"Make a big deal about syntax and other irrelevant aspects to the.Net framework being standardized by the EMCA, when there is no chance in hell Microsoft is going to open up or standardize the parts required to work with Windowz."
At least, any that mean jack. (The secret API calls they build into everything to screw competitors, historically, now and damn well in the future.)
As for your VC scam, you would have to be OUT OF YOUR MIND, to develop a competing standard against any of.Net's framework.
I don't mean just the ideas copied from Sun's Java, such as virtual machines etc, either.
The company (Micro$oft) has 43 Billion in cash reserves.
Your VC friends are about as smart as you are.
Finally, I am not talking about Mono in ANYWHERE, whether it be GNOME, Windows or KDE.
I am talking about the fact there are coders in the MONO project that could and should be working on GNOME's bugs, faults.
Instead they are working on a Microsoft deterrant to adopt Linux. We already have that, because KDE and GNOME are barely profesional grade desktops as IS.
Besides the rather assanine API constructs that contributes to USER FRUSTRATION, they could be working on cleaning up GTK, and GNOME applications.
If Email had the feature, I would reach through this message and shake your freakin neck for wasting and draining the Open Source communities direction and focus on MONO crap'ola which is nothing but a roose...
But since you are very far away, your very safe...
But if your ever in Madison Wisconsin, I will shake you so hard your brain will fall out!
Then we can go and get a pizza and I can convince you it is all a bad dream, through hypnosis.
Then send you happily on your marry way to make GNOME a great desktop APP, along with a great API to build a nice user interface we can all understand.:-)
-Hack
PS: See, sun setting, and millions of users dumping MS Office and walking into the sunset happily with thier copies of GNOME Office apps...
If you dumb asses spent as much time on all of Gnomes problems with its adjunct crappy Window API that is organized specifically so that applications WILL EVER LOOK USEABLE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON, as you spend on coding on GO NOWHERE MONO so that Microsoft can goad you into building on a framework that is wholly controlled by them...
I might actually have a decent GNOME desktop by now...
It would seem the controversy stems from the fact that, if you already invested in 802.11b equipment, mixing 802.11g in with your environment is going to cause the 802.11g access point to step down or send RTS/CTS signals after each packet as a courtesy to 802.11b equipment trying to communicate in the same area.
So, here is something I propose then:
Say you decide to deploy 802.11g equipment in your wharehouse. You have not invested in anything WiFi and you have a nice radio free environment.
So you deply your 802.11g network in your wharehouse and everything is ducky.
Now, along comes Joe Shmoe. Joe Shmoe decides he is going to open a Steppen Brew right next door to your wharehouse.
He has this brilliant plan about offering Customers free internet access while they sip there latte's.
So he deploys a 802.11b access point on his roof next to your wharehouse operating with 802.11g equipment.
All of a sudden, you start getting complaints about crappy through put on your Wharehouse wireless LAN.
You can't seem to figure it out, but your 802.11g network is now half the network it was when your deployed it.
So you look for anyone using 2.4Gigahertz bluetooth devices, remote phones, cordless radio headsets...etc.
Nothing?
In short, the question is: will 802.11g equipment step down in the presence of any 802.11b device, or does it only step down if that device is actually transmitting on your network?
Couldn't find anything in the specs that would rule out this completely NASTY scenario.
Fine. But I would like to point out that the 802.11g spec is in the 2.4Gighertz range, regardless of the contrversy, it would seem to me with all of the communications gear licenses for this spectrum range, that it is going to be HIGHLY dubious that your going to get the range or the speed benfits from g, even with no changes to the SPEC or how it is interpreted.
Contrast this with 802.11a which is in an entirely different Spectrum range, which IT OWNS, specifically for wireless networking.
My guess is 802.11a is still going to have more practical use outside a battle of the specs, than 802.11g.
I find it dubious that the range increases by 802.11g could be significant over the 802.11b standard with regards to both of them operating in the 2.4Gighertz spectrum.
I can use my 2.4Gigahertz cordles phone, my wireless 2.4Gighertz Blue Tooth enabled mice and keyboard, printer...
but I bet your network throughput in such an environment with 802.11g is going to suck rocks with such a crowded spectrum in the real world.
There is only one reason why Microsoft would license code from SCO, and that is to increase the legal justification of this lawsuit.
Microsoft has Billions in its coffers people and the story behind the scenes is more sinister than you can possible imagine I am afraid.
More sinister, because as this develops, it is quite clear this was fully planned and orchestrated by some individual in conjunction with Microsoft's legal apparatus at least 6 months ago.
You don't just BUY a license from SCO, there is a great deal of negotiating that has to take place first for at least 30 days, for example.
So this news is hardly a revelation, more like a leak.
I predict the following from this fall out:
1) International acceptance will widen of Linux because of this, and it will backfire on whomever came up with this idea to discredit Linux and its developers.
2) Microsoft hasn't learned. It continues to use its enourmous warchest to get itself into trouble both with intellectual IP (frivilous lawsuits) and its growing hard line against Linux.
Obviously this is a new tactic. Microsoft's Billions can buy any company it so desires, and use it as a front to create untold havoc in the Western Information Technology sector that considers any alternatives to Microsoft Products.
The best way to expose this is to get a hold of the negotiations between the individuals at Microsoft and SCO, if any paper documents exist, that planned this complete work of fiction lawsuit.
If someone at Microsoft is reading this, leak those papers, so that a lawsuit can be filed. This is blatent AntiTrust behavior and could repoen the case against Microsoft.
3) The outrage that this is going to cause in the Linux American based developer community is going to be far and wide, primarily directed at Microsoft.
As a result I predict this to be an enourmous PR problem for Microsoft on a scale not seen yet, especially after a few months of this goes buy and #2 comes to light.
You are so wrong in so many aspects that it is difficult to believe. 1. The USA did do business with Iraq as did France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Russia. France and Russia might have done more than the USA but that does not mean much.
To which I reply:
I am not disputing the fact we do business with Iraq, some companies do. However, we are not willing to use those business interests in deciding issues such as biological and chemical weapons. That is the problem here. Countries which decide to use these weapons, MUST BE ELIMINATED.
Otherwise discussions like this will only be possible UNDER PAIN OF DEATH.
---
2. Only 3 out of 15 countries in the security council agreed to vote with the USA. Singleling out France is ridiculous.
To which I reply:
That is not true. There was complete support in private discussions about the final vote/resolution, at the end of February, discussing a timeline and benchmarks for Iraq to comply.
France, told everyone in the private session of the council that they would veto ANY RESOLUTION that had teeth in it. (i.e. an ultamatum.)
The US then decided to not even bother.
It is very possible, that if France would have voted for the resolution, to which all 13 security councils agreed to before it hit the floor of the UN, Sadaam Hussein, confronted with a united front from the UN, would have fled the country or complied.
Now we are at war either way. Frankly, I don't see the logic of Frances indecision because at least if they would have agreed to vote for the final resolution, there would have been a CHANCE we would not be at war right now.
--
3. think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately. It is nice to be sure about things but completely stupid. There was no unanimity at the security council with or without France and there is not the start of the beginning of a hint that Saddam would have left or complied.
To which I reply:
That is true officially. Unofficially, these measures were discussed at length behind closed doors, which is typical before any resolution is passed to iron out a vote. See my message above.
The point is, the final resolution never made it passed France, and I am sorry if the truth hurts.
It is a matter of UN record, now, so it is pointless to argue about it.
--
4. What if the US troops are attacked by biological weapons that have been sold by the US to Iraq?
Many countries exchange and sell strains of Small Pox, including the US and most if not all member of the security council so your point is what?
There is nothing wrong per se, of selling small pox. What its intended uses are, is the problem. Small Pox is used and studied all over the world in Biology.
Problem is not all governments use them as weapons. I think the point you are trying to make, is that we sold Iraq small pox with US knowingit would use them in a biological weapons program.
I would love to see proof of that.
--
5. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case. The French foreign minister said it many times: France is not a pacifist country. And Russia certainly isn't either.
To which my reply is:
France is not a pacificst country? Prove it!
My point with this comment is,
1) France split the Security council over the final vote over the Iraq.
2) France sent its ministers to Morocco, and all over the place offering money for votes against the US, Britain and New Europe, Italy, Spain, and former members of the Eastern block countries.
4) France has split NATO and destroyed an entire political arena for what gain?
To keep its oil interests and investments sound to support a petty dictator in the world that uses gas,
I suspect, that after the War is over in Iraq, and the Iraqi people awaken from a long political sleep after being opressed by this dictatorship, they will not only choose a new government for themselves, but also new friends as well.
The last thing on a Iraqi persons mind right now is cell phones. Our troops are encountering thousands of people living in poverty for decades. I suspect all they want is food and water for thier families.
I think the chasm between France and the USA is not going to be repairable as long as Chirac is in power in France. Germany is probably fixable, but Russia as well as France actively supported this regime economically, and also under minded the final UN resolution for some sort of political resolution to this problem without war.
I think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately. Instead France would not hear of it, and threatened to veto such a move.
The whole situation is very sad, and the UN has lost its relevance to the American people to resolve/coordinate any sort of problem, except perhaps simple Humanitarian issues.
The anti France sentiment over here is unbelievable, at least in my state, even when I am playing games online. (People who don't fight immediately or Rush in Warcraft III are called "Frenchies" for example.)
I think when the military conflict is all over a serious reconsideration, both militarily, and economically is going to happen minimally over France's part in undermining UN support/fragmenting the security council and Russia's appearent selling of Missiles to the Iraqi guard troops that can (and have) taken out the American M1 Abrams tanks.
In my humble opinion, being against war, generally is a good idea. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case.
The political impact this going to have throughout Europe is going to change not only the face of NATO, but may very well, bode unwell for France Germany or Russia if terrorists realize the US will not assist these countries if they come under a 911 type attack.
And for what?
A petty dictator that gases his own people, buildes enourmous palaces while his people eat dirt on the streets and have no political say in what happens in thier own lives.
I don't this it is worth the fracturing of NATO and trade which will be the fallout from this.
