The virtuous cycle is only reality because binaries from one platform don't run on other platforms...
Whether the solution is some common runtime like IL or the JRE or some of the smaller OS backers swallowing their pride and running binaries from larger platforms, there is a solution. I'm not sure the 'winner takes all' phenomenon is a fundamental part of the computing landscape.
Perl and flash can be integrated. The web site hasn't been updated in quite some time, but I can definitely see you using this module, together with something like Komodo, to cobble together something fairly user friendly.
I am sick to death of folks using technology to try to solve people problems. All this indicates is a flawed understanding of the problem.
For example, the issue here is not binary. Security is not the end all and be all--folks should have the freedom to make informed rational decisions to make their systems less secure. Perhaps it's just a web server and not mission critical? Perhaps they need an older version of java to run an older program that they need. Knowledgeable admins should have the freedom to make that choice. Don't force policy via technology.
But this is indicative of a larger trend to look at technology to solve all our problems. Have sex offenders in the neighborhood? Make them wear beepers so that decent folk can know where they are! Have mental health problems? Take a pill! Folks speeding? Put up those goddamn speed cameras!
Rather than dealing with people on a personal level, we use technology to dehumanize interactions. I think it's because technology is easier to understand. It's not as complex as humans are. Technology also scales better than personal interactions do. It lets us do things more efficiently, but, mon dieu, what kind of world are we creating?
I agree that moving to a larger company has its benefits. For example (cause I'm a web programmer) building database driven web sites is interesting for a couple of years, but you can't really do large scale architecture on those types of sites.
Complex, transactional business sites are expensive and require both large scale hardware and complex platforms (which are both interesting to play with, and simply out of reach of small companies). They also tend to require a "process" (or methodology) to keep the client happy.
So, in short, just as I wouldn't want to work in a large company forever, I wouldn't want to work in a smallish company--they each have their own benefits.
This was an interesting article, but was definitely an intro piece. Just saying that rsync helps with replication doesn't really cover everything (is it peer-to-peer, or master-slave? do you run it as the web server user, or a different user? etc).
I did like the differentiation between load balancing (between machines doing the same tasks) and load sharing (for machines that had task differentiation).
I'm not saying that WYSIWYG editors are right for all circumstances, but that arguments you raise against word are pretty much straw men. I mean, come on, I use word about once a month and I still have figured out how to turn off the autocorrection and auto grammar check (yes, they do suck, so I turned them off). Just like LaTeX and DocBook, you need to know the tool when you use it.
As for content versus presentation, that is a valid argument, but you can choose to make a word document ugly and then go back and fix it up (I like the outline feature for getting straight to content). So, in many ways, word can be used as a plain old text editor.
However, using word as the document master is a seriously bad idea. Have you seen the HTML it outputs? Ugh.
Also, read PeopleWare, which has some fantastic information about managing people (which, as the above poster says, is a large part of being an architect).
How about cddb? Slightly different issue, as I believe the community assistance came in the form of data rather than development, but the principle is the same.
We use TestTrack where I work too. Nice little program, and if you have NT lying around, it's cheap and easy to use.
I examined all kinds of bug tracking systems a few months ago, and Bugzilla just wasn't up to snuff. The major stumbling block was the lack of coherent, fine grained permissions in Bugzilla--it was difficult to create groups of users and let them view only certain groups of bugs, let alone prevent them from editing them. (I've been following Bugzilla since then, and see nothing indicating that this problem is being fixed, probably because it isn't a problem for the folks doing Bugzilla development).
As a developer, I had no problem with letting everyone edit bugs--after all, the trust has to start somewhere--but QA had a different viewpoint.
I think that for a certain segment of the software population, this could actually be a good thing.
Lots of folks are satisfied with old versions of software, but some folks aren't. Just like some folks lease cars, but some buy.
If you're one of the folks who need the latest and greatest features (either because everyone you work with uses them, or because of some other reason), this may be a viable option.
It sounds like this is one step to making the upgrade process even easier. All you have to do is give up the ability to stay at a given version of software.
I wouldn't do it, but I can certainly see the business case for MSFT. It'll be interesting to see how many other folks think it's beneficial enough to participate.
No, I'd say what really matters here is what we are getting ourselves into. I think that quite a few folks, including myself on occasion, have lost sight of the fact that just because we *can* do something doesn't mean that we *ought* to do it. I include combining animals and computers for technological adventure.
