While faith as defined by most Christians may include an element of "evidence," this in no wise indicates that the evidence constitutes rational proof.
Therefore, to have faith is not to know perfectly that a thing is true.
People who understand this realize that they _don't_ know. They believe it, they hope it, desire it; but they are aware that it isn't the same thing as having a perfect knowledge of it in the way they may "know" other things.
Scientists say "I don't know," theists say "I have faith." What is the difference?
Faith helps some people to see possibilities. It helps them decide to do certain things. It's a direction given to "I don't know." Problem is, some people's faith is never fulfilled, but they're afraid to change what they believe. Science has this problem as much as any church I've seen.
I would argue that Corel has the Java experience that you claim. They have laid off almost everyone who worked on the original WP office suite and Java implementation.
What is it missing besides CDE and Motif? It's tough to be 100% compliant with an open system when there are proprietary pieces in the "standard." Now that they are opening up a bit, we'll see.
What other Posix requirements are missing from Linux? Maybe I'm just out of touch.
I'm not too familiar with the benefits of multi-tier development, but I understand that one of the principle benefits is the ability to distribute the computing of the middle tier by using COM or CORBA.
For this to be most effective, it seems that the best practice would be to remove Stored Procedures and business logic off of the back end and out of the server scripts. This logic would migrate into the middle tier, which could be easily distributed using the mechanisms available to CORBA or COM.
I've read several recommendations already about using Java and jsp, and also an interesting comment about CORBA bindings for PHP. That was kind of what I was looking for: a good Open Source solution for a distributed middle tier using CORBA.
I agree with one comment that it is quite a bit easier integrating this sort of thing with the Microsoft tools, but I'm pleased that at least there are ways of doing it on Linux too.
Again, my main intent with the tiers isn't so much with abstracting the project as it is with distributing it.
I'll have to look into Enhydra and jsp as well as the CORBA bindings for PHP.
I'm one of those IT workers that skipped college. After five years of experience, I am making a decent living.
At a previous job I was responsible for managing the IT staff. I had six programmers, most of which I hired personally. Two of them had four-year college degrees, the others were only certified, or had nothing. I personally have taken no courses or certifications. I have worked with other programmers who have completed degrees in CS.
I can honestly say that the workers who had degrees were, on average, much more competent than those who did not study formally. Those who had certifications were generally not as good as even those who had no study at all.
The finest programmers I have known have not had degrees.
I have come to the conclusion that a degree does not necessarily indicate any level of technical aptitude, but that it is generally these people who have had the interest and have pushed themselves through college. I believe they have a better work ethic and far greater potential. If I had to do it again, I would definitely give preference to applicants who have a college degree. I also feel an urgency to complete a degree myself. In addition to years of IT experience, it can only enhance my skills and train me to think in new ways.
Certifications and lesser degrees mainly focus on the "trade" aspect of the business, which tends to be obsolete within months. These people are after the money, and are best suited for using large amounts of trendy jargon. They have to spend a lot of time and money keeping their skills up because they never learned the theory and other ideas that help them become efficient problem solvers. I wouldn't waste my money on them.
Helix might just be one if the coolest Linux things around. Maybe it will be one of the key players in making Linux a universally acceptable desktop OS.
Until that happens, though, Helix code isn't going to make much money. I know plenty of free software users who rejoice in the freedom from market-spin and consumerism that seems so abundant in the popular desktop OS of today.
Using technology used to be so simple. Now when we install a program or use a browser we have to deal with sales pitch, banner adds, gimmicks and tickers. We are presented with every possible opportunity to buy, buy, buy. Some of us just want to use our PC.
I find this akin to the various free Internet providers out there. They provide the access in hopes that the end user will eventually be interested by some of the constant ads.
Not that I think this is wrong, I just don't see the current Linux community buying it. Helix needs a new sort of Linux user before they get their millions. They need people who are more interested in using their PC as a consumer's tool rather than as an intellectual tool.
It would be good to see something along the lines of auto-insurance here. Vehicles that are statistically more dangerous or more expensive to replace get higher premiums. Safer and cheaper vehicles are cheaper to insure.
If this were applied to computer systems, it might become a market influence. It may provide incentive to some companies to improve the quality of their software if the risk for insecure products means losing business.
After reading the brief, I can see where the RIAA will try to discredit Boies' assertions:
Boies claims that the RIAA is afraid that technology like Napster will open the channel to independent artists who are not signed with the big labels. He says that the RIAA is using their limited monopoly, granted by the copyright, to guarantee control over the music market.