XML Technology has issues, but, more importantly, many of them are caused by the application community themselves, for the following reasons:
1) XML is designed for large organizations. It is not really designed for small businesses.
Large business generate MORE data. More data and large amounts of it, and its meaning is something that scales well with XML. However, XML doesn't scale well to the little.
Small businesses usually cannot afford the people, or the time required to meta data EVERYTHING they do.
It is also, probably impractical.
2) XML because of its attempt to make data portable, requires a great deal of work to maintain. Companies have to build "standards" dictionaries in thier organizations, to organize the definition of data, and someone is charged with making sure reuse of that dictionary is put to good use.
Otherwise your XML definitions becomes a junk pile, sort of like a Lotus Notes database of unimaginable complexity and abysmal organization.
Also, because of the complexity of the problem: Meta Data representation of your data, and the as it was hoped for STANDARDS, could be used to organize, industry wide these dictionaries.
Primarily so you don't have to make your own.
This has become a pipe dream however, because XML usually attempts to define the DIFFERENCES between two organizations data, and as a result a industry specific, multiple standard, that everyone could use, becomes a standard that everyone modifies to suit there own needs in thier respective industries. (i.e. You had tags for energy industry, dairy, etc.)
Which is what should happen. Right?
Technology should allow you to make your business process UNIQUE, not commoditize it.
But in short, industry lead XML dictionary standards have not been as widely applicable to business problems as many thought it would be.
Thats OK, though, really, as even if your business partner doesn't use the same tag, or the same tag to represent equivalent information at least you can build database relations to do the conversion for you. With very little writing of code. (See my message below)
3) Most companies fall short, even when they build XML applications, that they make the mistake of not building a general purpose object framework to support thier XML dictionary.
Oh, many companies I talk with THINK they are, but they really are not building a general purpose object framework. This creates the typical problems associated with building large amounts of code whenever they have to implement thier XML data dictionaries in applications.
XML requirements/specifications are particularly harsh on organizations that have software "coders" that do not understand the following:
a) Object Inheritance (i.e. it is understood...but POORLY so.) b) Poor understanding of Functional Decomposition of objects. (i.e. Programmers have a poor grasp of how to combine objects.) c) Poor understanding or NONE AT ALL of Pattern construction in software design. (i.e. Factory patterns, Singleton patterns, iterator patterns)
Without COMPLETE understanding of the above, an XML framework will quickly degrade into a "junk framework" of static functions and structured design principles, decreasing reuse to almost ZERO.
There is something about XML that causes enourmous coding issues if you attempt to solve business software problems with structured design techniques. That something is due to the data. Since the data is abstract to begin with, people writing software attempt to describe the data as descrete in functional method definitions. For example, writing a method to translate a specific tag. That is the wrong way to approach it, and normally you should be using PATTERNS, more sepcifically, Factory Patterns to create/define XML tag actions and values.
Otherwise, you spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME writing code.
Structured design is too feature poor to handle an XML framework of any sort of usefullness.
I think Itanium/Itanium2 are radical departures in x86 design, and they do not come without risks.
These risks are calculated, and I think it is a bit much for Linux to say iNTEL engineers learned nothing from the past.
Much of the Itanium design, is reliant on processes that haven't even been perfected yet....(0.9 Micron etc silicone).
As process technology catches up with Itanium, and the bugs get worked out over the next 2-3 years, I think you will see Itanium in the server room and also on high end desktops.
Not only that but they will out perform anything the market at the time they are introduced.
I make these comments from the business world, not so much what you do on your off days or as an academic excercise.
So with that, here begins my tirade:
In the 21st century, languages for business have to meet the following criteria. If your company is using a language that doesn't meet this criteria, you are in trouble, and probably don't know it.
Why? Because more than likely your competitor is using a language that does meet the following criteria, and you soon won't be in business.
As a past CIO, now a CEO, I won't get technical, I will just ask these criteria in the form of a series of questions. If you run a company, it is going to become clear, which language and OS you should be using by the end of the article.
Here are those requirements:
1) Software your business invests in, and owns outright is an Asset, not an expense. Obviously this doesn't include any shrink wrap software.
Interesting point isn't it?
If you build software or buy it, and toss it out the window because you change hardware platforms or upgrade because your vendor says you have to, you are bearing costs that you don't have to bear, and are throwing your money away.
I gurantee your competitor won't make the same mistake, because one of my sales people will be explaining it too them real clear like on the telephone.
More than likely, because you didn't want to listen.
2) Software is not only an asset, but it is your intellectual property which represents a unique way on how you run your business.
Software enables this idea. Good ideas are unique, not commodities. When a good idea is applied to a business process, you do more with fewer people, less money and out manuver your competitors as a result in price and service.
Software built by companies who acknowledge that software is an asset, also understand it is an investment that is to be protected and furthermore acknowledge that as part of the IP capital of the business, represents something a competitor can't BUY ANYWHERE ELSE.
So with these two points in mind, think about these little diddies
Why would I buy SAP for example, and Windows 2000, when my competitor can buy the exact same thing?
What does buying a business process API that anyone else can buy get me? Does it give my business an edge over my competitors if they can buy the same consultants and produce the exact same thing for my competitors?
Why? Why not?
If Joe Tool and Die down the street can choose a Shrink wrap software desktop/server system for File/Print and Office Suite from Company A, and I can do the same thing for my end users if I use the exact same.
What does that get me? Am I beating Joe Tool and Die down the street following his every move?
Can I somehow make or modify shrink wrap Office Suite Word Processor A, for example, to the point it can make me a unique business process as I invest money and time into growing my infrastructure that my competitor can't duplicate in a way that makes me more money than who my competitor is?
Especially if Joe Tool and Die decides to woo some of my IT people away from me?
Can I modify File and Print server shrink wrap software from company A for my users in such a way that my competitor can't, that saves me money?
Or perhaps, something my competitor can't buy off the shelf and do the same by adding it to company A's file and print server software?
If Joe Tool and Die can't own his software A, but I can own my own software B.
What does that get me?
Does that give me an advantage over my competitor if both sets of software have the exact same features, yet I can modify A and Joe can't modify B without a License?
Company A has As/400's and Company B has Sun/PC hardware and decides to merge with company A, yet it is decided that company A's software is the real advantage to merging with B.
If A has to totally scrap its As/400's to rewrite its software on Company B's Suns/PC's, what does that do to the shareholder value of the merger?
What would have happened if Company A had software that was written to be hardware independant like company B?
Do you think the merger would be of more value?
I think it is extremly obvious what I am getting at here, and why software as we know it, is going to radically change.
Many IT professionals never EVER ask these sorts of questions, Historically. Why? Primarily because until quite recently, the technology wasn't available in any practical sense, to make such decisions very very obvious, and very very easy to do.
Anyone have thoughts on those arguements and what language and OS do you think I am talking about as I pose these arguments?
Has got it all wrong again. Sometimes I wonder if this guy actually reads the articles he summarizes.
The article has nothing to do with the implementation of Java, or its viability.
HELLO???...people, some of the largest sites on the internet is built with Java.
The point of proving Java's viability happened A LONG TIME AGO...and it passed with flying colors.
Java is widely used in a large number of very sites both in public and internal use.
The reason why it is used is because it works, and works very well, which is why it is so popular.
The article however, does point to the fact that since Java is so portable, it has different problems on different platforms, all of them TRIVIAL, which can be easily fixed.
Where Taco got the idea that Java isn't viable, or to make a sweeping statement that Sun "doesn't use Java" and has said Java isn't viable, is simply not true.
No, in fact let me go one step further and say rockets = Newtons 1st law of gravity = sucks for space transportation.
There is a better way.
Invest money into understanding the nature of gravity and over come the basic force using Geometrodynamic theory.
in 1000 years, at current budget levels we could do that...
Rockets suck.
2) Increase the budget, by 1000 times, and get #1 solved in about 10-20 years.
No more riding very large chemical bombs into outer space.
We would overcome gravity using variation on magnetic and or gravitational (gravitons) propulsion.
Not only that, but with this propulsion system, the entire solar system would be open to us, ready to pull large asteroids into areas for mining, expand to Mars or the Moon.
How about going to Mars in 60 days, max, regardless of having to wait for it to be in some dumb special orbit like we do with chemical or atomic rockets.
How about lifting huge materials into low earth orbit in a practical manner? Right now it isn't practical.
How about reentering the earths atmosphere without having to turn the space craft into a fireball?
All can be done with a new drive system that doesn't use rockets, but uses gravity/eletricity.
Rockets suck.
3) Finally how about a system that practically allows civilians and old or young to get into space, even if you have a life threatening illness?
Right now you have to be very fit to get into space and pull the G's required for liftoff.
How about letting the very old or the young, or just plain sick people into space?
Personally, from having to manage Microsoft systems for the better part of 12 years, it was almost impossible to patch anything immediately, when a Security Fix was announced.
If you ever have managed Microsoft Products, it basically becomes a crap shoot with the following outcomes with regards to patching your systems:
1) Patch installs, breaks other services.
2) Patch installs, system becomes even more unstable. (This is the worse because it looks like the system is working, but hits you in the middle of the day, usually during peak times.)
3) Complete failure to reboot after patch is installed, resulting in a very intensive recovery operation. (i.e. Reinstall OS, tape restore, or flash restore with floppy.) All data is usually lost since last backup.
In any case, it is completely laughable, and not applicable I believe if you completely blame Microsoft Admins on not applying these patches.
Especially with some of the messages posted here, such as "Oh, well you have to update your systems, stupid."
How simple and naive you are, and obviously anyone making such a statement has not an ounce of experience managing Microsoft server/desktop products.
I think the people who manage Microsoft Products, know more than anyone here, why it is preferable to update thier systems.
I think it is a serious insult to Microsoft' customers that Microsoft would publish a statement something of the akin "Well, they didn't update thier systems...ITS NOT OUR FAULT".
Bullpucky, and with that in mind however, continue reading.
The shear hell, you have to go through, to patch a monolithic, monster of bloatware that is a Microsoft OS, is purely not economically possible, if you can believe it, for some companies with large installations of Microsoft products.
