"...if a hobbyist developer doesn't want to put forth the unpaid effort to polish an app to enterprise class, he or she should not bitch and moan when Company XYZ spends $200 million on a closed-source commercial competitor that does similar things as the hobbyist's application."
Actually, the reverse happens more often than not. Company X ends up bitching because an open and free version of X is avaliable, thus eating into their potential revenue.
Paying that developer, and or supporting their work with some of your own, could yield that application at a significantly reduced cost. Oh, you say, our competetors would then be able to benefit from our work. Yeah, ok. But the reverse is also true --and you are already doing that if you are running other OSS software.
OSS *is* superior over commercial software in that I don't have to pay for it annually and I know exactly what it's doing and that it runs on whatever hardware I have handy. (Usually.)
Does that match well with your corporate goals? Probably not, but that does not diminish the value. Consider new companies starting today, that build on OSS. Maybe some of them contribute to the software base they use (dollars and code, does not matter) and the code base gets better for all. Think that won't save money? Wrong, it will save money hand over fist while providing a degree of freedom not seen in the commercial world.
Think I am wrong? Ask the hollywood studios, who are doing exactly that. The annual costs for their production chains is less than it once was and they now have the ability, as an industry, do do what they want on their time table, largely without having to go to vendors to do it.
"99% of the computing public are not developers..."
Well, a very high percentage of the companies are just the kinds of 'people' that can contribute. The general public has nothing to do with any of the points you made so far. For them, they get what they need at the lowest cost and that's the end of it. However, companies can easily contribute to OSS both with dollars and code and benefit from it the same way they do by paying annual fees each year to major software houses.
The sum total of all those fees would more than employ enough geeks to put the major houses out of business and they know it.
just can't properly address it because it means a serious change to their business model.
Right now they are the leader in both marketshare and dollars. They can't even sell Office at a lower price because the dollars fund their ongoing efforts to enter other markets and integrate the products in them with their existing stack.
I know they have lots of money in the bank, but that's not the point. Once cashflow from new office and windows sales fails to balance the R & D efforts, shareholders will notice and their value will drop.
Caught between a rock and hard place really.
And that's the bad part about being the 800 pound gorilla. You get awful hungry all of the time.
If they were to scale back and focus on their core markets, they would be better able to match their product pricing to the actual product value. However, their growth models also depend on these other markets and R & D efforts too. Dropping those would have the same effect on stock value.
Basically, they must justify their existance every day, or take a very big fall. Once that actually happens, the gloves will come off and everybody left will compete on a more level playing field.
Of course, that's just as good as being in hell where Microsoft is concerned. I'm not sure they even know how to act in such a role.
Some of the more recent discoveries, like quantum action at a distance stuff makes sense from the Occams Razor point of view. On one hand, we have these bizzare behaviors that involve unseen forces, etc... On the other, our 4 dimensional universe is really a function of a multi-dimensional one, with the interactions in the other dimensions embodied as complex behavior here in our 4 dimensional world.
The latter makes more sense than the former does to me, because it's easy to visualize on a lay persons level. In the action at a distance scenario, the first thought becomes, how are they connected and what structures are involved? (Assuming they actually are, which is the assumption I would make, not knowing any better.)
After reading this article, I pictured a 2 dimensional universe formed from the intersections of three dimensional surfaces. The interactions between those surfaces would easily reproduce some of the spooky effects we see in our three dimensional one.
This brought me to a coupla questions, I'm hoping for a simple to understand answer to:
Does this not revive the concept of an 'ether'. Where we see only space, the extra-dimensional entities still exist. Just wondering about that.
Do we assume the basic rules, such as speed of light, etc... apply in the extra-dimensional space, or are they only embodied here in our space, being the result of interactions and rules unique to the extra-dimensional space?
How the hell can we deduce what those are, without being able to observe the extra dimensions? Are we hoping for cracks, etc? Thinking about that a bit farther reminded me of the Paul Hogan Giants novels where a virtual world existed inside a large computer. Those entities within that world could not see the computer that rendered their universe. How would they ever know just as we would never know?
It seems we are better players than we were when we first gave the ring games a shot. Had a decent evening without too much trouble. ---thanks for nudging us back that direction. Several thousand hands will do that it seems! We made enough to easily pay for a few buy-ins. (nice) Risk does seem lower now than it was eariler on.
Clearly we looked at far too many hands and were not properly assessing our outs in relation to potential winnings. Of course that means our play was simply not that solid back then. Good analysis.
I'm going to amend my earlier advice somewhat. If you are building skill, I still highly recommend the tournaments. It's easy to manage your money and the returns are very good, once your play reaches the point where you regularly place. This can be done with the cash games, but I think it's cheaper to do in the context of a tournament. Maybe that makes better sense overall.
This is one of the reasons why I just love slashdot. No matter the topic, there is always something of value to be found here!
I'm a tournement player for sure. And that is a factor. Are you playing limit or no limit cash ring games? Curious, that's all. Limit games have less variance, but no limit ones can swing pretty wide...
I personally have not had much success outside the tournaments, my wife has, but it varies a lot. (Limit games seem better for both of us in this regard.)
To put my words in better context, I was speaking to new players who might have some experience in meat space playing casually or maybe at B & M tables. Tournament play might be better for them, that's all.
The few cash players I know, are really good. (Better than we are, for sure.) They make money too. However, this does not mean everyone is going to be able to duplicate that, particularly if they are new to online play.
Of course, the same goes for tournament games as well. Interestingly, our cash playing friends have a tough time with tournament play. Since we are new to the game, compared to the cash players we know, my post is fair.
It's easier to manage your bankroll playing tournaments, IMHO.
As for the factors: bots, collusion, etc... these things are real. Early on, we spent a lot of time choosing tables, looking for the right kinds of players and saw some success. Too much hassle compared to the tournament alternative for us.
Do I have all the answers? No. (You would be watching us on ESPN if we did.) Was just trying to share our success with others looking to have some fun, that's all.
In that vein, how do you handle the cash games? Care to share a few words here as I have done?
I believe that too. Just musing about perception, that's all.
Any solid bias would be detected fairly quickly, I'm sure. We've sure not seen any evidence for the contrary. The larger number of hands do take some getting used to.
The tournament games are where it's at. After a time, you get to know the regular players. New faces (avatars?) are easy to spot and collusion becomes very difficult because the players are sprinkled about the tables.
If you are a good player and have a bankroll large enough to handle the variance, you have a very good chance at winning some nice cash. I personally found this too expensive and risky to enjoy the whole experience.
