Contract your services for installation, training, technical and general support
Better idea: hire people to do installation, training, and technical support for your software. Hire somebody else to manage these people. Use the profit from this enterprise to let you develop the software itself full time. A million and one F/OSS developers will tell you "but I don't want to do tech support." And I don't blame them. There are better options. Coders shouldn't be wasting their time doing support for the clueless masses. It's a waste of their ability. You wouldn't see an automotive design engineer mopping the factory floor would you?
Once geeks become entrepreneurs, F/OSS will truly revolutionize the industry. Until then, the movement will stagnate.
This will be your failure. I'm happy your business is growing and may soon support you without the need for a seperate full time job. However, please remember the number one rule of consulting... Always use the right tool for the job. Do NOT try to shoe horn the job into your chosen tool of choice. Doing so will eventually lead to failure.
MSCE's are a dime a dozen. Specialization is not a waste of time and certainly does not guarantee failure. Sure, you can't shoe-horn solutions, but you can identify a viable market and target it with your favorite solution.
Thanks for the clarification. Too bad the article poster didn't take the time to research first and make this more clear. You moderators can feel free to kill off my original post.. karma points to spare! (:
And to you E developers.. rock on. We look forward to what you come up with.
Uh.. E17 has always been in CVS. This is not news, people. An official final release of E17 will be news. Until then, quit filling/. with useless fluff.
Much of Sun's flip-flopping is, i believe, genuine confusion/indecision.
Yes. And there is probably a lot of internal disagreement and politics as well. It would happen in any company with as much history as Sun.
i think you're underestimating the effectiveness of the legal weapon. your argument is essentially "the best technology will win", and everytime I make an argument effectively meaning that, this ex-boss of mine I keep in contact with always counters with "remember the Alpha!".
There's a big difference though: today's consumers are well-connected and thus have power in numbers. (think Divx vs. DVD, etc.) Consumers today also have enough power to ignore legal BS when it gets in the way of reality. And this effect is even stronger overseas. Suppose MS (or a proxy) was to start directly suing small/mid-sized companies tomorrow over some supposed Linux patent issue. Do you realize what the reaction to that would be? We'd get the laws re-written before someone can say anti-trust violation. (many small/medium business owners are very politically active..) MS doesn't want this scenario because it spells 'game over' for software patents. So they're trying to spread FUD among large corporations and foreign governments since it's really their only option. Of course, this will not work because you can't stop a grassroots movement using the proverbial equivalent to a push lawnmower. (:
It's in terms of "future development" that sharing-R&D would be worthwhile, and in terms of that, what does linux have to offer Sun that Sun wants?
Good points along these lines.. I'd imagine that there will be a turn-over point where Linux surpasses Solaris enough that Sun will jumps on board. Which all ties into the theory on their longer-term strategy..
You people claiming Gimp were a PS killer are just being silly.
Gimp is not a PS killer because it has become as full featured and refined as PS is. It is a PS killer because the majority of people using PS don't need its power and would be just as well off using Gimp at much less cost.
The timeline will perhaps look like this: - As Gimp improves, it will gather perhaps 80-90% of the image editor market. (people who don't need PS, former warez kiddies, shareware, etc.) - PS becomes a niche player for the high-end (people who genuinely need it) - Gimp's popularity yields partial commercialization of development, allowing it to finish catching up to PS and begin to surpass it. - The rest of the high-end graphics market slowly moves to Gimp as cost-benefit analyses dictate.
Timeframe? 5-10 years depending on how good the Gimp leadership is over this period. It will happen a lot sooner if Gimp can begin commercializing its development now. Yes, that means full-time developers. Open up your wallets folks: what features do you want and how soon?
Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it. Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it".
Lets be more realistic about this issue. There are usability cases for both interface designs. The best solution would be the ability to toggle Gimp between traditional multi-window and MDI. I love Gimp, but there are times when I wish it could go into MDI mode, even to not clutter my taskbar when working with a half dozens apps! In a way, this is similar to the case for tabbed browsing! Think about it: what does tabbed browsing really offer other than a separate "taskbar" within the browser to help keep your mind on task? It's a simple, seemingly pointless addition that makes a huge difference in real life usage!
On the other hand, there are cases where I much prefer the way Gimp does things now -- multi-monitor / desktop etc.
Gimp developers, please hear me out: having both interface types would be a huge boon to the project. Remember that one of the goals is to pull Windows users away from Photoshop -- and as a result, Windows eventually. Embrace and extend.
As much as we hate it, we do need to support binary only drivers.
The only reason why some companies (typically smaller ones!) are still relunctant to release open drivers or hardware specs are that they mistakenly believe that they will accidentally let trade secrets slip out to competitors. Being somewhat familiar with driver code, I can tell you this is 100% nonsense in the vast majority of cases. It is not Linux that needs to change, but idiot managers who need to get an education in the field they work in (or at least talk to their engineers!)
It pisses me off that I can no longer use my webcam because the driver maintainer can't keep up with every variation of the kernel, and for legal reasons can't release the source code.
Well, you have a few options: 1.) Get a group of people together and complain loudly but politely to the manufacturers. 2.) Reverse engineer the existing Linux driver using clean-room techniques and steering clear of any firmware. 3.) Buy one of the many web cams whose manufacturers aren't lame enough to hide specs and thus which work perfectly under Linux. (typically these are also higher quality products that do not use ugly hacks or software-driven functionality to cut costs)
What makes you think vendors will be "bending over backwards" to support Linux?
Because it will be the most popular desktop platform and they'll have to support it properly if they want to sell hardware. Nothing complicated about that argument.
Well, 1) Why should they do this? Why do they have to subscribe to the same ideology that you do?
Because it works maybe? That's the whole point. When Linux begins to dominate, it will have pulled the entire industry towards Open Source. At that point, the vendors will be fighting against the tide to try to stay binary only. Maybe you don't think that will ever happen. If so you're wrong.
Linux has been around for 14 years now, and the number of mainstream vendors releasing opensource drivers is still extremely low, what makes you think it will get better.
Linux has only entered the mainstream in the last 2-3 years. The number of mainstream vendors with supported hardware is already very high, whether or not they themselves actually wrote the drivers. What makes me think it will get better? Look at the track record thus far and refer to the first argument.
2) This has been discussed before, in a lot of cases hardware manufacturers are just plain unable to release specifications or driver code due to third party licenses. Stamping your feet and demanding it wont make the situation any better.
