Re:I don't want to start a holy war
on
How Tomcat Works
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Remember that JSP's are simple shorthand for objects that eventually get compiled into full-fledged servlets upon their use (or earlier, if you precompile them when deploying your app). The difference between JSP's & servlets is a development-time issue only.
And there is no reason at all to mix business logic & content - in fact, application frameworks like Struts make it *hard* to do so.
The rest - slowness, memory use, etc. - could apply to any commonly used platform. I've seen studies that put certain types of java code as faster than the "managed" code of the.NET framework. Unless you're coding your web pages in C, this "slowness" or "memory use" will be an issue, as anything else (.NET, perl, php, etc.) is all interpreted.
If source code is freely (speech & beer)available (one of the elements necessary for a product being "open source", or "Free" in the RMS sense), then it can be built into the product w/o paying anyone a dime.
Service contracts, subscription memberships, and the like are creative ways of packaging the source and adding value, justifying your paying instead of compiling it yourself. People will always pay for convenience, and support.
But if money truly is the beginning and the end of the argument, an open source product could be built gratis. Might not be easy (costing more in the value of your time than the original packaging price), but it can be done.
These guys do suffer contacting with VOC and would hardly feel comfortable with such a big chunk of plastics around.
And there's the issue - one of being comfortable around plastic - as opposed to actual VOC levels.
But be that as it may -
If it were me (and I'm reasonably sane) - and I was -that- sensitive (which is a big assumption, because like others here, I think this is just a bunch of hooey better dealt with by psychiatrists and anti-depressants and such), I'd leave the thing on, for fear that the plastic cartridges in my pens would leach VOC's into the air that would cause my hands to break out.
I'd be more worried about all those UV rays you're putting out to break down these trace chemicals than the VOC's. But then, real problems like skin cancer and premature aging would suit a hypochondriac just fine too.
But hey... hypochondriacs have money, or health insurance, or both. I say, make the case out of metal if it helps you sell them. Charge a lot - that's my advice; people like to pay. And thinking the air is clean does more for these types than actually breathing clean air. Nothing like preying on the weak and the (mentally) sick.
Given that all the technologies you mention work just fine across the internet as we know it....
Why think about getting rid of html/http?
The pure simplicity of developing and publishing content is what made the WWW take off the way that it did. Anyone could (and generally did!) build a site. It was an information revolution.
The other technologies will handle the more demanding apps out there. But HTML/HTTP is why the web (and in a larger sense) the internet is what it is today.
Most users have machines that are so "locked down" that they can hardly do anything except what IT specifically allows them to.
This is a good thing.
But that rather infantilizes them as computer users - if IT giveth and taketh away - then most people will conclude that IT should ultimately be in control of things like security.
People will generally happily give up their right to do whatever they want on their machines; but they also go the step further of deciding that since the computer has been "protected" from them, they shouldn't have to worry about anything they could possibly do to the system.
I'm starting to think that what *I* am saying is a difficult concept for you.
I never mentioned GPL software nor assigning copyright to the FSF.
The point is, the distinction between your high artistic impression of your work is no different than the way most programmers feel about theirs.
Which naturally raises the question as to why people like photographers can get away with being paid to do work (which I have no problem with) - and yet blithely refuse to sign over the copyright to their patrons; while such a transfer is implicit in most employment contracts for developers.
You mention employment contracts - and yep - it's all there. Everything is negotiable - but if you ever made those arguments to me about why you insist on keeping the copyright (because it's how -you- see -my- wedding) - I'd either insist on paying you only for the photographs that I chose to purchase (which should be a fair number, if you're as good as you say you are); or for purchasing their copyright along with your services for several hours.
You could tell me where to stick it - but then, as you also say - there are other photographers out there.
The issue never was about how much you were being paid, nor whether you were a regular employee or a contractor/consultant.
The issue is that when you're a developer for hire for a company, in virtually all instances you relinquish copyright to your code to the person who hired you.
The point of my post was that I don't see the distinction between getting paid to write code, or being paid to photograph an event - with respect to copyright of the final results.
Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you.
When I write software at work, I see it as my solution to their requirements, or my software that happens to solve their problem, and the company completely dissapear (sic) in it and all I see is my work.
Funny... the company still keeps its copyright. It's called a work for hire. Get over yourself - we're all professionals - and when we're getting paid, we're serving our employers.
There will (according to this article) be cooperatives of gov't agencies and public organizations that raise money to collectively develop systems.
His example was of a parking ticket management system - there's no reason why different municipalities should each use a different one. He advocates using best practices, viewable (if not open) source, and transparent data interchange techniques to collectively create excellent software for public information infrastructure.
If you get past the literal analysis of his metaphor (with respect to bridges, sewers, etc.) - and think of them as public works projects that serve the community - the article is far from flawed.
Quite the opposite - this is a very compelling idea.
It's efficient with taxpayer dollars by spreading the cost over different government groups (say, municipalities); it provides for paid development efforts as opposed to relying on volunteer open source development; it allows for competition; and it would allow for customization at the municipality level for any special features they can afford to add.
If I was a PHB (what the hell - at my last job, I was) - the next words out of your mouth about this could very well be your last.
Let me explain.
You can't name any of the specific unpatched exploits (because you can't be bothered to look them up). Strike one.
Your argument about who installs updates is incomprehensible. Updatable by THEM? Which THEM? I don't want anyone putting updates on my machines except sys/netadmin staff - not Microsoft, not the end users - nobody. "I can't always be the one installing it" - strike 2. That's your job.
This is a small company - presumably whose purpose is to get real work done. Real work that doesn't involve deploying the latest open-source software and sub 1.0 web browsers for a nebulous benefit. It's good that YOU - the software guy - are doing it; but that doesn't mean that it's good for everyone.
There is money to be made (if you don't want your paychecks bouncing). If IE "just works" - chances are your PHB has weighed the risks of people's data being compromised through their browsers (which is to say, fairly negligible if you - his administrator - is doing his job correctly) - and the very real risk and distraction of putting a new web browser out on everyone's machine. If he can go 1-for-1 as far as finding a site that he doesn't think displays properly, he's probably (perhaps validly) concerned about other users doing "real work" - yep - real work - running into the same distracting issue. Maybe he wants his employees... and yes, you... focused on doing what's good for the company. In your case that would be making sure that the systems support the business, and all that that entails. Sounds like you've hit a couple foul balls on strike 2 - I'd be careful about how you proceed.
On a more constructive note, if you can prove... *prove* ... that IE is inferior; and that the risks of using it are clear and present; and that the failure to use it will *cost him money* - and if your credibility isn't shot by now - then you have a duty to make PHB aware of it. If he chooses to ignore the risks, you've done your job; and he's done his. And the consequences are his to bear.
There is a place in business for OSS - hell, I use it every day. But you'll never get it adopted by failing to sell it on the business' terms - dollars, productivity, hours, and risk.
Not sure what test you're talking about - but the ASVAB is the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery - a test to help the military decide what you're capable of.
Because it's harder and harder to innovate with respect to hardware, and provide backward compatibility with your existing client base.
What's more, each new 'major' release of (Windows at least) doesn't really provide much in the way of 'must-have' capabilities for enterprise customers, who are the bread & butter for companies like microsoft. Adoption of software upgrades since Win2000 have been slow in the market, because . ..
Computers and gear tend to work 'well-enough' for most business uses - so sales of new gear has stagnated for several years (though there are signs of a turnaround).
And Free offerings are becoming more and more viable alternatives for forward-thinking organizations.
So Microsoft is really in a bind here - declining sales, difficulty in setting the technological standards that used to grant them monopoly pricing power, and increasingly viable alternatives for customers leave them forced to consider revenue streams such as licensing technology. And to try like hell (witness their latest DRM efforts and attempts to make it a standard that would guarantee them sales and licensing revenues) to use whatever vestiges of their monopoly power to twist a few more years of control out of their franchise.