If what he says is truen, then this would be contrary to the purpose of the copyright to protect and proliferate art, music and literature for the benefit of society. Thus, the copyrights would be nullified. So far, this is correct.
However, Boies' difficulty will be in convincing the court of the RIAA's intent. His claim is mostly speculation, and he will need solid evidence to make it fly.
The RIAA only has to show the statistics: virtually no unsigned artists are benefitting from Napster. At least, not in comparison to the huge volume of commercial music distributed by the major labels. And Boies himself claims that only 2% of artists are signed. Therefore, by the RIAA's stats, his particular assertion about controlling the means of distribution is unfounded.
These statistics, the RIAA will suggest, indicate that most people are in fact taking advantage of Napster for getting published music without paying for it. If the statistics are big enough, they might find it easy to claim significant damages. Even Boies admits that this would be one circumstance in which Napster would find itself liable as a 3rd party, even though it isn't in direct violation of copyright.
I doubt that the "radio" arguments that I sometimes read will hold up in court; probably they won't even be attempted. Recording tunes off the radio does not even come close to the choice, convenience, quality, and completeness that Napster provides when sharing MP3s.
If those 98% of all musicians out there even made a dint in the Napster traffic, then maybe Boies' would have a good argument. Otherwise, it just looks like the primary use for Napster is not as a medium for small artists to push their stuff, but rather as a way for people to acquire quality music of their choice from the big label artists for free. Too bad for the little guys, because Napster might have really made a difference.
Rather than focusing on internal combustion engines, maybe they should apply these algorithms to other kinds of engines, like electric/solar/natural gas/etc. to see if they can come up with something smaller and more powerful. Most of these already have polution advantages.
I recently started to work at a large International Software development firm. Our client was developing a business-to-business procurement solution that was to be global in every aspect. The program would be web-enabled.
Development was to be Microsoft-centric. Coming from a strong Unix background, I decided to use whatever familiar Unix tools I could to get the job done in record time. Central to my strategy was Perl-Fu for Gimp. I would use it to automate the localization of the images in the product.
It worked fabulously until Korean came along. I abruptly learned that the Gimp is incapable of rendering multibyte fonts. I suppose I should have checked that feature before I started, but the point is that I ended up having the company buy a copy of Macromedia Fireworks and scripting the enxtensions in JavaScript on Microsoft. What a pity.
Anyway, I sure would like to see multibyte support in the Gimp someday.
I'm going to make some broad generalizations here:
- People lease cars to get a lower monthly payment - People rent because it's cheaper than mortgage - The OS is insignificant to the average computer user - Those who buy a music CD just want to listen
etc.
Most people don't realize how unfair they are being treated because the bottom line seems good:
I can lease a nicer car or buy a lesser one for the same. My sense of ownership may not be as keen as my sense of paying more money each month. And on the outside it probably seems like the same thing; I drive my car, I make a monthly payment in both situations. It's convenient. Life is good.
Maybe I don't own my computer's OS. But do I care? I probably don't even realize it. All I know is that I can use my PC for the things I think I need it for. It's convenient. Life is good.
I can't play my U.S. Made DVD in Europe? I didn't know that; never been there. Doesn't bother me. And does it bother me that only a licensed Commercial DVD player will play it on Linux? Probably not. DVDs are better than videos. Life is better now.
The MP3 limitations aren't causing me any physical pain. I can still listen to my CDs. That's better than tapes. Life is so much better.
We didn't have any of these things fifty years ago. Now those who provide the technology want to control it, and the comsumers are quite satisfied abiding by their rules. After all, they are getting more and more all the time.
The ones who complain are those on the cutting edge of things. They are frustrated because they understand how it works and can guess into the future. They have a sense of ownership because they are contributors. They don't like being kept out by a few greedy companies who would like it all to themselves.
Some people are satisfied being fed all the time. Other people can find their own food, and have discovered their tastes.
When I was a young(er) aspiring programmer, I wanted to know how to program the Roland MPU-401 MIDI interface, in intelligent mode. I wanted to do this in DOS, so of course I would be writing the driver for it myself.
This would have been impossible for me to accomplish if it had not been for a gentleman on Compuserve, who worked for a company called MusicQuest (that happened to make a compatible device).