I like the idea of asking questions and including turing tests, BTW. These two things, applied to the cash tables, would go a long way toward thwarting the bot problem. Collusion will remain an issue however.
The problem with the cash tables, and to a lesser degree on the sit 'n go games, is the ability for players (bot or human) to communicate outside the game environment. I'm not sure we are going to be able to solve that. --Stay away from the cash games, unless they are very high stakes. (Even then variance is several times your buyin cost --be ready and beware!)
The wife and I play regularly --it's a lot of fun when you've got some good players online. We started out playing cash games and sit and go contests. However, variance was just huge compared to real table action. Ended up losing a fair amount, despite solid play.
After doing some analysis and research, we decided to give it another go and stick to tournament play. --Much better experience. We've got our losses back and are now profit taking while slowly building the bankroll.
Coupla things I've noted:
- the cards often appear balanced for high action. Almost every hand sees flops that are difficult for players to let go of. It's our perception that bad beats on the river are far more common online than seen at the meatspace tables. (Undecided if this is just due to more hands being played however...)
- be aware of the overall game speed. Long rounds allow time to play cards that matter, short ones don't. Speed games are very profitable for the house, putting pressure on skilled players. Avoid those at higher buy in's.
- rebuy games often generate very good payouts in relation to the intial buy-in. avoid the temptation to rebuy however, unless it's very early in the game. Extra chips won't matter to a skilled player and you just pay a lot more in relation to your potential winnings. Rebuy speed games are pure evil at higher buy-ins, but can be fun and very profitable at lower ones. (Given you don't mind the greater chance factor.)
- the large sites are more difficult to manage than the smaller ones are. When considering online poker, pay close attention to the tournament games offered. This will tell you a lot about the site and what players they are looking for. Number of initial chips, buy ins offered and round length are key.
I'm posting this out of self-interest as well. (Like any solid poker would!) The more players in the game, the bigger the winnings are for everyone involved. Just thought that disclaimer was appropriate to make everything clear.
Want to play where my wife and I do and save yourself the trouble of learning what we have? Shoot me an e-mail and I'll trade our learning in return for a signup referral. (Referrals generate points and some small dollars, we use to play more tournament poker.) I'm not a sales shill by the way. Google me and you will find nothing of the kind. I simply enjoy the game and have been winning enough to continue playing to learn, earn and the occasional nice dinner with winnings:-P If you see some success, do exactly what I have done here and lower your overall game cost. (Do it with some tact though.)
One important rule, passed on to me during our last trip to play at Binyons: Play as cheap as you can and as often as you can. Keeping play overhead low helps to manage player variance and thus overall profit.
---thanks. I've been here long enough that I should know better than to post late and tired.
Maybe we share a bit more than I thought.
On the law...
Of course one fights bad laws. Writing congress, running for office and other advocacy is all well and good. However, if you find yourself entangled in said law, our system permits a solid defense. You can choose to blindly accept the law if you want to, but you really are in no position to judge others for how they choose to represent their view in court. ---Things are complex with this case being a prime example. The kids are charged, making some action unavoidable.
I think the school acted with too much haste and too little effort and you don't. That's fine. Our country was founded on the ideals of equality, democracy and freedom. Given our imperfect understanding of the world and our evolving state of law, my choice to push hard against what I would see as a mistake is as well justified as is yours to simply stay the course and learn.
Will they plead down? If they are smart they will. However, they will still have records they might not otherwise have. Each party involved can make their choice and be judged by their peers. Perhaps a solid defense would be foolish as the guilt is clear. However, if the school made one mistake (and a fairly big one in my view), perhaps they made others, thus leaving room to correct things record free. (Mistrial, etc...)
The system has a little play in it to account for just these dilemmas. I see your view, but simply do not share it. The beauty of the whole thing is that neither of us is "wrong" in the legal sense, but both of us appear "wrong" to our respective moral senses.
From a moral point of view, I would not get the great attorney to escape punishment, but to correct errors that together cause more harm than good. Remember I did say the kid (if it were my kid) would see some punishment.
We totally agree on the those exploiting the system with dollars or other means. And you are right, we cannot fix it without greater harm. --It's not ok. As I stated above, my reasons for such a tactic are more complex than simply beating the charge however.
I never said the kids were blameless. They did not play ball with the school plain and simple. They did things that were wrong and need to be taught a lesson. I've also said the lesson being taught here is not well aligned with the events and that choice lies with the school.
What they chose to do was lazy, short sighted and overly harmful to the students in question.
Again, if they can't handle the computers, then they do without them until such time as they actually can handle them.
Removing the computers *is* a punishment, particularly when combined with solid action on the parents part. (No computer at home either, for example.) I personally would assign them some writing tasks directly aimed at critically thinking about what their actions are going to mean as adults and the implications of that as well.
In a parent child setting, punishment without strong efforts to tell the kids why they are being punished is far less effective at transferring solid ethics and values to the kids, which is the primary goal. Compliance is good, but blind compliance isn't.
Given a loved one is dying, would you not speed on the way to the doctor? (Assuming you can do it with a high degree of confidence that is --why risk both of you right?) Most anyone would. That's an ethical violation of the law, understood by someone with solid values to work from. Chances are good an officer, seeing you in this particular dilemma would likely help you get the job done faster as well.
The school is there to educate. They failed to do that, in this particular case from the facts at hand in the story. If the reality is different, but not reported, I may well change my position regarding their actions.
I'm sorry, but this whole mess is an object lesson the staff should be thinking crit
I maintain if the kids can't play ball with the computers, then you pull the computers.
They don't *need* the computers any more than they need felony charges.
You don't understand. I would get a great attorney because I do not believe the charges are justified, given what was done and how it was handled. Any kid of mine would see some pretty severe punishment over this whole mess, but would not end up with a blotched record, unless necessary. Said kids would not be seeing a computer for a good long while either.
I believe applying the law, in this case, was premature. I also believe it was applied because it was simply easier for the school to do so.
The school didn't exercise all of its options before handing this off to the authorities. Again, pull the computers from the problem kids and let 'em work the hard way for a while. If that was done and the kids were still a problem, perhaps escalation is warranted. However I don't see that being the case. My primary point being the school did not use it's control very well and released it far too quickly rather than really address the issue.
"And they will become better citizens if we treat them as such, not if we treat them as kids."
Bull.
As kids mature, you handle them in an age appropriate manner, in order to allow for development issues. That's the difference between kids and adults.