"At no time did BulletProof have access to either the source code or object code of the OpenRes program, and, hence, Navitaire's code was not copied," BulletProof says in its complaint.
Whether they've been paid off, or are inordinately conservative, Gartner has always been something of an advocate for Microsoft technologies.
Given that Linux is finding more and more of a role in replacing Windows-based servers, it should come as no surprise that Gartner would come up with something like this.
Problem is, this sort of thing gives C*O's, already wondering about SCO & Linux liabilities, reason to delay or reduce Linux adoption in their enterprise.
When balanced against William Shatner's responses, I'd say they average out nicely.
Aside, this was a great interview idea; and getting something like this would have been really hard without a site of Slashdot's size and popularity. There are a lot of (perhaps legitimate) complaints about what constitutes "news" around here, but this was seriously a great feature.
Thanks to Slashdot and the DOJ lawyers for making this happen.
You only have to release source code if you -distribute- your modified kernel.
If you want to use it in-house, and not give it away, then there's no such requirement.
And just because you compiled with gcc doesn't mean you have to release the code to the resulting binaries. You're free to license them however you like.
Slashdot Mirror
836/1880000 is actually 4.44e-4, or 0.0444%.
Somebody had to say it.
Remember that JSP's are simple shorthand for objects that eventually get compiled into full-fledged servlets upon their use (or earlier, if you precompile them when deploying your app). The difference between JSP's & servlets is a development-time issue only.
.NET framework. Unless you're coding your web pages in C, this "slowness" or "memory use" will be an issue, as anything else (.NET, perl, php, etc.) is all interpreted.
And there is no reason at all to mix business logic & content - in fact, application frameworks like Struts make it *hard* to do so.
The rest - slowness, memory use, etc. - could apply to any commonly used platform. I've seen studies that put certain types of java code as faster than the "managed" code of the
Or perhaps IHBT. HAND.
If source code is freely (speech & beer)available (one of the elements necessary for a product being "open source", or "Free" in the RMS sense), then it can be built into the product w/o paying anyone a dime.
Service contracts, subscription memberships, and the like are creative ways of packaging the source and adding value, justifying your paying instead of compiling it yourself. People will always pay for convenience, and support.
But if money truly is the beginning and the end of the argument, an open source product could be built gratis. Might not be easy (costing more in the value of your time than the original packaging price), but it can be done.
If it was open source but too expensive
Huh?
Use the source.
These guys do suffer contacting with VOC and would hardly feel comfortable with such a big chunk of plastics around.
And there's the issue - one of being comfortable around plastic - as opposed to actual VOC levels.
But be that as it may -
If it were me (and I'm reasonably sane) - and I was -that- sensitive (which is a big assumption, because like others here, I think this is just a bunch of hooey better dealt with by psychiatrists and anti-depressants and such), I'd leave the thing on, for fear that the plastic cartridges in my pens would leach VOC's into the air that would cause my hands to break out.
I'd be more worried about all those UV rays you're putting out to break down these trace chemicals than the VOC's. But then, real problems like skin cancer and premature aging would suit a hypochondriac just fine too.
But hey... hypochondriacs have money, or health insurance, or both. I say, make the case out of metal if it helps you sell them. Charge a lot - that's my advice; people like to pay. And thinking the air is clean does more for these types than actually breathing clean air. Nothing like preying on the weak and the (mentally) sick.
Wouldn't the "photo-catalytic oxidation" also remove the VOC's given off by the case?
Yeesh.
Given that all the technologies you mention work just fine across the internet as we know it....
Why think about getting rid of html/http?
The pure simplicity of developing and publishing content is what made the WWW take off the way that it did. Anyone could (and generally did!) build a site. It was an information revolution.
The other technologies will handle the more demanding apps out there. But HTML/HTTP is why the web (and in a larger sense) the internet is what it is today.
Unless seagate has some sort of trick up their sleeves, this could kill them.
Hrm. Maybe with their plummeting prospects, this is a poison-pill strategy to keep the corporate raiders on the other side of the moat.
Course, that doesn't really make sense - but then most conspiracy theories don't.
