Discussion forums, much like primetime television in the US, has become fragmented over the last decade. Usenet groups such as comp.lang.java.programmer and comp.lang.c++ used to be the definitive places to get help and information. Now, everyone's off to their separate forums, and it's harder to find a centralised place to get quality info.
The same thing happened to network television. Except for the Super Bowl or series finales, viewership on the major networks has declined since there are so many cable networks.
In both cases it comes down to capitalism. Everyone wants to open up that great new website or that hot new cable network to make money. Websites for programming are incredibly splintered into individuals' blogs and small communities. Heck, even 7chan has a section on programming.
Who's to blame? It's clearly Google. AdSense is making everyone money-hungry and eager to open up new websites to draw users to get clicks and thus ad money for the website owner. With quality content all fragmented, it's no wonder Usenet information has declined. F U Google.
Your use of IBM only proves how difficult it is for an open source-based company to succeed. Do you think IBM got started and grew to where it is today by selling support for open source software? No, IBM got to where it is today by being a monopoly in the 1970s. Do you think IBM supports itself solely on selling support for OSS? No, it gets a lot of profit from its Z/OS and mainframe systems. Do you think many small companies are able to build up enough momentum and staff to make money off selling support for OSS? Don't kid yourself. That's why you only see a small handful of large, already-established companies be viably successful and profitable in this domain (e.g. Novell, IBM, Red Hat).
Opening up a once successful closed system, eh? It worked out so well with Solaris, lifting Sun to the top once again! Racing to the bottom via opening up may help out the will-code-for-food 3rd party developers and stir excitement in the i'm-just-poor-enough-to-use-linux camp, but it will only lead to failure for the company desperate enough to go that direction.
The holy grail of advertising is to be a part of an entire subculture... They want to make you feel like you can't be a part of the culture that you belong to without owning that product.
You've just described the Mac and Linux fanboi-ism communities. Mac advertising appeals to the hipster movement. Linux advertising (through websites like/.) appeal to niche nerd movement.
You laughed because an honest company (UAL) lost $1.14 billion? You laughed because their stock price fell by 25%, affecting all the honest investors and all the UAL employees? What a total asshole you are. Do you find it funny because you don't invest in anything yourself, you never have, and you never will?
What a complete fucking asshole you are. Do you not realise it wasn't just institutional investors who suffered here? The stock is down 25%. What about honest investors who own UAL? What about honest investors who own mutual funds that invest in UAL? Why about employees who own company stock? What a fucking prick you are.
How about we use the tags 'goodsummary' and 'badsummary' instead?
Re:KDE and Gnome Have Failed To Match OS X
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Informative
What are you going to do if you can't push OSX, and Microsoft is dying? You start pushing Linux. Maybe this won't happen, but it isn't an unreasonable scenerio.
It is a completely unreasonable scenario. And where do get off saying that Microsoft is a dying company? Here's their FY 2008 earnings release. Tell me again how $60B a year is a dying company. Perhaps you were talking out your ass?
Why do you feel the need to woefully inject Microsoft? Your argument makes absolutely no sense and fails to contribute to the discussion. Microsoft does not sue other companies; Microsoft dominates them. Now you are arguing that Facebook is acting like Microsoft despite the fact that (1) Microsoft doesn't sue and (2) by your own admission Facebook is actually not a dominant player. And then you start rambling nonsensically about suppositions regarding how Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft would act. Your arguing style is reminscent of a young boy when his blanket is taken away.
Cloud computing refers to a cluster computing environment hosted by a single company. This approach is also referred to as "utility computing," and back around 1999 or so, the companies providing these services used to be called "application service providers."
The difference between cloud computing and grid computing, which was all the rage around 2000 (see the academic Globus project) is that grid computing aggregates *widely* heterogeneous computers under different authorities across Internet-scale wide-area networks. A common approach is aggregating universities' computers to form a large-scale cluster. Disadvantages include the fact that you had to program with MPI, communication latencies are high, and there were a lot of authentication issues.
Cloud computing avoids these difficult issues by having a single company host these services for you, and it's typically being done by the big players who can afford to do so (Amazon, Microsoft, Google). Cluster farms are controlled in data centres under one authority. The programmatic interface is simpler, and computation is typically through a fixed paradigm like MapReduce, although there are known SQL-like approaches to run on clusters. Communication through a GigEthernet is typical in a cluster within a data centre.
Is cloud computing a buzzword? Possibly, but then "multi-core," "data centre," and "XML" used to be buzzwords too. Within five years, doing development on a particular vendor's cloud computing infrastructure may be as viable a (specialised) skill as programming for Windows, Linux, or MacOS.