Patching becomes a project something on the scale of a ERP implementation for some sites that are non trivial in size.
Furthermore, time after time, Microsoft provides NO WAY to reverse patches that they typically publish.. (also known as "HOT UPDATES/FIXES").
As most admins will tell you, HOT FIXES are risky, and can be impossible to reverse because Microsoft publishes these immediately, without thinking properly about the impact on the entire OS.
As I shall note later, this is why Microsft's OS is not practical to expose to the internet for any reason from a security perspective.
Therefore, many admins wait for the service packs to fix the problem, most of the time the service paks are more well thought out, and are for the most part reversible.
It is incredibly expensive, to mirror systems in a test lab, to test patches. EVEN THEN, the production systems are in no way representitive of the test systems. It is expensive, labor intensive to construct mirror systems and network services to make it viable to install hot fixes in a responsible way.
With that said, being a Linux convert, here is the problem and Microsoft isn't addressing it:
1) Microsoft's OS includes too many features out of the box, that Admins cannot control what they want installed.
It it REALLY stupid to put a graphical interface on the OS, espepcially when you are considering a highly secured server and making it a requirement to run it. There is absolutely no reason, why the OS has to carry around the code for a GUI when it is sitting in the server room, under lock N key.
Microsoft appearently doesn't understand software engineering principles regarding the total possible paths in a program and its reliability can only be increased statistically by eliminating the other execution paths in the software. That means not installing the GUI.
On Linux I can do this, easily, with ANY piece of software. Effectively reducing the function of the server to BARE BONES. Making it much faster to identify and fix problems, and of course much easier to update.
Well, you can't do this with a Microsoft product, and that is the root of the problem. In linux, I can slice and dice the OS down to its bones, if I need to.
Also, I would like to point out, linux isn't as complex to administrate as Windows when you start whacking the X server, games, DNS (directory software) and everything else when all I have running is sendmail. The system becomes a very very simple UNIT to admin in my infrastructure, with a very very easy and predictable means to upgrade and far fewer security risks as a result.
NOTICE TOO sendmail has nothing to do with the operating system.
Microsoft ties everything into the OS making it IMPOSSIBLE to build a secure system because you have to install ALL of the system or NONE AT ALL.
Microsoft uses the OPERATING SYSTEM to aggregate services, which as I pointed to above, is a fundamentally flawed software architecture.
Linux on the other hand uses the FILE SYSTEM to agregate services and the file system doesn't require you to even execute the code on start up.
Therefore even if you do a complete install on Linux, the system complexity doesn't increase, only what you include in your RC startup increases system risk to security or bugs that can make your system unstable.
The worse thing that happens is you increase the size of your file system.
As a result the uptime factors, and ease of maintance for Linux based systems easily out paces Microsoft's OS in any large deployment of the OS.
As a result it is impossible, because of these facts, to follow a responsible security policy with medium to large Microsoft IT installations.
I also think Microsoft should stop slapping its customers up in the press as to the importance of updating thier systems.
Most people already understand that, but they are being held hostage by the poor implementation of Microsoft software which by its very design, prevents practical and speedy updates of large installations of Microsoft OS's.
-Hack
KDE and Windows Feature Copying
on
KDE 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
I have listened on this forum with regards to many here, that suggest KDE is just copying windows features and not being innovative enough.
That, I don't think is a correct perspective, so let me explain.
Linux, X Windows, KDE are pretyt much works in progress. You have to understand that these three components, only this year, will reach the goals of providing certain kernel enhancements, display driver maturity API's, and with respect to KDE, a baseline feature set.
Baseline feature set, which means, the developers are just trying to get the basics completed, before any innovation can be done.
If you take the position, that many of these features are just being copied from Windows XP, such as the control panel for example, then you are assuming that Linux is as a desktop OS, has arrived.
It HAS NOT arrived, yet, so I think your view of what a baseline feature set which is required to get Linux onto the Desktop, and how those baselines overlap XP, may suggest feature copying.
For example, with regards to the control panel, I would suspect most users would want to manage thier fonts for example, from a control panel of some sort. If that is a baseline for the developers, for getting Linux ready for the desktop, then it just so happens to overlap with Windows feature set.
I don't think there is enough features, in the Linux Desktop arena, to warrant a comparison at this time with XP. As far as features go, KDE 3.1, still has a long way to go to catch up with Windows, before we can consider it to be something that can be a result from "copying" XP. Although improving, desktop data sharing between applications, is still a really big problem.
The standard baseline, for KDE developers are given to the public through roadmap feature set predictions for each release. That is the baseline. So, before you consider, "Hey those KDE guys are copying Windows XP, they use a mouse and they left click on icons!":-)
Consider the above, given the fact that the baseline is still very immature for KDE (GNOME is even worse). I suspect as more KDE apps are developed (as well as GNOME) the baseline will improve, along with standards for data sharing, etc.
IMHO, X, Linux and building a desktop for both, makes it sufficiently improbable we will end up with a XP clone desktop. However, like I said, obviously some of the features of the ultimate Linux desktop (KDE or GNOME) will by definition share many features with Windows, (i.e. you use a mouse, you left click on things, you can change your colors...and theme's..etc).
But a clone of XP? Lets hope not. In fact, if the KDE developers or GNOME people want a truly different way of looking at the desktop, Apple has made some truly interesting strides with Jaguar.
Perhaps they should start there and make that part of the baseline for either KDE or GNOME. One they get the basics down, they will have to consider exactly what innovating means.
With the current economic system, academic research is quickly becomming and adopting more and more commerical restrictions.
Go into Barnes and Nobles, and if you want a book on MPI programming, or Software Engineering research, more and more of them have SHRINKWRAP covers on them that have a ton of license restrictions.
Very very similair to Microsoft's, especially in the areas of practical applications. (Royalties, etc.)
That is why I knocked academia because it is a VERY VERY troubling trend and because it is fundamentally contrary to what we know makes economic boom times happen in this industry.
Again, I remind everyone here, the largest economic boom of the century, was caused by FREE INFORMATION with NO RESTRICTIONS. (CERN httpd server, Web Browser) It all happened in the information tech industry.
Secondly, an individual pointed to the fact that Linus had Minix..etc and access to the Helsinki tech, to develop the Linux kernel in response to the fact I pointed out: People can setup thier own research and development facilties and bypass academic and industry.
My response to that is Linus more than likely by the time he was 17 and before he got into college, possesed all the tools required to build an OS kernel. Simply by hacking himself and reading because information about computers was freely available. You could go into a book store in 1992-93 and buy books from Sybex on 486 mother board programming and Minix for that matter. The books by the way were not shrink wrapped, and the information inside them had no restrictions.
I am not so sure from what I have read about Linux/Linus, that he only thought about Linux and only obtained the skills to build a kernel was at Helsinki Tech. However, OBVIOUSLY our learning institutions play apart in disemination of information. I am not saying that our learning institutions are bad, and we shouldn't use them.
The only way to find out is to ask Linus.:-)
I am disappointed that most of you don't see the connection though between Open Source and the Economics of free software, however.
One person pointed out it isn't a general model for economics. I agree, partially. I agree you can't make money in the industry right now, from selling free software.:-)
My point is though, that free software is redefining what we call a General Economic Model and I was hoping many of you would have picked up on the following:
1) Free software creates demands in other areas. These demands end up paying for people to write the software in the first place.
Example: Free web software drives the purchase of more servers and workstations to run free browser software. Many of the companies that make hardware, often employ Linux kernel/hardware programmers.
2) Free software often creates communities of individuals on the net that make how we form companies right now to pay people, obsolete.
Example: Mozilla, Linux Kernel.
Now, obivously some of these people are employed by selling software....read on.
The relationship is symbiotic. This is the beginning of change for our industry. Symbiotic relationships like the hardware above, and the support of existing companies though, is what I would call, a Transitional Model.
They allow software to be free, yet, paid for.
I woudl also like to point out, it is just as viable a model as the one pointed out in the slides, where software isn't free, and source code is hidden.
Who is right here? Well, obviously, if your company ONLY makes software, or your business is almost 90% wrapped around the concept of closed source systems, your DAYS ARE NUMBERED.
Why? Simply because you in the symbiotic relationship above, you can create software that drives demand, publish it, and have others expand it, without you paying for it. But in all likely hood, it will create more demand for your products.
If your Microsoft, you have to do it all yourself, and pay people directly.
Obviously, in contrast we are seeing hardware manufactures making Video Boards, and not investing any money into the software, just publishing the specs on the hardware and having 3rd party people write the drivers.
ATI and the Weather channel are a good example of this.
So, the model of how we pay for software is changing, and I am not in anyway suggesting that we, even now, don't pay for software.
It is just that software isn't as valuable anymore, and the internet is changing how we pay for it, and how demand is created for more software in the first place.
This is a threat to Microsoft, who cannot control the distribution or the manufacturing of software anymore, and they IMHO find themselves in the same boat as the RIAA.
Totally irrelevant in the next 3-4 years if they don't reinvent how they make money.
Computers are cheap enough, and powerful enough for individuals to be thier own research and development shop, bypassing both Academics and Industry and directly publishing.
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE the issue here with objections to the GPL.
I don't think the powers that be, namely Microsoft, believe that the individual has the right to create software, manufacture it, and then NOT COMPETE on the same terms as Microsoft does. (i.e. freely distribute it.)
They are trying to convince us that, only Academia, and Industry can be the focus of great ideas, and therefore they should only be the ones that decide how we are to value Intellectual Property legally.
I think this is VERY similair believe it or not to what the RIAA is trying to fight.
Think about this:
A independant band, decides it wants to make music and sell it on the internet, with no distributor. (They build a web site and sell there own music through P2P technology.)
No Recording studio. (i.e. they hook up a bunch of Mac OS X machines with Cubase and make there own recording studio...)
Enter the RIAA. They see the internet as a possible tool for making them irrelevant, therefore they lobby and inact laws to make it illegal to use P2P technology to distribute Music over the internet.
With such technology illegal, they can preserve thier tight hold on distribution, and insure no indepedant bands become to widely popular or compete with thier distribution network.