This is a BS argument in the majority of cases. The only major field where there is a significant amount of 3rd party licensing is 3D graphics chipsets. Even then, they don't have to release details of internal operation or actual software. We're talking about register level documentation. The interface.. It is doubtful that there are many cases of 3rd party licensing issues here. In other cases, once Linux takes off, vendors will simply have to resolve their licensing issues to get the drivers out. Maybe this will tear down a lot of the "IP" cross-licensing stupidity that exists today. Good riddance. Everyone will be better off for it, including the vendors.
They have a third valid option, and that is to provide binary drivers. If the kernel devs cant supply a stable API due to their ideology, then thats their loss.
If vendors are obsoleted by their reluctance to open specifications and therefore be properly be supported in Linux, then that's there loss. Again, good riddance.
I can take issue with the 'arrogant stance' of the kernel developers. They demand something and think that everyone will fall into line. Well, that doesnt happen in the real world, and when it doesnt its the end users that suffer.
There have been dozens of cases where hardware manufacturers have succumbed to pressure from customers and released docs to get their products working in Linux. And many have realized that it makes sense to just jump on the bandwagon across the board with all product lines. Note: pressure from customers. The market will drive the opening process. Not kernel developers. But the ramifications of their philosophy in proper software design is helping to improve the industry.
As I said in my origional post, the vendors shouldnt solely take the blame for this, the kernel devs must take a fair share too.
The binary only driver model is a blatant failure on all platforms. You don't quite seem to get this do you? That means regardless of whether we're talking Linux or Windows, it is the vendor's fault.
The Linux market just isnt big enough at the moment for such demands to really have an impact, theres no power behind it.
At the moment. And yet, most common hardware is already supported. It will only get better from now forward. Go down to your local electronics discounter and look on hardware boxes. You'll find that about 90% of them mention support of Linux now. No power behind it? Right.
Linux is the one breaking the status quo in this matter, but it gives little back
..but the majority of people on slashdot seem to blame vendors for supplying closed drivers when they have no real need to.
You don't really understand the issue. There are very good reasons why there is no "stable binary module API" for Linux. This stance has the power to transform the industry in a positive way.
When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box. To do this they will have two valid options: 1.) provide open source drivers or 2.) provide adequate specifications so that other people can provide open source drivers. (often this only means adding recognition + tweaks to existing drivers because of chipsets commonality, etc.) We can thank the kernel developers' "arrogant" stance for this. The final result will be the most stable PC platform ever known. Do you realize that many of Windows' stability problems are caused by bad drivers? (Even with it's "stable binary driver API") Guess what? That approach historically doesn't work and the kernel developers know it! The simple fact is, we cannot rely upon hardware developers to provide quality drivers for their own products or to keep their drivers up to date with the OS! It doesn't even work for Windows with its monopolistic "unifying" share of the market!
It comes down to this: hardware companies are best at designing hardware. It is their core competancy. They should fully document that hardware and then mostly leave the software to people who are good at designing software to work with it. (Whether that's for Windows or Linux) What is inside that hardware doesn't matter. It can be a black box for all we care. But the *interface* should be well documented so that we know how to properly talk to the hardware. (This is how the whole rest of the electronics industry works.. computer hardware is currently an anomaly)
Other reasons why open source drivers are imperative: 1.) Continued support if the hardware manufacturer disappears 2.) Security - can you trust downloaded 3rd party drivers from some random server in Taiwan? Remember, this is software that has root on your machine! 3.) Platform support. Remember that open source OS'es are not just for 32-bit x86!
And there you have it, summed up in a nice little couple of paragraphs why Windows is dominant. Linux is arrogantly postering from a position at the back of the pack and if it's not careful vendors are going to go back to ignoring it.
Driver support has precisely nothing to do with why Windows is dominant, unless you're talking niche markets like the PC extreme gaming crowd. (yes, it is sadly now a niche market for all practical purposes thanks to XBox and PS2) Other than 3D hardware (and some buggy non-standards compliant crap), most works perfectly fine with Linux.
When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box. To do this they will have two valid options: 1.) provide open source drivers or 2.) provide adequate specifications so that other people can provide open source drivers. (usually this only means adding recognition + tweaks to existing drivers because of common chipsets, etc.) We can thank the kernel developer's "arrogant" stance for this. The final result will be the most stable PC platform ever known. Do you realize that many of Windows' stability problems are caused by bad drivers? (Even with it's "stable binary driver API") Guess what? That approach doesn't work and the kernel developers know it! The simple fact is, we cannot rely upon hardware developers to provide quality drivers for their own products or to keep their drivers up to date with the OS! It doesn't even work for Windows with its monopolistic share of the market!
Other reasons why open source drivers are imperative: 1.) Continued support if the hardware manufacturer disappears 2.) Security - can you trust downloaded 3rd party drivers from some random server in Taiwan? Remember, this is software that essentially has root on your machine.
And how exactly would "exposing" bugs in their own hardware help their competition? Afraid of the competition copying their bugs? C'mon now. And it's not like people don't already know that bugs are more or less inevitable, so there's no marketing spin available.
This sounds like hand-waving. It's been pointed out before that submitting lots of code "into the community" is no guarantee it'll be vetted properly. The pool of genuinely talented linux hackers is large, but not infinite. And the subset of this that is likely to decide "hell this is a cool project i'm gonna go work on it" is often zero for many projects (go look at the effectively abandoned projects all over).
Simply throwing code at the Linux community doesn't work, but establishing relationships with key members (or hiring them) does. You're right that the pool of talented kernel hackers is limited, but that's why you turn some of your own workforce into essentially paid kernel hackers. It seems to work for IBM, as they have pushed a lot of innovation into Linux from the "outside" by first becoming an active member. I don't assume that "community" always means "unruly, freelance, unpaid hackers." It's fully possible that Linux will eventually be driven primarily by a community of interested companies. (Or, if you will, a community of internal communities)
If they have their own resources in terms of engineering talent, you can't possibly blame them for wanting to use it on their 'own' product? it guarantees x number of eyeballs looking at it in a directed way and with it being literally their "day job".
This is old fashioned thinking. Long term, Sun may not have the resources to maintain their 'own' product -- as maintain becomes "try to keep up with Linux." Are they going to simultaneously compete with IBM / Novell / RedHat / SuSE / etc. and with Microsoft? I'm not doubting Sun's engineering skill, but those x number of eyeballs would probably do more good for the company in improving Linux and designing migration paths for existing customers.
..but if you don't think things are being cooked up in Redmond right now, a cluestick awaits your head.... if the global system evolves even more towards a system that favours large corporations vs individual groups/community hackers, well, you know who the biggest software company out there is?