Rather than challenge the kids, which they did by returning the computers "fixed" so that they can't be messed with, why not apply the new software to all the computers, then deny access to those kids that caused the trouble? Explain why, let everybody know what the next steps are going to be and continue on from there? I don't see this happening and it should.
The result would be, no charges, improved school security, object lesson for the administrative support staff, improved expectations for parents, and improved communication about the issues at hand without anyone having to hit the courts.
You also get some really sorry kids handwriting their work, using the real books for a while, having to work at home and transfer files through authorized media, etc...
I'll apologize for the end of my last post. It's just your attitude really offends me. I can't imagine handing kids off to the police unless I had no option. (And I've been in that position and have used the police when necessary.)
The school had plenty of viable and likely effective options open to them. Those should have been used before putting the kids into the legal system and they were not.
Felony charges are quite a bit more serious than their lack of obedience calls for. The school is at fault for not providing a learning environment. Instead of employing one of many tools for resolving conflict, they escalated and entered into a power struggle when they didn't have to. That's their fault because they are supposed to be qualified to handle these things. I'm just a parent and would have gotten this right. They can easily do the same.
Nobody got shot, no significant harm done, simply broken pride and the loss of a power struggle between the kids and the educators. That's all this really is.
The fucking educators, of all people, should know the tools they are using better than those they are trying to teach, shouldn't they? They should know as you and I do that these kinds of things can easily be circumvented. --and they will, particularly when teens are pushing their boundaries are concerned.
Kid pulls a gun, harms someone, etc... by all means, get the police involved. These kids simply *used* the computers they were handed and *learned* something while they were at it. Was it a wise choice? No. Was it worth charges? Hell no. Could this mess be avoided while getting some lessons taught at the same time? Absolutely.
Was it was worth was some time doing their work the hard way in order to better appreciate the computers and the school that provided them in the first place? Totally. Those kids don't *need* the computers. Perhaps the educators do, and if that's the case it's sad.
There is nothing that a young person needs to know that requires a computer in order to properly learn it and utilize that knowledge. It's nice to build literacy today, but not required for adult competency.
I find it equally morally wrong to close doors for teens when they are still learning and struggling. Those charges will close some doors for those kids that just don't need to be closed.
You think it was wrong. Well, actually I would agree. Two wrongs do not make a right however. Punishing those kids needs to happen. Doing it in a way that makes an impact while not harming them is the better choice. Again, still learning, not quite people. That's why they cannot do adult things. Too young to fully understand the bigger picture.
Your points about hacking in hours instead of days may be well founded, but we would not know that now would we?
Personally, I would not allow them access to computers for a while, or depending on the kids, redirect them. That solves the immediate problem, offers an oppertunity to interact with parents, avoides the police and allows the school to keep control and continue to educate instead of alienate.
"Only wrong if I get caught."
No. I didn't mean lip service dicipline, just the sort that does not do long term harm, unless warranted. I'm sorry but this does not warrant both the dollars and the time spent to prosecute these kids.
Besides, what if they lose and the kids are not guilty? Could happen. I know I would get my kid the very best attorney. Not a good outcome for the school is it?
My point simply being, all of these things have anything to do with getting some solid ethics into kids lacking some. Wonder how they feel applying for jobs later with felony convictions? As they get older and understand just what happened, they may well see the same thing I do today.
One of my early schools was this kind of school. We hacked the old computers and we made them do stuff that was fun and interesting. Did we see a judge? No. The wise teacher, working with us, did the following:
- no access, unless the rules are followed and we let him know what we are doing.
- normal computer competency instruction halted.
- we all learned together that term. We started a lot of goofy projects and completed a number of them. Today, that group is composed of professional programmers, web developers, consu
The school should have rethought their use of the computers and provided alternatives for those kids not able to handle the responsibility that comes with the use of school property. The computers are tools, provided by the school, to assist in learning, etc...
I'm a lowly parent that would have seen this coming a mile away. I would have made a plan to address it and kept it at the ready. Said plan would be handled with the parents, kids and the school. Unless the kid actually did something that would cause a lot of harm, the police have better things to do.
Does the school let kids continue to use other equipment when repeated irresponsible behavior is demonstrated? If they do, then they are part of the problem. How about the media equipment, or other valuable stuff that must be signed in or out? Why were the computers not handled this way?
The rule should be very simple. Mess with the machine, and lose it for the duration of the year. The kids don't need the computers to get the learning done, but it's probably nicer and a lot more fun if they do.
The problem I see is failure to understand how kids work. Some of them are going to be able to handle the tech and give the school the respect it deserves. Others are not going to be able to do that. (For whatever reasons.)
Going to the police, for a non-violent event, is simply not warranted and is draconian.
By continuing to leave the problematic computers in the kids possession, they entered into a power struggle, essentially saying "we have fixed this now, so you can't do what you did again". That's a challenge for a bright high-schooler. A challenge that will be taken. Foolish and only ends up hurting the kids and the school.
Possible options for these kids, that would likely avoid a felony charge against them:
- no computer. (Easiest and safest.)
- alternative computer use in lab or other controlled setting. (Fairly safe, but not exactly easy.)
- redirect the desire to learn into something constructive that would benefit the school and the kids. (Risky, but depending on the kids, could yield some great things.)
- require computers to be checked in and out. Loss of home, recess priviliges. (easy, not too risky, probably effective, given the other kids free use of the machines and the extra hassle imposed on those not willing to play ball.)...etc.
Our schools are supposed to be building future citizens, one young person at a time. If kids are to learn by example, and some of them end up being leaders, I fear for the state of the nation when the seeds sowed today bloom later on.
The lack of foresight and inability to properly address the matter in a way that avoids escalation and power struggles tells me a lot about how this particular school does things. And they get poor marks, IMHO.
You will lose. Any sane parent knows this. The educators, with their specialized training totally should know this. As a father I know this.
The policy should reflect the reality of computing today; namely, that any access control methods can and will be circumvented by those willing to do so. Period, end of story. There is very little the school could do to prevent this kind of thing, so why bother?
Either the kids play ball, or they don't get their own computer. Have a lab room setup for those not willing to agree to the terms of use and those that think they are willing, but end up on the wrong side of the rules.
Charging these kids with a felony crime is just wrong. It's going to affect their future far more than it helps the school keep control. I've a feeling this school is one of these zero tolerance, power tripping schools that does more actual harm than good.
So, they could have just taken the computers, booted the kids, put them on an alternative learning track, etc.... But, continuing to escalate the issue the way they did invited trouble, was counter productive, and could easily be considered rather draconian. --> "Lets make examples of a few of them to keep the others in line". Yeah, like I want my teen going to a school like that.