----With a twist
Independant software developer, Linux Torvalds, builds and designs an Operating System kernel, and publishes it directly on the internet.
(He decides he will distribute it for free and NOT sell it.)
He has no research facility, he uses no Academic or Business computing facilities to make the software, instead, he uses and builds his own tools and buys the required hardware himself...(or uses his Dad's computer at home.)
10 years later, after giving it away...enter Microsoft.
Microsoft decides this software will destroy its distribution and control over the entire US software industry. They lobby to enact laws including the DMCA, to stop free software.
They begin Marketing and FUD campaigns with there customers to educate them why it is better to pay for software, and to make illegal not to pay for software, and only software built through IP property sources such as Academia->Industry->User.
More importantly, they say that this change toward OS will destroy the future economy. The facts in the internet boom do not bear this out by the way.
I would like to remind people here, that the internet boom was due to ENTIRELY FREE SOFTWARE released under the GPL: (i.e. the orginal CERN HTTP server and Web browser...)
Did the last 5 years destroy the US software industry? In 1998 for example, did you find it HARD to feed and clothe yourself because this software didn't go through Microsoft's slide presentation of ACADEMIA->INDUSTRY ?
I am starting to see a pattern, all of it do to the internet. Which, I hope everyone can see here is ACCLERATING the pace of technology through:
Sharing information for free. Free OS's accelerate the use of software, making it penetrate new markets much more quickly as there is no cost barrier.
A good example of this is web server/web browser software. They are free, and they created a HUGE demand in hardware, short term anyway, both for servers and of course for workstations to run browsers adequately.
I believe, information sharing for free generates FAR MORE revenue opportunity than through what Microsoft has proposed in those slides.
However, that opportunity is now no longer centered strictly around the manufacturer of the software.
I believe that we are at the tip of the iceberg here. I further believe that eventually, software ALL software will be so easy to produce due to tool advancements, better education that it will, like hardware become a commodity item.
In the end, these slides represent the fear of the software industry. That is, that software, I mean software that drives the revenues or the control of government, will no longer be ONLY AVAILABLE through research institutions or industry.
In fact, software will be very prevalent and easy to come by and cheap to come by, through the internet. For free or at very low cost.
So what will happen 10 years from now?
Here are my predictions, and I am gearing my company up for this NOW:
1) Most if not all software, will be sold on a labor basis, not on a shrink wrap basis.
That is, you hire someone to write your software because all of the software for doing business is basically free. (i.e. you use open source business apps which are standardized and since everyone uses them, it is easier to exchange documents with your vendors over the internet. If they don't have the software they can just download it.)
2) Shrink wrap software will exist, but it will be for vertical niche's, and highly focused. (i.e. Mathematica for example).
But, in the end, software that has built billion dollar industries, will become free. The reason is the internet allows people to organize, much as what a company does for profit, but at a much lower cost. Which is an interesting thought?
What will happen to companies if the internet is ultimately allowed to evolve through the free use of information? Perhaps, dare I say, companies will become obsolete? After all, why pay a corporate board to organize people to produce information, like software, when the internet can do it much cheaper!
Finally, gaming will be one of the last strongholds of mass market shrinkwrap software.
Even there, you won't actually buy the software you will be provided the software with a monthly subscription which may include a internet connection with the game believe it or not.
3) Linux WILL BE ON THE DESKTOP. In your server room, and well if it isn't...
The sheer pricing pressures you will experience in trying to compete with your competitors who don't have those sorts of costs will compell you to load Linux or be pushed out of your own market.
Look at it this way Mike, you got a Bobble Head doll and he got ONLY 65 Million...
Just be thankful the guy doesn't end up biling you out of your retirement as well...:-)
-Hack
PS: Take a pay cut and send it too the guy and plead with him NOT too...after all, he probably is working on his third home and that employee 401K/Retirement plan probably looks pretty juicy!
There is a revolution going on. Mostof it has to do with aspects of OSS. But not in exactly the same way. OSS (Open Source Software) in context of a company and a busines process, internal to that companies operations and business goals.
With the kinds of things Java can do, in the development process, alot of companies are outsourcing the development of key systems, paying more for them upfront for development, but even though the pricetag is much higher in the long run it is cheaper:
1) The company, in your case, builds its own accounting system.
YOU own the accounting system.
2) IDE tools such as Idea's Intellij, provide means to build Java code at a very fast pace. Java in and of itself, isn't what makes things go fast, it is the tools and the technology (OOD) that allows the software to be built rather quickly.
Couple this with computers that keep getting enourmously more powerful year after year, companies are putting together even more toolsets for programmers to boost thier individuals capabilities and manage the "Holy Grail" of Software Engineering at the moment. ReUse and Patterns...undoubtedly, the next generation IDE's will be able to address those issues even more and put computer hardware advances in speed to even better use.
3) YOU control when the software needs more features.
That is, you upgrade and put the money into the software when someone in accounting says: "What if we combined payroll with the taxes section, perhaps we could build a credit system with a bank and Eletronically forward the funds ourselves...instead of having XXXX Payroll outsource company do it?
4) YOU control when the expenditures should be put into your budget for next year, for more features.
How much capability is also an important question when you want to figure out how much
5) YOU own something your competitors can't buy, because this software investment is part of your business process. For example, anyone can go buy Quicken, and try and get it to fit your business.
Your competitors WILL in fact do that, but YOU have something that fits your business EXACTLY and can change as your busiones changes as fast as your business ROI that YOU determine is acceptable.
I think this is becomming more common than most people think. I know, because my company is an expert at analyzing huge software systems, such as SAP, PeopleSoft and other Enterprise Resource Planning packages, and determinng, what would be better?
Spending $80 dollars an hour for 4 programmers and one project manager, or spending 20 MILLION on a software package and consultants to customize it at $180-$250 an hour?
In a great many cases, it isn't worth spending that much money on these large ERP systems, when technology, specifically Java development environments can produce a custom package for your company at half the cost of rolling your own. (i.e. 20 Million for SAP or 10 Million for your own package....)
I think this is the biggest threat to Shrink wrap software. Programming environments are becomming so powerful, because ever more powerful machine hardware is providing the programmer with productivity gains and toolsets (IDE's source debuggers Refactoring tools, access to code library systems such as cvs) that allow him to do the work of 5 programmers.
Compare that even 5 years ago when such things were not inetgrated as they are today.
I am not sure if I believe the opinions I keep reading here about OSS developers, being:
1) Elitists. Come on, lets be reasonable now. If that were true, we wouldn't have anything but bash shell scripts for all our software.:-)
2) Don't care about users. Also a comment I have seen, also not true.
3) Don't have the resources to do useability testing. Perhaps, but not universally so. Mozilla? Open Office? Not usable? I don't think so. SOMEONE is doing there homework there in the usability department.
But, seriously, I think the problem, all of the problems, Linux (UNIX) in general is facing is that the stage for which operations and use are/were confined to the server room.
We are in a TRANSITION PERIOD, which is going to take another 5 years to work out to address DESKTOP issues, now that the conquoring of the server rooms is a tide no company can reverse. (Weep in the corner over there Bill....):-)
This 5 year transition period with usability is going to solve the following issues:
1) Up until now, there has really been no serious demand for desktop apps, in the office arena in the Unix market. This is turning now because the American software industry is, well, maturing beyond Windows. Windows is too monolithic, and too expensive to go beyond its current habitat.
Alternatives are wanted, and want generates development and need because companies that do not play by the Microsoft rules, that have to compete against companies that must, will rule the day in sheer economic terms of operating thier IT infrastructure. Regardless, in fact if you are a company or a country, if you embrace the new way, you will win the day!
2) As a result, mature GUI API's are needed to begin the process of building usable component software products to build software that is easy for the masses to use. Without a mature GUI API to program with, you can't make software that has a similair look and feel.
3) The API's most people will use will probably based on Qt or GTK. (i.e. GNOME and KDE).
I will make a prediction here that Qt will win the day. It is further along that GTK and has a much more mature development environment, which is effect is the foudations developers will need to build the API's and toolkits to make coherent GUI interfaces for apps.
The KDE team knows this, and as a result the toolsets for KDE development have been given equal pairing in attention to detail as KDE's GUI API has evolved. This makes it easier to build higher quality Qt apps at a faster rate than GNOME apps.
I point out in particular, the rapid pace of development of KDevelop and QtDesigner.
In the next 2 years, I predict a very visual studioish integration of all KDE toolsets, into one new development environment that will enforce look and feel much more effectively than right now, and allow Qt developers to make better GUI decisions as a result.
In the end though, you have to remember, the demand for Linux desktop apps will not really start to hit home for another 2 years yet. Linux is still wrapping up its winnings in the Windows Server war.
After a while, the larger server market will provide a new offense base to launch economic warfare against Microsoft's monopoly and Linux will eventually begin a new attack. This time, the target will be Microsoft's home world, and once we enter that system, we will deploy the PENGUIN DEATHSTAR.
What that "DeathStar" application will be, I am not sure. But I will guess and say that it will be OpenOffice full decked out 5 years from now, along with some sort of Exchange killer, yet to be named...
"We have entered the Redmond system Lord Penguin."...
Slashdot Mirror
Ha!
:-)
My Karma power bitch slaps your TROLL!
You whiner.
Why, even the GOD Shiva herself wouldn't dare touch me my Karma it is so high!
Phhhhhfffftttt! NA na naaaaa NA!!!
-hack
No the term is Goad, as in:
.Net framework being standardized by the EMCA, when there is no chance in hell Microsoft is going to open up or standardize the parts required to work with Windowz."
.Net's framework.
:-)
"Make a big deal about syntax and other irrelevant aspects to the
At least, any that mean jack. (The secret API calls they build into everything to screw competitors, historically, now and damn well in the future.)
As for your VC scam, you would have to be OUT OF YOUR MIND, to develop a competing standard against any of
I don't mean just the ideas copied from Sun's Java, such as virtual machines etc, either.
The company (Micro$oft) has 43 Billion in cash reserves.