He pointed me to where I could find a technical reference manual on the hardware, and answered the questions that I had. I was able to understand the technology in a little while and create a program that actually worked.
Moral of the story: My goal wouldn't have been achieved if someone didn't help me out.
So after you find out what your goal is, find someone who knows.
Exactly correct. What it means is that now nobody but Microsoft may use the obvious mechanism for maintaining package information on Windows systems.
I'm sure there are a multitude of other, equally obvious methods of package management. The MS Patent makes some specific points in its application:
1) The Windows Registry 2) A date 3) A database query 4) The Internet 5) A Package Server
Current PMSes can use some other form of tracking software, not the Windows registry. Similar, but different. A version number is probably prefered over the date for an upgrade. Similar, again. The patent's language pertains to the Internet, but the more general idea of a Network isn't covered by that specific piece.
How can MS enforce its patent on other ideas that are similar, yet lack the specifics in the text? I don't think they can.
Microsoft applied for the pattent in 1997, and received it in 1999.
Upon reading the text of the patent, it becomes clear that the idea of a software module package is not important. Rather, it is the idea of how a Windows system might go about upgrading components via the internet. Part of the patent mentions the Windows Registry, the Internet, and a special Package Server.
The patent is quite trivial. Any amateur programmer could probably "invent" this as a simple and obvious solution. It does not represent anything new. Remote package upgrades have been performed in numerous ways over the years, doubtless. There is no direct relation between this patent and any package management system currently available.
This is simply a patent on a process, not a technology.
There are books written on how to optimize code in general:
-Code Complete by Steve McConnell, Microsoft Press
-Writing Efficient Programs by Jon Bentley, Prentice Hall
-Flooring It: The Optimization Challenge by Michael Abrash, from PC Techniques 2, no. 6 (February/March 1992)
But code tuning can have varying results under different languages and environments. A lot of people seem to think that code optimization is unstable and difficult to maintain.
There is sometimes a difference between "efficient code" and "good code". Code may be efficient, yet hard to read and maintain.
To know what techniques are the best, a lot of experimentation is in order. It is also a good idea to become part of a community of experienced web developers, and learn from their experiences.
The greatest boost in performance I have seen in my web experience has come from using the mod_perl module for Apache, not necessarily because of anything I did in the code itself.
This librarian appears to be affraid of what might happen to the traditional library when books are available online.
Libraries have been a haven of learning throughout the centuries and there is a social status associated with them. Those who frequent libraries are often considered educated and literate. And it doesn't seem right to call someone "bookworm" who reads online, or downloads books.
Books themselves have cultural significance too. I know people who will buy fancy books to adorn their shelves, yet never read them. Having all of the classics, leatherbound, in your library says something about you.
Perhaps reading online might be considered isolating and lonely to some. I would stop short of arrogant; that is an adjective reserved for short-sighted librarians.
I am currently responsible for globalizing a web project at my company. This is the first time I have had to deal with this sort of thing, and I have learned much. Here are some tips:
1) Whether you decide to dynamically fetch strings when the page is processed, or have multiple versions of the HTML isn't as important as deciding your strategy in the first place. Make the decision and stick with it long before you start work on the actual project. Having to implement a globalization strategy for a site that has already been programmed can be difficult if not impossible. Heed the warning about separating content from code, but be sure you know how that is going to play into your strategy.
2) Language is only part of the problem. You need to consider sort order, for example, if you are presenting sorted lists. You need to consider date and time formats and also number formats. Some countries swap the comma and the decimal point, for example. If you are planning on selling something, then multiple currency support would be useful.
3) You need to support multiple code pages. It would be neat if you could just use UTF-8, except there is no widely available Unicode font that contains all the glyphs needed for some languages. It is poor globalization design to only support the latin codepage assuming that you'll never need Korean, for example.
4) Make sure you avoid colloquialisms and other culture-centric ideas on your page. Keep it simple and as icon-free as possible. Where you have icons that contain text, keep a copy with the text layer separate from any background elements. Gimp has some features that help when localizing these bitmaps. But it's best to just avoid them.
The project I am heading up contains several hundred.asp files. Rather than translating every one of these files into who knows how many languages, we are creating a string resource that can be queried by a server object. Someone recommended that you look at the GNU gettext, which I second. If you can find standards that already exist, I recommend you use them.
Someone else recommended an XML approach. Again, this is a good idea to consider.