In the schools defense, the law has taken away a lot of their power these days. The school staff is sharply limited in what they can actually do without going to the courts. (Which makes a keen understanding of the whole power struggle thing all the more important!) When I went to HS, in the 80's, principles could still actually make kids *do* things. Breaking up fights, for example, often meant the principle stepping in there, grabbing some kids, and sorting things out. He was never in the office, walked around the school and kept order.
Things are far different today where even touching kids can get educators in trouble.
There is a fine line being crossed with the whole kids rights thing. In terms of things like expression, we should be yielding to the kids. However, in terms of behavior, we should let the schools do a bit more than they currently are, if we are to avoid the courts for teen struggles.
Also, where the fuck are the parents in this whole thing? If this were my kid, I would quite honestly start working that school and legal system over until the problem was corrected. I'm all for kids towing the line, but it's a two way street. If the school creates an environment for failure, (which they clearly have), the punishment for that failure needs to serve some greater end. (Which it clearly doesn't.)
This whole mess is a crock. Anyone, who has parented teens, who possesses just a bit of common sense would have been able to defuse this issue and move on. My gut says this whole small town is fucked up.
All depends on what's in the tags, if it's patented, documented, etc....
If they provide *all* information necessary to read / write the document without having to license said information, ok. If not, same story different technology packaging...
However, adopting that standard and support it would go a long way toward the greater adoption of something we can all use to exchange documents.
As it stands right now, OOO bends over backward to provide interoperability with the latest MSO formats and gets nothing in return. Given the touchy nature of the MSO formats, returning the favor in like kind might bring an advantage to both sides. Having recently used OOO to open a mangled MSWord document, I think there is some room to give in this area.
OSS does equal Open Standards --always. If one has the source code, the data encoding is open. May not be legal to use, but it is open.
By contrast, Microsoft can equal Open Standards if they want to.
His answer is a little bit of a weasel there. They really want to downplay that, IMHO. Case in point: Where is Office support for OOO document formats?
I like the older SGI keyboards the best.
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 1
Nice firm keys and a great clickety-click sound...and there is always the Northgate Omnikey 102.
How exactly is this different from a bunch of people just filling out bogus information?
Answer: It isn't.
If a significant percentage of us, just did this, the spammers would be hurt by rising costs and sharply reduced product value proposition. (leads)
This company is just making that easier.
No harm, no foul.
Unless you are the spammer making money off of shared resources without giving anything back that is...
I hope this works and it catches on. I would use this service in a minute.
Want to cut down your junk mail? Spend a few days each month filling their postage paid envelopes with their competetors offers and other interesting bits you can stuff in there. For those little card things, fill 'em out with crap.
People have done this for years and this spam service is no different than hiring somebody to send crap data for you.
Your actions, in that case, caused me to think a little deeper about this issue.
I've always been in your camp where DRM is concerned. However, I understand some subtle thing I'm not sure I did before.
Let me know if I have this right, because it's important:
In a world of interconnected people and computers, information flows more or less freely. It has to if the whole thing is going to actually be able to do anything of value to us.
I've got a work in the hopper right now. I think I'm going to do what you are doing, if I am lucky enough to see publication. I'm going to do it, not only because its the right thing to do, but its also the thing that makes the most sense.
In that world, you don't mind if your works are read by people you don't know because through them they can come to know you. For an author, that's a good thing all around. (As a budding author, I hope I can see similar success someday.) However, what you don't want is others making money from your work without your due compensation. Nobody works for free.
Your act was interesting in that the motivation for it is not obvious, I believe, to ordinary people at first glance. (I'm a geek, but I think I am ordinary for the most part.)
The media companies want to protect their ability to make money. They do this by using rule of law to deny others the ability to profit from their "works". However their actions come at a significant negative cost both financially and socially. This is why they have a dim view of "pirates" because they represent not only lost oppertunity costs but real expense costs as well.
However, you showed that you can still deny others the right to profit from your works while at the same time gain where they currently lose.
If the scanned text is officially available, why bother to get it from somewhere else? That's a very subtle way to compete with free and I am almost completely sure the big corps just don't get that. (Perhaps they will someday before we all lose our ability to compute freely.)
Not only is it good competition, but it's a bonus in that you have a chance to advocate your beliefs to them and suggest other works and express yourself personally all while denying the freeloaders their means to profit.
That's a world I can live in far easier than a one filled with draconian laws that make me feel dirty and used.
I recorded my old bell telephone for a ring tone. I get more requests for that than anything else media related.
And I don't honor a single one because it's my tone dammit, get your own tone.
Art exists because of limitations, and we...
on
Is Programming Art?
·
· Score: 1
...have clear limitations in computing.
One could argue we have fewer limitations today, on the other hand the possible tasks are that much greater. To me, this factors out the nature of the platform. Programming is programming, but is it art?
I say it is because the limitations create the illusion of beauty and that, to me, is the essence of art.
Going back to the 8bitters for a moment:
On those machines, many limitations were present, yet we saw people do amazing things on them despite the obstacles. Of all the things I learned to appreciate, well crafted machine-language programs that used the hardware in unique ways to achieve a goal moved me most. --They still do.
Was just reading something about Jef Minter programming the old Atari Jaguar. He was told off for using the chips backwards. The designers intent was flawed, crippling the machine. Jef "painted" his game on the canvas he had and the result was as beautiful as it was technically wrong. I still get that game out and play, totally immersed, to get my "fix" from time to time as we all sometimes do.
Isn't that an awful lot like visiting a gallery to re-experience a painting or scupture that moves you?
Finally, it must be said that programming is simply a means of expression. How one chooses to express themselves determines the artistic value of the expression, not the medium. The author of this piece really does not address that well, IMHO.
I personally hate them, but their software is powerful and considered major CAD software.
The mainstream vendors, (Solidworks, Solid Edge, Inventor, et al.) are all married to the win32 API. For them, it will be a good long while just like Microsoft likes it.
However the big three, Dassaut, PTC, UGS all run on UNIX today, with one PTC Linux port. The others all claim too many support issues. (copout, support one distro and let your users sort it out.)
Slashdot Mirror
The previous poster gets OSS, you do not.
"...if a hobbyist developer doesn't want to put forth the unpaid effort to polish an app to enterprise class, he or she should not bitch and moan when Company XYZ spends $200 million on a closed-source commercial competitor that does similar things as the hobbyist's application."