YouTube is increasingly important in daily society. This video documentary, ironically enough hosted on YouTube, demonstrates the impact of YouTube [youtube.com].
Parent poster has a narrow view of industry research. I graduated with my PhD in CS about six years ago from a top-20 university and have worked in an industry research lab. The primary output of industry research are patents, papers, and products (either new products or improving products). And the research labs at Microsoft, IBM, HP, and Yahoo are all very good at this. Take a look at the top CS conferences in the fields where these companies have a stake, and you will see that industry research contributes a large share of the paper output (e.g. SOSP, OSDI, SIGMOD, VLDB, WWW, KDD, etc.). Further, these companies are spending lots of money sponsoring a wide breadth of conferences and helping to drive fundamental research at a time when NSF funding is low. These companies should be applauded.
You are comparing Windows 2000, an operating that is 8 years old, to a Linux distribution. I am a professinal software engineer who works on Linux all day and comes home to Windows at night. Linux has its place (it's a great development environment, and it works excellently on the server side), but I think Win2000 was a much better desktop OS than current Linux. To address your points:
1. The NT kernel is well known to be excellent.
2 & 3. Win2000's GUI was stable and consistent. Neither Windows nor MacOS have a need for a dozen window managers.
4. There are far more applications for Windows than for Linux. Further, there are far more quality applications for Windows than for Linux. I would gladly give my money for Photoshop than to use Gimp for free. Same for games, same for Office.
On to your other points where you try to compare current Linux to Windows 2000 (again, an 8-year-old OS):
1. Not all Linuxes have out-of-the-box drivers, particularly those that try to be free-software-only. Windows typically has all the drivers you need (USB, SCSI), and even when I buy new peripherals (scanners, printers, iPod, video camera), the products will come with a CD with the driver.
2. Windows 2000 had the "add/remove software" control.
3. 3-D effects. I don't care. I'm not 15.
4. Support for all major filesystems. NTFS is solid, and FAT32 is at least reasonable.
5. Support for all major filetypes out-of-the-box. I have no idea what you mean. All file types are major, by definition, if they can be used on an OS that's on 90% of all desktops, like, say, Windows.
Waaaaa. That's all I'm hearing. So let me point out what you whiners are saying:
1. Viacom has no right to the data. Sorry, it is in their right.
2. I don't want Viacom to have any info about me. Then don't visit YouTube and leave your dirty trails all over Google's database.
3. Why does Google keep data about me? That is what they do. The sell targeted pageviews to advertisers. Sorry to break your heart about the company you love.
4. This judge is a moron! When you finally turn 15, you will see the world with more mature eyes.
5. Shouldn't we boycott Viacom? Viacom includes Paramount, which makes Star Trek. OMG WHAT WILL YOU DO???
How old are you, kid? When you say there are those who want to *use their computer*, are you referring to those of us who want to use full desktop applications, like word processors, Matlab, Powerpoint, Photoshop, g++, video games, and Maya? Will be able to *use our computers* on these netbooks?
Or do you think the only thing we can do is surf the web looking for lulz? Grow up.
Finally! we can all rest and exhale. 2008 is at last the year of netbook Linux. What took so long? Oh yeah, finding a niche where nobody expects high-quality professional software. Students and people from developing countries: get in line now.
For the rest of you, when you're done playing with your netbooks and want to graduate to Photoshop, Office, Apache, desktop publishing, and software engineering, then give full-scale Linux, Windows, and MacOS a call.
Isn't that the best solution for you deletionists? If there's something that just isn't up to your uppity standards, then simply don't read it. It's not like Pokemon articles are spam; they don't get delivered to your inbox, and they don't come knocking on your door. If you don't like a particular article, then simply don't read it. There may be thousands of people who would read it, though.
I find it funny and sad that Wikipedia is moving towards a state where content is controlled by a few editors. Isn't that the whole model that Wikipedia was trything to get away from in the first place? c.f. Encyclopedia Britannica. Call the deletionists what you will. I call them overly-anal folk who, perhaps for the first time in their lives, have achieved some level of power and are trying desparately to keep the unwashed Pokemon fans out.
Yahoo finance.
Yahoo sports.
Yahoo news.
Yahoo movies.
Yahoo TV.
Yahoo weather.
Flickr (I don't use it though)
Delicious.
Yahoo Answers.
Yahoo maps.
Funny how these appeal to 500M unique visitors each month but not to you. I think it's because Yahoo targets a specific demographic, normal humans, rather than the the 30-year-old burnt-out techies on/. or the 19-year-old college students on Digg or the who-knows perverts on 4chan.
