This was a business decision, and a tough one at that. You don't have the supply to meet the demand, not because of your own problems, but because of your supplier's (Motorola, Taiwan, etc.) problems. WHAT DO YOU DO?
Either you say "whoops, we messed up, let's try again", or you lie and say "no problems, we'll just be a little late". Apple chose the first option.
Am I happy about the situation? No. I don't think Apple is either. I don't like the price swap either, but how do you re-structure a product line such that it doesn't compete with the iMacs? A 350 MHZ G4 == $1599. A 350 MhZ G3 iMac == $999. Price the G4 any lower and they cut into iMac sales.
You assume too much. I've been professionally programming Java since 1996. Of course, it's so easy to write someone off by just saying "feh! Amateurs..." instead of actually arguing the points.
I defend Java's portability because I use it every day. One of my first projects was maintaining an applicaiton on Mac, Linux and Windows.
It was using AWT on Java 1.0.2. Yes, _programming_ in AWT 1.0 was annoying, and I'd much rather use the 1.1 event model, but this application needed to run on all web browsers, from Netscape 2.0 up.
It worked well, in the end. AND I NEVER HAD TO TWEAK IT for Mac or UNIX. Just for the different web browser VM's. Netscape reallllly has bugs in their VMs. BUT, even that wasn't a WHOLE lot of work - maybe a few days.
So, Java is NOT 100% portable. But it *IS* way more portable than anything else out there. Which was my original point.
I think you're extremely mistaken with regards to getting Java to work on multiple platforms.
No it's not just a "drop it in" change. Especially when dealing with a GUI, you have to tweak between platforms.
But don't pull that crap on me that its easier to code a GUI in C and port it to Windows/Mac and UNIX easily. None of these GUI's have a common toolkit. End of story.
Without a GUI, on a server-side app, there really shouldn't be a need to do any tweaking issues.
Java isn't the perfect solution to right once anywhere, but it certainly is the best solution available.
As an Apple customer, this seems more to me as a big misunderstanding of what is a sound business decision.
The didn't want G4 upgrade companies getting the jump on them. Now, they're fixing it.
Apple has made decisions like this before - the difference NOW is that they actually listen when there's an uproar. There was a similar problem with the pricing for AppleShare IP's 6.2 upgrade - it was way too expensive. People yelled, apple listened - it is now a free download for 6.1 users.
Apple ain't perfect - licencing for OpenStep on windows is still in the air, WebObjects' pricing is very skewed to the high-end, they killed the Newton, etc. But, I do think that lately they have displayed more pluses than minuses.
I donno about Alec Guiness. good actor, but wow, he's been on a personal crusade for the last several years to let everyone know how much he dislikes Star Wars.
He does have an excellent point - obsession over a story is a dangerous thing. Watching a movie 100 times at such a YOUNG age is ridiculous... I think he gave the kid good advice.
Alec Guiness seems to feel that Star Wars is destructive for youth (according to an old interview I read with him). I disagree here. Almost all fantasies are constructive, especially for young people. The mind grows through play & imagination. Star Wars has opened the imaginations of many kids, and inspired many of us......Even though it unfortunately honed us on the art of cheesy dialogue and Way Too Simple Action Movie Plotlines (tm).:) [Tangent: Looking at the original Star Wars, it was *JUST AS BAD* as TPM plot-wise... but we had never seen ANYTHING like Star Wars before it came out, so it was such a novelty. Now, 22 years later, our taste for involved plots & good dialogue has risen... Apparently, Lucas' hasn't.:) Hopefully Carrie Fisher will bring a nice touch to the 2nd movie when she ghost writes the dialogue for several characters.]
What I *don't* like about this article is the way it throws in Liam Neeson's decision to quit acting and David Prowse's complaints in order to paint a "dirtier" picture. Journalistic FUD at its best. Neeson's decision has little to do with Lucas' specific treatment of him (I read that Redbook article), and if Prowse's story sounds way too left-field.. (a "black" voice? Why did you wait 2 decades to bring this up?)
