> The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.
Perhaps they need to read _The Mythical Man Month_ again.:-) Hint: it ain't always the number of developers that makes a project work.
> Commercial Linux distributors are forced to create incompatible solutions as value-added propositions.
This is different from Windows how?
> Studies have shown that developers believe Microsoft is the top vendor in addressing their interoperability concerns.
Which developers? Windows developers?
> Commercialized Linux distributions limit the flexibility of the available open source solutions.
Not really. They provide additional support options for customers.
> Microsoft provides higher quality support and at a cheaper price than Linux vendors.
Apples and oranges. Microsoft doesn't provide any support to non-enterprise customers without a pricey support contract. Others are forced to find third-party support in both cases, often from the same firms.
> Microsoft stands behind Windows provididing an extremely high level of IP protection and indemnification.
So do many major Linux vendors.
> Microsoft has a faster turnaround between a security disclosure and a bug fix than other open source systems.
That doesn't fit the statistics I've seen from third parties, and I think MS would be VERY hard-pressed to provide service as fast the Linux kernel folks have.
> Microsoft commits resources to do comprehensive QA and testing; the open source model leaves that to chance.
A software's distribution method has little to do with its development methodology, and even less to do with the formal QA methodology in use.
> The Windows ecosystem of certified compatible hardware and software is a lot larger than that of Linux.
Sure, but the actual number of peripherals that are supported by both systems is roughly comparable (with Windows having a lead in newer hardware and Linux a lead in legacy hardware support).
Create a directory called FOO for the program FOO that you want to install. Put all the files (.exe file,.dlls, README files, and what have you) into FOO. One nice, happy unit. Unfragmented.
Now, add FOO to the PATH and LIBPATH variables if you wish to tell the OS that the executables and/or libraries are to be visible system-wide.
The first entry in the LIBPATH is generally ".", or the current directory, so it's easy to run stuff and NOT add it to the PATH or LIBPATH if you want to. Just CD to the base FOO directory before running the program. A nice job for an alias, shell script, or desktop icon.
With an intelligent CD command like WCD for OS/2 or ACD for DOS (something Linux distro should consider adding, BTW), all one has to do to jump to the location where FOO is stored is to type "CD FOO" in most cases, assuming most programs have relatively unique names. No need to consult with the package manager to see where various files associated with a given package are stored.
It seems like Linux and other Unix-like operating systems like to complexify the issue.:-) Ideas like/bin and/usr/bin are good ones -- so create a symlink from each application repository to those common directories and be done with it.
The historical method of splitting up every used-installed package into a zillion different directories based on file type seems to do little more than fragment the system into oblivion.
You create a public file with the @CAT,P command, but you can create a new file cycle using @CAT,P FILE(+1).
That will create a new file with the same name but increment the current cycle number by one, and each new cycle of the file is maintained as an independent data file in the MFD, can be independently read to and written to, etc.
The cycle number continues to increment until it hits a certain value and then starts over, which seems like a problem at first, but as such files are usually referenced as a relative offset from the last cataloged cycle, not the absolute cycle number, it isn't as much of an issue as you might think.
Thus, FILE(-0) always refers to the last cataloged cycle of the file named FILE, FILE(-1) refers to the immediately previous one, and so on.
It's very useful for things like daily logfiles where you want to keep around the last 31 copies and don't really care about the absolute file cycle number but want to be able to see today's actiuve file at FILE(-0) or go back to FILE(-10) to see what happened ten days ago.
The primitive filesystem we use under OS2200 has only a single level of directories (called "program files") in the Master File Directory, but we also have both directory and element (file) versioning, allowing one to have a sizable number of files of the same name stored for historical purposes.
That, plus the fact that an element isn't actually removed from a program file when it's DELETE'd until you PACK the file, is something I really miss when using peecee operating systems (be it Linux, Solaris, OS/2, or Windows). Heck, even VMS had a good versioning scheme when I used it in college in the mid 1980's!
That would allow someone to add a record to a given dataset without being able to remove anything, or perhaps also to modify existing records (depending on the specific implementation).
