When he says "DOS batch files" he means the batch format that is still compatible with the 16 bit subsystem. Those don't become obsolete until everyone is running 64 bit and then, just change all your scripts to.cmd and magically they work again!
Seriously, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. A windows batch file is just a collection of windows commands, so unless Windows 7 is suddenly obsolete, the commands he's scripting aren't obsolete either.
In fact, those old DOS commands aren't even deprecated yet, and only with Windows 7 is a suitable replacement for command.com being shipped with Windows. With 7 he can now expect to be able to run a powershell script on anybody's machine (so long as they run 7). That wasn't possible before, particularly if he didn't have the ability to install powershell before hand.
You're an idiot, you have no idea what "obsolete" means.
Or, he could do it in VB.net and have a compact and pretty quick executable.
Seriously, what idiot uses something that bloated for something a 500 byte batch script can do?
Just stick with the script if the pretty front end is just something nice you're adding on, and is not necessary. Otherwise use VB.net since that's another super easy language, and it's going to be small and quick as snot on any Windows box (which is obviously the target).
Assuming your environment is running XP at least, pushing out support for it is pretty much just an MSI install.
He didn't say who would actually be using the script, so that may not be an option. If it is, go for it, but how is it any better than a DOS batch script if the batch script works fine?
I've found CMD to be surprisingly flexible and it always has great help info. So long as all you need to do are execute some commands in various ways, batch files are hard to beat.
I find it's particularly good at dealing with several external programs and making them do what you want. I work 14 day shifts, and at least once a shift I'm writing a for/f loop for one thing or another, even if it's just in the command prompt.
Batch scripts are for very simple operations - it's literally just command line commands all at once (rather in order, as though they were one command). All of the methods implemented in batch are actually implemented in the DOS command prompt, the script just executes it as though you had punched it into a command prompt.
What this means is, if you've been using DOS for a very long time, and know the commands and syntax backwards and forwards, there is no simpler tool on the planet for a job a batch script can handle than a batch script. It is virtually 1:1 for entering commands into a command prompt. It has very minor extended functionality, which is what makes it so doggone easy to use.
As you've pointed out, there are a number of things batch cannot do, for exactly the reasons I gave for its ease of use. But, if a batch program does what you need, why in god's name would you use anything more complicated than that?
I actually ask questions at interviews to try to find people with your philosophy and weed them out.
And you're a fool for doing so, particularly because you don't understand the GP's philosophy at all. He's applying basic engineering concepts, like Keep It Stupid Simple, and you're weeding him out because he doesn't use whichever useless design paradigm flavor of the month you prefer.
The fact that you'd rather he write a whole complicated program to do the job instead of a simple script, without knowing how such an app is going to be used by his customers, just screams idiot to me. More complicated is never, ever better. Assuming you can do the exact same thing with something simpler, at the very least you've wasted time and effort by choosing the more complicated option. I don't know who told you batch scripts were hard to maintain, there is literally nothing to maintain. They are command line commands. If it works in the command line it works in the batch script./? is your friend, and a lot more helpful than anything you'll get in even the best IDE's.
That said, depending on who the customer is (he could be using corporate speak for individuals within his company, we use the term as well), and how often they would want to use this, an application could be warranted. If his customers are regular-joe consumers, they're probably not going to use the app at all, in which case you're probably leaving the tool for PC repair folks, so a batch script is a really good idea. The repair guy will be able to tell immediately what the script does and understand what information it's giving him. If your customer is some other department in your company whose end users may or may not need to run it often, then I'd build a simple app to do the job.
Basically, if it's for the IT guys, the script is more helpful. If it's for the end users, an app looks much more professional. There are various options between scripts and apps that you can use depending on how much effort this warrants.
They're also all a thousand times more complex than DOS.
Even simple VB Script is significantly more complicated than DOS batch files.
My advice? If it's internal to the company and only a few users are going to use it, a batch file is fine. If you're selling it, or a lot of people are going to be using it frequently, take the time to write a simple VB app to do the job. Something like this is so easy it would only take you an afternoon to do even if you've never used VB before, and it will look a much more professional.
If you want to just make a more professional looking wrapper for it, you can use shell commands in a VB app and not waste any of your work in the DOS script.
Software is unique among IP types - it is multifaceted. Because it actually does stuff, innovations need to be protected by patents. Because it's also a form of expression, it needs to be protected by copyright. I'm ok with both of those.
The problem as I see it is primarily with patents - far too many trivial things are being given patents, and the truly innovative things are being lost amid garbage pile.
Amazon's one-click patent is a perfect example. Any competent engineer could come up with the exact same thing with nothing more than a directive from the boss of "Can we make this happen in one click instead of having to go to the shopping cart?" That's not innovation, that's just a minor variation of the same thing. There is nothing in that patent that makes an engineer go "Oh wow, I never thought of doing that before!" The best you'll get is "They really got a patent for this?" To over-simplify it, it's like telling a pipe bender you want a 45 degree angle instead of a 90 degree angle. It's nothing special.