Actually, the reverse happens more often than not. Company X ends up bitching because an open and free version of X is avaliable, thus eating into their potential revenue.
Paying that developer, and or supporting their work with some of your own, could yield that application at a significantly reduced cost. Oh, you say, our competetors would then be able to benefit from our work. Yeah, ok. But the reverse is also true --and you are already doing that if you are running other OSS software.
OSS *is* superior over commercial software in that I don't have to pay for it annually and I know exactly what it's doing and that it runs on whatever hardware I have handy. (Usually.)
Does that match well with your corporate goals? Probably not, but that does not diminish the value. Consider new companies starting today, that build on OSS. Maybe some of them contribute to the software base they use (dollars and code, does not matter) and the code base gets better for all. Think that won't save money? Wrong, it will save money hand over fist while providing a degree of freedom not seen in the commercial world.
Think I am wrong? Ask the hollywood studios, who are doing exactly that. The annual costs for their production chains is less than it once was and they now have the ability, as an industry, do do what they want on their time table, largely without having to go to vendors to do it.
"99% of the computing public are not developers..."
Well, a very high percentage of the companies are just the kinds of 'people' that can contribute. The general public has nothing to do with any of the points you made so far. For them, they get what they need at the lowest cost and that's the end of it. However, companies can easily contribute to OSS both with dollars and code and benefit from it the same way they do by paying annual fees each year to major software houses.
The sum total of all those fees would more than employ enough geeks to put the major houses out of business and they know it.
Non starter...
just can't properly address it because it means a serious change to their business model.
Right now they are the leader in both marketshare and dollars. They can't even sell Office at a lower price because the dollars fund their ongoing efforts to enter other markets and integrate the products in them with their existing stack.
I know they have lots of money in the bank, but that's not the point. Once cashflow from new office and windows sales fails to balance the R & D efforts, shareholders will notice and their value will drop.
Caught between a rock and hard place really.
And that's the bad part about being the 800 pound gorilla. You get awful hungry all of the time.
If they were to scale back and focus on their core markets, they would be better able to match their product pricing to the actual product value. However, their growth models also depend on these other markets and R & D efforts too. Dropping those would have the same effect on stock value.
Basically, they must justify their existance every day, or take a very big fall. Once that actually happens, the gloves will come off and everybody left will compete on a more level playing field.
Of course, that's just as good as being in hell where Microsoft is concerned. I'm not sure they even know how to act in such a role.
You physics gods, humor me for a minute (please.)
Some of the more recent discoveries, like quantum action at a distance stuff makes sense from the Occams Razor point of view. On one hand, we have these bizzare behaviors that involve unseen forces, etc... On the other, our 4 dimensional universe is really a function of a multi-dimensional one, with the interactions in the other dimensions embodied as complex behavior here in our 4 dimensional world.
The latter makes more sense than the former does to me, because it's easy to visualize on a lay persons level. In the action at a distance scenario, the first thought becomes, how are they connected and what structures are involved? (Assuming they actually are, which is the assumption I would make, not knowing any better.)
After reading this article, I pictured a 2 dimensional universe formed from the intersections of three dimensional surfaces. The interactions between those surfaces would easily reproduce some of the spooky effects we see in our three dimensional one.
This brought me to a coupla questions, I'm hoping for a simple to understand answer to:
Does this not revive the concept of an 'ether'. Where we see only space, the extra-dimensional entities still exist. Just wondering about that.
Do we assume the basic rules, such as speed of light, etc... apply in the extra-dimensional space, or are they only embodied here in our space, being the result of interactions and rules unique to the extra-dimensional space?
How the hell can we deduce what those are, without being able to observe the extra dimensions? Are we hoping for cracks, etc? Thinking about that a bit farther reminded me of the Paul Hogan Giants novels where a virtual world existed inside a large computer. Those entities within that world could not see the computer that rendered their universe. How would they ever know just as we would never know?
Read your post and we gave it a shot last night.
It seems we are better players than we were when we first gave the ring games a shot. Had a decent evening without too much trouble. ---thanks for nudging us back that direction. Several thousand hands will do that it seems! We made enough to easily pay for a few buy-ins. (nice) Risk does seem lower now than it was eariler on.
Clearly we looked at far too many hands and were not properly assessing our outs in relation to potential winnings. Of course that means our play was simply not that solid back then. Good analysis.
I'm going to amend my earlier advice somewhat. If you are building skill, I still highly recommend the tournaments. It's easy to manage your money and the returns are very good, once your play reaches the point where you regularly place. This can be done with the cash games, but I think it's cheaper to do in the context of a tournament. Maybe that makes better sense overall.
This is one of the reasons why I just love slashdot. No matter the topic, there is always something of value to be found here!
I'm a tournement player for sure. And that is a factor. Are you playing limit or no limit cash ring games? Curious, that's all. Limit games have less variance, but no limit ones can swing pretty wide...
I personally have not had much success outside the tournaments, my wife has, but it varies a lot. (Limit games seem better for both of us in this regard.)
To put my words in better context, I was speaking to new players who might have some experience in meat space playing casually or maybe at B & M tables. Tournament play might be better for them, that's all.
The few cash players I know, are really good. (Better than we are, for sure.) They make money too. However, this does not mean everyone is going to be able to duplicate that, particularly if they are new to online play.
Of course, the same goes for tournament games as well. Interestingly, our cash playing friends have a tough time with tournament play. Since we are new to the game, compared to the cash players we know, my post is fair.
It's easier to manage your bankroll playing tournaments, IMHO.
As for the factors: bots, collusion, etc... these things are real. Early on, we spent a lot of time choosing tables, looking for the right kinds of players and saw some success. Too much hassle compared to the tournament alternative for us.
Do I have all the answers? No. (You would be watching us on ESPN if we did.) Was just trying to share our success with others looking to have some fun, that's all.
In that vein, how do you handle the cash games? Care to share a few words here as I have done?
Totally. That's exactly why I stay away from the cash tables.
All I said is that it would help. You are right though, it would only help for a while...
I believe that too. Just musing about perception, that's all.
Any solid bias would be detected fairly quickly, I'm sure. We've sure not seen any evidence for the contrary. The larger number of hands do take some getting used to.
The tournament games are where it's at. After a time, you get to know the regular players. New faces (avatars?) are easy to spot and collusion becomes very difficult because the players are sprinkled about the tables.
:-P If you see some success, do exactly what I have done here and lower your overall game cost. (Do it with some tact though.)
If you are a good player and have a bankroll large enough to handle the variance, you have a very good chance at winning some nice cash. I personally found this too expensive and risky to enjoy the whole experience.