Are you trying to spread FUD? Sure sounds like it. Guess what? Redmond's power is nothing compared to an increasingly annoyed world-wide IT industry. If they think they can scare people away from Linux using bogus legal threats and wrangling international trade bodies, they are the ones with the cluestick coming -- except it will be aimed directly at the jugular of their revenue stream.
The minute they announce anything remotely close to sounding like they're abandoning Solaris, they will haemorrhage customers as fast as... HP losing VMS/Alpha customers.
Nothing happens overnight. Obviously you don't just pull the carpet out from under your customers. But you can slowly and gently transition them while still providing support for legacy products. People said the same thing about Apple's move to OSX. "Existing customers will run away because it's more complex / too different and won't run well on old hardware, etc." But Apple did what they had to do. It seems to mostly have worked thus far. Maybe a few customers left, but how many new customers has a BSD-rooted OS drawn in?
"Sun Surrenders" is probably what plenty of analysts etc. will plunk on their front pages
That's where PR comes in.. You make it sound like a gradual transition.. a continued commitment to something already started.. a move to increase community efforts.. whatever.
Independent R&D costs big bucks? Hell yeah. Should I presume you're a big "oh-we-used-to- say-we-don't-do-ANY-R&D-which-is-why- we're-gonna-kill-all-those-who-do" Dell fanboy? IBM's often quoted as a major friend-of-OSS, but any real-$$ investments they have made are targeted towards things that are beneficial to themselves and/or hurtful to enemies
The point is not to abandon R&D but to avoid creating your own island in the pr
Re:What day of the week is it?
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If Sun had "embraced Linux", as the parent suggests, it presumably would have developed them there instead. Not that I'm entirely clear on why it would have been in their best interests to do that.
I can think of a few reasons:
1.) Lower R&D costs. Let the community massage your improvements to Linux instead of having to rework, test, and maintain your own codebase.
2.) Less legal hastle and licensing costs, as mentioned, than opening up all of Solaris. Evidently Sun didn't have full rights to all the code, so they had to buy them up first. And if the Solaris 10 license turns out to be anything more restrictive than GPL, it's not even going to help them much as far as Linux competition is concerned. (Compare Microsoft's "Shared Source" program)
3.) PR. Switching entirely to Linux would have given Sun an enormous boost in respect and confidence -- especially among geeks but also among investors concerned about Sun's bottom line. All that independent R&D costs big bucks. And, after all, Linux is now a media / wall street darling.
I'm sure Sun has their reasons, but I'd imagine they are fairly short term. What will finally cause Sun to go completely GPL is a mystery yet to be solved. I look forward to that day. They'll be an even better member of the team than they are now.
There's a definite market for this kind of service. Just because you're not in it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Absolutely.. except there are two problems:
1.) This relegates Sun to be a niche player for the high-end. Without the mid-range markets, is there enough money to keep up their heavy software and hardware R&D?
2.) Neither Linux nor companies that support it are standing still. Sure, Solaris 10 will be technically superior, but Linux will catch up in short time. Likewise, companies that support Linux are maturing. And there's the IBM factor..
To me, it doesn't make sense why Sun still wants to more or less go it alone in the R&D department. If they're not in the business of selling software, why do they continue to try to develop their own instead of just contributing to true Open Source projects. Sun and Apple are very similar IMO. Both have quality products, a legacy of happy customers, and support the community. However, their choices to maintain control over certain key software limit their market potential. Once Open Source really takes off (it hasn't yet, but will), I hope they have the wisdom to fully jump on board. In fact, I hope they realize beforehand and help to make Open Source truly take off sooner.
I agree that's clever, but may not be the best way to improve the current situation. Especially since MS seems to want to generate lawsuits. One way to look at it is that lawsuits are an expensive way to make noise.
Precisely. The proper way to stop the noise is to pull the carpet out from under the noise maker, not to buy millions of earplugs. Do you hate Microsoft's sleazy tactics? Do you hate bogus software patents? Then do everything within your power to make Open Source succeed in the marketplace. Whether that's writing or improving F/OSS in your spare time, donating to projects, convincing PHB's in your workplace to try alternatives, or even changing your career so you can focus on making a difference, just do something! We should not be driven by fear, but we should recognize a valid threat and take steps necessary to eliminate it.
One of the reasons this is so expensive is that the amount of data coming in from an uncompressed source (like component cables or DVI) is immense.
The video signal commonly referred to as "component" and having the 3 RCA connectors (Y,Pb,Pr) is analog, not digital. I can't tell you how many people are confused about this. (: Other than bandwidth and timing formats, it's not that much different than S-video, which is also a type of component signal and is sometimes written as (Y,Pb+Pr) or (Y,C).
So if you're trying to bring an HDTV analog component source into your computer, you need some pretty darn fast and accurate analog to digital convertors before you even worry about re-compressing the digital signal. Not cheap.. yet! (Remember how much NTSC composite capture devices used to cost?)
"Intellectual property", or rather the components that comprise that term (trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights and patents) each have their use, and abolishing some of them would just be silly.
Yes, as I said, the components of "IP" currently have their use. It's the bad terminology and the reasons why that terminology came into common use that are the problem.
Also, I don't think the free market system ever intended to deal with a legal roadblock on the individual's ability to invent/engineer/innovate.
Exactly.. because "intellectual property" is not a free market concept. It is an artificial, government-imposed regulation on who can produce what. That's not to say that it doesn't have a place in our hybrid economic system -- at least temporarily. But "IP" should be recognized for what it is -- a compromise! This is precisely what the founding fathers of the US conceived. It was to be applied only as needed in helping to promote production of intellectual works. Today, we have these idiots who think that "IP" should be legally and morally treated the same as physical property. This represents faulty reasoning in every way. In fact, it is these same idiots who coined the phrase "IP" to help push their greed-fueled agendas. We can also thank Clinton and friends for exporting this rubbish to the rest of the world through the creation of WIPO in the guise of free trade negotiation. (DMCA is one of the many negative results of this maneuver..)
I prefer the terms "information monopoly" or "intellectual works regulation" because it accurately describes the field of law to which it refers. If we can get lawyers to start using these terms, the battle to restore balance will be half won.
People who use Linux are also not concerned with saving a little bit of money on the OS - if that is what you think it's about, you haven't been paying attention!
I was talking about the business case for Linux. This is the part that, unfortunately, most geeks still ignore. I myself am a geek and I personally use F/OSS solely for technical and philosophical reasons. But when I switch to pragmatic or 'businessman' mode, the bottom line and real world results are what ultimately counts. Linux is never going to succeed on a larger scale because of geeks like us thinking it's so cool.