Your VC friends are about as smart as you are.
Finally, I am not talking about Mono in ANYWHERE, whether it be GNOME, Windows or KDE.
I am talking about the fact there are coders in the MONO project that could and should be working on GNOME's bugs, faults.
Instead they are working on a Microsoft deterrant to adopt Linux. We already have that, because KDE and GNOME are barely profesional grade desktops as IS.
Besides the rather assanine API constructs that contributes to USER FRUSTRATION, they could be working on cleaning up GTK, and GNOME applications.
If Email had the feature, I would reach through this message and shake your freakin neck for wasting and draining the Open Source communities direction and focus on MONO crap'ola which is nothing but a roose...
But since you are very far away, your very safe...
But if your ever in Madison Wisconsin, I will shake you so hard your brain will fall out!
Then we can go and get a pizza and I can convince you it is all a bad dream, through hypnosis.
Then send you happily on your marry way to make GNOME a great desktop APP, along with a great API to build a nice user interface we can all understand.
-Hack
PS: See, sun setting, and millions of users dumping MS Office and walking into the sunset happily with thier copies of GNOME Office apps...
Yeah well,
...
If you dumb asses spent as much time on all of Gnomes problems with its adjunct crappy Window API that is organized specifically so that applications WILL EVER LOOK USEABLE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON, as you spend on coding on GO NOWHERE MONO so that Microsoft can goad you into building on a framework that is wholly controlled by them...
I might actually have a decent GNOME desktop by now...
BUT
NNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooo.
Thank GOD we have KDE.
-Hack
I have a question.
Since 802.11g and b are backward compatible.
It would seem the controversy stems from the fact that, if you already invested in 802.11b equipment, mixing 802.11g in with your environment is going to cause the 802.11g access point to step down or send RTS/CTS signals after each packet as a courtesy to 802.11b equipment trying to communicate in the same area.
So, here is something I propose then:
Say you decide to deploy 802.11g equipment in your wharehouse. You have not invested in anything WiFi and you have a nice radio free environment.
So you deply your 802.11g network in your wharehouse and everything is ducky.
Now, along comes Joe Shmoe. Joe Shmoe decides he is going to open a Steppen Brew right next door to your wharehouse.
He has this brilliant plan about offering Customers free internet access while they sip there latte's.
So he deploys a 802.11b access point on his roof next to your wharehouse operating with 802.11g equipment.
All of a sudden, you start getting complaints about crappy through put on your Wharehouse wireless LAN.
You can't seem to figure it out, but your 802.11g network is now half the network it was when your deployed it.
So you look for anyone using 2.4Gigahertz bluetooth devices, remote phones, cordless radio headsets...etc.
Nothing?
In short, the question is: will 802.11g equipment step down in the presence of any 802.11b device, or does it only step down if that device is actually transmitting on your network?
Couldn't find anything in the specs that would rule out this completely NASTY scenario.
Anyone care to comment?
-Hack
Ok,
Fine. But I would like to point out that the 802.11g spec is in the 2.4Gighertz range, regardless of the contrversy, it would seem to me with all of the communications gear licenses for this spectrum range, that it is going to be HIGHLY dubious that your going to get the range or the speed benfits from g, even with no changes to the SPEC or how it is interpreted.
Contrast this with 802.11a which is in an entirely different Spectrum range, which IT OWNS, specifically for wireless networking.
My guess is 802.11a is still going to have more practical use outside a battle of the specs, than 802.11g.
I find it dubious that the range increases by 802.11g could be significant over the 802.11b standard with regards to both of them operating in the 2.4Gighertz spectrum.
I can use my 2.4Gigahertz cordles phone, my wireless 2.4Gighertz Blue Tooth enabled mice and keyboard, printer...
but I bet your network throughput in such an environment with 802.11g is going to suck rocks with such a crowded spectrum in the real world.
-gc
There is only one reason why Microsoft would license code from SCO, and that is to increase the legal justification of this lawsuit.
Microsoft has Billions in its coffers people and the story behind the scenes is more sinister than you can possible imagine I am afraid.
More sinister, because as this develops, it is quite clear this was fully planned and orchestrated by some individual in conjunction with Microsoft's legal apparatus at least 6 months ago.
You don't just BUY a license from SCO, there is a great deal of negotiating that has to take place first for at least 30 days, for example.
So this news is hardly a revelation, more like a leak.
I predict the following from this fall out:
1) International acceptance will widen of Linux because of this, and it will backfire on whomever came up with this idea to discredit Linux and its developers.
2) Microsoft hasn't learned. It continues to use its enourmous warchest to get itself into trouble both with intellectual IP (frivilous lawsuits) and its growing hard line against Linux.
Obviously this is a new tactic. Microsoft's Billions can buy any company it so desires, and use it as a front to create untold havoc in the Western Information Technology sector that considers any alternatives to Microsoft Products.
The best way to expose this is to get a hold of the negotiations between the individuals at Microsoft and SCO, if any paper documents exist, that planned this complete work of fiction lawsuit.
If someone at Microsoft is reading this, leak those papers, so that a lawsuit can be filed. This is blatent AntiTrust behavior and could repoen the case against Microsoft.
3) The outrage that this is going to cause in the Linux American based developer community is going to be far and wide, primarily directed at Microsoft.
As a result I predict this to be an enourmous PR problem for Microsoft on a scale not seen yet, especially after a few months of this goes buy and #2 comes to light.
-Hack
You are so wrong in so many aspects that it is difficult to believe.
1. The USA did do business with Iraq as did France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Russia. France and Russia might have done more than the USA but that does not mean much.
To which I reply:
I am not disputing the fact we do business with Iraq, some companies do. However, we are not willing to use those business interests in deciding issues such as biological and chemical weapons. That is the problem here. Countries which decide to use these weapons, MUST BE ELIMINATED.
Otherwise discussions like this will only be possible UNDER PAIN OF DEATH.
---
2. Only 3 out of 15 countries in the security council agreed to vote with the USA. Singleling out France is ridiculous.
To which I reply:
That is not true. There was complete support in private discussions about the final vote/resolution, at the end of February, discussing a timeline and benchmarks for Iraq to comply.
France, told everyone in the private session of the council that they would veto ANY RESOLUTION that had teeth in it. (i.e. an ultamatum.)
The US then decided to not even bother.
It is very possible, that if France would have voted for the resolution, to which all 13 security councils agreed to before it hit the floor of the UN, Sadaam Hussein, confronted with a united front from the UN, would have fled the country or complied.
Now we are at war either way. Frankly, I don't see the logic of Frances indecision because at least if they would have agreed to vote for the final resolution, there would have been a CHANCE we would not be at war right now.
--
3. think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately.
It is nice to be sure about things but completely stupid. There was no unanimity at the security council with or without France and there is not the start of the beginning of a hint that Saddam would have left or complied.
To which I reply:
That is true officially. Unofficially, these measures were discussed at length behind closed doors, which is typical before any resolution is passed to iron out a vote. See my message above.
The point is, the final resolution never made it passed France, and I am sorry if the truth hurts.
It is a matter of UN record, now, so it is pointless to argue about it.
--
4. What if the US troops are attacked by biological weapons that have been sold by the US to Iraq?
Many countries exchange and sell strains of Small Pox, including the US and most if not all member of the security council so your point is what?
There is nothing wrong per se, of selling small pox. What its intended uses are, is the problem.
Small Pox is used and studied all over the world in Biology.
Problem is not all governments use them as weapons. I think the point you are trying to make, is that we sold Iraq small pox with US knowingit would use them in a biological weapons program.
I would love to see proof of that.
--
5. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case.
The French foreign minister said it many times: France is not a pacifist country. And Russia certainly isn't either.
To which my reply is:
France is not a pacificst country? Prove it!
My point with this comment is,
1) France split the Security council over the final vote over the Iraq.
2) France sent its ministers to Morocco, and all over the place offering money for votes against the US, Britain and New Europe, Italy, Spain, and former members of the Eastern block countries.
4) France has split NATO and destroyed an entire political arena for what gain?
To keep its oil interests and investments sound to support a petty dictator in the world that uses gas,
I suspect, that after the War is over in Iraq, and the Iraqi people awaken from a long political sleep after being opressed by this dictatorship, they will not only choose a new government for themselves, but also new friends as well.
The last thing on a Iraqi persons mind right now is cell phones. Our troops are encountering thousands of people living in poverty for decades. I suspect all they want is food and water for thier families.
I think the chasm between France and the USA is not going to be repairable as long as Chirac is in power in France. Germany is probably fixable, but Russia as well as France actively supported this regime economically, and also under minded the final UN resolution for some sort of political resolution to this problem without war.
I think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately. Instead France would not hear of it, and threatened to veto such a move.
The whole situation is very sad, and the UN has lost its relevance to the American people to resolve/coordinate any sort of problem, except perhaps simple Humanitarian issues.
The anti France sentiment over here is unbelievable, at least in my state, even when I am playing games online. (People who don't fight immediately or Rush in Warcraft III are called "Frenchies" for example.)
I think when the military conflict is all over a serious reconsideration, both militarily, and economically is going to happen minimally over France's part in undermining UN support/fragmenting the security council and Russia's appearent selling of Missiles to the Iraqi guard troops that can (and have) taken out the American M1 Abrams tanks.
In my humble opinion, being against war, generally is a good idea. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case.
The political impact this going to have throughout Europe is going to change not only the face of NATO, but may very well, bode unwell for France Germany or Russia if terrorists realize the US will not assist these countries if they come under a 911 type attack.
And for what?
A petty dictator that gases his own people, buildes enourmous palaces while his people eat dirt on the streets and have no political say in what happens in thier own lives.
I don't this it is worth the fracturing of NATO and trade which will be the fallout from this.
-Hack
XML Technology has issues, but, more importantly, many of them are caused by the application community themselves, for the following reasons:
1) XML is designed for large organizations. It is not really designed for small businesses.
Large business generate MORE data. More data and large amounts of it, and its meaning is something that scales well with XML. However, XML doesn't scale well to the little.
Small businesses usually cannot afford the people, or the time required to meta data EVERYTHING they do.