This may be too personal a question, but I'm going to ask it anyway:
Why are you cynical, disenchanted and jaded? Why, for that matter, are so many people, especially on Slashdot ? Is this just a technology industry thing?
I have a hard time understanding the deep seated bitterness that underlies many people's attitudes. Perhaps I'm just too much of an optimist.
Sometimes I wonder if the "open source community" is so full of themselves that they think *all* people who have an interest in seeing free source code are a part of their movement.
Hogwash.
I recall Bruce Perens waving his torch around the JINI mailing list over a year ago, raising hairs over how Sun "didn't even try" to make their community source licence OSI Open Source (tm) compliant.
Here's a free clue: They don't care. Here's another free clue: The people Sun are targetting don't care.
Sun is releasing its source because it benefits its customers. Its customers want the source because it helps them get their job done. These customers, I think it is safe to say, know little of the linux community or the FSF. They just want to see source code. I think it's also safe to say that Sun releasing this source code is VERY helpful to many developers, especially the growing community of Java & Solaris developers.
These licence squabbles are secondary to the basic economic reason for releasing source code: for certain kinds of software, the cost of protecting your "intellectual property", i.e. source code, is greater than the benefits gained from releasing it.
This bickering over non OSI-compliant licences is important, but there is a price. It angers people in other communities who BENEFIT from any form of source code release, OSI-compliant or not. Continued bitching carries the risk of isolating this community from the rest of the world. "Let the mountain come to you" isn't the most effective strategy.
With Sun, It's not worth it. Save your breath, and your energy. Try coding an app or something..
Dude, are you such a blind fan that you refuse to look at this objectively?
A company adopting Linux is usually a good thing. I like the fact that SGI has done this - they're great Linux supporters, and I wish them all the success in the world.
I like SGI as a company too. I still remember the days that I'd drool over their servers & workstations.
However, I am DISAPPOINTED with SGI as a company. They have failed to market their innovative products, they have failed to attract new followers. They are in -maintenance mode-, not -growth mode-. That's a bad sign.
Adopting Linux, though objectively a great move, is also a dangerous and somewhat embarrasing move. This is a company that has already passed through a bandwagon with Windows NT. Now they're jumping onto another one.
There is a *pattern* of failing companies adopting a bandwagon technology and taking the stance that "XXX will save us!". Intergraph did this with Windows NT - and it worked - for a while. They're losing LESS money, but they're still losing money:)
Amiga Inc. has tried for years to re-release the Amiga. QNX couldn't help it (even though it is a gorgeously designed OS), but now supposedly Linux (and every other industry buzz word: Jini, Java, etc.) can.
Corel has done this FOUR TIMES now - first with Windows 95, then with WordPerfect, then with Java, now with Linux. Each time they got burned, and Michael Cowpland got bitter. That man sure has balls, but I really hope he hits a home run soon, because it ain't going to do Linux any good if he fails, and it ain't going to help the Canadian technology industry.
All of these technologies are GREAT technologies (yes, even Java). But using them to SAVE YOUR COMPANY is a fool's journey. A solid business theory combined with a model to implement that theory is what works. Technology for technology's sake doesn't make profits, and an unprofitable company does very little to help our society in the long run.
So please, understand my position. SGI jumping on Linux doesn't seem like a re-invigorated company looking to impress us - it looks like a tired & frightened company, drowning in raging rapids, looking to hold onto the last branch before the waterfall. Surely this is exagerrated (their financials aren't THAT bad), but perception rarely reflects reality. Deal with it.
This is very much some misunderstanding of how Java has evolved since 1995. Java the language hasn't changed very much since 1.0. The core libraries available in 1.0 haven't really changed, either. The major changes involved the GUI - the switch to the 1.1 event model, and then the addition of Swing. Neither of these "break" 1.0 event model code. Typically what has happened is that more libraries have been ADDED, with none really removed.
A lot of OO veterens are hailing the advent of Java interfaces as very important to language evolution. C++ does support them through multiple-inheritance + pure virtual classes, but it's not explicit enough.
Smalltalk developers probably would disagree with you on your last point - deep class hierarchies are fundamentally BAD OO design - but that doesn't mean you should focus on "object based" design.