Linux / FOSS is not yet taking over the desktop by storm because the software needed in real-world business environments is either not available or is not truly production quality. This is the fault of FOSS developers for not getting out and capitalizing on a ripe market.
Seriously, if Adobe moves into Linux with Photoshop and the other heavy hitters from their lineup (e.g., Illustrator) it will do two things. The first is truly and absolutely, positively legitimatize Linux (but honestly, it didn't really need it but this is a true stamp of approval). Second, they will just further extend their lead in the computer graphics market because it would be hard not to believe that a Linux-optimized Photoshop would do well in terms of marketshare.
People who legitimately need Photoshop and Illustrator and can afford to pay its extraordinarily high cost are not the people who are concerned about saving a little bit of money on the OS. Adobe's products run flawlessly on Windows and MacOS, so there's no real stability advantage either -- given an otherwise clean system. (ie. typical artist workstation) Additionally, there is an enormous amount of small-name Windows and (moreso) MacOS graphics software that artists rely on. In the end, there is no real incentive yet for the core market of Adobe users to switch.
But here's the kicker: most people who use Photoshop don't really need it. The latest Gimp (2.0+) is not as good as the latest Photoshop, but it is as good or better than a lot of earlier versions of Photoshop. Scribus, similarly, is beginning to encroach upon Illustrator. Adobe likely realizes this. While Gimp (and supporting software) may take another 5-10 years of development to start significantly eating into the core Photoshop market, it is already shrinking the outer "low-end" markets of education, business, web design, etc. Given the modern capabilities of Gimp, the cost of Photoshop is increasingly not justified in these markets. (compare also Paint Shop Pro, et al.) In other words, there is a risk that Photoshop (and later Illustrator) will eventually becoming niche players.
The adoption of the Linux / FOSS desktop is directly tied to the success of the free desktop and business software. It has much less to do with the OS itself. And it has even less to do with proprietary software being ported to Linux. Using Linux itself does not save that much money. The use of Linux plus free equivalents to Office, Publisher, Illustrator, and Photoshop is the "killer app" of the Open Source desktop. Add in professional, F/OSS projects targetting core-business database / intranet software needs and we'll have a slam-dunk victory.
Re:What does it do differently?
on
Learning PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
Java's frameworks usually stink anyhow. There is way too much coding for otherwise simple things.
It depends on what your needs are. Some complexity simply cannot be avoided given today's technology. Also, keep in mind that VB/Delphi would also represent "too much coding" if it were not for their RAD GUIs that do a lot of work for you and hide much of the "glue" that holds everything together. On the Java side, you have tools like Eclipse that perform similar functionality, albeit with a bit more developer control. In the end, if you find yourself typing too much, you're not doing something right! A verbose language need not imply more work on the part of the developer.
Try the Spring Framework + Eclipse + JSF...
Re:What does it do differently?
on
Learning PHP 5
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What advances does PHP5 make that puts it in direct competition with ASP.NET?
PHP5 competes with ASP.NET (and Java) up to a certain point. This is a question of best tool for the job. PHP5 is great for developing interactive websites, CMS/forums/blogs, and other lightweight web applications as suitable for an inexpensive hosted environment. However, PHP5 is still way behind today's Java and.NET platforms for developing enterprise (aka. complex, database-heavy) applications -- whether for the web or otherwise. In many cases, PHP is legitimately the "simplest thing that could possibly work" and is thus an excellent choice. However, the architecture that makes PHP great for RAD and simple web applications also severely limits its usefulness for more complex applications. I say this not off-the-cuff but entirely from real-life experience.
So it comes down to this: if your application is simple enough, by all means use PHP5. It is a great tool for limited-scope jobs (analogous to VisualBasic for the web perhaps) and its performance and scalability is excellent given its limited-by-design architecture. Simplicity on the low end is PHP's strength.. it doesn't try to do too much for those who don't need it to! On the other hand, if your application is more complex (most business apps, anything accounting / finance related, mission critical databases, etc.) use a modern, lightweight, framework-driven Java approach like Spring + Hibernate. PHP is no longer the "simplest thing that could work" when the application domain has moved beyond what it naturally does well. You can force the use of just about any language for any given task but that doesn't mean it makes sense to. (and spare me the silly politics..)
Choice is good. What does disturb me is how many open source programmers today think that PHP, Perl, and Python are the answer to everything web-related. They're not. I could name a few dozen projects currently using those language that would be far better off using Java instead. Incidentally, Python is the closest to competing directly with Java's domain, but needs a few more years for its tools to mature.
http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/simple.h tm l http://www.springframework.org
The annoying thing is that he thinks and behaves as if he were.
Really? On one hand, folks like you say that Bush has failed to marshall world opinion and make the US the "respected leader of the community of nations." On the other hand, you pull out this silly rhetoric that "Bush think's he's president of the world." Well? What's it going to be? I doubt that you are stupid enough to believe that Bush literally sees himself that way. So this rhetoric you spew is more accurately translated as "I don't agree with how much the US asserts its interests throughout the world." That's fine if you believe that, but just come out and say what you mean! However, this is not going to change regardless of who is elected. Of course, the people who feed you your propaganda already know that. So instead they've come up with a lot of clever anti-Bush spin and rhetoric to hijack your ability to think independently. Wake up.
Of course he's for it. He's for anything that might get him a vote, but not so much that might piss the people off would be against it.
Please! Lets be more specific: he (and Bush) rounded up some campaign people who know a little bit about technology and had them come up with responses to the questions that would sound good to the tech crowd without making definitive promises outside of the official campaign platform. Do you folks really think that either Kerry or Bush have any clue about the nuances of copyright law or the practicality of different wireless technologies? C'mon now. These guys have thousands of things on their minds. They have stuff explained to them in capsule form and then check 'yes' or 'no.'
Incidentally, note Pres. Bush's commentary on the Patriot Act in the 3rd debate. It's pretty clear that he has never actually read the thing all the way through. (Would you have time to read 600+ pages as President?) His advisors likely gave him a bullet point list (probably of mostly non-controversial items) and said "this is what we need.. we suggest you sign it so we can better fight terrorism." And, of course, Congress had already near unianimously done the same, including Kerry. What should be on voters minds is WHO wrote the bad parts of Patriot. Guess what? Kerry was one of them! If there is anyone to blame, it's not Bush but rather Kerry and the few others who introduced the bad parts. (Many of the provisions in Patriot are perfectly legit and non-controversial..)