Don't try and re-engineer some existing code to make it global. I can't emphasize that enough. Start global from the ground up. Try to find the most intuitive means of doing so.
When I started learning about developing software with GNU and using the GPL, I found myself reading quite a bit of what I would deem philosophical material. When I hear you and yours talk about why software should be free, I feel almost like I were attending some Congress of the young United States in which certain inalienable rights were drafted.
I have a been a computer enthusiast for as long as I can remember. But I haven't really paid much attention to free software until three or four years ago, and at that point "gratis" meant more to me than "free." It wasn't until very recently that I even knew that I had reason to be discontent with non-free software, or that I should value a form of freedom I had never even considered before.
How can you convince a people to acknowledge this freedom, when they don't realize they are enslaved? And what is the moral code that makes free software right? I have read some literature in favor of free software (particularly GPL software) that might also be used in defending religious practices -- in the name of freedom -- that many in this community would lambast.
It's one of a few lousy excuses for being lazy. A portable computer opens the door to many more excuses. The Internet is down. The computer won't boot. The homework got erased. The battery went dead.
The problem is, half the time it might be true.
I think a computer is a wonderful auxiliary to learning. But I don't think it should be required unless the learning is about computers.
My first exposure to computers in education was when I was in the 4th grade, in 1984. Mr. Hill thought it would be neat to let the students, 4th grade and up, try their hand at BASIC on the old Ataris. It was strictly an extra-curricular activity. It fed the minds of those students that were interested and educated many others about simple computer skills.
In the 6th grade we first had computer labs, with Commodore 64 computers. We learned LOGO programming. The class was only once a week.
Because our exposure to computers was limited and novel, they had a greater power to captivate us so that we were motivated to learn about them. It is that way with most elective type classes.
If I had grown up with a computer at my side day and night, I would have been less interested in learning about how it worked. Maybe I would have become computer literate on that machine. But I doubt I would have gained any aptitute for computers, or curiosity about them. They would be just another piece of day-to-day life.
Admittedly, this is increasingly common. Computers have also grown up quite a bit since then. I was lucky enough to grow up with them in a way. It was fairly simple for me to start up GWBASIC and write a little program when I was a child. How easily can a kid use Visual Basic to make a program that would hold his interest? Perhaps a few forms and controls are easy enough to build, but what about sprites and sounds and colors (and actually writing code)?
For me, getting homework from the web would be convenient now. Is it convenient for a kid who knows no other way? Sure, anyone can learn a lot from a computer. But if we want them to learn about computers, I think the computers need to move from the realm of the ordinary, to the realm of the extraordinary. I think kids still learn best the conventional way.
It's not that hard. I use Perl-fu and the Gimp Perl server. On the web end I use Mason. I haven't made anything so complex as what Mr. Kimball has done here, but I did make a web-enabled button maker! It came from an idea I had about localizing bitmaps on web pages. Really useful for that sort of thing, but not something you'd want to do on the fly.
Anyway, it's not that hard to implement if you know a little Script-fu or Perl-fu.
I'm sure plenty of web masters have already figured this out, and have been using the Gimp as a backend for their sites for some time now.
I admit ASP for Linux would be cool, but only if it were FREE! I mean, that's one of the big considerations when thinking seriously about a Linux solution in a business.
I went to the Chili!Soft home page and was dismayed to find a hefty $1000 pricetag on the technology (you can get it for half off right now, for Linux -- still pricey).
Well, a license for NT Server is about that price these days, and you get IIS at no cost with that license. That includes the bona-fide ASP capabilities.
So what's so great about Chili!Soft ASP?
I mean, look what you can get for Linux instead of ASP:
PHP3 PHP4 Emb_perl Mason (my fave!) Not to mention good ol' CGI and some mod_perl.
These don't cost a dime and give you all the functionality of ASP.
Chili!Soft's main claim is that, with their ASP, you can use MS dev tools to develop web sites on multiple platforms. I say pbthbthbthhthbthb to that. Is that worth a grand?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft loses the case. They get split in two.
Windows is still the dominant OS, and will be for some time. It takes time for the kind of momentum that Windows enjoys to erode.
Novell still has a dedicated customer base, but isn't gaining ground.
Folks aren't suddenly switching to Linux.
Companies can finally compete a little more evenly. An improved Netware could make gains, but Novell focuses on other technologies.
Novell fails to market themselves effectively and falls into obscurity. They rent more of their campus buildings to other companies.
Finally, they get bought out.