It is also, probably impractical.
2) XML because of its attempt to make data portable, requires a great deal of work to maintain. Companies have to build "standards" dictionaries in thier organizations, to organize the definition of data, and someone is charged with making sure reuse of that dictionary is put to good use.
Otherwise your XML definitions becomes a junk pile, sort of like a Lotus Notes database of unimaginable complexity and abysmal organization.
Also, because of the complexity of the problem: Meta Data representation of your data, and the as it was hoped for STANDARDS, could be used to organize, industry wide these dictionaries.
Primarily so you don't have to make your own.
This has become a pipe dream however, because XML usually attempts to define the DIFFERENCES between two organizations data, and as a result a industry specific, multiple standard, that everyone could use, becomes a standard that everyone modifies to suit there own needs in thier respective industries. (i.e. You had tags for energy industry, dairy, etc.)
Which is what should happen. Right?
Technology should allow you to make your business process UNIQUE, not commoditize it.
But in short, industry lead XML dictionary standards have not been as widely applicable to business problems as many thought it would be.
Thats OK, though, really, as even if your business partner doesn't use the same tag, or the same tag to represent equivalent information at least you can build database relations to do the conversion for you. With very little writing of code. (See my message below)
3) Most companies fall short, even when they build XML applications, that they make the mistake of not building a general purpose object framework to support thier XML dictionary.
Oh, many companies I talk with THINK they are, but they really are not building a general purpose object framework. This creates the typical problems associated with building large amounts of code whenever they have to implement thier XML data dictionaries in applications.
XML requirements/specifications are particularly harsh on organizations that have software "coders" that do not understand the following:
a) Object Inheritance (i.e. it is understood...but POORLY so.)
b) Poor understanding of Functional Decomposition of objects. (i.e. Programmers have a poor grasp of how to combine objects.)
c) Poor understanding or NONE AT ALL of Pattern construction in software design. (i.e. Factory patterns, Singleton patterns, iterator patterns)
Without COMPLETE understanding of the above, an XML framework will quickly degrade into a "junk framework" of static functions and structured design principles, decreasing reuse to almost ZERO.
There is something about XML that causes enourmous coding issues if you attempt to solve business software problems with structured design techniques. That something is due to the data. Since the data is abstract to begin with, people writing software attempt to describe the data as descrete in functional method definitions. For example, writing a method to translate a specific tag. That is the wrong way to approach it, and normally you should be using PATTERNS, more sepcifically, Factory Patterns to create/define XML tag actions and values.
Otherwise, you spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME writing code.
Structured design is too feature poor to handle an XML framework of any sort of usefullness.
I think Itanium/Itanium2 are radical departures in x86 design, and they do not come without risks.
These risks are calculated, and I think it is a bit much for Linux to say iNTEL engineers learned nothing from the past.
Much of the Itanium design, is reliant on processes that haven't even been perfected yet....(0.9 Micron etc silicone).
As process technology catches up with Itanium, and the bugs get worked out over the next 2-3 years, I think you will see Itanium in the server room and also on high end desktops.
Not only that but they will out perform anything the market at the time they are introduced.
-Hack
I make these comments from the business world, not so much what you do on your off days or as an academic excercise.
So with that, here begins my tirade:
In the 21st century, languages for business have to meet the following criteria. If your company is using a language that doesn't meet this criteria, you are in trouble, and probably don't know it.
Why? Because more than likely your competitor is using a language that does meet the following criteria, and you soon won't be in business.
As a past CIO, now a CEO, I won't get technical, I will just ask these criteria in the form of a series of questions. If you run a company, it is going to become clear, which language and OS you should be using by the end of the article.
Here are those requirements:
1) Software your business invests in, and owns outright is an Asset, not an expense. Obviously this doesn't include any shrink wrap software.
Interesting point isn't it?
If you build software or buy it, and toss it out the window because you change hardware platforms or upgrade because your vendor says you have to, you are bearing costs that you don't have to bear, and are throwing your money away.
I gurantee your competitor won't make the same mistake, because one of my sales people will be explaining it too them real clear like on the telephone.
More than likely, because you didn't want to listen.
2) Software is not only an asset, but it is your intellectual property which represents a unique way on how you run your business.
Software enables this idea. Good ideas are unique, not commodities. When a good idea is applied to a business process, you do more with fewer people, less money and out manuver your competitors as a result in price and service.
Software built by companies who acknowledge that software is an asset, also understand it is an investment that is to be protected and furthermore acknowledge that as part of the IP capital of the business, represents something a competitor can't BUY ANYWHERE ELSE.
So with these two points in mind, think about these little diddies
Why would I buy SAP for example, and Windows 2000, when my competitor can buy the exact same thing?
What does buying a business process API that anyone else can buy get me? Does it give my business an edge over my competitors if they can buy the same consultants and produce the exact same thing for my competitors?
Why? Why not?
If Joe Tool and Die down the street can choose a Shrink wrap software desktop/server system for File/Print and Office Suite from Company A, and I can do the same thing for my end users if I use the exact same.
What does that get me? Am I beating Joe Tool and Die down the street following his every move?
Can I somehow make or modify shrink wrap Office Suite Word Processor A, for example, to the point it can make me a unique business process as I invest money and time into growing my infrastructure that my competitor can't duplicate in a way that makes me more money than who my competitor is?
Especially if Joe Tool and Die decides to woo some of my IT people away from me?
Can I modify File and Print server shrink wrap software from company A for my users in such a way that my competitor can't, that saves me money?
Or perhaps, something my competitor can't buy off the shelf and do the same by adding it to company A's file and print server software?
If Joe Tool and Die can't own his software A, but I can own my own software B.
What does that get me?
Does that give me an advantage over my competitor if both sets of software have the exact same features, yet I can modify A and Joe can't modify B without a License?
Company A has As/400's and Company B has Sun/PC hardware and decides to merge with company A, yet it is decided that company A's software is the real advantage to merging with B.
If A has to totally scrap its As/400's to rewrite its software on Company B's Suns/PC's, what does that do to the shareholder value of the merger?
What would have happened if Company A had software that was written to be hardware independant like company B?
Do you think the merger would be of more value?
I think it is extremly obvious what I am getting at here, and why software as we know it, is going to radically change.
Many IT professionals never EVER ask these sorts of questions, Historically. Why? Primarily because until quite recently, the technology wasn't available in any practical sense, to make such decisions very very obvious, and very very easy to do.
Anyone have thoughts on those arguements and what language and OS do you think I am talking about as I pose these arguments?
-Hack
source or otherwise is better than the entertainment I can find on ALL 600 Plus channels on my satellite reciever during any casual evening.
..." in it.
Why in Gods name would some one want to prevent Microsoft from speaking at such an event is beyond me.
Let Microsoft come, sit back and watch the show.
Just remember, like most credits afterwards in most movies or entertainment you watch...
"The likeness, situational or otherwise in comparison to real life is purely coincidental..."
Which is exactly what you should be thinking if you see Microsoft speaking on anything that has the title "Open
-Hack
Has got it all wrong again. Sometimes I wonder if this guy actually reads the articles he summarizes.
The article has nothing to do with the implementation of Java, or its viability.
HELLO???...people, some of the largest sites on the internet is built with Java.
The point of proving Java's viability happened A LONG TIME AGO...and it passed with flying colors.
Java is widely used in a large number of very sites both in public and internal use.
The reason why it is used is because it works, and works very well, which is why it is so popular.
The article however, does point to the fact that since Java is so portable, it has different problems on different platforms, all of them TRIVIAL, which can be easily fixed.
Where Taco got the idea that Java isn't viable, or to make a sweeping statement that Sun "doesn't use Java" and has said Java isn't viable, is simply not true.
-Hack
1) Get rid of those damn rockets.
Rockets = suck for space transportation.
No, in fact let me go one step further and say rockets = Newtons 1st law of gravity = sucks for space transportation.
There is a better way.
Invest money into understanding the nature of gravity and over come the basic force using Geometrodynamic theory.
in 1000 years, at current budget levels we could do that...
Rockets suck.
2) Increase the budget, by 1000 times, and get #1 solved in about 10-20 years.
No more riding very large chemical bombs into outer space.
We would overcome gravity using variation on magnetic and or gravitational (gravitons) propulsion.
Not only that, but with this propulsion system, the entire solar system would be open to us, ready to pull large asteroids into areas for mining, expand to Mars or the Moon.
How about going to Mars in 60 days, max, regardless of having to wait for it to be in some dumb special orbit like we do with chemical or atomic rockets.
How about lifting huge materials into low earth orbit in a practical manner? Right now it isn't practical.
How about reentering the earths atmosphere without having to turn the space craft into a fireball?
All can be done with a new drive system that doesn't use rockets, but uses gravity/eletricity.
Rockets suck.
3) Finally how about a system that practically allows civilians and old or young to get into space, even if you have a life threatening illness?
Right now you have to be very fit to get into space and pull the G's required for liftoff.
How about letting the very old or the young, or just plain sick people into space?
Perhaps even treating thier disease form there?
Rockets suck.
-hack
Personally, from having to manage Microsoft systems for the better part of 12 years, it was almost impossible to patch anything immediately, when a Security Fix was announced.
If you ever have managed Microsoft Products, it basically becomes a crap shoot with the following outcomes with regards to patching your systems:
1) Patch installs, breaks other services.
2) Patch installs, system becomes even more unstable.
(This is the worse because it looks like the system is working, but hits you in the middle of the day, usually during peak times.)
3) Complete failure to reboot after patch is installed, resulting in a very intensive recovery operation. (i.e. Reinstall OS, tape restore, or flash restore with floppy.) All data is usually lost since last backup.
In any case, it is completely laughable, and not applicable I believe if you completely blame Microsoft Admins on not applying these patches.
Especially with some of the messages posted here, such as "Oh, well you have to update your systems, stupid."
How simple and naive you are, and obviously anyone making such a statement has not an ounce of experience managing Microsoft server/desktop products.
I think the people who manage Microsoft Products, know more than anyone here, why it is preferable to update thier systems.