My previous and current exployers both have an air ventilation system which ran almost constantly, resulting in enough uniform background noise to drown out most casual conversations and such that weren't immediately next door to where you were sitting.
I don't know if the effect was intentional or not, but it might have been. In any case, it helped (and helps!) to remove unwanted distractions.
I also tend to use Embellish heavily under OS/2 as well, since I'm mainly modifying images rather than just viewing them. And I sometimes use XV, or GIMP, or Photo>Graphics, or ColorWorks, or PaintShoop Pro, or CorelDraw, or QuickView, or SEA3, or even NeoPaint.
It's roughly equivalent to WinZIP in functionality, and it's free.
It takes a *long* time to learn large systems.
on
Source Code Browsers?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I worked on the flight operations system for a large airline for over eight years (actually ten if you count my contractor time), and I only learned the intimate details of perhaps 20% of it bu the time I'd left.
Complex applications require a huge amount of specialized knowledge in order to understand, and most of that knowledge relates to the application or work process itself, not the technical environment...
(1) OS/2 was not in a monopoly position. Because of this, IBM was not as constrained as Microsoft is in terms of the activities they could engage in.
(2) The OS/2 media players and WPS objects could all be removed after installation. Also, one could choose not to install them in the first place.
(3) The OS/2 Web browser (WebExplorer) was a simple web-browsing application which could easily be deinstalled. It wasn't "integrated into the OS" to the point where removing it broke third-party products like IE is.
Let's face it -- Microsoft isn't just bundling the applications -- they've been tying other products to those applications and encouraging other ISVs to do so.
That has introduced a series of very real dependencies on the applications that they've bundled, and makes it almost impossible to replace those applications completely.
Of course, Microsoft could choose to compete on merit if those items were forced to be public standards, buttheir corporate culture isn't really geared for that sort of activity...
While not open Source, I find the combination of Dogwaffle + Dadaware's now-free Embellish to be a good cost-free toolset for doing bits of graphics work. Throw in IrfanView and/or XnView for good measure.:-)
Since I don't want to bombard those folks' web pages with/. readers, use Google to find them yourself...
I'd personally love to see something like Ender's Game, Lord of Light, or The Flying Sorcerors made into a (good) movie, but I don't see any of those happening...:-(
...is that Tolkien set up a number of wonderful theatrical moments that would have been neat to actually see on film which were totally bypassed.
* Gandalf confronting Saruman at Orthanc, saying "I have not given you leave to go" when Saruman turns to leave, and then formally casting him out of the council. The extended edition covers some of this, yes, but it would have been a wonderful scene as written given the actors that were paying those parts.
* Gandalf waiting at the main gate of Minas Tirith after Grond had shattered it while the Lord of the Nazgul crossed the theshold and mocked, only to have the horns of Rohan come sounding from afar and delay that potential confrontation.
* Eomer seeing the corsairs coming up the Anduin, raising his sword in defiance, and then seeing the sails of the lead ship unfurl to display the arms of the High King of Gondor (sending him from the depths of despair to the heights of elation and hope).
The vision of the three allied forces (Eomer and the Rohirrim from the NW, Aragorn and the Corsairs from the south, and the knights of Dol Amroth and Gondor from the city itself) coming together to form a massive three-way orc cuisinart in the Pelennor Fields. The dead didn't win that battle, the combined strength of humanity did!
Eowyn and Faramir standing on the walls of the Houses of Healing and looking out over the rising darkness in the east, wondering why they suddenly feel so happy, and then the eagle approaches from the east crying out "Sing, all ye people of the Tower of Anor!".
I understand some things (cutting Tom Bombadil, even the cutting of the Scourge of the Shire), but why does the Mouth of Sauron in the Black Gate confrontation have to go "roowwwr!" all the time? So we know he's a bed guy? Isn't that obvious??:-)
Someday I'd love to see LOTR done up as a minseries by the same people who handled Shogun or Roots. Tolkien's written dialog is damned good. Why mess with it?
My point was that one only has so much room on a 1- or 2- page CV, and that it's quite possible that there are multiple major projects that the person simply wasn't able to list given space considerations. I know I certainly couldn't.