That's how I see it playing out.
While faith as defined by most Christians may include an element of "evidence," this in no wise indicates that the evidence constitutes rational proof.
Therefore, to have faith is not to know perfectly that a thing is true.
People who understand this realize that they _don't_ know. They believe it, they hope it, desire it; but they are aware that it isn't the same thing as having a perfect knowledge of it in the way they may "know" other things.
Scientists say "I don't know," theists say "I have faith." What is the difference?
Faith helps some people to see possibilities. It helps them decide to do certain things. It's a direction given to "I don't know." Problem is, some people's faith is never fulfilled, but they're afraid to change what they believe. Science has this problem as much as any church I've seen.
But I digress...
I would argue that Corel has the Java experience that you claim. They have laid off almost everyone who worked on the original WP office suite and Java implementation.
Not 100% POSIX compliant?
What is it missing besides CDE and Motif? It's tough to be 100% compliant with an open system when there are proprietary pieces in the "standard." Now that they are opening up a bit, we'll see.
What other Posix requirements are missing from Linux? Maybe I'm just out of touch.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not too familiar with the benefits of multi-tier development, but I understand that one of the principle benefits is the ability to distribute the computing of the middle tier by using COM or CORBA.
For this to be most effective, it seems that the best practice would be to remove Stored Procedures and business logic off of the back end and out of the server scripts. This logic would migrate into the middle tier, which could be easily distributed using the mechanisms available to CORBA or COM.
I've read several recommendations already about using Java and jsp, and also an interesting comment about CORBA bindings for PHP. That was kind of what I was looking for: a good Open Source solution for a distributed middle tier using CORBA.
I agree with one comment that it is quite a bit easier integrating this sort of thing with the Microsoft tools, but I'm pleased that at least there are ways of doing it on Linux too.
Again, my main intent with the tiers isn't so much with abstracting the project as it is with distributing it.
I'll have to look into Enhydra and jsp as well as the CORBA bindings for PHP.
I'm one of those IT workers that skipped college. After five years of experience, I am making a decent living.
At a previous job I was responsible for managing the IT staff. I had six programmers, most of which I hired personally. Two of them had four-year college degrees, the others were only certified, or had nothing. I personally have taken no courses or certifications. I have worked with other programmers who have completed degrees in CS.
I can honestly say that the workers who had degrees were, on average, much more competent than those who did not study formally. Those who had certifications were generally not as good as even those who had no study at all.
The finest programmers I have known have not had degrees.
I have come to the conclusion that a degree does not necessarily indicate any level of technical aptitude, but that it is generally these people who have had the interest and have pushed themselves through college. I believe they have a better work ethic and far greater potential. If I had to do it again, I would definitely give preference to applicants who have a college degree. I also feel an urgency to complete a degree myself. In addition to years of IT experience, it can only enhance my skills and train me to think in new ways.
Certifications and lesser degrees mainly focus on the "trade" aspect of the business, which tends to be obsolete within months. These people are after the money, and are best suited for using large amounts of trendy jargon. They have to spend a lot of time and money keeping their skills up because they never learned the theory and other ideas that help them become efficient problem solvers. I wouldn't waste my money on them.
Helix might just be one if the coolest Linux things around. Maybe it will be one of the key players in making Linux a universally acceptable desktop OS.
Until that happens, though, Helix code isn't going to make much money. I know plenty of free software users who rejoice in the freedom from market-spin and consumerism that seems so abundant in the popular desktop OS of today.
Using technology used to be so simple. Now when we install a program or use a browser we have to deal with sales pitch, banner adds, gimmicks and tickers. We are presented with every possible opportunity to buy, buy, buy. Some of us just want to use our PC.
I find this akin to the various free Internet providers out there. They provide the access in hopes that the end user will eventually be interested by some of the constant ads.
Not that I think this is wrong, I just don't see the current Linux community buying it. Helix needs a new sort of Linux user before they get their millions. They need people who are more interested in using their PC as a consumer's tool rather than as an intellectual tool.
It would be good to see something along the lines of auto-insurance here. Vehicles that are statistically more dangerous or more expensive to replace get higher premiums. Safer and cheaper vehicles are cheaper to insure.
If this were applied to computer systems, it might become a market influence. It may provide incentive to some companies to improve the quality of their software if the risk for insecure products means losing business.