I like the idea of asking questions and including turing tests, BTW. These two things, applied to the cash tables, would go a long way toward thwarting the bot problem. Collusion will remain an issue however.
The problem with the cash tables, and to a lesser degree on the sit 'n go games, is the ability for players (bot or human) to communicate outside the game environment. I'm not sure we are going to be able to solve that. --Stay away from the cash games, unless they are very high stakes. (Even then variance is several times your buyin cost --be ready and beware!)
The wife and I play regularly --it's a lot of fun when you've got some good players online. We started out playing cash games and sit and go contests. However, variance was just huge compared to real table action. Ended up losing a fair amount, despite solid play.
After doing some analysis and research, we decided to give it another go and stick to tournament play. --Much better experience. We've got our losses back and are now profit taking while slowly building the bankroll.
Coupla things I've noted:
- the cards often appear balanced for high action. Almost every hand sees flops that are difficult for players to let go of. It's our perception that bad beats on the river are far more common online than seen at the meatspace tables. (Undecided if this is just due to more hands being played however...)
- be aware of the overall game speed. Long rounds allow time to play cards that matter, short ones don't. Speed games are very profitable for the house, putting pressure on skilled players. Avoid those at higher buy in's.
- rebuy games often generate very good payouts in relation to the intial buy-in. avoid the temptation to rebuy however, unless it's very early in the game. Extra chips won't matter to a skilled player and you just pay a lot more in relation to your potential winnings. Rebuy speed games are pure evil at higher buy-ins, but can be fun and very profitable at lower ones. (Given you don't mind the greater chance factor.)
- the large sites are more difficult to manage than the smaller ones are. When considering online poker, pay close attention to the tournament games offered. This will tell you a lot about the site and what players they are looking for. Number of initial chips, buy ins offered and round length are key.
I'm posting this out of self-interest as well. (Like any solid poker would!) The more players in the game, the bigger the winnings are for everyone involved. Just thought that disclaimer was appropriate to make everything clear.
Want to play where my wife and I do and save yourself the trouble of learning what we have? Shoot me an e-mail and I'll trade our learning in return for a signup referral. (Referrals generate points and some small dollars, we use to play more tournament poker.) I'm not a sales shill by the way. Google me and you will find nothing of the kind. I simply enjoy the game and have been winning enough to continue playing to learn, earn and the occasional nice dinner with winnings
One important rule, passed on to me during our last trip to play at Binyons: Play as cheap as you can and as often as you can. Keeping play overhead low helps to manage player variance and thus overall profit.
---thanks. I've been here long enough that I should know better than to post late and tired.
Maybe we share a bit more than I thought.
On the law...
Of course one fights bad laws. Writing congress, running for office and other advocacy is all well and good. However, if you find yourself entangled in said law, our system permits a solid defense. You can choose to blindly accept the law if you want to, but you really are in no position to judge others for how they choose to represent their view in court. ---Things are complex with this case being a prime example. The kids are charged, making some action unavoidable.
I think the school acted with too much haste and too little effort and you don't. That's fine. Our country was founded on the ideals of equality, democracy and freedom. Given our imperfect understanding of the world and our evolving state of law, my choice to push hard against what I would see as a mistake is as well justified as is yours to simply stay the course and learn.
Will they plead down? If they are smart they will. However, they will still have records they might not otherwise have. Each party involved can make their choice and be judged by their peers. Perhaps a solid defense would be foolish as the guilt is clear. However, if the school made one mistake (and a fairly big one in my view), perhaps they made others, thus leaving room to correct things record free. (Mistrial, etc...)
The system has a little play in it to account for just these dilemmas. I see your view, but simply do not share it. The beauty of the whole thing is that neither of us is "wrong" in the legal sense, but both of us appear "wrong" to our respective moral senses.
From a moral point of view, I would not get the great attorney to escape punishment, but to correct errors that together cause more harm than good. Remember I did say the kid (if it were my kid) would see some punishment.
We totally agree on the those exploiting the system with dollars or other means. And you are right, we cannot fix it without greater harm. --It's not ok. As I stated above, my reasons for such a tactic are more complex than simply beating the charge however.
I never said the kids were blameless. They did not play ball with the school plain and simple. They did things that were wrong and need to be taught a lesson. I've also said the lesson being taught here is not well aligned with the events and that choice lies with the school.
What they chose to do was lazy, short sighted and overly harmful to the students in question.
Again, if they can't handle the computers, then they do without them until such time as they actually can handle them.
Removing the computers *is* a punishment, particularly when combined with solid action on the parents part. (No computer at home either, for example.) I personally would assign them some writing tasks directly aimed at critically thinking about what their actions are going to mean as adults and the implications of that as well.
In a parent child setting, punishment without strong efforts to tell the kids why they are being punished is far less effective at transferring solid ethics and values to the kids, which is the primary goal. Compliance is good, but blind compliance isn't.
Given a loved one is dying, would you not speed on the way to the doctor? (Assuming you can do it with a high degree of confidence that is --why risk both of you right?) Most anyone would. That's an ethical violation of the law, understood by someone with solid values to work from. Chances are good an officer, seeing you in this particular dilemma would likely help you get the job done faster as well.
The school is there to educate. They failed to do that, in this particular case from the facts at hand in the story. If the reality is different, but not reported, I may well change my position regarding their actions.
I'm sorry, but this whole mess is an object lesson the staff should be thinking crit
I maintain if the kids can't play ball with the computers, then you pull the computers.
They don't *need* the computers any more than they need felony charges.
You don't understand. I would get a great attorney because I do not believe the charges are justified, given what was done and how it was handled. Any kid of mine would see some pretty severe punishment over this whole mess, but would not end up with a blotched record, unless necessary. Said kids would not be seeing a computer for a good long while either.
I believe applying the law, in this case, was premature. I also believe it was applied because it was simply easier for the school to do so.
The school didn't exercise all of its options before handing this off to the authorities. Again, pull the computers from the problem kids and let 'em work the hard way for a while. If that was done and the kids were still a problem, perhaps escalation is warranted. However I don't see that being the case. My primary point being the school did not use it's control very well and released it far too quickly rather than really address the issue.
"And they will become better citizens if we treat them as such, not if we treat them as kids."
Bull.
As kids mature, you handle them in an age appropriate manner, in order to allow for development issues. That's the difference between kids and adults.
Rather than challenge the kids, which they did by returning the computers "fixed" so that they can't be messed with, why not apply the new software to all the computers, then deny access to those kids that caused the trouble? Explain why, let everybody know what the next steps are going to be and continue on from there? I don't see this happening and it should.
