3. Regarding support issues and bugfixes, yes, but that depends totally on who you are. If you work for a big company, then you will get access to engineers and others. I you work for a small company, it is almost impossible to get access to a qualified counterpart. It takes for ages, anyway.
Regarding product development:
I have never heard of anyone, big or small, ever being able to push Microsoft putting ANY effort into making something that isn't instantaneously sellable.
An excellent example is MS SQL server. The typical approach in this case is: * Identify users needs. * Make half assed, almost non-usable implementations. The only requirement being that they work in the demos. Remember the introduction of Indexed Views, UDF:s, DTS or XML anyone? They work superficially but as soon as you start using them you find strange restrictions and inconsistencies that make it obvious that they are mere quick hacks. Come to think of it, the entire system is like one big quick fix. Almost no part of it feels mature. * Sell them as fully functional features. * Profit. * Ignore developers complaints, since their managers do it as well. * Repeat.
4. Choice is not bad. It is not like the different Java frameworks are totally different in all respects. Yes, choice has a cost. The cheapest and best would be a market without competition, right?
Wonderful? Electronically tracking children like they're potential criminals?
What happened to the responsibility of the parents for the children's upbringing? Don't they even care that much anymore?
Now the children will learn that they are not even trusted a little bit. Not given a inch of leeway. Always watched.
It sure is a great way to create a responsible generation that thinks for itself. This way you don't even have to learn them common sense, cause they won't need it. The fucking beeps tell them when they are doing something wrong.
By all means, don't rectify the problem, when it is easier(though way more costly) to just dampen the symptoms.
Maybe I am overreacting here.. But I think the acceptance that has been building up regarding stuff like this is awful.
Personally i'd rather qantas lower their prices instead of ricing up their already over expensive flights. Yeah, I hate it when they do that. That stuff gets in everywhere.
No. It wouldn't. This should obviously not be allowed to be used in such a manner.
It would simply be applying rules regarding what is legal to sell in the U.S.
Other countries do not have to supply if they don't want to.
The customer has the right not to buy a product.
I think.
Ok, maybe i was a little unclear there. I am referring to the more "protectionate" kind.:-) Of course, some regulations will always be there. To handle taxation, if nothing else.
Anyway, a protected industry is bound to continuously deteriorate (in relative terms) until it becomes so crappy that the political support for that particular protection evaporates. You'll lose that job. People already have, you know. Ask people in Detroit.
So I wholeheartedly disagree, that kind of protection can't stay forever. It is by nature temporary.
China has rules regarding starting up shops there, yes. They are not exactly like you describe them, even though what you said would be a natural consequence of setting up shop in any country. The U.S. has some rules too, mind you.
Japan is actually not a very good comparison either, albeit a better one than China, for two reasons: * They have only their workforce and no natural resources at all. So I'd say protectionism isn't even needed, more of a consequence of that. * They have had huge problems with their economy, with things like 0-level interest rates and (not even arguably) the by far most inefficient banks in the world.
Globalization will happen regardless of U.S. stance. It is better to embrace and adjust now and try to compete..later might be too late and leave the U.S. far behind. I'd even say it's already happening, and please, keep the founding fathers and their ideas out of a discussion on U.S. economics of 2007. They said many great things, but also some stupid ones. If they actually said that the U.S. should stop trading with other countries, which i seriously doubt.
DAMMIT!! He got me too, since I just had to check what it was that "got you"!
And yes, of course my girlfriend saw it flash by, and wondered what it was. I'll try and explain, but for some stupid knee-jerk reason I made the mistake of saying "nothing!" like she caught me doing something i shouldn't do.
Well, regulating markets is financial suicide in the long run, so you can't keep them(the regulations) forever. At some point you must open up(when it will cost too much), and if you wait for too long, your industry will be dangerously uncompetitive due to a long time lack of..yes, competition. This has already happened to your steel and car industry. Probably others as well. Wasn't paper hit as well?
Wouldn't a better way be to legislate that all fuel(this may of course be applied to other goods) sold in the U.S. must have been produced using methods that meet certain environmental and humanitarian requirements? Like the ones in the U.S.?
This would level the field in a kind of fair way. Sort of. Don't you think?
...when there's a version of the plugin that works with Office for Mac v.X and Office for Mac 2004. I see. Since this is no big deal to you, you just felt the urge to share that feeling with the rest of us?