After reading the brief, I can see where the RIAA will try to discredit Boies' assertions:
Boies claims that the RIAA is afraid that technology like Napster will open the channel to independent artists who are not signed with the big labels. He says that the RIAA is using their limited monopoly, granted by the copyright, to guarantee control over the music market.
If what he says is truen, then this would be contrary to the purpose of the copyright to protect and proliferate art, music and literature for the benefit of society. Thus, the copyrights would be nullified. So far, this is correct.
However, Boies' difficulty will be in convincing the court of the RIAA's intent. His claim is mostly speculation, and he will need solid evidence to make it fly.
The RIAA only has to show the statistics: virtually no unsigned artists are benefitting from Napster. At least, not in comparison to the huge volume of commercial music distributed by the major labels. And Boies himself claims that only 2% of artists are signed. Therefore, by the RIAA's stats, his particular assertion about controlling the means of distribution is unfounded.
These statistics, the RIAA will suggest, indicate that most people are in fact taking advantage of Napster for getting published music without paying for it. If the statistics are big enough, they might find it easy to claim significant damages. Even Boies admits that this would be one circumstance in which Napster would find itself liable as a 3rd party, even though it isn't in direct violation of copyright.
I doubt that the "radio" arguments that I sometimes read will hold up in court; probably they won't even be attempted. Recording tunes off the radio does not even come close to the choice, convenience, quality, and completeness that Napster provides when sharing MP3s.
If those 98% of all musicians out there even made a dint in the Napster traffic, then maybe Boies' would have a good argument. Otherwise, it just looks like the primary use for Napster is not as a medium for small artists to push their stuff, but rather as a way for people to acquire quality music of their choice from the big label artists for free. Too bad for the little guys, because Napster might have really made a difference.
Rather than focusing on internal combustion engines, maybe they should apply these algorithms to other kinds of engines, like electric/solar/natural gas/etc. to see if they can come up with something smaller and more powerful. Most of these already have polution advantages.
I recently started to work at a large International Software development firm. Our client was developing a business-to-business procurement solution that was to be global in every aspect. The program would be web-enabled.
Development was to be Microsoft-centric. Coming from a strong Unix background, I decided to use whatever familiar Unix tools I could to get the job done in record time. Central to my strategy was Perl-Fu for Gimp. I would use it to automate the localization of the images in the product.
It worked fabulously until Korean came along. I abruptly learned that the Gimp is incapable of rendering multibyte fonts. I suppose I should have checked that feature before I started, but the point is that I ended up having the company buy a copy of Macromedia Fireworks and scripting the enxtensions in JavaScript on Microsoft. What a pity.
Anyway, I sure would like to see multibyte support in the Gimp someday.
I'm going to make some broad generalizations here:
- People lease cars to get a lower monthly payment
- People rent because it's cheaper than mortgage
- The OS is insignificant to the average computer user
- Those who buy a music CD just want to listen
etc.
Most people don't realize how unfair they are being treated because the bottom line seems good:
I can lease a nicer car or buy a lesser one for the same. My sense of ownership may not be as keen as my sense of paying more money each month. And on the outside it probably seems like the same thing; I drive my car, I make a monthly payment in both situations. It's convenient. Life is good.
Maybe I don't own my computer's OS. But do I care? I probably don't even realize it. All I know is that I can use my PC for the things I think I need it for. It's convenient. Life is good.
I can't play my U.S. Made DVD in Europe? I didn't know that; never been there. Doesn't bother me. And does it bother me that only a licensed Commercial DVD player will play it on Linux? Probably not. DVDs are better than videos. Life is better now.
The MP3 limitations aren't causing me any physical pain. I can still listen to my CDs. That's better than tapes. Life is so much better.
We didn't have any of these things fifty years ago. Now those who provide the technology want to control it, and the comsumers are quite satisfied abiding by their rules. After all, they are getting more and more all the time.
The ones who complain are those on the cutting edge of things. They are frustrated because they understand how it works and can guess into the future. They have a sense of ownership because they are contributors. They don't like being kept out by a few greedy companies who would like it all to themselves.
Some people are satisfied being fed all the time. Other people can find their own food, and have discovered their tastes.
When I was a young(er) aspiring programmer, I wanted to know how to program the Roland MPU-401 MIDI interface, in intelligent mode. I wanted to do this in DOS, so of course I would be writing the driver for it myself.
This would have been impossible for me to accomplish if it had not been for a gentleman on Compuserve, who worked for a company called MusicQuest (that happened to make a compatible device).