Slashdot Mirror
Contract your services for installation, training, technical and general support
Better idea: hire people to do installation, training, and technical support for your software. Hire somebody else to manage these people. Use the profit from this enterprise to let you develop the software itself full time. A million and one F/OSS developers will tell you "but I don't want to do tech support." And I don't blame them. There are better options. Coders shouldn't be wasting their time doing support for the clueless masses. It's a waste of their ability. You wouldn't see an automotive design engineer mopping the factory floor would you?
Once geeks become entrepreneurs, F/OSS will truly revolutionize the industry. Until then, the movement will stagnate.
This will be your failure. I'm happy your business is growing and may soon support you without the need for a seperate full time job. However, please remember the number one rule of consulting... Always use the right tool for the job. Do NOT try to shoe horn the job into your chosen tool of choice. Doing so will eventually lead to failure.
MSCE's are a dime a dozen. Specialization is not a waste of time and certainly does not guarantee failure. Sure, you can't shoe-horn solutions, but you can identify a viable market and target it with your favorite solution.
Thanks for the clarification. Too bad the article poster didn't take the time to research first and make this more clear. You moderators can feel free to kill off my original post.. karma points to spare! (:
And to you E developers.. rock on. We look forward
to what you come up with.
Uh.. E17 has always been in CVS. This is not news, people. An official final release of E17 will be news. Until then, quit filling /. with useless fluff.
Much of Sun's flip-flopping is, i believe, genuine confusion/indecision.
Yes. And there is probably a lot of internal disagreement and politics as well. It would happen in any company with as much history as Sun.
i think you're underestimating the effectiveness of the legal weapon. your argument is essentially "the best technology will win", and everytime I make an argument effectively meaning that, this ex-boss of mine I keep in contact with always counters with "remember the Alpha!".
There's a big difference though: today's consumers are well-connected and thus have power in numbers. (think Divx vs. DVD, etc.) Consumers today also have enough power to ignore legal BS when it gets in the way of reality. And this effect is even stronger overseas. Suppose MS (or a proxy) was to start directly suing small/mid-sized companies tomorrow over some supposed Linux patent issue. Do you realize what the reaction to that would be? We'd get the laws re-written before someone can say anti-trust violation. (many small/medium business owners are very politically active..) MS doesn't want this scenario because it spells 'game over' for software patents. So they're trying to spread FUD among large corporations and foreign governments since it's really their only option. Of course, this will not work because you can't stop a grassroots movement using the proverbial equivalent to a push lawnmower. (:
It's in terms of "future development" that sharing-R&D would be worthwhile, and in terms of that, what does linux have to offer Sun that Sun wants?
Good points along these lines.. I'd imagine that there will be a turn-over point where Linux surpasses Solaris enough that Sun will jumps on board. Which all ties into the theory on their longer-term strategy..
You people claiming Gimp were a PS killer are just being silly.
Gimp is not a PS killer because it has become as full featured and refined as PS is. It is a PS killer because the majority of people using PS don't need its power and would be just as well off using Gimp at much less cost.
The timeline will perhaps look like this:
- As Gimp improves, it will gather perhaps 80-90% of the image editor market. (people who don't need PS, former warez kiddies, shareware, etc.)
- PS becomes a niche player for the high-end (people who genuinely need it)
- Gimp's popularity yields partial commercialization of development, allowing it to finish catching up to PS and begin to surpass it.
- The rest of the high-end graphics market slowly moves to Gimp as cost-benefit analyses dictate.
Timeframe? 5-10 years depending on how good the Gimp leadership is over this period. It will happen a lot sooner if Gimp can begin commercializing its development now. Yes, that means full-time developers. Open up your wallets folks: what features do you want and how soon?
Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it. Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it".
Lets be more realistic about this issue. There are usability cases for both interface designs. The best solution would be the ability to toggle Gimp between traditional multi-window and MDI. I love Gimp, but there are times when I wish it could go into MDI mode, even to not clutter my taskbar when working with a half dozens apps! In a way, this is similar to the case for tabbed browsing! Think about it: what does tabbed browsing really offer other than a separate "taskbar" within the browser to help keep your mind on task? It's a simple, seemingly pointless addition that makes a huge difference in real life usage!
On the other hand, there are cases where I much prefer the way Gimp does things now -- multi-monitor / desktop etc.
Gimp developers, please hear me out: having both interface types would be a huge boon to the project. Remember that one of the goals is to pull Windows users away from Photoshop -- and as a result, Windows eventually. Embrace and extend.
As much as we hate it, we do need to support binary only drivers.
The only reason why some companies (typically smaller ones!) are still relunctant to release open drivers or hardware specs are that they mistakenly believe that they will accidentally let trade secrets slip out to competitors. Being somewhat familiar with driver code, I can tell you this is 100% nonsense in the vast majority of cases. It is not Linux that needs to change, but idiot managers who need to get an education in the field they work in (or at least talk to their engineers!)
It pisses me off that I can no longer use my webcam because the driver maintainer can't keep up with every variation of the kernel, and for legal reasons can't release the source code.
Well, you have a few options: 1.) Get a group of people together and complain loudly but politely to the manufacturers. 2.) Reverse engineer the existing Linux driver using clean-room techniques and steering clear of any firmware. 3.) Buy one of the many web cams whose manufacturers aren't lame enough to hide specs and thus which work perfectly under Linux. (typically these are also higher quality products that do not use ugly hacks or software-driven functionality to cut costs)
What makes you think vendors will be "bending over backwards" to support Linux?
Because it will be the most popular desktop platform and they'll have to support it properly if they want to sell hardware. Nothing complicated about that argument.
Well, 1) Why should they do this? Why do they have to subscribe to the same ideology that you do?
Because it works maybe? That's the whole point. When Linux begins to dominate, it will have pulled the entire industry towards Open Source. At that point, the vendors will be fighting against the tide to try to stay binary only. Maybe you don't think that will ever happen. If so you're wrong.
Linux has been around for 14 years now, and the number of mainstream vendors releasing opensource drivers is still extremely low, what makes you think it will get better.
Linux has only entered the mainstream in the last 2-3 years. The number of mainstream vendors with supported hardware is already very high, whether or not they themselves actually wrote the drivers. What makes me think it will get better? Look at the track record thus far and refer to the first argument.
2) This has been discussed before, in a lot of cases hardware manufacturers are just plain unable to release specifications or driver code due to third party licenses. Stamping your feet and demanding it wont make the situation any better.