Please read "Computer Power and Human Reason : From Judgement to Calculation" by Joseph Weizenbaum for a more fully developed explication of this viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
The virtuous cycle is only reality because binaries from one platform don't run on other platforms...
Whether the solution is some common runtime like IL or the JRE or some of the smaller OS backers swallowing their pride and running binaries from larger platforms, there is a solution. I'm not sure the 'winner takes all' phenomenon is a fundamental part of the computing landscape.
One more beer-laden post....
Perl and flash can be integrated. The web site hasn't been updated in quite some time, but I can definitely see you using this module, together with something like Komodo, to cobble together something fairly user friendly.
I am sick to death of folks using technology to try to solve people problems. All this indicates is a flawed understanding of the problem.
For example, the issue here is not binary. Security is not the end all and be all--folks should have the freedom to make informed rational decisions to make their systems less secure. Perhaps it's just a web server and not mission critical? Perhaps they need an older version of java to run an older program that they need. Knowledgeable admins should have the freedom to make that choice. Don't force policy via technology.
But this is indicative of a larger trend to look at technology to solve all our problems. Have sex offenders in the neighborhood? Make them wear beepers so that decent folk can know where they are! Have mental health problems? Take a pill! Folks speeding? Put up those goddamn speed cameras!
Rather than dealing with people on a personal level, we use technology to dehumanize interactions. I think it's because technology is easier to understand. It's not as complex as humans are. Technology also scales better than personal interactions do. It lets us do things more efficiently, but, mon dieu, what kind of world are we creating?
Dan
I agree that moving to a larger company has its benefits. For example (cause I'm a web programmer) building database driven web sites is interesting for a couple of years, but you can't really do large scale architecture on those types of sites.
Complex, transactional business sites are expensive and require both large scale hardware and complex platforms (which are both interesting to play with, and simply out of reach of small companies). They also tend to require a "process" (or methodology) to keep the client happy.
So, in short, just as I wouldn't want to work in a large company forever, I wouldn't want to work in a smallish company--they each have their own benefits.
I did like the differentiation between load balancing (between machines doing the same tasks) and load sharing (for machines that had task differentiation).
Dan
You mean something like this:
search for turtle familiy
See the "Did you mean: family turtle" text?
Check out the gnu doc project. They always need folks who can write good copy.
Dan
BS.
I'm not saying that WYSIWYG editors are right for all circumstances, but that arguments you raise against word are pretty much straw men. I mean, come on, I use word about once a month and I still have figured out how to turn off the autocorrection and auto grammar check (yes, they do suck, so I turned them off). Just like LaTeX and DocBook, you need to know the tool when you use it.
As for content versus presentation, that is a valid argument, but you can choose to make a word document ugly and then go back and fix it up (I like the outline feature for getting straight to content). So, in many ways, word can be used as a plain old text editor.
However, using word as the document master is a seriously bad idea. Have you seen the HTML it outputs? Ugh.
Also, read PeopleWare, which has some fantastic information about managing people (which, as the above poster says, is a large part of being an architect).
How about cddb? Slightly different issue, as I believe the community assistance came in the form of data rather than development, but the principle is the same.
I examined all kinds of bug tracking systems a few months ago, and Bugzilla just wasn't up to snuff. The major stumbling block was the lack of coherent, fine grained permissions in Bugzilla--it was difficult to create groups of users and let them view only certain groups of bugs, let alone prevent them from editing them. (I've been following Bugzilla since then, and see nothing indicating that this problem is being fixed, probably because it isn't a problem for the folks doing Bugzilla development).
As a developer, I had no problem with letting everyone edit bugs--after all, the trust has to start somewhere--but QA had a different viewpoint.
Dan
Lots of folks are satisfied with old versions of software, but some folks aren't. Just like some folks lease cars, but some buy.
If you're one of the folks who need the latest and greatest features (either because everyone you work with uses them, or because of some other reason), this may be a viable option.
It sounds like this is one step to making the upgrade process even easier. All you have to do is give up the ability to stay at a given version of software.
I wouldn't do it, but I can certainly see the business case for MSFT. It'll be interesting to see how many other folks think it's beneficial enough to participate.
Dan
Check out http://www.seul.org for some projects relating to linux in education. Dan
Please read "Computer Power and Human Reason : From Judgement to Calculation" by Joseph Weizenbaum for a more fully developed explication of this viewpoint.
Dan