He pointed me to where I could find a technical reference manual on the hardware, and answered the questions that I had. I was able to understand the technology in a little while and create a program that actually worked.
Moral of the story: My goal wouldn't have been achieved if someone didn't help me out.
So after you find out what your goal is, find someone who knows.
Exactly correct. What it means is that now nobody but Microsoft may use the obvious mechanism for maintaining package information on Windows systems.
I'm sure there are a multitude of other, equally obvious methods of package management. The MS Patent makes some specific points in its application:
1) The Windows Registry
2) A date
3) A database query
4) The Internet
5) A Package Server
Current PMSes can use some other form of tracking software, not the Windows registry. Similar, but different. A version number is probably prefered over the date for an upgrade. Similar, again. The patent's language pertains to the Internet, but the more general idea of a Network isn't covered by that specific piece.
How can MS enforce its patent on other ideas that are similar, yet lack the specifics in the text? I don't think they can.
My favorite CGI scripting Language has got to be POV-Ray. But I've heard that BMRT and RenderMan are the best, all around. :)
Oh, you mean the other CGI.
Microsoft applied for the pattent in 1997, and received it in 1999.
Upon reading the text of the patent, it becomes clear that the idea of a software module package is not important. Rather, it is the idea of how a Windows system might go about upgrading components via the internet. Part of the patent mentions the Windows Registry, the Internet, and a special Package Server.
The patent is quite trivial. Any amateur programmer could probably "invent" this as a simple and obvious solution. It does not represent anything new. Remote package upgrades have been performed in numerous ways over the years, doubtless. There is no direct relation between this patent and any package management system currently available.
This is simply a patent on a process, not a technology.
If I were to release a processor to compete with the Celeron, I would call it the Asparagon.
There are books written on how to optimize code in general:
-Code Complete by Steve McConnell, Microsoft Press
-Writing Efficient Programs by Jon Bentley, Prentice Hall
-Flooring It: The Optimization Challenge by Michael Abrash, from PC Techniques 2, no. 6 (February/March 1992)
But code tuning can have varying results under different languages and environments. A lot of people seem to think that code optimization is unstable and difficult to maintain.
There is sometimes a difference between "efficient code" and "good code". Code may be efficient, yet hard to read and maintain.
To know what techniques are the best, a lot of experimentation is in order. It is also a good idea to become part of a community of experienced web developers, and learn from their experiences.
The greatest boost in performance I have seen in my web experience has come from using the mod_perl module for Apache, not necessarily because of anything I did in the code itself.
Yes, and here is where the "arrogant" descriptor becomes useful. Arrogant people buy books they never read.
This librarian appears to be affraid of what might happen to the traditional library when books are available online.
Libraries have been a haven of learning throughout the centuries and there is a social status associated with them. Those who frequent libraries are often considered educated and literate. And it doesn't seem right to call someone "bookworm" who reads online, or downloads books.
Books themselves have cultural significance too. I know people who will buy fancy books to adorn their shelves, yet never read them. Having all of the classics, leatherbound, in your library says something about you.
Perhaps reading online might be considered isolating and lonely to some. I would stop short of arrogant; that is an adjective reserved for short-sighted librarians.
I am currently responsible for globalizing a web project at my company. This is the first time I have had to deal with this sort of thing, and I have learned much. Here are some tips:
.asp files. Rather than translating every one of these files into who knows how many languages, we are creating a string resource that can be queried by a server object. Someone recommended that you look at the GNU gettext, which I second. If you can find standards that already exist, I recommend you use them.
1) Whether you decide to dynamically fetch strings when the page is processed, or have multiple versions of the HTML isn't as important as deciding your strategy in the first place. Make the decision and stick with it long before you start work on the actual project. Having to implement a globalization strategy for a site that has already been programmed can be difficult if not impossible. Heed the warning about separating content from code, but be sure you know how that is going to play into your strategy.
2) Language is only part of the problem. You need to consider sort order, for example, if you are presenting sorted lists. You need to consider date and time formats and also number formats. Some countries swap the comma and the decimal point, for example. If you are planning on selling something, then multiple currency support would be useful.
3) You need to support multiple code pages. It would be neat if you could just use UTF-8, except there is no widely available Unicode font that contains all the glyphs needed for some languages. It is poor globalization design to only support the latin codepage assuming that you'll never need Korean, for example.