It seems that many (most?) HR qualification processes these days are largely based on buzzword matching, anyway, and a list of languages, tools/environments, and other similar things might be the only way to bring that knowledge to the employer's attention outside of the cover letter (since it's almost impossible to talk to an actual human when searching for work, much less get an actual interview).
For what it's worth, I've had the strangest items on my resume trigger fairly solid job interviews, so I tend to list a number of things on my own CV which might be obscure but which I actually do know fairly well.
I've done significant work in a dozen languages over my 15-year career. That's one of the benefits of working on multiple mainframe/server platforms and also being a PC and Mac hobbyist on the side.
I wonder if you might've tossed away some gems there...
Some shops still need the special features which a mainframe provides (mainly things like recoverability and very high reliability, but some don't, and are still using a mainframe environment mainly due to inertia.
If you folks are the latter case, then more power to you. There probably *are* better solutions out there.
I find it strange that you have mainframers who don't like working with relational systems. Each shop is different, I guess, but every mainframe shop I've ever worked at has had its own mainframe-resident relational database group as well as applications using various other types of data storage structures.
A relational database is just one tool of many, and it's very good at solving certain types of problems. It does so at a cost, however, and the performance trade-offs can be important when running a high-end system.
Slashdot Mirror
Simplicity of structure and simplicity of operation are two different things (sometimes closely related, sometimes not).
:-)
Personally, I don't find the following sequence overwhelmingly complex:
UNZLIB FOO.ZIP
which is all it takes using the 4OS2 alias I've created for doing my own software installations.
> The developers really putting work in open source systems aren't that many; Microsoft can hire more developers to do a better job.
:-) Hint: it ain't always the number of developers that makes a project work.
Perhaps they need to read _The Mythical Man Month_ again.
> Commercial Linux distributors are forced to create incompatible solutions as value-added propositions.
This is different from Windows how?
> Studies have shown that developers believe Microsoft is the top vendor in addressing their interoperability concerns.
Which developers? Windows developers?
> Commercialized Linux distributions limit the flexibility of the available open source solutions.
Not really. They provide additional support options for customers.
> Microsoft provides higher quality support and at a cheaper price than Linux vendors.
Apples and oranges. Microsoft doesn't provide any support to non-enterprise customers without a pricey support contract. Others are forced to find third-party support in both cases, often from the same firms.
> Microsoft stands behind Windows provididing an extremely high level of IP protection and indemnification.
So do many major Linux vendors.
> Microsoft has a faster turnaround between a security disclosure and a bug fix than other open source systems.
That doesn't fit the statistics I've seen from third parties, and I think MS would be VERY hard-pressed to provide service as fast the Linux kernel folks have.
> Microsoft commits resources to do comprehensive QA and testing; the open source model leaves that to chance.
A software's distribution method has little to do with its development methodology, and even less to do with the formal QA methodology in use.
> The Windows ecosystem of certified compatible hardware and software is a lot larger than that of Linux.
Sure, but the actual number of peripherals that are supported by both systems is roughly comparable (with Windows having a lead in newer hardware and Linux a lead in legacy hardware support).
> Microsoft leads in software innovation.
Only in their own minds, I'm afraid...
Create a directory called FOO for the program FOO that you want to install. Put all the files (.exe file, .dlls, README files, and what have you) into FOO. One nice, happy unit. Unfragmented.
:-) Ideas like /bin and /usr/bin are good ones -- so create a symlink from each application repository to those common directories and be done with it.
Now, add FOO to the PATH and LIBPATH variables if you wish to tell the OS that the executables and/or libraries are to be visible system-wide.
The first entry in the LIBPATH is generally ".", or the current directory, so it's easy to run stuff and NOT add it to the PATH or LIBPATH if you want to. Just CD to the base FOO directory before running the program. A nice job for an alias, shell script, or desktop icon.
With an intelligent CD command like WCD for OS/2 or ACD for DOS (something Linux distro should consider adding, BTW), all one has to do to jump to the location where FOO is stored is to type "CD FOO" in most cases, assuming most programs have relatively unique names. No need to consult with the package manager to see where various files associated with a given package are stored.