Slashdot Mirror
Discussion forums, much like primetime television in the US, has become fragmented over the last decade. Usenet groups such as comp.lang.java.programmer and comp.lang.c++ used to be the definitive places to get help and information. Now, everyone's off to their separate forums, and it's harder to find a centralised place to get quality info.
The same thing happened to network television. Except for the Super Bowl or series finales, viewership on the major networks has declined since there are so many cable networks.
In both cases it comes down to capitalism. Everyone wants to open up that great new website or that hot new cable network to make money. Websites for programming are incredibly splintered into individuals' blogs and small communities. Heck, even 7chan has a section on programming.
Who's to blame? It's clearly Google. AdSense is making everyone money-hungry and eager to open up new websites to draw users to get clicks and thus ad money for the website owner. With quality content all fragmented, it's no wonder Usenet information has declined. F U Google.
I have a fancy Ph.D., and I'm glad you didn't get one, too, as it would devalue the degree for the rest of us.
Your use of IBM only proves how difficult it is for an open source-based company to succeed. Do you think IBM got started and grew to where it is today by selling support for open source software? No, IBM got to where it is today by being a monopoly in the 1970s. Do you think IBM supports itself solely on selling support for OSS? No, it gets a lot of profit from its Z/OS and mainframe systems. Do you think many small companies are able to build up enough momentum and staff to make money off selling support for OSS? Don't kid yourself. That's why you only see a small handful of large, already-established companies be viably successful and profitable in this domain (e.g. Novell, IBM, Red Hat).
Opening up a once successful closed system, eh? It worked out so well with Solaris, lifting Sun to the top once again! Racing to the bottom via opening up may help out the will-code-for-food 3rd party developers and stir excitement in the i'm-just-poor-enough-to-use-linux camp, but it will only lead to failure for the company desperate enough to go that direction.
The holy grail of advertising is to be a part of an entire subculture... They want to make you feel like you can't be a part of the culture that you belong to without owning that product.
You've just described the Mac and Linux fanboi-ism communities. Mac advertising appeals to the hipster movement. Linux advertising (through websites like /.) appeal to niche nerd movement.
This is another version, slightly longer than the one posted.
You laughed because an honest company (UAL) lost $1.14 billion? You laughed because their stock price fell by 25%, affecting all the honest investors and all the UAL employees? What a total asshole you are. Do you find it funny because you don't invest in anything yourself, you never have, and you never will?
What a complete fucking asshole you are. Do you not realise it wasn't just institutional investors who suffered here? The stock is down 25%. What about honest investors who own UAL? What about honest investors who own mutual funds that invest in UAL? Why about employees who own company stock? What a fucking prick you are.
How about we use the tags 'goodsummary' and 'badsummary' instead?
What are you going to do if you can't push OSX, and Microsoft is dying? You start pushing Linux. Maybe this won't happen, but it isn't an unreasonable scenerio.
It is a completely unreasonable scenario. And where do get off saying that Microsoft is a dying company? Here's their FY 2008 earnings release. Tell me again how $60B a year is a dying company. Perhaps you were talking out your ass?
Why do you feel the need to woefully inject Microsoft? Your argument makes absolutely no sense and fails to contribute to the discussion. Microsoft does not sue other companies; Microsoft dominates them. Now you are arguing that Facebook is acting like Microsoft despite the fact that (1) Microsoft doesn't sue and (2) by your own admission Facebook is actually not a dominant player. And then you start rambling nonsensically about suppositions regarding how Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft would act. Your arguing style is reminscent of a young boy when his blanket is taken away.
Mod parent down, please.
Cloud computing refers to a cluster computing environment hosted by a single company. This approach is also referred to as "utility computing," and back around 1999 or so, the companies providing these services used to be called "application service providers."
The difference between cloud computing and grid computing, which was all the rage around 2000 (see the academic Globus project) is that grid computing aggregates *widely* heterogeneous computers under different authorities across Internet-scale wide-area networks. A common approach is aggregating universities' computers to form a large-scale cluster. Disadvantages include the fact that you had to program with MPI, communication latencies are high, and there were a lot of authentication issues.
Cloud computing avoids these difficult issues by having a single company host these services for you, and it's typically being done by the big players who can afford to do so (Amazon, Microsoft, Google). Cluster farms are controlled in data centres under one authority. The programmatic interface is simpler, and computation is typically through a fixed paradigm like MapReduce, although there are known SQL-like approaches to run on clusters. Communication through a GigEthernet is typical in a cluster within a data centre.
