Last I checked, VOIP uses TCP sockets. When you move between WiFi base stations, you first must discover your new DHCP server, then get a new local IP address, then reconnect to the VOIP server.
So, now half the companies I deal with will want to send me their secure ID card... what's that, like 15 cards at least? No friggin way.
So, then Microsoft comes along and says "We have this thing called Passport, so your customers can use a single secure ID card to sign on to everything.".
Pretty soon, every site uses Passport and you have to get a Passport account to get anything done.
I think we've seen this strategy before from MS, let's see if it works this time.
I use Windows on my desktop because I don't want weird Linux issues to get in the way of my productivity. I believe in the lower TCO of Windows for my desktop, even though I'm very knowledgeable about Linux.
My general impression, though, is that Microsoft makes very broad claims about the TCO of their products compared to Linux/OSS. I think that these kinds of broad statements go contrary to many Linux and OSS users intuition. You've got plenty of people saying "I use Linux, it works great, keeping up to date with patches is dead easy, backups are automatic and I never spend any time administering it. So my TCO is almost nothing and how can you claim otherwise?"
Do you think that there is a conflict between many Linux user's intuitive sense of their costs and the MS definition of that cost? Do you have any plans to work on issues like this?
I must smile with bemusement at the quote "Could this set a precedent for the quality required for custom built software?" Such quality measurements certainly exist for software engineers today. However, the project described here straddles the boundaries of engineering and creative. The HTML was probably first done by a designer, was it reviewed by a properly qualified engineer? What qualifies an engineer to review the code? Despite how easy it is to build a site, the more factors that are involved in any project, the higher the risk of failure (that something will be left out). Further, the web lacks, for the most part, a formal methodology and language; the likelihood that every member of the project will share a proper subset of the project's goals and procedures is virtually nil. Thus, a complicated site is unlikely to be easy to build; it's a hard project that needs smart and skilled individuals. Industry groups and standards organizations exist to deal with these common issues in every major industry on earth. What's my point? Web design is just a little behind other industries in the area of project definition, control and management and this article is a symptom. IAM was started by sales people who were in turn sold by sales people at Razorfish. It is obvious that no one from IAM defined project standards or properly monitored progress and equally obvious that Razorfish took advantage of that. IMHO, this looks like a frivolous suit to appease investors who are about to get news that they've lost lots of capital as IAM goes down.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, VOIP uses TCP sockets. When you move between WiFi base stations, you first must discover your new DHCP server, then get a new local IP address, then reconnect to the VOIP server.
This will definitely be an annoying delay.
So, now half the companies I deal with will want to send me their secure ID card... what's that, like 15 cards at least? No friggin way.
So, then Microsoft comes along and says "We have this thing called Passport, so your customers can use a single secure ID card to sign on to everything.".
Pretty soon, every site uses Passport and you have to get a Passport account to get anything done.
I think we've seen this strategy before from MS, let's see if it works this time.
I use Windows on my desktop because I don't want weird Linux issues to get in the way of my productivity. I believe in the lower TCO of Windows for my desktop, even though I'm very knowledgeable about Linux.
My general impression, though, is that Microsoft makes very broad claims about the TCO of their products compared to Linux/OSS. I think that these kinds of broad statements go contrary to many Linux and OSS users intuition. You've got plenty of people saying "I use Linux, it works great, keeping up to date with patches is dead easy, backups are automatic and I never spend any time administering it. So my TCO is almost nothing and how can you claim otherwise?"
Do you think that there is a conflict between many Linux user's intuitive sense of their costs and the MS definition of that cost? Do you have any plans to work on issues like this?
I must smile with bemusement at the quote "Could this set a precedent for the quality required for custom built software?" Such quality measurements certainly exist for software engineers today. However, the project described here straddles the boundaries of engineering and creative. The HTML was probably first done by a designer, was it reviewed by a properly qualified engineer? What qualifies an engineer to review the code? Despite how easy it is to build a site, the more factors that are involved in any project, the higher the risk of failure (that something will be left out). Further, the web lacks, for the most part, a formal methodology and language; the likelihood that every member of the project will share a proper subset of the project's goals and procedures is virtually nil. Thus, a complicated site is unlikely to be easy to build; it's a hard project that needs smart and skilled individuals. Industry groups and standards organizations exist to deal with these common issues in every major industry on earth. What's my point? Web design is just a little behind other industries in the area of project definition, control and management and this article is a symptom. IAM was started by sales people who were in turn sold by sales people at Razorfish. It is obvious that no one from IAM defined project standards or properly monitored progress and equally obvious that Razorfish took advantage of that. IMHO, this looks like a frivolous suit to appease investors who are about to get news that they've lost lots of capital as IAM goes down.