That's the kind of bullshit that makes software a minefield - even if 99% of patents are not legitimate, you could land in court and bankrupt just to find out. Safer just to license it.
H.264 and Theora is a good example of this, MPEG-LA couldn't even tell you if it infringes, but they'll assure you that it almost certainly does, so you'd better play it safe and license it.
Virtually all new music genres are borrow very heavily from old genres.
Look at soul music for a great example -
Ray Charles basically ripped off a contemporary gospel song and changed the lyrics to create the first soul song - I Got A Woman. In fact, Kanye West's Gold Digger, which samples Jamie Foxx singing the chorus of I Got A Woman throughout the verses and reworks the lyrics of the chorus for the chorus, borrows less from Ray Charles's song than Charles borrowed from I Got A Savior. Yet it's undeniable that Ray Charles's song is brilliant, and the copying detracts nothing from it (nor did it hurt the gospel song any, gospel lovers hated Charles's version), and the genre he created has been incredibly influential to this day.
All music is like this. Gospel is like a christian pop version of the old traditional hymns. Blues borrows heavy from Gospel as well. R&B takes elements from soul and blues, rock came from blues, etc. They all come from something else.
It's exactly the same with fashion.
It's exactly the same with books.
It's exactly the same with software.
Hell it's even the same with inventions.
It's all the same, there aren't any fundamental differences between the way different types of IP are used, or how they should be protected, or how they should be restrained. It seems different, but it's really not that different at all.
The only real reason there is a difference between copyright and patents is because how you want to promote the IP that falls under either is different. With patents, you want the ideas to spread but copies new implementations based on the ideas to be restricted. With copyright you want as many new implementations as possible, but the specific expression of the ideas needs to be protected.
So as it stands, Microsoft has to play by different rules. The comparisons are not fair.
Actually, Microsoft has to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though they have a potential monopoly. That's the whole point of anti-trust laws. The monopoly allows them to do things that they could not do with strong competition (as you pointed out). The law forces them to act as though they are simply the biggest competitor in the market, not a monopoly.
Apple, oddly enough, must abide by the same rules. So does everyone who does business in the United States, in fact. Apple has been treading in dangerous water with the way the treat iPods and iTunes (I believe they sued or threatened to sue someone recently for reverse engineering their iPod format to allow their software interoperate with the iPod, which is perfectly legal), and if they don't make some quick changes they're about to be slapped down hard, just like Microsoft was.
Microsoft would be just as evil as Apple, they just got caught.
The difference is, Microsoft has already been punished, and have not be behaving the same way they did before. Leave them alone unless (until more likely) they do it again, or break the specific rules of their punishment.
I think the same type of agreement would be completely acceptable.
You know the best way to keep your employees?
Pay them what they are worth, and treat them like human beings.
Apple has a bad habit of doing neither for some employees (most companies do actually), which is why they create these agreements. It saves the corporations money, while completely screwing their employees.
Why is that OK? Ever? You can have an NDA, and if the employee breaks it after they go to another company (you can work somewhere else and still keep an NDA), you can sue them into bankruptcy. That's all that is needed. The no-hire policies are anti-competitive and should be made illegal.
So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.
DoJ is the "bully" that the GP is referring to.
To the GP:
It's bully pulpit, i.e. that thing speakers stand in front of when they speak. A bully pulpit means you get to speak (usually you're preaching at someone), for no other reason than you said so, and apparently you're bigger (or are more important) than anybody else.
Generally, when you have a bully pulpit, you verbally beat the shit out of someone (rake them against the coals, put their feet to the fire, whatever metaphor you want to use), and they have to take it. That's what the OP is saying. Having a bully pulpit doesn't make you a bully, it just means you're going to tell someone what-for, and they have to listen.
Slashdot Mirror
but I guess that google is in a different role here than being a "service provider".
Any company that provides a service is a service provider. It's an extremely broad term, it doesn't say internet service provider.
Android market is a service. Youtube is a service. Flicker is a service. They all have to abide by the provisions in the DMCA.
As usual a slashdot commenter doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. See Dogtanian's comment.
a section of code which is deliberately a little bit sloppy to allow for a vulnerability that would just be very difficult for someone to discover?
AKA: a back door.
Dude, if you don't like it, filter it out. It isn't that hard.
Lol
When he says "DOS batch files" he means the batch format that is still compatible with the 16 bit subsystem. Those don't become obsolete until everyone is running 64 bit and then, just change all your scripts to .cmd and magically they work again!
Seriously, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. A windows batch file is just a collection of windows commands, so unless Windows 7 is suddenly obsolete, the commands he's scripting aren't obsolete either.