Telstra has had a monopoly on Australian telecommunications for 14 years (longer if you count before it was called Telstra)! No-one in power wants to admit that we fucked ourselves over by creating the monster and the best thing we could do for broadband in this country is break it up. 14 years? That's horrible! I have always thought that the Australian government was more on the right wing than the far left, which must have been the case for this to happen.
Add to that a government-created-then-privatised monopoly (unlike the US we didn't split our telco into "baby Bells", we just privatised it, gave it all the essential infrastructure, and let it dominate/distort the hell out of the market), and you've got broadband fit for the late 1990s. Interesting thing, we did exactly the same in Sweden.. We created a privatized monopoly(Telia) which by combining bureaucracy and greed to almost totally halted the development of broadband services in Sweden. It is actually just in the last 4 or 5 years the market has got going, as Telia's perks slowly eroded. And not until this year Telia lost all parts of it's monopoly, now forced to let others in on the action.
Anyway, I disagree that addressing low-priority items makes severities of other problems go down, as a general rule. It *can* do that, certainly, depending on what the problems are. This may very well be an issue specific to the environment of a fighter jet. The fewer distractions a pilot has, the better he is able to deal with what's going on. Information overload is a very real and deadly problem in a fighter cockpit. When you can't even hear the "pull up! pull up!" alarm because you're dealing with too many other things, that's... not good. I think it could be applied to normal applications as well.. Granted, there is some obvious differences but I can recall at least two or three major bugs i have found in the last year while fixing minor ones. Also, the issue of customer satisfaction is there as well, people do not feel comfortable using a system with a lot of annoying bugs. At last but not least, constantly sidestepping minor bugs leads to strange usage patterns which sometimes can unearth bugs but also hiding them.
Yeah, this is not about FF3 but i felt like a change of subject:-)
Oops. I didn't read your comment well enough. I am...at least more..with you on multiple threads on multiple tabs.
It was using them within a page i was ranting about.
If we are talking multiple threads for multiple tabs, i am with you, since that is a natural separation. I was under the impression that this was considering multiple threads within a page?
Yep, that's how it is usually done. However, this is about doing multithreaded GUI stuff, just like you say one shouldn't("never try to call UI function directly from the worker thread"). The problem here is also about timing and predictability. The web developer must know in what order stuff happens.
Actually, yes. I am sure you have, sorry for having such bad tone there.
And? While not everything should be a thread, long-running tasks really should be. Given that all interaction between JavaScript on a webpage and the UI should be fairly well-defined through various elements, it should be possible to run the JavaScript in a non-UI thread and then sync the changes back to the UI thread when it's complete, or at set intervals. I see your points and believe me, i share your frustration, but as you say later on, the amount of stuff happening on a complex webpage is staggering. Just an example, consider that web developers can choose when in the DOM event chain events are fired...Just an example of things making for weirdness.. Adding threads to that would, in my book, be like enabling hell and would make DOM programming even more unpredictable than it is.
But still, it would be nice if a page containing while (1) ; didn't freeze the entire browser. (Go ahead. Try it.) while (1) ; Still here:-)
IANAFDH(I am not a firefox developer, however). They might know more tricks than me. I'd rather hope they did, actually.
That they don't fix that raises a different question that is quite interesting. Well at least i think so..:-)
A friend of mine recently talked about someone..who's name i don't remember right now(a couple of beers were involved), that worked with systems security on fighter airplanes, claimed that fixing almost only high-priority bugs made the system worse.
This was very well documented, about 20 or 30 years of development had been analyzed. He said that if the users seemingly low-priority complaints was given more weight(adressed more often), it made problems of all severities go down. Significantly.
His conclusion was that the smaller problems contributed to a more messy system where more serious problems might go unnoticed.
Not to mention that a happy customer is better than a dead one for other reasons:-)
Have you ever tried developing multithreaded GUI-applications? If not, I have. Usually, it starts off fine. No problems. Then you add more stuff. The application grows. The thing with GUI programming is that it is made to respond to operating system messages. Mixing that (event-driven) model with multi-threaded stuff requires an amount of discipline lacking in most developer teams. The more advanced(cool) graphical components you use, the more potholes and race-conditions appear.