Polymorphic behaviour is the key feature that OO provides and both Java & Smalltalk have a great way of providing flexibility through polymorphism: Smalltalk through weak typing, Java through interfaces.
I should have listened to my gut instinct when Belluzo joined, but I didn't.
About a year ago, I was on a flight to San Fransisco... I was sitting next to an SGI employee, and we chatted about Belluzo & the "new SGI". I expressed my concern that "jumping on NT" was quite a risky strategy, and even though hundreds of IT shops around the country run by pointy-hairs seem to successfully run their departments by that strategy, I'm not quite sure that a technology industry leader should.
He reassured me that "Belluzzo is great, morale is up and SGI will kick ass."
Unfortunately, NT flopped, and Belluzzo with it. Their only hope now is their Linux intiative, which frankly seems even more desperate than the NT initiative.
I wish I understood SGI's culture better, because I can't see why this bandwagonism is so rampant. I really liked SGI before, and I still have a soft spot in my heart for them, but this is just ridiculous. They already have good products that have been GATHERING DUST for the last 3 years. I haven't seen a major innovation since the O2, Origin and Octane in 1996. The NT Workstation was nice, but too little too late. They made plans (and then scrapped them) for next-generation MIPS chip designs that would effectively make great strides in the data transfer bandwidth of microprocessors - far beyond anything that Intel or Sun would be offering before 2003.
The Origin 2000 is a kick ass ccNUMA architecture and one of the fastest clusters going.. why not improve on it and find better ways to gain market acceptance?
Why not pull a trick out of Apple's bag? That is, stick to what you know best - creating innovative, different and powerful products, while optimizing operational expenses so you can drive the prices down. Beat yourself at YOUR OWN GAME.
Correct me if I misunderstood you Rob, but, I didn't really like that snipe at vision.
I'm frankly very disappointed that you're mocking "vision". People do care about vision. Sun's "The network is the computer" is a great vision and very inspiring if you think about its implications. So what if it comes from a corporation? It's still an attempt at moving towards a goal other than making shareholders rich.
Sure, vision is a misused concept, but it is one of the key factors that differentiate people that make a difference vs. people who just complain. The reason most vision statements SUCK is because most managers don't have an ounce of vision or leadership in their bones.
On the other hand, companies like Sun *do* have leaders like Bill Joy that have had widespread technological influence. Other visionaries are people like Alan Kay, Don Norman, Doug Englebart, and Steve Wozniak.
Who would you rather listen to, a visionary with a cool idea, or a cynic who just complains about stuff? Or do you just not want to listen to people with decent ideas just because they're part of an "Evil (tm) Corporation"?
Leaders with vision try to "do the right thing", and are continually learning what the right thing is. People without vision often do the wrong thing well.
The problem here is that from a technologists' view, the GOAL is to get new ideas/technologies OUT THERE. From a business' point of view, the GOAL is to PERFORM economically by offering value to potential customers.
Sometimes that goal is indirectly achieved by destroying competitors. This tends to be very effective in the short-run, but is harder to sustain in the long run as you're effectively limiting consumer choice. [which, ahem, I think the DOJ noticed...]
In any case, the key principle for business is to be "market-focused". If two technologies are near-identical in the *VALUE* they provide to users, then there is a moral business case to put one of those technologies to rest.
In Firefly's case, they are, I believe, using some of firefly's technology in their own Passport site. The technology lives on, the business gets to remove one extra layer of indirection from the market.
I used to love SGI, but things just have gotten sadder & sadder with them...
Strategy: We have over-priced servers & workstations.
Solution: Oust the CEO, bring in Windows NT.
Problem: NT doesn't sell & we still have IRIX servers.
Solution: Bring in Linux, drop MIPS, and use Merced.
Doesn't this seem like a "XXX will save us!" panacea strategy? I'm really glad this means one less UNIX thread, and I hope some of IRIX's innovations are incorporated into Linux (such as their accelerated X server). I really do want to see kick-ass Linux FX workstations too.