In fact, those old DOS commands aren't even deprecated yet, and only with Windows 7 is a suitable replacement for command.com being shipped with Windows. With 7 he can now expect to be able to run a powershell script on anybody's machine (so long as they run 7). That wasn't possible before, particularly if he didn't have the ability to install powershell before hand.
You're an idiot, you have no idea what "obsolete" means.
Or, he could do it in VB.net and have a compact and pretty quick executable.
Seriously, what idiot uses something that bloated for something a 500 byte batch script can do?
Just stick with the script if the pretty front end is just something nice you're adding on, and is not necessary. Otherwise use VB.net since that's another super easy language, and it's going to be small and quick as snot on any Windows box (which is obviously the target).
Assuming your environment is running XP at least, pushing out support for it is pretty much just an MSI install.
He didn't say who would actually be using the script, so that may not be an option. If it is, go for it, but how is it any better than a DOS batch script if the batch script works fine?
...and being locked to IE isn't a problem.
It won't be, since any computer that can run DOS batch commands comes with IE.
I've found CMD to be surprisingly flexible and it always has great help info. So long as all you need to do are execute some commands in various ways, batch files are hard to beat.
I find it's particularly good at dealing with several external programs and making them do what you want. I work 14 day shifts, and at least once a shift I'm writing a for /f loop for one thing or another, even if it's just in the command prompt.
Ah yes, and how is he going to run those scripts on his customers machines?
Idiot.
Batch scripts are for very simple operations - it's literally just command line commands all at once (rather in order, as though they were one command). All of the methods implemented in batch are actually implemented in the DOS command prompt, the script just executes it as though you had punched it into a command prompt.
What this means is, if you've been using DOS for a very long time, and know the commands and syntax backwards and forwards, there is no simpler tool on the planet for a job a batch script can handle than a batch script. It is virtually 1:1 for entering commands into a command prompt. It has very minor extended functionality, which is what makes it so doggone easy to use.
As you've pointed out, there are a number of things batch cannot do, for exactly the reasons I gave for its ease of use. But, if a batch program does what you need, why in god's name would you use anything more complicated than that?
I actually ask questions at interviews to try to find people with your philosophy and weed them out.
And you're a fool for doing so, particularly because you don't understand the GP's philosophy at all. He's applying basic engineering concepts, like Keep It Stupid Simple, and you're weeding him out because he doesn't use whichever useless design paradigm flavor of the month you prefer.
The fact that you'd rather he write a whole complicated program to do the job instead of a simple script, without knowing how such an app is going to be used by his customers, just screams idiot to me. More complicated is never, ever better. Assuming you can do the exact same thing with something simpler, at the very least you've wasted time and effort by choosing the more complicated option. I don't know who told you batch scripts were hard to maintain, there is literally nothing to maintain. They are command line commands. If it works in the command line it works in the batch script. /? is your friend, and a lot more helpful than anything you'll get in even the best IDE's.
That said, depending on who the customer is (he could be using corporate speak for individuals within his company, we use the term as well), and how often they would want to use this, an application could be warranted. If his customers are regular-joe consumers, they're probably not going to use the app at all, in which case you're probably leaving the tool for PC repair folks, so a batch script is a really good idea. The repair guy will be able to tell immediately what the script does and understand what information it's giving him. If your customer is some other department in your company whose end users may or may not need to run it often, then I'd build a simple app to do the job.
Basically, if it's for the IT guys, the script is more helpful. If it's for the end users, an app looks much more professional. There are various options between scripts and apps that you can use depending on how much effort this warrants.
Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle?
They're also all a thousand times more complex than DOS.
Even simple VB Script is significantly more complicated than DOS batch files.
My advice? If it's internal to the company and only a few users are going to use it, a batch file is fine. If you're selling it, or a lot of people are going to be using it frequently, take the time to write a simple VB app to do the job. Something like this is so easy it would only take you an afternoon to do even if you've never used VB before, and it will look a much more professional.
If you want to just make a more professional looking wrapper for it, you can use shell commands in a VB app and not waste any of your work in the DOS script.
I have to be very careful not to casually check it at work, lest I burst into laughter and alert my coworkers to the fact that I am not working.
Software is unique among IP types - it is multifaceted. Because it actually does stuff, innovations need to be protected by patents. Because it's also a form of expression, it needs to be protected by copyright. I'm ok with both of those.
The problem as I see it is primarily with patents - far too many trivial things are being given patents, and the truly innovative things are being lost amid garbage pile.
Amazon's one-click patent is a perfect example. Any competent engineer could come up with the exact same thing with nothing more than a directive from the boss of "Can we make this happen in one click instead of having to go to the shopping cart?" That's not innovation, that's just a minor variation of the same thing. There is nothing in that patent that makes an engineer go "Oh wow, I never thought of doing that before!" The best you'll get is "They really got a patent for this?" To over-simplify it, it's like telling a pipe bender you want a 45 degree angle instead of a 90 degree angle. It's nothing special.
