Originally, I was going to say "screw.Net" and figure J2EE was the best way to go. Disclaimer - I am predominantly a VB programmer (yeah, I know: Boooo, sign of the cross, "get back spawn of satan," derisive laughter etc... moving on), so I should be inclined toward.Net, but I don't like the totally avaricious nature of it. And besides, VB.Net looks like an almost completely different language, so I figure if I have to learn a new language (one that I can decently expect to get a job with), Java is the way to go.
All that said, I now wonder if this guy doesn't have a point. Open source should be big enough to do both, shouldn't it? Different strokes and all that. Only two things bother me with the whole Mono project (and the other one whose name escapes me): being constantly behind the.Net release and licensing issues. Remember OS/2 Warp (a better Windows than Windows - so long as you only wanted Win 3.1). An MS is going to play coy with the whole licensing thing until there are enough open source programmers on board, then pull some standard-issue nonsense and either trap them into a platform for development or leave them high/dry.
Well, yuhhh. Take a look at the article. He's pretty clear about not being a techie (journalist, right?). He's reading a book, ostensibly about hackers. His closest such subject "in the wild" happens to be a couple of cubes over, and this specimen fancies himself something of a programmer, his business card title notwithstanding. So, using the not-so-covert methods he mentions, he notes his observations about said individual in the context of reviewing a book concerning a culture that, while he is not a part of it, it's obvious that he has some affinity for it.
Your distinction, while techically probably accurate is not quite so relevant in the context of the article. I personally thought it was a good article and made a couple of good points about the privileged status that programmers enjoy in this economy. Anyway...
FWIW, I did a search at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on 'repetitive strain injury' and it came back with 3418 documents. It may not exactly be proof, but it indicates something the AMA seems to take seriously.
Kinner here. Reccie doctors was what my 1A roomate called 'em. Programmer wannabe would be closer to it right now. VB/Oracle currently (boo, I know), C/C++... workin' on it. GO UW!
Let me start by saying that there's a lot of your post that I agree with. Usabilty in software is a challenge, no doubt about it. I guess I'll take issue with the "users are stupid" attitude, though. Also note, this is not aimed directly at you, but more at the pervasiveness of this attitude.
:):) You may or may not agree with all this and use the phrase "Users are stupid" as shorthand for an attitude which in is reality kind and generous, but tinged with the reality of working with real live non-technical people who use your software.
First, users aren't stupid just because they want to get some work done rather than marvel at the edifice that is "the computer." Nothing wrong with marvelling mind you, I do it myself from time to time. However, stupid implies an inability to think, far from my experiences with the large majority of users. You might say that it's the very fact that they can think that makes them so difficult. Rarely are they sitting down at the computer without some purpose (read work) in mind. Computers for their own sake have little appeal. Means to an end, nothing more. To believe this and then come up against obtuse software, well, that's a problem. Because they don't think like programmers and can't "figure it out," the "real programmers" want to dismiss it as diminished mental capacity. Sorry, faulting someone for not thinking like you smacks of immaturity at best, bigotry at worst (and no, this is not a politically correct diatribe). Coding for machines is great. There's a need for hardware programmers and the work is enjoyable (so I hear). If you want to create exquisite chunks of code that other programmers will marvel at, go for it. All that said, why are you talking about users?
Second, users are a reality. Deal with it. There may even be, in your application programming experience, a clinically certifiable intellectually sub-normal user here and there. Users don't irk me anywhere near as much as the attitude of "anyone incapable of using a command line shouldn't have a computer" (or something to the like posted by Anon Cow. elsewhere). Makes me want to say, "Gimme a call when you return to reality." Few things make a user go from confused to angry quicker than the attitude (even if unexpressed) "you are an idiot" on the part of the person(s) supposedly responsible for either creating or supporting a piece of software they may want/need to use. You think "clueless" users are a pain? Try "clueless and pissed off." You either develop a bit of foresight and sensitivity or you end up getting angry yourself, wondering when these goons who don't appreciate the work you do are going to get a clue.
Truthfully, I don't say all this with the idea that minds will be changed and again, I don't completely know all your attitude, so chances are you're a good guy. I enjoy programming and shock of shocks, I actually like interacting with users. I don't like being hollered at any more than anyone, and sometimes there are people with a problem with something I've done. Rarely, however, can I chalk it up to stupidity.
For anyone interested in this issue there is a web site at www.seul.org that is endeavouring to make Linux easier to use. I get a periodic newsletter from them.
It's geared toward a wide range of Linux users, which makes sense given the goal of bringing Linux to the broader public. The site is fairly big with stuff for newbies and nerds. Not surprisingly there's always need for volunteers.