This is a BS argument in the majority of cases. The only major field where there is a significant amount of 3rd party licensing is 3D graphics chipsets. Even then, they don't have to release details of internal operation or actual software. We're talking about register level documentation. The interface.. It is doubtful that there are many cases of 3rd party licensing issues here. In other cases, once Linux takes off, vendors will simply have to resolve their licensing issues to get the drivers out. Maybe this will tear down a lot of the "IP" cross-licensing stupidity that exists today. Good riddance. Everyone will be better off for it, including the vendors.
They have a third valid option, and that is to provide binary drivers. If the kernel devs cant supply a stable API due to their ideology, then thats their loss.
If vendors are obsoleted by their reluctance to open specifications and therefore be properly be supported in Linux, then that's there loss. Again, good riddance.
I can take issue with the 'arrogant stance' of the kernel developers. They demand something and think that everyone will fall into line. Well, that doesnt happen in the real world, and when it doesnt its the end users that suffer.
There have been dozens of cases where hardware manufacturers have succumbed to pressure from customers and released docs to get their products working in Linux. And many have realized that it makes sense to just jump on the bandwagon across the board with all product lines. Note: pressure from customers. The market will drive the opening process. Not kernel developers. But the ramifications of their philosophy in proper software design is helping to improve the industry.
As I said in my origional post, the vendors shouldnt solely take the blame for this, the kernel devs must take a fair share too.
The binary only driver model is a blatant failure on all platforms. You don't quite seem to get this do you? That means regardless of whether we're talking Linux or Windows, it is the vendor's fault.
The Linux market just isnt big enough at the moment for such demands to really have an impact, theres no power behind it.
At the moment. And yet, most common hardware is already supported. It will only get better from now forward. Go down to your local electronics discounter and look on hardware boxes. You'll find that about 90% of them mention support of Linux now. No power behind it? Right.
Linux is the one breaking the status quo in this matter, but it gives little back
..but the majority of people on slashdot seem to blame vendors for supplying closed drivers when they have no real need to.
You don't really understand the issue. There are very good reasons why there is no "stable binary module API" for Linux. This stance has the power to transform the industry in a positive way.
When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box. To do this they will have two valid options: 1.) provide open source drivers or 2.) provide adequate specifications so that other people can provide open source drivers. (often this only means adding recognition + tweaks to existing drivers because of chipsets commonality, etc.) We can thank the kernel developers' "arrogant" stance for this. The final result will be the most stable PC platform ever known. Do you realize that many of Windows' stability problems are caused by bad drivers? (Even with it's "stable binary driver API") Guess what? That approach historically doesn't work and the kernel developers know it! The simple fact is, we cannot rely upon hardware developers to provide quality drivers for their own products or to keep their drivers up to date with the OS! It doesn't even work for Windows with its monopolistic "unifying" share of the market!
It comes down to this: hardware companies are best at designing hardware. It is their core competancy. They should fully document that hardware and then mostly leave the software to people who are good at designing software to work with it. (Whether that's for Windows or Linux) What is inside that hardware doesn't matter. It can be a black box for all we care. But the *interface* should be well documented so that we know how to properly talk to the hardware. (This is how the whole rest of the electronics industry works.. computer hardware is currently an anomaly)
Other reasons why open source drivers are imperative: 1.) Continued support if the hardware manufacturer disappears 2.) Security - can you trust downloaded 3rd party drivers from some random server in Taiwan? Remember, this is software that has root on your machine! 3.) Platform support. Remember that open source OS'es are not just for 32-bit x86!
And there you have it, summed up in a nice little couple of paragraphs why Windows is dominant. Linux is arrogantly postering from a position at the back of the pack and if it's not careful vendors are going to go back to ignoring it.
Driver support has precisely nothing to do with why Windows is dominant, unless you're talking niche markets like the PC extreme gaming crowd. (yes, it is sadly now a niche market for all practical purposes thanks to XBox and PS2) Other than 3D hardware (and some buggy non-standards compliant crap), most works perfectly fine with Linux.
When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box. To do this they will have two valid options: 1.) provide open source drivers or 2.) provide adequate specifications so that other people can provide open source drivers. (usually this only means adding recognition + tweaks to existing drivers because of common chipsets, etc.) We can thank the kernel developer's "arrogant" stance for this. The final result will be the most stable PC platform ever known. Do you realize that many of Windows' stability problems are caused by bad drivers? (Even with it's "stable binary driver API") Guess what? That approach doesn't work and the kernel developers know it! The simple fact is, we cannot rely upon hardware developers to provide quality drivers for their own products or to keep their drivers up to date with the OS! It doesn't even work for Windows with its monopolistic share of the market!
Other reasons why open source drivers are imperative: 1.) Continued support if the hardware manufacturer disappears 2.) Security - can you trust downloaded 3rd party drivers from some random server in Taiwan? Remember, this is software that essentially has root on your machine.
And how exactly would "exposing" bugs in their own hardware help their competition? Afraid of the competition copying their bugs? C'mon now. And it's not like people don't already know that bugs are more or less inevitable, so there's no marketing spin available.
This sounds like hand-waving. It's been pointed out before that submitting lots of code "into the community" is no guarantee it'll be vetted properly. The pool of genuinely talented linux hackers is large, but not infinite. And the subset of this that is likely to decide "hell this is a cool project i'm gonna go work on it" is often zero for many projects (go look at the effectively abandoned projects all over).
..but if you don't think things are being cooked up in Redmond right now, a cluestick awaits your head. ... if the global system evolves even more towards a system that favours large corporations vs individual groups/community hackers, well, you know who the biggest software company out there is?
Simply throwing code at the Linux community doesn't work, but establishing relationships with key members (or hiring them) does. You're right that the pool of talented kernel hackers is limited, but that's why you turn some of your own workforce into essentially paid kernel hackers. It seems to work for IBM, as they have pushed a lot of innovation into Linux from the "outside" by first becoming an active member. I don't assume that "community" always means "unruly, freelance, unpaid hackers." It's fully possible that Linux will eventually be driven primarily by a community of interested companies. (Or, if you will, a community of internal communities)
If they have their own resources in terms of engineering talent, you can't possibly blame them for wanting to use it on their 'own' product? it guarantees x number of eyeballs looking at it in a directed way and with it being literally their "day job".
This is old fashioned thinking. Long term, Sun may not have the resources to maintain their 'own' product -- as maintain becomes "try to keep up with Linux." Are they going to simultaneously compete with IBM / Novell / RedHat / SuSE / etc. and with Microsoft? I'm not doubting Sun's engineering skill, but those x number of eyeballs would probably do more good for the company in improving Linux and designing migration paths for existing customers.
