OS/2 kernel functionality, with the following two exceptions:
- Intel had hardware support for four levels of insulations (called Ring 0
- Similarly, the OS/2 kernel made use of the hardware registries and hardware support for implementing the memory page tables. The NT kernel, ment to be portable, implemented the same entirely in software. (This, by the way, made the NT kernels rather slow on older processors).
----
Wikipediaa should not always be trusted to be accurate. This time, however I can cofirm Wikipedias version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1):
"Windows NT was originally intended to be OS/2 3.0, the third version of the operating system developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM. When Windows 3.0 was released in May 1990, it was so successful that Microsoft decided to change the primary application programming interface for the still-unreleased NT OS/2 (as it was then known) from an extended OS/2 API to an extended Windows API. This decision caused tension between Microsoft and IBM, and the collaboration ultimately fell apart. IBM continued OS/2 development alone, while Microsoft continued work on the newly-renamed Windows NT."
Windows NT originally was a thinly disguied implementation of thje OS/2 version 3 specification.
Microsoft FUD wants you to belive differently.
If you visit the following Microsoft page (http://www.microsoft.com.nsatc.net/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/os2comp.mspx?mfr=true)
you will be able to se for yourself to what extent OS/2 was supported in the origial Windows NT.
The web page claims to say that OS/2 device drivers do not work in Windows NT. In the Alpha and beta versions of I86 NT the OS/2 device drivers worked fine. I can not warrant that they still did that in the final product.
The claim above that Windows NT did not contain any 16 bit code is totally untrue: The kernel, being a micro kerrnel, may not have had any 16-bit code in it (since it was compiled with a 32-bit compiler, but for the longest time a good part of t he Win API was 16-bit (for backward compatibility reasons).
The message of my initial comment thus is still valid: Microsoft has never developed a full-fledged operating system from scratch. And maybe they never will.
You are correct in that these features do not appear in any commercial version of OS/2. I did not claim that; only that Windows NT was based on the original OS/2 version 3.0 specification (more on that below!). ... ... IRPS was introduced in NT 3.51 as part of the new device driver model. Windows NT 3.1 (the original Windows NT) did NOT contain that feature). ... Deferred Procedure Calls (DPCs) is part if Windows Driver Model (WDM) which was fully implemented only in Windows 2000 (see http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc264476.aspx).
Regardless: I may be incorrect, but
However, these are tiny details of the bigger picture. The main feature set: Threads, pre-emptive multitasking, priority-based scheduling, support for SMP, layered architecture, pluggable file systems, application level insulation (i.e. one application can't take everything down), paged memory management (page swapping instead of segment swapping) all originate from the original OS/2 v3.0 specification*).
NB! This is different from the actual commercial product "OS/2 version 3.0" , which is derived from the OS/2 2.x code base! Confusing, I know!
The history behind this is as follows: IBM and Microsoft co-developed OS/2 1.x [16-bit operating system]. When it became time to migrate to 32-bit Microsoft claimed that it was difficult for them to travel between Seattle and Bocca Raton, Florida, where IBM labs resided. They convinced IBM to take upon themselves the implementation of the first, Intel-only, 32-bit version [which became OS/2 2.0 and base for later versions of OS/2], and to leave Microsoft to work on the next-gen portable OS/2 [which was to be some future 3.x version of OS/2]. However, Microsoft soon abandoned OS/2 and used the know-how and specifications for developing Windows NT.
You may be too young to remember, and possibly mis-informed. (The winner gets to write the history, as you may recall!).
I, however, worked intensely with Microsoft on OS/2 (as an independent, not as an employee) and I was one of the few external Windows NT Alpha testers. At that point I saw what direction Microsoft had taken, and discontinued my cooperation with the company. I do have all the printed material and data media in a safe place, should documenting the history ever become nescesary.
---------------
*) In addition to the specification itself Microsoft had access to IBMs reference implementations in source code format both as IBM's 32-bit OS/2 and in "OS/2 for PowerPC" (a product that never made it to the market).
Windows NT was developed by Dave Cuttler (of DEC VMS team) based on a operating system specification developed by IBM. (It was supposed to be released under the name OS/2 version 3).
Microsoft implemented the Windowing API on top of that operating system.
The fact is that Microsoft has never developed a commercial operating system from scratch!!!
They have only incremented the original Windows NT (a.k.a. OS/2 v3.0) code base, for example by:
- replacing the OS/2 file system delivered in Windows NT with the more modern NTFS
- re-writing the OS/2 deveice driver layer of Windows NT with a new, 32-bit and C-based API [the original NT device driver model was 16-bit and assembler-based]
- moving the implementation of the graphics API into the ring-0 kernel [big mistake!]