BUT, Linux is just an operating system. It can't cure a sick company by itself. Execution is what counts.
Try Extreme Programming... a very light process that encourages coding, testing, refactoring and communication. Suited mainly to object-oriented apps (i.e. user level vs. system level).
This is my 3rd time over working as a temporary worker in the U.S. I had to wait 10-15 minutes at the border for the official to sign my VISA, but that's about it. I'm on a student J1 visa.
If you have a degree or relevant expereince as a Canadian, the TN-1 VISA works wonders.
Me thinks you just didn't go through the right channels. A year wait is wait too long - even an H1B only takes 4 months.
NAS, last I checked, was used on some of the higher-reliablity & performance sites on the 'net, like E*Trade & Travelocity. The perception of NAS is widely that it is "not perfect, but the best thing so far" from a performance & reliability perspective.
Your thoughts? I personally am more partial to GemStone/J (which JUST got decent web integration) and WebObjects. The latter still leads the marketshare race, but with EJB standarization across the board, including on NAS, it's going to be interesting to see if this changes.
If you read the book "Principles of Transaction Processing", co-written by a Microsoft employee, you'll notice one chapter dedicated to the future of transaction servers.
They WANT business servers to become commidities. They want message queues, tp monitors, ORB's, web servers, app servers and file/print sharing to be all rolled into ONE commodity product: Windows NT.
SQL Server is also a commodity: witness Windows 2000 Data Server edition.
Microsoft has always been about selling in volume to drown competitors in a sea of dirt-cheap prices. Getting to that level requires a commoditization of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Stephen R. Donaldson's the GAP cycle is freakin' good SF. Bleak SF, but that's just Donaldson's style.
It is a bit formulaic in that it is based upon Norse legend in its story structure, but, still very entertaining.
This was a business decision, and a tough one at that. You don't have the supply to meet the demand, not because of your own problems, but because of your supplier's (Motorola, Taiwan, etc.) problems. WHAT DO YOU DO?
Either you say "whoops, we messed up, let's try again", or you lie and say "no problems, we'll just be a little late". Apple chose the first option.
Am I happy about the situation? No. I don't think Apple is either. I don't like the price swap either, but how do you re-structure a product line such that it doesn't compete with the iMacs? A 350 MHZ G4 == $1599. A 350 MhZ G3 iMac == $999. Price the G4 any lower and they cut into iMac sales.
Decisions like these are rarely cut & dry....
Tcl/TK and Perl/Tk have my utmost respect.
I think Swing is a little more rich, though.... but sometimes you just don't need that level of richness.
You assume too much. I've been professionally programming Java since 1996. Of course, it's so easy to write someone off by just saying "feh! Amateurs..." instead of actually arguing the points.
I defend Java's portability because I use it every day. One of my first projects was maintaining an applicaiton on Mac, Linux and Windows.
It was using AWT on Java 1.0.2. Yes, _programming_ in AWT 1.0 was annoying, and I'd much rather use the 1.1 event model, but this application needed to run on all web browsers, from Netscape 2.0 up.
It worked well, in the end. AND I NEVER HAD TO TWEAK IT for Mac or UNIX. Just for the different web browser VM's. Netscape reallllly has bugs in their VMs. BUT, even that wasn't a WHOLE lot of work - maybe a few days.
So, Java is NOT 100% portable. But it *IS* way more portable than anything else out there. Which was my original point.
I think you're extremely mistaken with regards to getting Java to work on multiple platforms.
No it's not just a "drop it in" change. Especially when dealing with a GUI, you have to tweak between platforms.
But don't pull that crap on me that its easier to code a GUI in C and port it to Windows/Mac and UNIX easily. None of these GUI's have a common toolkit. End of story.
Without a GUI, on a server-side app, there really shouldn't be a need to do any tweaking issues.
Java isn't the perfect solution to right once anywhere, but it certainly is the best solution available.
It's my birthday today.. and these
Was born in 77
Today I'm turning 22, on 9-9-99.
Heh.
As an Apple customer, this seems more to me as a big misunderstanding of what is a sound business decision.