It seems like Linux and other Unix-like operating systems like to complexify the issue.
The historical method of splitting up every used-installed package into a zillion different directories based on file type seems to do little more than fragment the system into oblivion.
You create a public file with the @CAT,P command, but you can create a new file cycle using @CAT,P FILE(+1).
That will create a new file with the same name but increment the current cycle number by one, and each new cycle of the file is maintained as an independent data file in the MFD, can be independently read to and written to, etc.
The cycle number continues to increment until it hits a certain value and then starts over, which seems like a problem at first, but as such files are usually referenced as a relative offset from the last cataloged cycle, not the absolute cycle number, it isn't as much of an issue as you might think.
Thus, FILE(-0) always refers to the last cataloged cycle of the file named FILE, FILE(-1) refers to the immediately previous one, and so on.
It's very useful for things like daily logfiles where you want to keep around the last 31 copies and don't really care about the absolute file cycle number but want to be able to see today's actiuve file at FILE(-0) or go back to FILE(-10) to see what happened ten days ago.
The primitive filesystem we use under OS2200 has only a single level of directories (called "program files") in the Master File Directory, but we also have both directory and element (file) versioning, allowing one to have a sizable number of files of the same name stored for historical purposes.
That, plus the fact that an element isn't actually removed from a program file when it's DELETE'd until you PACK the file, is something I really miss when using peecee operating systems (be it Linux, Solaris, OS/2, or Windows). Heck, even VMS had a good versioning scheme when I used it in college in the mid 1980's!
That would allow someone to add a record to a given dataset without being able to remove anything, or perhaps also to modify existing records (depending on the specific implementation).
It might've been an intentional white noise system, then. Perhaps someone who works (or used to work) in NWA Building J would know? :-)
In the building where I am now it's an air system because it only runs part of the time (maybe 70%).
I have a nice set of Sony MDR-V6's that I can put on so I can listen to tunes (and drown that unwanted background noise out).
:-)
Most of the time I don't have to be social 'cuz I'm busy either analyzing or writing code.
My previous and current exployers both have an air ventilation system which ran almost constantly, resulting in enough uniform background noise to drown out most casual conversations and such that weren't immediately next door to where you were sitting.
I don't know if the effect was intentional or not, but it might have been. In any case, it helped (and helps!) to remove unwanted distractions.
I also tend to use Embellish heavily under OS/2 as well, since I'm mainly modifying images rather than just viewing them. And I sometimes use XV, or GIMP, or Photo>Graphics, or ColorWorks, or PaintShoop Pro, or CorelDraw, or QuickView, or SEA3, or even NeoPaint.
:-)
The choices under OS/2 are not limited.
That's the platform that PMView started on, and as far as I know Peter is still maintaining the OS/2 version.
It's roughly equivalent to WinZIP in functionality, and it's free.
I worked on the flight operations system for a large airline for over eight years (actually ten if you count my contractor time), and I only learned the intimate details of perhaps 20% of it bu the time I'd left.
Complex applications require a huge amount of specialized knowledge in order to understand, and most of that knowledge relates to the application or work process itself, not the technical environment...
(1) OS/2 was not in a monopoly position. Because of this, IBM was not as constrained as Microsoft is in terms of the activities they could engage in.
(2) The OS/2 media players and WPS objects could all be removed after installation. Also, one could choose not to install them in the first place.
(3) The OS/2 Web browser (WebExplorer) was a simple web-browsing application which could easily be deinstalled. It wasn't "integrated into the OS" to the point where removing it broke third-party products like IE is.
Let's face it -- Microsoft isn't just bundling the applications -- they've been tying other products to those applications and encouraging other ISVs to do so.
That has introduced a series of very real dependencies on the applications that they've bundled, and makes it almost impossible to replace those applications completely.
Free the formats, protocols, and interfaces.
Of course, Microsoft could choose to compete on merit if those items were forced to be public standards, buttheir corporate culture isn't really geared for that sort of activity...