4) Make sure you avoid colloquialisms and other culture-centric ideas on your page. Keep it simple and as icon-free as possible. Where you have icons that contain text, keep a copy with the text layer separate from any background elements. Gimp has some features that help when localizing these bitmaps. But it's best to just avoid them.
The project I am heading up contains several hundred
Someone else recommended an XML approach. Again, this is a good idea to consider.
Don't try and re-engineer some existing code to make it global. I can't emphasize that enough. Start global from the ground up. Try to find the most intuitive means of doing so.
When I started learning about developing software with GNU and using the GPL, I found myself reading quite a bit of what I would deem philosophical material. When I hear you and yours talk about why software should be free, I feel almost like I were attending some Congress of the young United States in which certain inalienable rights were drafted.
I have a been a computer enthusiast for as long as I can remember. But I haven't really paid much attention to free software until three or four years ago, and at that point "gratis" meant more to me than "free." It wasn't until very recently that I even knew that I had reason to be discontent with non-free software, or that I should value a form of freedom I had never even considered before.
How can you convince a people to acknowledge this freedom, when they don't realize they are enslaved? And what is the moral code that makes free software right? I have read some literature in favor of free software (particularly GPL software) that might also be used in defending religious practices -- in the name of freedom -- that many in this community would lambast.
Who coined the phrase "the dog ate my homework?"
It's one of a few lousy excuses for being lazy. A portable computer opens the door to many more excuses. The Internet is down. The computer won't boot. The homework got erased. The battery went dead.
The problem is, half the time it might be true.
I think a computer is a wonderful auxiliary to learning. But I don't think it should be required unless the learning is about computers.
My first exposure to computers in education was when I was in the 4th grade, in 1984. Mr. Hill thought it would be neat to let the students, 4th grade and up, try their hand at BASIC on the old Ataris. It was strictly an extra-curricular activity. It fed the minds of those students that were interested and educated many others about simple computer skills.
In the 6th grade we first had computer labs, with Commodore 64 computers. We learned LOGO programming. The class was only once a week.
Because our exposure to computers was limited and novel, they had a greater power to captivate us so that we were motivated to learn about them. It is that way with most elective type classes.
If I had grown up with a computer at my side day and night, I would have been less interested in learning about how it worked. Maybe I would have become computer literate on that machine. But I doubt I would have gained any aptitute for computers, or curiosity about them. They would be just another piece of day-to-day life.
Admittedly, this is increasingly common. Computers have also grown up quite a bit since then. I was lucky enough to grow up with them in a way. It was fairly simple for me to start up GWBASIC and write a little program when I was a child. How easily can a kid use Visual Basic to make a program that would hold his interest? Perhaps a few forms and controls are easy enough to build, but what about sprites and sounds and colors (and actually writing code)?
For me, getting homework from the web would be convenient now. Is it convenient for a kid who knows no other way? Sure, anyone can learn a lot from a computer. But if we want them to learn about computers, I think the computers need to move from the realm of the ordinary, to the realm of the extraordinary. I think kids still learn best the conventional way.
It's not that hard. I use Perl-fu and the Gimp Perl server. On the web end I use Mason. I haven't made anything so complex as what Mr. Kimball has done here, but I did make a web-enabled button maker! It came from an idea I had about localizing bitmaps on web pages. Really useful for that sort of thing, but not something you'd want to do on the fly.
Anyway, it's not that hard to implement if you know a little Script-fu or Perl-fu.
I'm sure plenty of web masters have already figured this out, and have been using the Gimp as a backend for their sites for some time now.
I admit ASP for Linux would be cool, but only if it were FREE! I mean, that's one of the big considerations when thinking seriously about a Linux solution in a business.
I went to the Chili!Soft home page and was dismayed to find a hefty $1000 pricetag on the technology (you can get it for half off right now, for Linux -- still pricey).
Well, a license for NT Server is about that price these days, and you get IIS at no cost with that license. That includes the bona-fide ASP capabilities.
So what's so great about Chili!Soft ASP?
I mean, look what you can get for Linux instead of ASP:
PHP3
PHP4
Emb_perl
Mason (my fave!)
Not to mention good ol' CGI and some mod_perl.
These don't cost a dime and give you all the functionality of ASP.
Chili!Soft's main claim is that, with their ASP, you can use MS dev tools to develop web sites on multiple platforms. I say pbthbthbthhthbthb to that. Is that worth a grand?