The didn't want G4 upgrade companies getting the jump on them. Now, they're fixing it.
Apple has made decisions like this before - the difference NOW is that they actually listen when there's an uproar. There was a similar problem with the pricing for AppleShare IP's 6.2 upgrade - it was way too expensive. People yelled, apple listened - it is now a free download for 6.1 users.
Apple ain't perfect - licencing for OpenStep on windows is still in the air, WebObjects' pricing is very skewed to the high-end, they killed the Newton, etc. But, I do think that lately they have displayed more pluses than minuses.
I donno about Alec Guiness. good actor, but wow, he's been on a personal crusade for the last several years to let everyone know how much he dislikes Star Wars.
...Even though it unfortunately honed us on the art of cheesy dialogue and Way Too Simple Action Movie Plotlines (tm). :)
:) Hopefully Carrie Fisher will bring a nice touch to the 2nd movie when she ghost writes the dialogue for several characters.]
He does have an excellent point - obsession over a story is a dangerous thing. Watching a movie 100 times at such a YOUNG age is ridiculous... I think he gave the kid good advice.
Alec Guiness seems to feel that Star Wars is destructive for youth (according to an old interview I read with him). I disagree here. Almost all fantasies are constructive, especially for young people. The mind grows through play & imagination. Star Wars has opened the imaginations of many kids, and inspired many of us...
[Tangent:
Looking at the original Star Wars, it was *JUST AS BAD* as TPM plot-wise... but we had never seen ANYTHING like Star Wars before it came out, so it was such a novelty. Now, 22 years later, our taste for involved plots & good dialogue has risen... Apparently, Lucas' hasn't.
What I *don't* like about this article is the way it throws in Liam Neeson's decision to quit acting and David Prowse's complaints in order to paint a "dirtier" picture. Journalistic FUD at its best. Neeson's decision has little to do with Lucas' specific treatment of him (I read that Redbook article), and if Prowse's story sounds way too left-field.. (a "black" voice? Why did you wait 2 decades to bring this up?)
This may be too personal a question, but I'm going to ask it anyway:
Why are you cynical, disenchanted and jaded?
Why, for that matter, are so many people, especially on Slashdot ?
Is this just a technology industry thing?
I have a hard time understanding the deep seated bitterness that underlies many people's attitudes. Perhaps I'm just too much of an optimist.
Sometimes I wonder if the "open source community" is so full of themselves that they think *all* people who have an interest in seeing free source code are a part of their movement.
Hogwash.
I recall Bruce Perens waving his torch around the JINI mailing list over a year ago, raising hairs over how Sun "didn't even try" to make their community source licence OSI Open Source (tm) compliant.
Here's a free clue: They don't care.
Here's another free clue: The people Sun are targetting don't care.
Sun is releasing its source because it benefits its customers. Its customers want the source because it helps them get their job done. These customers, I think it is safe to say, know little of the linux community or the FSF. They just want to see source code. I think it's also safe to say that Sun releasing this source code is VERY helpful to many developers, especially the growing community of Java & Solaris developers.
These licence squabbles are secondary to the basic economic reason for releasing source code: for certain kinds of software, the cost of protecting your "intellectual property", i.e. source code, is greater than the benefits gained from releasing it.
This bickering over non OSI-compliant licences is important, but there is a price. It angers people in other communities who BENEFIT from any form of source code release, OSI-compliant or not. Continued bitching carries the risk of isolating this community from the rest of the world. "Let the mountain come to you" isn't the most effective strategy.
With Sun, It's not worth it. Save your breath, and your energy. Try coding an app or something..
Dude, are you such a blind fan that you refuse to look at this objectively?
:)
A company adopting Linux is usually a good thing. I like the fact that SGI has done this - they're great Linux supporters, and I wish them all the success in the world.
I like SGI as a company too. I still remember the days that I'd drool over their servers & workstations.
However, I am DISAPPOINTED with SGI as a company. They have failed to market their innovative products, they have failed to attract new followers. They are in -maintenance mode-, not -growth mode-. That's a bad sign.