That's the kind of bullshit that makes software a minefield - even if 99% of patents are not legitimate, you could land in court and bankrupt just to find out. Safer just to license it.
H.264 and Theora is a good example of this, MPEG-LA couldn't even tell you if it infringes, but they'll assure you that it almost certainly does, so you'd better play it safe and license it.
Virtually all new music genres are borrow very heavily from old genres.
Look at soul music for a great example -
Ray Charles basically ripped off a contemporary gospel song and changed the lyrics to create the first soul song - I Got A Woman. In fact, Kanye West's Gold Digger, which samples Jamie Foxx singing the chorus of I Got A Woman throughout the verses and reworks the lyrics of the chorus for the chorus, borrows less from Ray Charles's song than Charles borrowed from I Got A Savior. Yet it's undeniable that Ray Charles's song is brilliant, and the copying detracts nothing from it (nor did it hurt the gospel song any, gospel lovers hated Charles's version), and the genre he created has been incredibly influential to this day.
All music is like this. Gospel is like a christian pop version of the old traditional hymns. Blues borrows heavy from Gospel as well. R&B takes elements from soul and blues, rock came from blues, etc. They all come from something else.
It's exactly the same with fashion.
It's exactly the same with books.
It's exactly the same with software.
Hell it's even the same with inventions.
It's all the same, there aren't any fundamental differences between the way different types of IP are used, or how they should be protected, or how they should be restrained. It seems different, but it's really not that different at all.
The only real reason there is a difference between copyright and patents is because how you want to promote the IP that falls under either is different. With patents, you want the ideas to spread but copies new implementations based on the ideas to be restricted. With copyright you want as many new implementations as possible, but the specific expression of the ideas needs to be protected.
It's a precursor to an antitrust investigation. The complaint is definitely antitrust. Unless you don't understand what "antitrust" means.
So as it stands, Microsoft has to play by different rules. The comparisons are not fair.
Actually, Microsoft has to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though they have a potential monopoly. That's the whole point of anti-trust laws. The monopoly allows them to do things that they could not do with strong competition (as you pointed out). The law forces them to act as though they are simply the biggest competitor in the market, not a monopoly.
Apple, oddly enough, must abide by the same rules. So does everyone who does business in the United States, in fact. Apple has been treading in dangerous water with the way the treat iPods and iTunes (I believe they sued or threatened to sue someone recently for reverse engineering their iPod format to allow their software interoperate with the iPod, which is perfectly legal), and if they don't make some quick changes they're about to be slapped down hard, just like Microsoft was.
Microsoft would be just as evil as Apple, they just got caught.
The difference is, Microsoft has already been punished, and have not be behaving the same way they did before. Leave them alone unless (until more likely) they do it again, or break the specific rules of their punishment.
I think the same type of agreement would be completely acceptable.
You know the best way to keep your employees?
Pay them what they are worth, and treat them like human beings.
Apple has a bad habit of doing neither for some employees (most companies do actually), which is why they create these agreements. It saves the corporations money, while completely screwing their employees.
Why is that OK? Ever? You can have an NDA, and if the employee breaks it after they go to another company (you can work somewhere else and still keep an NDA), you can sue them into bankruptcy. That's all that is needed. The no-hire policies are anti-competitive and should be made illegal.
Reading comprehension man:
So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.
DoJ is the "bully" that the GP is referring to.
To the GP:
It's bully pulpit, i.e. that thing speakers stand in front of when they speak. A bully pulpit means you get to speak (usually you're preaching at someone), for no other reason than you said so, and apparently you're bigger (or are more important) than anybody else.
Generally, when you have a bully pulpit, you verbally beat the shit out of someone (rake them against the coals, put their feet to the fire, whatever metaphor you want to use), and they have to take it. That's what the OP is saying. Having a bully pulpit doesn't make you a bully, it just means you're going to tell someone what-for, and they have to listen.
You're bald everywhere? Sucks to be you.
Really? Several articles have linked TiO2 to cancer [ccohs.ca]. Yeah, real safe.
Ahh, so that's why everyone is getting mouth cancer! It's all the TiO2 in every white, opaque toothpaste on the market!
What's that? Mouth cancer is extremely rare? Not linked at all to TiO2?
Huh.
Titanium dioxide is a type of titanium oxide, specifically titanium (IV) oxide.
Titanium monoxide is also a type of titanium oxide.
Dititanium trioxide is also a type of titanium oxide.
Seriously, what's with the quibbling over semantics, particularly when you don't understand the terms you are using?
This is the normal process of 'planned obsolescence' in the media delivery industry.
Funny, people used to call it "progress".