Are you trying to spread FUD? Sure sounds like it. Guess what? Redmond's power is nothing compared to an increasingly annoyed world-wide IT industry. If they think they can scare people away from Linux using bogus legal threats and wrangling international trade bodies, they are the ones with the cluestick coming -- except it will be aimed directly at the jugular of their revenue stream.
The minute they announce anything remotely close to sounding like they're abandoning Solaris, they will haemorrhage customers as fast as... HP losing VMS/Alpha customers.
Nothing happens overnight. Obviously you don't just pull the carpet out from under your customers. But you can slowly and gently transition them while still providing support for legacy products. People said the same thing about Apple's move to OSX. "Existing customers will run away because it's more complex / too different and won't run well on old hardware, etc." But Apple did what they had to do. It seems to mostly have worked thus far. Maybe a few customers left, but how many new customers has a BSD-rooted OS drawn in?
"Sun Surrenders" is probably what plenty of analysts etc. will plunk on their front pages
That's where PR comes in.. You make it sound like a gradual transition.. a continued commitment to something already started.. a move to increase community efforts.. whatever.
Independent R&D costs big bucks? Hell yeah. Should I presume you're a big "oh-we-used-to- say-we-don't-do-ANY-R&D-which-is-why- we're-gonna-kill-all-those-who-do" Dell fanboy? IBM's often quoted as a major friend-of-OSS, but any real-$$ investments they have made are targeted towards things that are beneficial to themselves and/or hurtful to enemies
The point is not to abandon R&D but to avoid creating your own island in the pr
If Sun had "embraced Linux", as the parent suggests, it presumably would have developed them there instead. Not that I'm entirely clear on why it would have been in their best interests to do that.
I can think of a few reasons:
1.) Lower R&D costs. Let the community massage your improvements to Linux instead of having to rework, test, and maintain your own codebase.
2.) Less legal hastle and licensing costs, as mentioned, than opening up all of Solaris. Evidently Sun didn't have full rights to all the code, so they had to buy them up first. And if the Solaris 10 license turns out to be anything more restrictive than GPL, it's not even going to help them much as far as Linux competition is concerned. (Compare Microsoft's "Shared Source" program)
3.) PR. Switching entirely to Linux would have given Sun an enormous boost in respect and confidence -- especially among geeks but also among investors concerned about Sun's bottom line. All that independent R&D costs big bucks. And, after all, Linux is now a media / wall street darling.
I'm sure Sun has their reasons, but I'd imagine they are fairly short term. What will finally cause Sun to go completely GPL is a mystery yet to be solved. I look forward to that day. They'll be an even better member of the team than they are now.
There's a definite market for this kind of service. Just because you're not in it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Absolutely.. except there are two problems:
1.) This relegates Sun to be a niche player for the high-end. Without the mid-range markets, is there enough money to keep up their heavy software and hardware R&D?
2.) Neither Linux nor companies that support it are standing still. Sure, Solaris 10 will be technically superior, but Linux will catch up in short time. Likewise, companies that support Linux are maturing. And there's the IBM factor..
To me, it doesn't make sense why Sun still wants to more or less go it alone in the R&D department. If they're not in the business of selling software, why do they continue to try to develop their own instead of just contributing to true Open Source projects. Sun and Apple are very similar IMO. Both have quality products, a legacy of happy customers, and support the community. However, their choices to maintain control over certain key software limit their market potential. Once Open Source really takes off (it hasn't yet, but will), I hope they have the wisdom to fully jump on board. In fact, I hope they realize beforehand and help to make Open Source truly take off sooner.
I agree that's clever, but may not be the best way to improve the current situation. Especially since MS seems to want to generate lawsuits.
One way to look at it is that lawsuits are an expensive way to make noise.
Precisely. The proper way to stop the noise is to pull the carpet out from under the noise maker, not to buy millions of earplugs. Do you hate Microsoft's sleazy tactics? Do you hate bogus software patents? Then do everything within your power to make Open Source succeed in the marketplace. Whether that's writing or improving F/OSS in your spare time, donating to projects, convincing PHB's in your workplace to try alternatives, or even changing your career so you can focus on making a difference, just do something! We should not be driven by fear, but we should recognize a valid threat and take steps necessary to eliminate it.
One of the reasons this is so expensive is that the amount of data coming in from an uncompressed source (like component cables or DVI) is immense.
The video signal commonly referred to as "component" and having the 3 RCA connectors (Y,Pb,Pr) is analog, not digital. I can't tell you how many people are confused about this. (: Other than bandwidth and timing formats, it's not that much different than S-video, which is also a type of component signal and is sometimes written as (Y,Pb+Pr) or (Y,C).
So if you're trying to bring an HDTV analog component source into your computer, you need some pretty darn fast and accurate analog to digital convertors before you even worry about re-compressing the digital signal. Not cheap.. yet! (Remember how much NTSC composite capture devices used to cost?)
"Intellectual property", or rather the components that comprise that term (trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights and patents) each have their use, and abolishing some of them would just be silly.
Yes, as I said, the components of "IP" currently have their use. It's the bad terminology and the reasons why that terminology came into common use that are the problem.
Also, I don't think the free market system ever intended to deal with a legal roadblock on the individual's ability to invent/engineer/innovate.
Exactly.. because "intellectual property" is not a free market concept. It is an artificial, government-imposed regulation on who can produce what. That's not to say that it doesn't have a place in our hybrid economic system -- at least temporarily. But "IP" should be recognized for what it is -- a compromise! This is precisely what the founding fathers of the US conceived. It was to be applied only as needed in helping to promote production of intellectual works. Today, we have these idiots who think that "IP" should be legally and morally treated the same as physical property. This represents faulty reasoning in every way. In fact, it is these same idiots who coined the phrase "IP" to help push their greed-fueled agendas. We can also thank Clinton and friends for exporting this rubbish to the rest of the world through the creation of WIPO in the guise of free trade negotiation. (DMCA is one of the many negative results of this maneuver..)
I prefer the terms "information monopoly" or "intellectual works regulation" because it accurately describes the field of law to which it refers. If we can get lawyers to start using these terms, the battle to restore balance will be half won.
People who use Linux are also not concerned with saving a little bit of money on the OS - if that is what you think it's about, you haven't been paying attention!
I was talking about the business case for Linux. This is the part that, unfortunately, most geeks still ignore. I myself am a geek and I personally use F/OSS solely for technical and philosophical reasons. But when I switch to pragmatic or 'businessman' mode, the bottom line and real world results are what ultimately counts. Linux is never going to succeed on a larger scale because of geeks like us thinking it's so cool.