Adopting Linux, though objectively a great move, is also a dangerous and somewhat embarrasing move. This is a company that has already passed through a bandwagon with Windows NT. Now they're jumping onto another one.
There is a *pattern* of failing companies adopting a bandwagon technology and taking the stance that "XXX will save us!". Intergraph did this with Windows NT - and it worked - for a while. They're losing LESS money, but they're still losing money
Amiga Inc. has tried for years to re-release the Amiga. QNX couldn't help it (even though it is a gorgeously designed OS), but now supposedly Linux (and every other industry buzz word: Jini, Java, etc.) can.
Corel has done this FOUR TIMES now - first with Windows 95, then with WordPerfect, then with Java, now with Linux. Each time they got burned, and Michael Cowpland got bitter. That man sure has balls, but I really hope he hits a home run soon, because it ain't going to do Linux any good if he fails, and it ain't going to help the Canadian technology industry.
All of these technologies are GREAT technologies (yes, even Java). But using them to SAVE YOUR COMPANY is a fool's journey. A solid business theory combined with a model to implement that theory is what works. Technology for technology's sake doesn't make profits, and an unprofitable company does very little to help our society in the long run.
So please, understand my position. SGI jumping on Linux doesn't seem like a re-invigorated company looking to impress us - it looks like a tired & frightened company, drowning in raging rapids, looking to hold onto the last branch before the waterfall. Surely this is exagerrated (their financials aren't THAT bad), but perception rarely reflects reality. Deal with it.
a pattern that AppKit implements very well, I might add.
Did you know that many large systems, including banks & power grids & embedded devices, are running under Smalltalk?
This also goes for Java. It was good enough for VISA international's smartcard system.
This is very much some misunderstanding of how Java has evolved since 1995. Java the language hasn't changed very much since 1.0. The core libraries available in 1.0 haven't really changed, either. The major changes involved the GUI - the switch to the 1.1 event model, and then the addition of Swing. Neither of these "break" 1.0 event model code. Typically what has happened is that more libraries have been ADDED, with none really removed.
A lot of OO veterens are hailing the advent of Java interfaces as very important to language evolution. C++ does support them through multiple-inheritance + pure virtual classes, but it's not explicit enough.
Smalltalk developers probably would disagree with you on your last point - deep class hierarchies are fundamentally BAD OO design - but that doesn't mean you should focus on "object based" design.
Polymorphic behaviour is the key feature that OO provides and both Java & Smalltalk have a great way of providing flexibility through polymorphism: Smalltalk through weak typing, Java through interfaces.
I should have listened to my gut instinct when Belluzo joined, but I didn't.
About a year ago, I was on a flight to San Fransisco... I was sitting next to an SGI employee, and we chatted about Belluzo & the "new SGI". I expressed my concern that "jumping on NT" was quite a risky strategy, and even though hundreds of IT shops around the country run by pointy-hairs seem to successfully run their departments by that strategy, I'm not quite sure that a technology industry leader should.
He reassured me that "Belluzzo is great, morale is up and SGI will kick ass."
Unfortunately, NT flopped, and Belluzzo with it. Their only hope now is their Linux intiative, which frankly seems even more desperate than the NT initiative.
I wish I understood SGI's culture better, because I can't see why this bandwagonism is so rampant. I really liked SGI before, and I still have a soft spot in my heart for them, but this is just ridiculous. They already have good products that have been GATHERING DUST for the last 3 years. I haven't seen a major innovation since the O2, Origin and Octane in 1996. The NT Workstation was nice, but too little too late. They made plans (and then scrapped them) for next-generation MIPS chip designs that would effectively make great strides in the data transfer bandwidth of microprocessors - far beyond anything that Intel or Sun would be offering before 2003.
The Origin 2000 is a kick ass ccNUMA architecture and one of the fastest clusters going.. why not improve on it and find better ways to gain market acceptance?
Why not pull a trick out of Apple's bag? That is, stick to what you know best - creating innovative, different and powerful products, while optimizing operational expenses so you can drive the prices down. Beat yourself at YOUR OWN GAME.
The clock is ticking...