I think it is a serious insult to Microsoft' customers that Microsoft would publish a statement something of the akin "Well, they didn't update thier systems...ITS NOT OUR FAULT".
Bullpucky, and with that in mind however, continue reading.
The shear hell, you have to go through, to patch a monolithic, monster of bloatware that is a Microsoft OS, is purely not economically possible, if you can believe it, for some companies with large installations of Microsoft products.
Patching becomes a project something on the scale of a ERP implementation for some sites that are non trivial in size.
Furthermore, time after time, Microsoft provides NO WAY to reverse patches that they typically publish.. (also known as "HOT UPDATES/FIXES").
As most admins will tell you, HOT FIXES are risky, and can be impossible to reverse because Microsoft publishes these immediately, without thinking properly about the impact on the entire OS.
As I shall note later, this is why Microsft's OS is not practical to expose to the internet for any reason from a security perspective.
Therefore, many admins wait for the service packs to fix the problem, most of the time the service paks are more well thought out, and are for the most part reversible.
It is incredibly expensive, to mirror systems in a test lab, to test patches. EVEN THEN, the production systems are in no way representitive of the test systems. It is expensive, labor intensive to construct mirror systems and network services to make it viable to install hot fixes in a responsible way.
With that said, being a Linux convert, here is the problem and Microsoft isn't addressing it:
1) Microsoft's OS includes too many features out of the box, that Admins cannot control what they want installed.
It it REALLY stupid to put a graphical interface on the OS, espepcially when you are considering a highly secured server and making it a requirement to run it. There is absolutely no reason, why the OS has to carry around the code for a GUI when it is sitting in the server room, under lock N key.
Microsoft appearently doesn't understand software engineering principles regarding the total possible paths in a program and its reliability can only be increased statistically by eliminating the other execution paths in the software. That means not installing the GUI.
On Linux I can do this, easily, with ANY piece of software. Effectively reducing the function of the server to BARE BONES. Making it much faster to identify and fix problems, and of course much easier to update.
Well, you can't do this with a Microsoft product, and that is the root of the problem. In linux, I can slice and dice the OS down to its bones, if I need to.
Also, I would like to point out, linux isn't as complex to administrate as Windows when you start whacking the X server, games, DNS (directory software) and everything else when all I have running is sendmail. The system becomes a very very simple UNIT to admin in my infrastructure, with a very very easy and predictable means to upgrade and far fewer security risks as a result.
NOTICE TOO sendmail has nothing to do with the operating system.
Microsoft ties everything into the OS making it IMPOSSIBLE to build a secure system because you have to install ALL of the system or NONE AT ALL.
Microsoft uses the OPERATING SYSTEM to aggregate services, which as I pointed to above, is a fundamentally flawed software architecture.
Linux on the other hand uses the FILE SYSTEM to agregate services and the file system doesn't require you to even execute the code on start up.
Therefore even if you do a complete install on Linux, the system complexity doesn't increase, only what you include in your RC startup increases system risk to security or bugs that can make your system unstable.
The worse thing that happens is you increase the size of your file system.
As a result the uptime factors, and ease of maintance for Linux based systems easily out paces Microsoft's OS in any large deployment of the OS.
As a result it is impossible, because of these facts, to follow a responsible security policy with medium to large Microsoft IT installations.
I also think Microsoft should stop slapping its customers up in the press as to the importance of updating thier systems.
Most people already understand that, but they are being held hostage by the poor implementation of Microsoft software which by its very design, prevents practical and speedy updates of large installations of Microsoft OS's.
-Hack
I have listened on this forum with regards to many here, that suggest KDE is just copying windows features and not being innovative enough.
:-)
:-)
That, I don't think is a correct perspective, so let me explain.
Linux, X Windows, KDE are pretyt much works in progress. You have to understand that these three components, only this year, will reach the goals of providing certain kernel enhancements, display driver maturity API's, and with respect to KDE, a baseline feature set.
Baseline feature set, which means, the developers are just trying to get the basics completed, before any innovation can be done.
If you take the position, that many of these features are just being copied from Windows XP, such as the control panel for example, then you are assuming that Linux is as a desktop OS, has arrived.
It HAS NOT arrived, yet, so I think your view of what a baseline feature set which is required to get Linux onto the Desktop, and how those baselines overlap XP, may suggest feature copying.
For example, with regards to the control panel, I would suspect most users would want to manage thier fonts for example, from a control panel of some sort. If that is a baseline for the developers, for getting Linux ready for the desktop, then it just so happens to overlap with Windows feature set.
I don't think there is enough features, in the Linux Desktop arena, to warrant a comparison at this time with XP. As far as features go, KDE 3.1, still has a long way to go to catch up with Windows, before we can consider it to be something that can be a result from "copying" XP. Although improving, desktop data sharing between applications, is still a really big problem.
The standard baseline, for KDE developers are given to the public through roadmap feature set predictions for each release. That is the baseline. So, before you consider, "Hey those KDE guys are copying Windows XP, they use a mouse and they left click on icons!"
Consider the above, given the fact that the baseline is still very immature for KDE (GNOME is even worse). I suspect as more KDE apps are developed (as well as GNOME) the baseline will improve, along with standards for data sharing, etc.
IMHO, X, Linux and building a desktop for both, makes it sufficiently improbable we will end up with a XP clone desktop. However, like I said, obviously some of the features of the ultimate Linux desktop (KDE or GNOME) will by definition share many features with Windows, (i.e. you use a mouse, you left click on things, you can change your colors...and theme's..etc).
But a clone of XP? Lets hope not. In fact, if the KDE developers or GNOME people want a truly different way of looking at the desktop, Apple has made some truly interesting strides with Jaguar.
Perhaps they should start there and make that part of the baseline for either KDE or GNOME. One they get the basics down, they will have to consider exactly what innovating means.
Hopefully we agree.
-Hack
You all have some good points.
:-)
:-)
So let me clarify.
With the current economic system, academic research is quickly becomming and adopting more and more commerical restrictions.
Go into Barnes and Nobles, and if you want a book on MPI programming, or Software Engineering research, more and more of them have SHRINKWRAP covers on them that have a ton of license restrictions.
Very very similair to Microsoft's, especially in the areas of practical applications. (Royalties, etc.)
That is why I knocked academia because it is a VERY VERY troubling trend and because it is fundamentally contrary to what we know makes economic boom times happen in this industry.
Again, I remind everyone here, the largest economic boom of the century, was caused by FREE INFORMATION with NO RESTRICTIONS. (CERN httpd server, Web Browser) It all happened in the information tech industry.
Secondly, an individual pointed to the fact that Linus had Minix..etc and access to the Helsinki tech, to develop the Linux kernel in response to the fact I pointed out: People can setup thier own research and development facilties and bypass academic and industry.
My response to that is Linus more than likely by the time he was 17 and before he got into college, possesed all the tools required to build an OS kernel. Simply by hacking himself and reading because information about computers was freely available. You could go into a book store in 1992-93 and buy books from Sybex on 486 mother board programming and Minix for that matter. The books by the way were not shrink wrapped, and the information inside them had no restrictions.
I am not so sure from what I have read about Linux/Linus, that he only thought about Linux and only obtained the skills to build a kernel was at Helsinki Tech. However, OBVIOUSLY our learning institutions play apart in disemination of information. I am not saying that our learning institutions are bad, and we shouldn't use them.
The only way to find out is to ask Linus.
I am disappointed that most of you don't see the connection though between Open Source and the Economics of free software, however.
One person pointed out it isn't a general model for economics. I agree, partially. I agree you can't make money in the industry right now, from selling free software.
My point is though, that free software is redefining what we call a General Economic Model and I was hoping many of you would have picked up on the following:
1) Free software creates demands in other areas. These demands end up paying for people to write the software in the first place.
Example: Free web software drives the purchase of more servers and workstations to run free browser software. Many of the companies that make hardware, often employ Linux kernel/hardware programmers.
2) Free software often creates communities of individuals on the net that make how we form companies right now to pay people, obsolete.
Example: Mozilla, Linux Kernel.
Now, obivously some of these people are employed by selling software....read on.
The relationship is symbiotic. This is the beginning of change for our industry. Symbiotic relationships like the hardware above, and the support of existing companies though, is what I would call, a Transitional Model.
They allow software to be free, yet, paid for.
I woudl also like to point out, it is just as viable a model as the one pointed out in the slides, where software isn't free, and source code is hidden.
Who is right here? Well, obviously, if your company ONLY makes software, or your business is almost 90% wrapped around the concept of closed source systems, your DAYS ARE NUMBERED.
Why? Simply because you in the symbiotic relationship above, you can create software that drives demand, publish it, and have others expand it, without you paying for it. But in all likely hood, it will create more demand for your products.
If your Microsoft, you have to do it all yourself, and pay people directly.
Obviously, in contrast we are seeing hardware manufactures making Video Boards, and not investing any money into the software, just publishing the specs on the hardware and having 3rd party people write the drivers.
ATI and the Weather channel are a good example of this.
So, the model of how we pay for software is changing, and I am not in anyway suggesting that we, even now, don't pay for software.
It is just that software isn't as valuable anymore, and the internet is changing how we pay for it, and how demand is created for more software in the first place.
This is a threat to Microsoft, who cannot control the distribution or the manufacturing of software anymore, and they IMHO find themselves in the same boat as the RIAA.
Totally irrelevant in the next 3-4 years if they don't reinvent how they make money.
--hack
Computers are cheap enough, and powerful enough for individuals to be thier own research and development shop, bypassing both Academics and Industry and directly publishing.
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE the issue here with objections to the GPL.
I don't think the powers that be, namely Microsoft, believe that the individual has the right to create software, manufacture it, and then NOT COMPETE on the same terms as Microsoft does.
(i.e. freely distribute it.)
They are trying to convince us that, only Academia, and Industry can be the focus of great ideas, and therefore they should only be the ones that decide how we are to value Intellectual Property legally.
I think this is VERY similair believe it or not to what the RIAA is trying to fight.