It's really a vicious cycle, though.
Most users have machines that are so "locked down" that they can hardly do anything except what IT specifically allows them to.
This is a good thing.
But that rather infantilizes them as computer users - if IT giveth and taketh away - then most people will conclude that IT should ultimately be in control of things like security.
People will generally happily give up their right to do whatever they want on their machines; but they also go the step further of deciding that since the computer has been "protected" from them, they shouldn't have to worry about anything they could possibly do to the system.
And the circle is complete.
I'm starting to think that what *I* am saying is a difficult concept for you.
I never mentioned GPL software nor assigning copyright to the FSF.
The point is, the distinction between your high artistic impression of your work is no different than the way most programmers feel about theirs.
Which naturally raises the question as to why people like photographers can get away with being paid to do work (which I have no problem with) - and yet blithely refuse to sign over the copyright to their patrons; while such a transfer is implicit in most employment contracts for developers.
You mention employment contracts - and yep - it's all there. Everything is negotiable - but if you ever made those arguments to me about why you insist on keeping the copyright (because it's how -you- see -my- wedding) - I'd either insist on paying you only for the photographs that I chose to purchase (which should be a fair number, if you're as good as you say you are); or for purchasing their copyright along with your services for several hours.
You could tell me where to stick it - but then, as you also say - there are other photographers out there.
The issue never was about how much you were being paid, nor whether you were a regular employee or a contractor/consultant.
The issue is that when you're a developer for hire for a company, in virtually all instances you relinquish copyright to your code to the person who hired you.
The point of my post was that I don't see the distinction between getting paid to write code, or being paid to photograph an event - with respect to copyright of the final results.
Secondly, you see these as photos of yourselves. I don't see it that way. I see it as my photo of you, or my photo that you happen to be in and sometimes even just my photo and you completely dissapear in it and all i see is my work. I guess it depends on the photographer. What I do is try and capture you as I see you.
When I write software at work, I see it as my solution to their requirements, or my software that happens to solve their problem, and the company completely dissapear (sic) in it and all I see is my work.
Funny... the company still keeps its copyright. It's called a work for hire. Get over yourself - we're all professionals - and when we're getting paid, we're serving our employers.
Who will develop it?
There will (according to this article) be cooperatives of gov't agencies and public organizations that raise money to collectively develop systems.
His example was of a parking ticket management system - there's no reason why different municipalities should each use a different one. He advocates using best practices, viewable (if not open) source, and transparent data interchange techniques to collectively create excellent software for public information infrastructure.
If you get past the literal analysis of his metaphor (with respect to bridges, sewers, etc.) - and think of them as public works projects that serve the community - the article is far from flawed.
Quite the opposite - this is a very compelling idea.
It's efficient with taxpayer dollars by spreading the cost over different government groups (say, municipalities); it provides for paid development efforts as opposed to relying on volunteer open source development; it allows for competition; and it would allow for customization at the municipality level for any special features they can afford to add.
Oh please.
... focused on doing what's good for the company. In your case that would be making sure that the systems support the business, and all that that entails. Sounds like you've hit a couple foul balls on strike 2 - I'd be careful about how you proceed.
.. that IE is inferior; and that the risks of using it are clear and present; and that the failure to use it will *cost him money* - and if your credibility isn't shot by now - then you have a duty to make PHB aware of it. If he chooses to ignore the risks, you've done your job; and he's done his. And the consequences are his to bear.
If I was a PHB (what the hell - at my last job, I was) - the next words out of your mouth about this could very well be your last.
Let me explain.
You can't name any of the specific unpatched exploits (because you can't be bothered to look them up). Strike one.
Your argument about who installs updates is incomprehensible. Updatable by THEM? Which THEM? I don't want anyone putting updates on my machines except sys/netadmin staff - not Microsoft, not the end users - nobody. "I can't always be the one installing it" - strike 2. That's your job.
This is a small company - presumably whose purpose is to get real work done. Real work that doesn't involve deploying the latest open-source software and sub 1.0 web browsers for a nebulous benefit. It's good that YOU - the software guy - are doing it; but that doesn't mean that it's good for everyone.