- replacing the OS/2 multitaskin DOS compatibility (i.e. the text window of Windows) with a less DOS-compatible one, which was supposed to run on multiple processor architectures.
The effort to create a new operating system core for Vista failed because of lack of in-house knowlege.
The task of writing a new core OS (under the Windows API) seems to be too difficult for a company run by marketing people and lawyers.
Boilerplate, eh!?
Well, compare the MS version to Gmail's:
"Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service."
Which one are you more comfortable with?
Yeah! Thoght so!
And now to the real issue: Why would MS compose Terms and Conditions that are so fundamentally different from what one would expect?
"Boilerplate"!
In such case, since You have entered into an agreement with Microsoft, you can not post anything to Hotmail unless you are the copyright hoder.
Indeed, the Terms and Conditions specifically state:
"By Posting a Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in these Terms of Use including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions."
So be ware that by posting ANYTHING to HotMail you are exposing yourself to the wrath of MS and/or the actual holder of the rights!
So after some further investigation I have concluded that:
1) You don't actually seem to give up your own copyright to whatever you post; you only accept to share the copyright with Microsoft. I.e. You grant them every right that the copyright law gives you (as being the original copyright holder). So whatever you posted on HotMail now should be re-labelled "(c) Me and Microsoft".
2) In addition, if the posting contains any graphics, pictures, art or similar, You also grant a royalty-free but revocable license to the general public.
I firmly belive that anything posted to HotMail becomes "(c) Me and Microsoft". However, I do not understand why the second part (regading images) would benefit MS, or why they seem to think that such a clause is nescesary.
Can anyone enlighten me on this?
And You, my respected fellow man, obviously have not read the following part of the license:
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx#E3D
(see "MATERIALS PROVIDED TO MICROSOFT OR POSTED AT ANY MICROSOFT WEB SITE")
So live in blessed ignorance, and keep posting your valuable data to HotMail!
If I'm not mistaken the HotMail EULA states that every piece of data that is sent through HotMail becomes "(c) Copyright Microsoft Corp".
So the data that they are deleting is their own. They can do whatever they want with their own data. Right?
(The above condition is the reason why I don't use HotMail, by the way. I don't send mails to people with HotMail accounts either. How much copyrighted information, PM's, manuals have you donated to Microsoft this way? Ever sent any of your company's memos to a HotMail account? Does your boss know that you gave away their copyright?)
So what is all the excitement about!?
1) Thís is a buffer overflow error (i.e. an implementation error) in Suns JRE (not in any other vendors Java; IBM and others seem to be safe).
2) It is an overflow in the image library, so it is unlikely that this will affect mobile phones, PDA's and other hard-to-patch devices.
3) There is a new, patched, release available for every affected platform and for every affected java version.
4) Buffer overflow errors (similar or worse than this) which need to be patched, are detected if not daily then at least weekly in the most commonly used operating system on this planet.
What is the big hype about?
Is Java becomming too popular? Is this a FUD campaign?
I'm sorry to burst everyones bubles, but I'm 49, self-employed, and work as a consultant on the bleeding edge of the software industry.
...?
Yes, all my old colleagues have drifted to other careers; they gradually were replaced by younger guys. However, I belive that the reason for their departure from the profession was lack of time, not lack of lust.
If you have family and kids you just don't have the time to absorb new tech the way you used to. You have to get home, do homework with the kids, fix the house, go on a vacation with your spouse and entertain the neighbours. So late nights in front of the screen is no longer an option.
Also, a programmer is a bit like a dentist: One starts off with a good salary, but there is no real career ahead. Just more of the same for 40 years. Not everyone finds that exciting.
A third reason for leaving the profession is that many people (partly because of the above) loose momentum. They maintain old tech using old knowlege, and start realizing that they can't keep up. After a while they spend more time hiding their lack of current knowlege than they do writing new code. They brag about old times and try to use new buzwords in a clumsy manner. Then they start walking the corridors with binders under their arm, pretending to be in a hurry (when they really are headed for the loo). In the end they find an opening in a different area of the company, where they can get a break.
I have seen too many of those uncomfortable guys in gray jackets who used to be good, but now only look uncomfortable when topics like web services, portals, AJAX or SOA are on the agenda.
I guess that programmers are like athlets: If they don't know when to quit they become pathethic. Which brings me back to where I started: I'm 49 and still in the business and I have a family and a house. Which makes me
[Fact: I'm paid premium money and sent criss-crossing the country to implement the newest technologies, since the large software houses can't find the knowlege anywhere else]