Is cloud computing a buzzword? Possibly, but then "multi-core," "data centre," and "XML" used to be buzzwords too. Within five years, doing development on a particular vendor's cloud computing infrastructure may be as viable a (specialised) skill as programming for Windows, Linux, or MacOS.
YouTube is increasingly important in daily society. This video documentary, ironically enough hosted on YouTube, demonstrates the impact of YouTube [youtube.com].
Parent poster has a narrow view of industry research. I graduated with my PhD in CS about six years ago from a top-20 university and have worked in an industry research lab. The primary output of industry research are patents, papers, and products (either new products or improving products). And the research labs at Microsoft, IBM, HP, and Yahoo are all very good at this. Take a look at the top CS conferences in the fields where these companies have a stake, and you will see that industry research contributes a large share of the paper output (e.g. SOSP, OSDI, SIGMOD, VLDB, WWW, KDD, etc.). Further, these companies are spending lots of money sponsoring a wide breadth of conferences and helping to drive fundamental research at a time when NSF funding is low. These companies should be applauded.
This article is discussing the front-facing programmatic interface to cloud computing. It is not referring to the internal code of your company.
You are comparing Windows 2000, an operating that is 8 years old, to a Linux distribution. I am a professinal software engineer who works on Linux all day and comes home to Windows at night. Linux has its place (it's a great development environment, and it works excellently on the server side), but I think Win2000 was a much better desktop OS than current Linux. To address your points: 1. The NT kernel is well known to be excellent. 2 & 3. Win2000's GUI was stable and consistent. Neither Windows nor MacOS have a need for a dozen window managers. 4. There are far more applications for Windows than for Linux. Further, there are far more quality applications for Windows than for Linux. I would gladly give my money for Photoshop than to use Gimp for free. Same for games, same for Office. On to your other points where you try to compare current Linux to Windows 2000 (again, an 8-year-old OS): 1. Not all Linuxes have out-of-the-box drivers, particularly those that try to be free-software-only. Windows typically has all the drivers you need (USB, SCSI), and even when I buy new peripherals (scanners, printers, iPod, video camera), the products will come with a CD with the driver. 2. Windows 2000 had the "add/remove software" control. 3. 3-D effects. I don't care. I'm not 15. 4. Support for all major filesystems. NTFS is solid, and FAT32 is at least reasonable. 5. Support for all major filetypes out-of-the-box. I have no idea what you mean. All file types are major, by definition, if they can be used on an OS that's on 90% of all desktops, like, say, Windows.
1. Viacom has no right to the data. Sorry, it is in their right.
2. I don't want Viacom to have any info about me. Then don't visit YouTube and leave your dirty trails all over Google's database.
3. Why does Google keep data about me? That is what they do. The sell targeted pageviews to advertisers. Sorry to break your heart about the company you love.
4. This judge is a moron! When you finally turn 15, you will see the world with more mature eyes.
5. Shouldn't we boycott Viacom? Viacom includes Paramount, which makes Star Trek. OMG WHAT WILL YOU DO???
How old are you, kid? When you say there are those who want to *use their computer*, are you referring to those of us who want to use full desktop applications, like word processors, Matlab, Powerpoint, Photoshop, g++, video games, and Maya? Will be able to *use our computers* on these netbooks? Or do you think the only thing we can do is surf the web looking for lulz? Grow up.
Finally! we can all rest and exhale. 2008 is at last the year of netbook Linux. What took so long? Oh yeah, finding a niche where nobody expects high-quality professional software. Students and people from developing countries: get in line now. For the rest of you, when you're done playing with your netbooks and want to graduate to Photoshop, Office, Apache, desktop publishing, and software engineering, then give full-scale Linux, Windows, and MacOS a call.
I find it funny and sad that Wikipedia is moving towards a state where content is controlled by a few editors. Isn't that the whole model that Wikipedia was trything to get away from in the first place? c.f. Encyclopedia Britannica. Call the deletionists what you will. I call them overly-anal folk who, perhaps for the first time in their lives, have achieved some level of power and are trying desparately to keep the unwashed Pokemon fans out.
Yahoo sports.
Yahoo news.
Yahoo movies.
Yahoo TV.
Yahoo weather.
Flickr (I don't use it though)
Delicious.
Yahoo Answers.
Yahoo maps.
Funny how these appeal to 500M unique visitors each month but not to you. I think it's because Yahoo targets a specific demographic, normal humans, rather than the the 30-year-old burnt-out techies on /. or the 19-year-old college students on Digg or the who-knows perverts on 4chan.