There is money to be made (if you don't want your paychecks bouncing). If IE "just works" - chances are your PHB has weighed the risks of people's data being compromised through their browsers (which is to say, fairly negligible if you - his administrator - is doing his job correctly) - and the very real risk and distraction of putting a new web browser out on everyone's machine. If he can go 1-for-1 as far as finding a site that he doesn't think displays properly, he's probably (perhaps validly) concerned about other users doing "real work" - yep - real work - running into the same distracting issue. Maybe he wants his employees... and yes, you
On a more constructive note, if you can prove... *prove* .
There is a place in business for OSS - hell, I use it every day. But you'll never get it adopted by failing to sell it on the business' terms - dollars, productivity, hours, and risk.
We used to play one CD, over and over, back in my dotcom days.
Miles Davis - Birth of the Cool.
It brought us constant compliments - it's quite possibly the perfect on-hold music. (Sorry Miles!)
Not sure what test you're talking about - but the ASVAB is the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery - a test to help the military decide what you're capable of.
Because it's harder and harder to innovate with respect to hardware, and provide backward compatibility with your existing client base.
.
What's more, each new 'major' release of (Windows at least) doesn't really provide much in the way of 'must-have' capabilities for enterprise customers, who are the bread & butter for companies like microsoft. Adoption of software upgrades since Win2000 have been slow in the market, because . .
Computers and gear tend to work 'well-enough' for most business uses - so sales of new gear has stagnated for several years (though there are signs of a turnaround).
And Free offerings are becoming more and more viable alternatives for forward-thinking organizations.
So Microsoft is really in a bind here - declining sales, difficulty in setting the technological standards that used to grant them monopoly pricing power, and increasingly viable alternatives for customers leave them forced to consider revenue streams such as licensing technology. And to try like hell (witness their latest DRM efforts and attempts to make it a standard that would guarantee them sales and licensing revenues) to use whatever vestiges of their monopoly power to twist a few more years of control out of their franchise.
$30 by 40 hrs/week times 52 weeks/year leaves you at $62,400 per year. Above that poverty line, I'd say.
Or the Navy classics - Batteries for the Sound-Powered Phones, or Mail-Buoy Watch.
In the last link in the article.
Paragraph about 2/3 down, which reads:
"At no time did BulletProof have access to either the source code or object code of the OpenRes program, and, hence, Navitaire's code was not copied," BulletProof says in its complaint.
Cheers . . .
Perhaps...
But the article clearly states that Bulletproof had no access to either the source code or objects from the previous (Navitaire) application.
It's a "clean room" reimplementation of the functionality - an entirely different thing than porting an application using a different language.
If this is decided against Bulletproof, it has *enormous* consequences for the software industry - open and proprietary alike.
That a habitual liar tells the truth once does not make him any less of a liar.
One report certainly doesn't justify your faith that they're "not in any way pro-MS."
Whether they've been paid off, or are inordinately conservative, Gartner has always been something of an advocate for Microsoft technologies.
Given that Linux is finding more and more of a role in replacing Windows-based servers, it should come as no surprise that Gartner would come up with something like this.
Problem is, this sort of thing gives C*O's, already wondering about SCO & Linux liabilities, reason to delay or reduce Linux adoption in their enterprise.
When balanced against William Shatner's responses, I'd say they average out nicely.
Aside, this was a great interview idea; and getting something like this would have been really hard without a site of Slashdot's size and popularity. There are a lot of (perhaps legitimate) complaints about what constitutes "news" around here, but this was seriously a great feature.
Thanks to Slashdot and the DOJ lawyers for making this happen.
This has got to be a troll...
You only have to release source code if you -distribute- your modified kernel.
If you want to use it in-house, and not give it away, then there's no such requirement.
And just because you compiled with gcc doesn't mean you have to release the code to the resulting binaries. You're free to license them however you like.
A troll, perhaps, or just spreading FUD.
Read the GPL. It's short, and easily understood.