I give that argument about six years. Then the cores will be so many(100+) that the spreading is done automagically by the operating system or processor itself... To put it in sales speak: "XXXX-tecnology makes it look like one big super-core. Core abstraction by Intel(r).".:-)
Hm.. I am not sure what you mean by that...Implicit threads are spawned i think. Not sure though. But just as a general thing, unless you are talking about spreading stuff between cores, an event-driven model will almost always beat a multithreaded model, at least performance-wise. There are ample of academic stuff i can dig up as reference, if you like. Also, threads can be a pain to manage, especially with GUI-stuff. Weird stuff usually happens. Eventually(pun surely intended).
Slashdot Mirror
3.
Regarding support issues and bugfixes, yes, but that depends totally on who you are.
If you work for a big company, then you will get access to engineers and others.
I you work for a small company, it is almost impossible to get access to a qualified counterpart. It takes for ages, anyway.
Regarding product development:
I have never heard of anyone, big or small, ever being able to push Microsoft putting ANY effort into making something that isn't instantaneously sellable.
An excellent example is MS SQL server.
The typical approach in this case is:
* Identify users needs.
* Make half assed, almost non-usable implementations. The only requirement being that they work in the demos. Remember the introduction of Indexed Views, UDF:s, DTS or XML anyone? They work superficially but as soon as you start using them you find strange restrictions and inconsistencies that make it obvious that they are mere quick hacks. Come to think of it, the entire system is like one big quick fix. Almost no part of it feels mature.
* Sell them as fully functional features.
* Profit.
* Ignore developers complaints, since their managers do it as well.
* Repeat.
4.
Choice is not bad. It is not like the different Java frameworks are totally different in all respects.
Yes, choice has a cost. The cheapest and best would be a market without competition, right?
Wonderful? Electronically tracking children like they're potential criminals?
What happened to the responsibility of the parents for the children's upbringing?
Don't they even care that much anymore?
Now the children will learn that they are not even trusted a little bit. Not given a inch of leeway. Always watched.
It sure is a great way to create a responsible generation that thinks for itself.
This way you don't even have to learn them common sense, cause they won't need it.
The fucking beeps tell them when they are doing something wrong.
By all means, don't rectify the problem, when it is easier(though way more costly) to just dampen the symptoms.
Maybe I am overreacting here.. But I think the acceptance that has been building up regarding stuff like this is awful.
Yeah. That would probably work great...
Until the Iranians figure out the identification method and fool them by gaining weight and talking loudly.
Oops.. that's what you said right there.. :-)
No pressure, just make it illegal to resell their product in the U.S.
Then it's just simple economics.
Then it shouldn't have been built. If the U.S. doesn't care about the environment, why would the competition?
No. It wouldn't. This should obviously not be allowed to be used in such a manner. It would simply be applying rules regarding what is legal to sell in the U.S. Other countries do not have to supply if they don't want to. The customer has the right not to buy a product. I think.
Ok, maybe i was a little unclear there. I am referring to the more "protectionate" kind. :-)
Of course, some regulations will always be there. To handle taxation, if nothing else.
Anyway, a protected industry is bound to continuously deteriorate (in relative terms) until it becomes so crappy that the political support for that particular protection evaporates. You'll lose that job. People already have, you know. Ask people in Detroit.
So I wholeheartedly disagree, that kind of protection can't stay forever. It is by nature temporary.
China has rules regarding starting up shops there, yes. They are not exactly like you describe them, even though what you said would be a natural consequence of setting up shop in any country.
The U.S. has some rules too, mind you.
Japan is actually not a very good comparison either, albeit a better one than China, for two reasons:
* They have only their workforce and no natural resources at all. So I'd say protectionism isn't even needed, more of a consequence of that.
* They have had huge problems with their economy, with things like 0-level interest rates and (not even arguably) the by far most inefficient banks in the world.
Globalization will happen regardless of U.S. stance.
It is better to embrace and adjust now and try to compete..later might be too late and leave the U.S. far behind.
I'd even say it's already happening, and please, keep the founding fathers and their ideas out of a discussion on U.S. economics of 2007.
They said many great things, but also some stupid ones.
If they actually said that the U.S. should stop trading with other countries, which i seriously doubt.
But that's just my $var_amount cents.
DAMMIT!!
He got me too, since I just had to check what it was that "got you"!
And yes, of course my girlfriend saw it flash by, and wondered what it was.
I'll try and explain, but for some stupid knee-jerk reason I made the mistake of saying "nothing!" like she caught me doing something i shouldn't do.
This sucks.