As a recent transplant from the Twin Cities to Smyrna, I find myself missing the white stuff.
:-)
On the bright side, I've been able to wear shorts outside every day so far. it's only gotten down into the teens!
While not open Source, I find the combination of Dogwaffle + Dadaware's now-free Embellish to be a good cost-free toolset for doing bits of graphics work. Throw in IrfanView and/or XnView for good measure. :-)
/. readers, use Google to find them yourself...
Since I don't want to bombard those folks' web pages with
My main ISP uses it, and I think it's the best spam filtering service I've ever used. So far, anyway.
I'd personally love to see something like Ender's Game, Lord of Light, or The Flying Sorcerors made into a (good) movie, but I don't see any of those happening... :-(
...is that Tolkien set up a number of wonderful theatrical moments that would have been neat to actually see on film which were totally bypassed.
:-)
* Gandalf confronting Saruman at Orthanc, saying "I have not given you leave to go" when Saruman turns to leave, and then formally casting him out of the council. The extended edition covers some of this, yes, but it would have been a wonderful scene as written given the actors that were paying those parts.
* Gandalf waiting at the main gate of Minas Tirith after Grond had shattered it while the Lord of the Nazgul crossed the theshold and mocked, only to have the horns of Rohan come sounding from afar and delay that potential confrontation.
* Eomer seeing the corsairs coming up the Anduin, raising his sword in defiance, and then seeing the sails of the lead ship unfurl to display the arms of the High King of Gondor (sending him from the depths of despair to the heights of elation and hope).
The vision of the three allied forces (Eomer and the Rohirrim from the NW, Aragorn and the Corsairs from the south, and the knights of Dol Amroth and Gondor from the city itself) coming together to form a massive three-way orc cuisinart in the Pelennor Fields. The dead didn't win that battle, the combined strength of humanity did!
Eowyn and Faramir standing on the walls of the Houses of Healing and looking out over the rising darkness in the east, wondering why they suddenly feel so happy, and then the eagle approaches from the east crying out "Sing, all ye people of the Tower of Anor!".
I understand some things (cutting Tom Bombadil, even the cutting of the Scourge of the Shire), but why does the Mouth of Sauron in the Black Gate confrontation have to go "roowwwr!" all the time? So we know he's a bed guy? Isn't that obvious??
Someday I'd love to see LOTR done up as a minseries by the same people who handled Shogun or Roots. Tolkien's written dialog is damned good. Why mess with it?
My point was that one only has so much room on a 1- or 2- page CV, and that it's quite possible that there are multiple major projects that the person simply wasn't able to list given space considerations. I know I certainly couldn't.
It seems that many (most?) HR qualification processes these days are largely based on buzzword matching, anyway, and a list of languages, tools/environments, and other similar things might be the only way to bring that knowledge to the employer's attention outside of the cover letter (since it's almost impossible to talk to an actual human when searching for work, much less get an actual interview).
For what it's worth, I've had the strangest items on my resume trigger fairly solid job interviews, so I tend to list a number of things on my own CV which might be obscure but which I actually do know fairly well.
I've done significant work in a dozen languages over my 15-year career. That's one of the benefits of working on multiple mainframe/server platforms and also being a PC and Mac hobbyist on the side.
I wonder if you might've tossed away some gems there...
Some shops still need the special features which a mainframe provides (mainly things like recoverability and very high reliability, but some don't, and are still using a mainframe environment mainly due to inertia.
If you folks are the latter case, then more power to you. There probably *are* better solutions out there.
I find it strange that you have mainframers who don't like working with relational systems. Each shop is different, I guess, but every mainframe shop I've ever worked at has had its own mainframe-resident relational database group as well as applications using various other types of data storage structures.
A relational database is just one tool of many, and it's very good at solving certain types of problems. It does so at a cost, however, and the performance trade-offs can be important when running a high-end system.
Hopefully it won't be an issue in your case...
That way I can be dead twice over! :-) And with OpenWatcom available for OS/2, it should be easy to do! Look out, world! :-)
What do you think I'm making my living writing code in? Yet again? :-)