Linux / FOSS is not yet taking over the desktop by storm because the software needed in real-world business environments is either not available or is not truly production quality. This is the fault of FOSS developers for not getting out and capitalizing on a ripe market.
Are you doing your part?
Seriously, if Adobe moves into Linux with Photoshop and the other heavy hitters from their lineup (e.g., Illustrator) it will do two things. The first is truly and absolutely, positively legitimatize Linux (but honestly, it didn't really need it but this is a true stamp of approval). Second, they will just further extend their lead in the computer graphics market because it would be hard not to believe that a Linux-optimized Photoshop would do well in terms of marketshare.
People who legitimately need Photoshop and Illustrator and can afford to pay its extraordinarily high cost are not the people who are concerned about saving a little bit of money on the OS. Adobe's products run flawlessly on Windows and MacOS, so there's no real stability advantage either -- given an otherwise clean system. (ie. typical artist workstation) Additionally, there is an enormous amount of small-name Windows and (moreso) MacOS graphics software that artists rely on. In the end, there is no real incentive yet for the core market of Adobe users to switch.
But here's the kicker: most people who use Photoshop don't really need it. The latest Gimp (2.0+) is not as good as the latest Photoshop, but it is as good or better than a lot of earlier versions of Photoshop. Scribus, similarly, is beginning to encroach upon Illustrator. Adobe likely realizes this. While Gimp (and supporting software) may take another 5-10 years of development to start significantly eating into the core Photoshop market, it is already shrinking the outer "low-end" markets of education, business, web design, etc. Given the modern capabilities of Gimp, the cost of Photoshop is increasingly not justified in these markets. (compare also Paint Shop Pro, et al.) In other words, there is a risk that Photoshop (and later Illustrator) will eventually becoming niche players.
The adoption of the Linux / FOSS desktop is directly tied to the success of the free desktop and business software. It has much less to do with the OS itself. And it has even less to do with proprietary software being ported to Linux. Using Linux itself does not save that much money. The use of Linux plus free equivalents to Office, Publisher, Illustrator, and Photoshop is the "killer app" of the Open Source desktop. Add in professional, F/OSS projects targetting core-business database / intranet software needs and we'll have a slam-dunk victory.
Java's frameworks usually stink anyhow. There is way too much coding for otherwise simple things.
...
It depends on what your needs are. Some complexity simply cannot be avoided given today's technology. Also, keep in mind that VB/Delphi would also represent "too much coding" if it were not for their RAD GUIs that do a lot of work for you and hide much of the "glue" that holds everything together. On the Java side, you have tools like Eclipse that perform similar functionality, albeit with a bit more developer control. In the end, if you find yourself typing too much, you're not doing something right! A verbose language need not imply more work on the part of the developer.
Try the Spring Framework + Eclipse + JSF
What advances does PHP5 make that puts it in direct competition with ASP.NET?
.NET platforms for developing enterprise (aka. complex, database-heavy) applications -- whether for the web or otherwise. In many cases, PHP is legitimately the "simplest thing that could possibly work" and is thus an excellent choice. However, the architecture that makes PHP great for RAD and simple web applications also severely limits its usefulness for more complex applications. I say this not off-the-cuff but entirely from real-life experience.
h tm l
PHP5 competes with ASP.NET (and Java) up to a certain point. This is a question of best tool for the job. PHP5 is great for developing interactive websites, CMS/forums/blogs, and other lightweight web applications as suitable for an inexpensive hosted environment. However, PHP5 is still way behind today's Java and
So it comes down to this: if your application is simple enough, by all means use PHP5. It is a great tool for limited-scope jobs (analogous to VisualBasic for the web perhaps) and its performance and scalability is excellent given its limited-by-design architecture. Simplicity on the low end is PHP's strength.. it doesn't try to do too much for those who don't need it to! On the other hand, if your application is more complex (most business apps, anything accounting / finance related, mission critical databases, etc.) use a modern, lightweight, framework-driven Java approach like Spring + Hibernate. PHP is no longer the "simplest thing that could work" when the application domain has moved beyond what it naturally does well. You can force the use of just about any language for any given task but that doesn't mean it makes sense to. (and spare me the silly politics..)
Choice is good. What does disturb me is how many open source programmers today think that PHP, Perl, and Python are the answer to everything web-related. They're not. I could name a few dozen projects currently using those language that would be far better off using Java instead. Incidentally, Python is the closest to competing directly with Java's domain, but needs a few more years for its tools to mature.
http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/simple.
http://www.springframework.org
The annoying thing is that he thinks and behaves as if he were.
Really? On one hand, folks like you say that Bush has failed to marshall world opinion and make the US the "respected leader of the community of nations." On the other hand, you pull out this silly rhetoric that "Bush think's he's president of the world." Well? What's it going to be? I doubt that you are stupid enough to believe that Bush literally sees himself that way. So this rhetoric you spew is more accurately translated as "I don't agree with how much the US asserts its interests throughout the world." That's fine if you believe that, but just come out and say what you mean! However, this is not going to change regardless of who is elected. Of course, the people who feed you your propaganda already know that. So instead they've come up with a lot of clever anti-Bush spin and rhetoric to hijack your ability to think independently. Wake up.
Of course he's for it. He's for anything that might get him a vote, but not so much that might piss the people off would be against it.
Please! Lets be more specific: he (and Bush) rounded up some campaign people who know a little bit about technology and had them come up with responses to the questions that would sound good to the tech crowd without making definitive promises outside of the official campaign platform. Do you folks really think that either Kerry or Bush have any clue about the nuances of copyright law or the practicality of different wireless technologies? C'mon now. These guys have thousands of things on their minds. They have stuff explained to them in capsule form and then check 'yes' or 'no.'
Incidentally, note Pres. Bush's commentary on the Patriot Act in the 3rd debate. It's pretty clear that he has never actually read the thing all the way through. (Would you have time to read 600+ pages as President?) His advisors likely gave him a bullet point list (probably of mostly non-controversial items) and said "this is what we need.. we suggest you sign it so we can better fight terrorism." And, of course, Congress had already near unianimously done the same, including Kerry. What should be on voters minds is WHO wrote the bad parts of Patriot. Guess what? Kerry was one of them! If there is anyone to blame, it's not Bush but rather Kerry and the few others who introduced the bad parts. (Many of the provisions in Patriot are perfectly legit and non-controversial..)