The result would be, no charges, improved school security, object lesson for the administrative support staff, improved expectations for parents, and improved communication about the issues at hand without anyone having to hit the courts.
You also get some really sorry kids handwriting their work, using the real books for a while, having to work at home and transfer files through authorized media, etc...
I'll apologize for the end of my last post. It's just your attitude really offends me. I can't imagine handing kids off to the police unless I had no option. (And I've been in that position and have used the police when necessary.)
The school had plenty of viable and likely effective options open to them. Those should have been used before putting the kids into the legal system and they were not.
actions.
and they are not yet citizens, but kids.
Felony charges are quite a bit more serious than their lack of obedience calls for. The school is at fault for not providing a learning environment. Instead of employing one of many tools for resolving conflict, they escalated and entered into a power struggle when they didn't have to. That's their fault because they are supposed to be qualified to handle these things. I'm just a parent and would have gotten this right. They can easily do the same.
Nobody got shot, no significant harm done, simply broken pride and the loss of a power struggle between the kids and the educators. That's all this really is.
The fucking educators, of all people, should know the tools they are using better than those they are trying to teach, shouldn't they? They should know as you and I do that these kinds of things can easily be circumvented. --and they will, particularly when teens are pushing their boundaries are concerned.
Kid pulls a gun, harms someone, etc... by all means, get the police involved. These kids simply *used* the computers they were handed and *learned* something while they were at it. Was it a wise choice? No. Was it worth charges? Hell no. Could this mess be avoided while getting some lessons taught at the same time? Absolutely.
Was it was worth was some time doing their work the hard way in order to better appreciate the computers and the school that provided them in the first place? Totally. Those kids don't *need* the computers. Perhaps the educators do, and if that's the case it's sad.
There is nothing that a young person needs to know that requires a computer in order to properly learn it and utilize that knowledge. It's nice to build literacy today, but not required for adult competency.
I find it equally morally wrong to close doors for teens when they are still learning and struggling. Those charges will close some doors for those kids that just don't need to be closed.
You think it was wrong. Well, actually I would agree. Two wrongs do not make a right however. Punishing those kids needs to happen. Doing it in a way that makes an impact while not harming them is the better choice. Again, still learning, not quite people. That's why they cannot do adult things. Too young to fully understand the bigger picture.
Your points about hacking in hours instead of days may be well founded, but we would not know that now would we?
Personally, I would not allow them access to computers for a while, or depending on the kids, redirect them. That solves the immediate problem, offers an oppertunity to interact with parents, avoides the police and allows the school to keep control and continue to educate instead of alienate.
"Only wrong if I get caught."
No. I didn't mean lip service dicipline, just the sort that does not do long term harm, unless warranted. I'm sorry but this does not warrant both the dollars and the time spent to prosecute these kids.
Besides, what if they lose and the kids are not guilty? Could happen. I know I would get my kid the very best attorney. Not a good outcome for the school is it?
My point simply being, all of these things have anything to do with getting some solid ethics into kids lacking some. Wonder how they feel applying for jobs later with felony convictions? As they get older and understand just what happened, they may well see the same thing I do today.
One of my early schools was this kind of school. We hacked the old computers and we made them do stuff that was fun and interesting. Did we see a judge? No. The wise teacher, working with us, did the following:
- no access, unless the rules are followed and we let him know what we are doing.
- normal computer competency instruction halted.
- we all learned together that term. We started a lot of goofy projects and completed a number of them. Today, that group is composed of professional programmers, web developers, consu
they don't get computers.
...etc.
The school should have rethought their use of the computers and provided alternatives for those kids not able to handle the responsibility that comes with the use of school property. The computers are tools, provided by the school, to assist in learning, etc...
I'm a lowly parent that would have seen this coming a mile away. I would have made a plan to address it and kept it at the ready. Said plan would be handled with the parents, kids and the school. Unless the kid actually did something that would cause a lot of harm, the police have better things to do.
Does the school let kids continue to use other equipment when repeated irresponsible behavior is demonstrated? If they do, then they are part of the problem. How about the media equipment, or other valuable stuff that must be signed in or out? Why were the computers not handled this way?
The rule should be very simple. Mess with the machine, and lose it for the duration of the year. The kids don't need the computers to get the learning done, but it's probably nicer and a lot more fun if they do.
The problem I see is failure to understand how kids work. Some of them are going to be able to handle the tech and give the school the respect it deserves. Others are not going to be able to do that. (For whatever reasons.)
Going to the police, for a non-violent event, is simply not warranted and is draconian.
By continuing to leave the problematic computers in the kids possession, they entered into a power struggle, essentially saying "we have fixed this now, so you can't do what you did again". That's a challenge for a bright high-schooler. A challenge that will be taken. Foolish and only ends up hurting the kids and the school.
Possible options for these kids, that would likely avoid a felony charge against them:
- no computer. (Easiest and safest.)
- alternative computer use in lab or other controlled setting. (Fairly safe, but not exactly easy.)
- redirect the desire to learn into something constructive that would benefit the school and the kids. (Risky, but depending on the kids, could yield some great things.)
- require computers to be checked in and out. Loss of home, recess priviliges. (easy, not too risky, probably effective, given the other kids free use of the machines and the extra hassle imposed on those not willing to play ball.)
Our schools are supposed to be building future citizens, one young person at a time. If kids are to learn by example, and some of them end up being leaders, I fear for the state of the nation when the seeds sowed today bloom later on.
The lack of foresight and inability to properly address the matter in a way that avoids escalation and power struggles tells me a lot about how this particular school does things. And they get poor marks, IMHO.
with kids.
You will lose. Any sane parent knows this. The educators, with their specialized training totally should know this. As a father I know this.
The policy should reflect the reality of computing today; namely, that any access control methods can and will be circumvented by those willing to do so. Period, end of story. There is very little the school could do to prevent this kind of thing, so why bother?
Either the kids play ball, or they don't get their own computer. Have a lab room setup for those not willing to agree to the terms of use and those that think they are willing, but end up on the wrong side of the rules.
Charging these kids with a felony crime is just wrong. It's going to affect their future far more than it helps the school keep control. I've a feeling this school is one of these zero tolerance, power tripping schools that does more actual harm than good.
So, they could have just taken the computers, booted the kids, put them on an alternative learning track, etc.... But, continuing to escalate the issue the way they did invited trouble, was counter productive, and could easily be considered rather draconian. --> "Lets make examples of a few of them to keep the others in line". Yeah, like I want my teen going to a school like that.