I liked the rebuttal by the MS rep to the statement that MS was getting ready to port Office to Linux. Not robust enough? Linux? This from a MS employee and presumably someone who uses the stuff? Sorry, gotta go dig out my dictionary. Hm, robust, robust...
Slashdot Mirror
A shortfall of 5% is fairly significant (ask any business owner). It's all a matter of scale.
Dork indeed! :-)
She has a website, though, so perhaps this is strangely appropriate. Of course now we'll have the frightening prospect of 'Taquitos' running around!
Seriously, Rob & Kathleen. Congrats.
I just know this is going to bugger up my reception for the broadcast of the ST:Enterprise premiere. :/
but if you like Foxtrot, take a look at this
Salut!
Originally, I was going to say "screw .Net" and figure J2EE was the best way to go. Disclaimer - I am predominantly a VB programmer (yeah, I know: Boooo, sign of the cross, "get back spawn of satan," derisive laughter etc... moving on), so I should be inclined toward .Net, but I don't like the totally avaricious nature of it. And besides, VB.Net looks like an almost completely different language, so I figure if I have to learn a new language (one that I can decently expect to get a job with), Java is the way to go.
.Net release and licensing issues. Remember OS/2 Warp (a better Windows than Windows - so long as you only wanted Win 3.1). An MS is going to play coy with the whole licensing thing until there are enough open source programmers on board, then pull some standard-issue nonsense and either trap them into a platform for development or leave them high/dry.
All that said, I now wonder if this guy doesn't have a point. Open source should be big enough to do both, shouldn't it? Different strokes and all that. Only two things bother me with the whole Mono project (and the other one whose name escapes me): being constantly behind the
Just a thought.
Your distinction, while techically probably accurate is not quite so relevant in the context of the article. I personally thought it was a good article and made a couple of good points about the privileged status that programmers enjoy in this economy. Anyway...
Later on...
Damn, where do I send my resume?
Well, that was her and Brian's wish anyway...
FWIW, I did a search at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on 'repetitive strain injury' and it came back with 3418 documents. It may not exactly be proof, but it indicates something the AMA seems to take seriously.
Kinner here. Reccie doctors was what my 1A roomate called 'em. Programmer wannabe would be closer to it right now. VB/Oracle currently (boo, I know), C/C++ ... workin' on it. GO UW!
First, users aren't stupid just because they want to get some work done rather than marvel at the edifice that is "the computer." Nothing wrong with marvelling mind you, I do it myself from time to time. However, stupid implies an inability to think, far from my experiences with the large majority of users. You might say that it's the very fact that they can think that makes them so difficult. Rarely are they sitting down at the computer without some purpose (read work) in mind. Computers for their own sake have little appeal. Means to an end, nothing more. To believe this and then come up against obtuse software, well, that's a problem. Because they don't think like programmers and can't "figure it out," the "real programmers" want to dismiss it as diminished mental capacity. Sorry, faulting someone for not thinking like you smacks of immaturity at best, bigotry at worst (and no, this is not a politically correct diatribe). Coding for machines is great. There's a need for hardware programmers and the work is enjoyable (so I hear). If you want to create exquisite chunks of code that other programmers will marvel at, go for it. All that said, why are you talking about users?
Second, users are a reality. Deal with it. There may even be, in your application programming experience, a clinically certifiable intellectually sub-normal user here and there. Users don't irk me anywhere near as much as the attitude of "anyone incapable of using a command line shouldn't have a computer" (or something to the like posted by Anon Cow. elsewhere). Makes me want to say, "Gimme a call when you return to reality." Few things make a user go from confused to angry quicker than the attitude (even if unexpressed) "you are an idiot" on the part of the person(s) supposedly responsible for either creating or supporting a piece of software they may want/need to use. You think "clueless" users are a pain? Try "clueless and pissed off." You either develop a bit of foresight and sensitivity or you end up getting angry yourself, wondering when these goons who don't appreciate the work you do are going to get a clue.
Truthfully, I don't say all this with the idea that minds will be changed and again, I don't completely know all your attitude, so chances are you're a good guy. I enjoy programming and shock of shocks, I actually like interacting with users. I don't like being hollered at any more than anyone, and sometimes there are people with a problem with something I've done. Rarely, however, can I chalk it up to stupidity.
Later all.
For anyone interested in this issue there is a web site at www.seul.org that is endeavouring to make Linux easier to use. I get a periodic newsletter from them.
It's geared toward a wide range of Linux users, which makes sense given the goal of bringing Linux to the broader public. The site is fairly big with stuff for newbies and nerds. Not surprisingly there's always need for volunteers.
I liked the rebuttal by the MS rep to the statement that MS was getting ready to port Office to Linux. Not robust enough? Linux? This from a MS employee and presumably someone who uses the stuff? Sorry, gotta go dig out my dictionary. Hm, robust, robust...