Correct me if I misunderstood you Rob, but, I didn't really like that snipe at vision.
I'm frankly very disappointed that you're mocking "vision". People do care about vision. Sun's "The network is the computer" is a great vision and very inspiring if you think about its implications. So what if it comes from a corporation? It's still an attempt at moving towards a goal other than making shareholders rich.
Sure, vision is a misused concept, but it is one of the key factors that differentiate people that make a difference vs. people who just complain. The reason most vision statements SUCK is because most managers don't have an ounce of vision or leadership in their bones.
On the other hand, companies like Sun *do* have leaders like Bill Joy that have had widespread technological influence. Other visionaries are people like Alan Kay, Don Norman, Doug Englebart, and Steve Wozniak.
Who would you rather listen to, a visionary with a cool idea, or a cynic who just complains about stuff? Or do you just not want to listen to people with decent ideas just because they're part of an "Evil (tm) Corporation"?
Leaders with vision try to "do the right thing", and are continually learning what the right thing is. People without vision often do the wrong thing well.
The problem here is that from a technologists' view, the GOAL is to get new ideas/technologies OUT THERE. From a business' point of view, the GOAL is to PERFORM economically by offering value to potential customers.
Sometimes that goal is indirectly achieved by destroying competitors. This tends to be very effective in the short-run, but is harder to sustain in the long run as you're effectively limiting consumer choice. [which, ahem, I think the DOJ noticed...]
In any case, the key principle for business is to be "market-focused". If two technologies are near-identical in the *VALUE* they provide to users, then there is a moral business case to put one of those technologies to rest.
In Firefly's case, they are, I believe, using some of firefly's technology in their own Passport site. The technology lives on, the business gets to remove one extra layer of indirection from the market.
This was probably the "right" decision.
I used to love SGI, but things just have gotten sadder & sadder with them ...
Strategy: We have over-priced servers & workstations.
Solution: Oust the CEO, bring in Windows NT.
Problem: NT doesn't sell & we still have IRIX servers.
Solution: Bring in Linux, drop MIPS, and use Merced.
Doesn't this seem like a "XXX will save us!" panacea strategy? I'm really glad this means one less UNIX thread, and I hope some of IRIX's innovations are incorporated into Linux (such as their accelerated X server). I really do want to see kick-ass Linux FX workstations too.
BUT, Linux is just an operating system. It can't cure a sick company by itself. Execution is what counts.
Free GUINNESS? Oh geez, why do you have to do this to me, I have deadlines to attend to... :)
:)
anyhow, it should be a cool/interesting time. Cool because there's beer. Interesting because it's a room full of drunk geeks.
Try Extreme Programming ... a very light process that encourages coding, testing, refactoring and communication. Suited mainly to object-oriented apps (i.e. user level vs. system level).
This is my 3rd time over working as a temporary worker in the U.S. I had to wait 10-15 minutes at the border for the official to sign my VISA, but that's about it. I'm on a student J1 visa.
If you have a degree or relevant expereince as a Canadian, the TN-1 VISA works wonders.
Me thinks you just didn't go through the right channels. A year wait is wait too long - even an H1B only takes 4 months.
NAS, last I checked, was used on some of the higher-reliablity & performance sites on the 'net, like E*Trade & Travelocity. The perception of NAS is widely that it is "not perfect, but the best thing so far" from a performance & reliability perspective.
Your thoughts? I personally am more partial to GemStone/J (which JUST got decent web integration) and WebObjects. The latter still leads the marketshare race, but with EJB standarization across the board, including on NAS, it's going to be interesting to see if this changes.
If you read the book "Principles of Transaction Processing", co-written by a Microsoft employee, you'll notice one chapter dedicated to the future of transaction servers.
They WANT business servers to become commidities. They want message queues, tp monitors, ORB's, web servers, app servers and file/print sharing to be all rolled into ONE commodity product: Windows NT.
SQL Server is also a commodity: witness Windows 2000 Data Server edition.
Microsoft has always been about selling in volume to drown competitors in a sea of dirt-cheap prices. Getting to that level requires a commoditization of the market.