Well, regulating markets is financial suicide in the long run, so you can't keep them(the regulations) forever.
At some point you must open up(when it will cost too much), and if you wait for too long, your industry will be dangerously uncompetitive due to a long time lack of..yes, competition.
This has already happened to your steel and car industry. Probably others as well. Wasn't paper hit as well?
Wouldn't a better way be to legislate that all fuel(this may of course be applied to other goods) sold in the U.S. must have been produced using methods that meet certain environmental and humanitarian requirements? Like the ones in the U.S.?
This would level the field in a kind of fair way. Sort of. Don't you think?
...when there's a version of the plugin that works with Office for Mac v.X and Office for Mac 2004. I see. Since this is no big deal to you, you just felt the urge to share that feeling with the rest of us?BTW, wake me up when
I have always thought that the Australian government was more on the right wing than the far left, which must have been the case for this to happen.
We created a privatized monopoly(Telia) which by combining bureaucracy and greed to almost totally halted the development of broadband services in Sweden.
It is actually just in the last 4 or 5 years the market has got going, as Telia's perks slowly eroded.
And not until this year Telia lost all parts of it's monopoly, now forced to let others in on the action.
How can they possibly cut 40%? It's unbolivable!
Granted, there is some obvious differences but I can recall at least two or three major bugs i have found in the last year while fixing minor ones.
Also, the issue of customer satisfaction is there as well, people do not feel comfortable using a system with a lot of annoying bugs.
At last but not least, constantly sidestepping minor bugs leads to strange usage patterns which sometimes can unearth bugs but also hiding them.
Yeah, this is not about FF3 but i felt like a change of subject
Oops. I didn't read your comment well enough. I am...at least more..with you on multiple threads on multiple tabs. It was using them within a page i was ranting about.
If we are talking multiple threads for multiple tabs, i am with you, since that is a natural separation.
I was under the impression that this was considering multiple threads within a page?
Yep, that's how it is usually done.
However, this is about doing multithreaded GUI stuff, just like you say one shouldn't("never try to call UI function directly from the worker thread").
The problem here is also about timing and predictability. The web developer must know in what order stuff happens.
Just an example, consider that web developers can choose when in the DOM event chain events are fired...Just an example of things making for weirdness..
Adding threads to that would, in my book, be like enabling hell and would make DOM programming even more unpredictable than it is. But still, it would be nice if a page containing while (1) ; didn't freeze the entire browser. (Go ahead. Try it.) while (1) ;
Still here
IANAFDH(I am not a firefox developer, however). They might know more tricks than me. I'd rather hope they did, actually.
That they don't fix that raises a different question that is quite interesting. Well at least i think so.. :-)
:-)
A friend of mine recently talked about someone..who's name i don't remember right now(a couple of beers were involved), that worked with systems security on fighter airplanes, claimed that fixing almost only high-priority bugs made the system worse.
This was very well documented, about 20 or 30 years of development had been analyzed.
He said that if the users seemingly low-priority complaints was given more weight(adressed more often), it made problems of all severities go down. Significantly.
His conclusion was that the smaller problems contributed to a more messy system where more serious problems might go unnoticed.
Not to mention that a happy customer is better than a dead one for other reasons
Have you ever tried developing multithreaded GUI-applications?
If not, I have. Usually, it starts off fine. No problems. Then you add more stuff. The application grows.
The thing with GUI programming is that it is made to respond to operating system messages.
Mixing that (event-driven) model with multi-threaded stuff requires an amount of discipline lacking in most developer teams.
The more advanced(cool) graphical components you use, the more potholes and race-conditions appear.
Just my 3.141 cents.
I give that argument about six years. Then the cores will be so many(100+) that the spreading is done automagically by the operating system or processor itself... :-)
To put it in sales speak: "XXXX-tecnology makes it look like one big super-core. Core abstraction by Intel(r).".
Pages locking up the browser should not be the reason to move to multithreading..
That's just a bug that should be fixed.
Hm.. I am not sure what you mean by that...Implicit threads are spawned i think. Not sure though.
But just as a general thing, unless you are talking about spreading stuff between cores, an event-driven model will almost always beat a multithreaded model, at least performance-wise. There are ample of academic stuff i can dig up as reference, if you like.
Also, threads can be a pain to manage, especially with GUI-stuff.
Weird stuff usually happens. Eventually(pun surely intended).