In the schools defense, the law has taken away a lot of their power these days. The school staff is sharply limited in what they can actually do without going to the courts. (Which makes a keen understanding of the whole power struggle thing all the more important!) When I went to HS, in the 80's, principles could still actually make kids *do* things. Breaking up fights, for example, often meant the principle stepping in there, grabbing some kids, and sorting things out. He was never in the office, walked around the school and kept order.
Things are far different today where even touching kids can get educators in trouble.
There is a fine line being crossed with the whole kids rights thing. In terms of things like expression, we should be yielding to the kids. However, in terms of behavior, we should let the schools do a bit more than they currently are, if we are to avoid the courts for teen struggles.
Also, where the fuck are the parents in this whole thing? If this were my kid, I would quite honestly start working that school and legal system over until the problem was corrected. I'm all for kids towing the line, but it's a two way street. If the school creates an environment for failure, (which they clearly have), the punishment for that failure needs to serve some greater end. (Which it clearly doesn't.)
This whole mess is a crock. Anyone, who has parented teens, who possesses just a bit of common sense would have been able to defuse this issue and move on. My gut says this whole small town is fucked up.
All depends on what's in the tags, if it's patented, documented, etc....
If they provide *all* information necessary to read / write the document without having to license said information, ok. If not, same story different technology packaging...
However, adopting that standard and support it would go a long way toward the greater adoption of something we can all use to exchange documents.
As it stands right now, OOO bends over backward to provide interoperability with the latest MSO formats and gets nothing in return. Given the touchy nature of the MSO formats, returning the favor in like kind might bring an advantage to both sides. Having recently used OOO to open a mangled MSWord document, I think there is some room to give in this area.
Standards.
OSS does equal Open Standards --always. If one has the source code, the data encoding is open. May not be legal to use, but it is open.
By contrast, Microsoft can equal Open Standards if they want to.
His answer is a little bit of a weasel there. They really want to downplay that, IMHO. Case in point: Where is Office support for OOO document formats?
Nice firm keys and a great clickety-click sound. ..and there is always the Northgate Omnikey 102.
I've always wanted to do that!
Have personal experience? Does it go through?
How exactly is this different from a bunch of people just filling out bogus information?
Answer: It isn't.
If a significant percentage of us, just did this, the spammers would be hurt by rising costs and sharply reduced product value proposition. (leads)
This company is just making that easier.
No harm, no foul.
Unless you are the spammer making money off of shared resources without giving anything back that is...
I hope this works and it catches on. I would use this service in a minute.
Want to cut down your junk mail? Spend a few days each month filling their postage paid envelopes with their competetors offers and other interesting bits you can stuff in there. For those little card things, fill 'em out with crap.
People have done this for years and this spam service is no different than hiring somebody to send crap data for you.
Although that's reason enough for me, consider times of extreme emergency. It's awful nice to have a supply of well equipped radio geeks handy.
Your actions, in that case, caused me to think a little deeper about this issue.
I've always been in your camp where DRM is concerned. However, I understand some subtle thing I'm not sure I did before.
Let me know if I have this right, because it's important:
In a world of interconnected people and computers, information flows more or less freely. It has to if the whole thing is going to actually be able to do anything of value to us.
I've got a work in the hopper right now. I think I'm going to do what you are doing, if I am lucky enough to see publication. I'm going to do it, not only because its the right thing to do, but its also the thing that makes the most sense.
In that world, you don't mind if your works are read by people you don't know because through them they can come to know you. For an author, that's a good thing all around. (As a budding author, I hope I can see similar success someday.) However, what you don't want is others making money from your work without your due compensation. Nobody works for free.
Your act was interesting in that the motivation for it is not obvious, I believe, to ordinary people at first glance. (I'm a geek, but I think I am ordinary for the most part.)
The media companies want to protect their ability to make money. They do this by using rule of law to deny others the ability to profit from their "works". However their actions come at a significant negative cost both financially and socially. This is why they have a dim view of "pirates" because they represent not only lost oppertunity costs but real expense costs as well.
However, you showed that you can still deny others the right to profit from your works while at the same time gain where they currently lose.
If the scanned text is officially available, why bother to get it from somewhere else? That's a very subtle way to compete with free and I am almost completely sure the big corps just don't get that. (Perhaps they will someday before we all lose our ability to compute freely.)
Not only is it good competition, but it's a bonus in that you have a chance to advocate your beliefs to them and suggest other works and express yourself personally all while denying the freeloaders their means to profit.
That's a world I can live in far easier than a one filled with draconian laws that make me feel dirty and used.
You are spot on where learning curve is concerned.
I took this and wrote the little breakout clone in a few hours. Prior to that, working in assembly got me a few blocks on the screen...
Assembly takes a lot of time. (Something I don't have.) This doesn't and was a lot of fun.
I recorded my old bell telephone for a ring tone. I get more requests for that than anything else media related.
And I don't honor a single one because it's my tone dammit, get your own tone.
...have clear limitations in computing.
One could argue we have fewer limitations today, on the other hand the possible tasks are that much greater. To me, this factors out the nature of the platform. Programming is programming, but is it art?
I say it is because the limitations create the illusion of beauty and that, to me, is the essence of art.
Going back to the 8bitters for a moment:
On those machines, many limitations were present, yet we saw people do amazing things on them despite the obstacles. Of all the things I learned to appreciate, well crafted machine-language programs that used the hardware in unique ways to achieve a goal moved me most. --They still do.
Was just reading something about Jef Minter programming the old Atari Jaguar. He was told off for using the chips backwards. The designers intent was flawed, crippling the machine. Jef "painted" his game on the canvas he had and the result was as beautiful as it was technically wrong. I still get that game out and play, totally immersed, to get my "fix" from time to time as we all sometimes do.
Isn't that an awful lot like visiting a gallery to re-experience a painting or scupture that moves you?
Finally, it must be said that programming is simply a means of expression. How one chooses to express themselves determines the artistic value of the expression, not the medium. The author of this piece really does not address that well, IMHO.
I personally hate them, but their software is powerful and considered major CAD software.
The mainstream vendors, (Solidworks, Solid Edge, Inventor, et al.) are all married to the win32 API. For them, it will be a good long while just like Microsoft likes it.
However the big three, Dassaut, PTC, UGS all run on UNIX today, with one PTC Linux port. The others all claim too many support issues. (copout, support one distro and let your users sort it out.)
It's coming, but slowly.