Think about this:
A independant band, decides it wants to make music and sell it on the internet, with no distributor. (They build a web site and sell there own music through P2P technology.)
No Recording studio. (i.e. they hook up a bunch of Mac OS X machines with Cubase and make there own recording studio...)
Enter the RIAA. They see the internet as a possible tool for making them irrelevant, therefore they lobby and inact laws to make it illegal to use P2P technology to distribute Music over the internet.
With such technology illegal, they can preserve thier tight hold on distribution, and insure no indepedant bands become to widely popular or compete with thier distribution network.
----With a twist
Independant software developer, Linux Torvalds, builds and designs an Operating System kernel, and publishes it directly on the internet.
(He decides he will distribute it for free and NOT sell it.)
He has no research facility, he uses no Academic or Business computing facilities to make the software, instead, he uses and builds his own tools and buys the required hardware himself...(or uses his Dad's computer at home.)
10 years later, after giving it away...enter Microsoft.
Microsoft decides this software will destroy its distribution and control over the entire US software industry. They lobby to enact laws including the DMCA, to stop free software.
They begin Marketing and FUD campaigns with there customers to educate them why it is better to pay for software, and to make illegal not to pay for software, and only software built through IP property sources such as Academia->Industry->User.
More importantly, they say that this change toward OS will destroy the future economy. The facts in the internet boom do not bear this out by the way.
I would like to remind people here, that the internet boom was due to ENTIRELY FREE SOFTWARE released under the GPL: (i.e. the orginal CERN HTTP server and Web browser...)
Did the last 5 years destroy the US software industry? In 1998 for example, did you find it HARD to feed and clothe yourself because this software didn't go through Microsoft's slide presentation of ACADEMIA->INDUSTRY ?
I am starting to see a pattern, all of it do to the internet. Which, I hope everyone can see here is ACCLERATING the pace of technology through:
Sharing information for free. Free OS's accelerate the use of software, making it penetrate new markets much more quickly as there is no cost barrier.
A good example of this is web server/web browser software. They are free, and they created a HUGE demand in hardware, short term anyway, both for servers and of course for workstations to run browsers adequately.
I believe, information sharing for free generates FAR MORE revenue opportunity than through what Microsoft has proposed in those slides.
However, that opportunity is now no longer centered strictly around the manufacturer of the software.
I believe that we are at the tip of the iceberg here. I further believe that eventually, software ALL software will be so easy to produce due to tool advancements, better education that it will, like hardware become a commodity item.
In the end, these slides represent the fear of the software industry. That is, that software, I mean software that drives the revenues or the control of government, will no longer be ONLY AVAILABLE through research institutions or industry.
In fact, software will be very prevalent and easy to come by and cheap to come by, through the internet. For free or at very low cost.
So what will happen 10 years from now?
Here are my predictions, and I am gearing my company up for this NOW:
1) Most if not all software, will be sold on a labor basis, not on a shrink wrap basis.
That is, you hire someone to write your software because all of the software for doing business is basically free. (i.e. you use open source business apps which are standardized and since everyone uses them, it is easier to exchange documents with your vendors over the internet. If they don't have the software they can just download it.)
2) Shrink wrap software will exist, but it will be for vertical niche's, and highly focused.
(i.e. Mathematica for example).
But, in the end, software that has built billion dollar industries, will become free. The reason is the internet allows people to organize, much as what a company does for profit, but at a much lower cost. Which is an interesting thought?
What will happen to companies if the internet is ultimately allowed to evolve through the free use of information? Perhaps, dare I say, companies will become obsolete? After all, why pay a corporate board to organize people to produce information, like software, when the internet can do it much cheaper!
Finally, gaming will be one of the last strongholds of mass market shrinkwrap software.
Even there, you won't actually buy the software you will be provided the software with a monthly subscription which may include a internet connection with the game believe it or not.
3) Linux WILL BE ON THE DESKTOP. In your server room, and well if it isn't...
The sheer pricing pressures you will experience in trying to compete with your competitors who don't have those sorts of costs will compell you to load Linux or be pushed out of your own market.
-Hack
Got ya beat....
I am 37 years old and a virgin...
But then again...
I KNOW A SECRET NO ONE ELSE DOES ON SLASHDOT.
-Hack
Look at it this way Mike, you got a Bobble Head doll and he got ONLY 65 Million...
:-)
Just be thankful the guy doesn't end up biling you out of your retirement as well...
-Hack
PS: Take a pay cut and send it too the guy and plead with him NOT too...after all, he probably is working on his third home and that employee 401K/Retirement plan probably looks pretty juicy!
I totally agree.
I want WarCraft III, I want Dark Reign 3, Homeworld 2, StarCraft II, etc for Linux...
Not no name titles that appeal to an audience that has a smaller following than the total number of RedHat servers out there.
-Hack
or....perhaps
we want to study them to make our BioWeapons EVEN BETTER...
-Hack
I am not so sure.
There is a revolution going on. Mostof it has to do with aspects of OSS. But not in exactly the same way. OSS (Open Source Software) in context of a company and a busines process, internal to that companies operations and business goals.
With the kinds of things Java can do, in the development process, alot of companies are outsourcing the development of key systems, paying more for them upfront for development, but even though the pricetag is much higher in the long run it is cheaper:
1) The company, in your case, builds its own accounting system.
YOU own the accounting system.
2) IDE tools such as Idea's Intellij, provide means to build Java code at a very fast pace. Java in and of itself, isn't what makes things go fast, it is the tools and the technology (OOD) that allows the software to be built rather quickly.
Couple this with computers that keep getting enourmously more powerful year after year, companies are putting together even more toolsets for programmers to boost thier individuals capabilities and manage the "Holy Grail" of Software Engineering at the moment. ReUse and Patterns...undoubtedly, the next generation IDE's will be able to address those issues even more and put computer hardware advances in speed to even better use.
3) YOU control when the software needs more features.
That is, you upgrade and put the money into the software when someone in accounting says: "What if we combined payroll with the taxes section, perhaps we could build a credit system with a bank and Eletronically forward the funds ourselves...instead of having XXXX Payroll outsource company do it?
4) YOU control when the expenditures should be put into your budget for next year, for more features.
How much capability is also an important question when you want to figure out how much
5) YOU own something your competitors can't buy, because this software investment is part of your business process. For example, anyone can go buy Quicken, and try and get it to fit your business.
Your competitors WILL in fact do that, but YOU have something that fits your business EXACTLY and can change as your busiones changes as fast as your business ROI that YOU determine is acceptable.
I think this is becomming more common than most people think. I know, because my company is an expert at analyzing huge software systems, such as SAP, PeopleSoft and other Enterprise Resource Planning packages, and determinng, what would be better?
Spending $80 dollars an hour for 4 programmers and one project manager, or spending 20 MILLION on a software package and consultants to customize it at $180-$250 an hour?
In a great many cases, it isn't worth spending that much money on these large ERP systems, when technology, specifically Java development environments can produce a custom package for your company at half the cost of rolling your own. (i.e. 20 Million for SAP or 10 Million for your own package....)
I think this is the biggest threat to Shrink wrap software. Programming environments are becomming so powerful, because ever more powerful machine hardware is providing the programmer with productivity gains and toolsets (IDE's source debuggers Refactoring tools, access to code library systems such as cvs) that allow him to do the work of 5 programmers.
Compare that even 5 years ago when such things were not inetgrated as they are today.
-Hack
I am not sure if I believe the opinions I keep reading here about OSS developers, being:
:-)
:-)
:-)
1) Elitists. Come on, lets be reasonable now. If that were true, we wouldn't have anything but bash shell scripts for all our software.
2) Don't care about users. Also a comment I have seen, also not true.
3) Don't have the resources to do useability testing. Perhaps, but not universally so. Mozilla? Open Office? Not usable? I don't think so. SOMEONE is doing there homework there in the usability department.
But, seriously, I think the problem, all of the problems, Linux (UNIX) in general is facing is that the stage for which operations and use are/were confined to the server room.
We are in a TRANSITION PERIOD, which is going to take another 5 years to work out to address DESKTOP issues, now that the conquoring of the server rooms is a tide no company can reverse.
(Weep in the corner over there Bill....)
This 5 year transition period with usability is going to solve the following issues:
1) Up until now, there has really been no serious demand for desktop apps, in the office arena in the Unix market. This is turning now because the American software industry is, well, maturing beyond Windows. Windows is too monolithic, and too expensive to go beyond its current habitat.
Alternatives are wanted, and want generates development and need because companies that do not play by the Microsoft rules, that have to compete against companies that must, will rule the day in sheer economic terms of operating thier IT infrastructure. Regardless, in fact if you are a company or a country, if you embrace the new way, you will win the day!
2) As a result, mature GUI API's are needed to begin the process of building usable component software products to build software that is easy for the masses to use. Without a mature GUI API to program with, you can't make software that has a similair look and feel.
3) The API's most people will use will probably based on Qt or GTK. (i.e. GNOME and KDE).
I will make a prediction here that Qt will win the day. It is further along that GTK and has a much more mature development environment, which is effect is the foudations developers will need to build the API's and toolkits to make coherent GUI interfaces for apps.
The KDE team knows this, and as a result the toolsets for KDE development have been given equal pairing in attention to detail as KDE's GUI API has evolved. This makes it easier to build higher quality Qt apps at a faster rate than GNOME apps.
I point out in particular, the rapid pace of development of KDevelop and QtDesigner.
In the next 2 years, I predict a very visual studioish integration of all KDE toolsets, into one new development environment that will enforce look and feel much more effectively than right now, and allow Qt developers to make better GUI decisions as a result.
In the end though, you have to remember, the demand for Linux desktop apps will not really start to hit home for another 2 years yet. Linux is still wrapping up its winnings in the Windows Server war.
After a while, the larger server market will provide a new offense base to launch economic warfare against Microsoft's monopoly and Linux will eventually begin a new attack. This time, the target will be Microsoft's home world, and once we enter that system, we will deploy the PENGUIN DEATHSTAR.
What that "DeathStar" application will be, I am not sure. But I will guess and say that it will be OpenOffice full decked out 5 years from now, along with some sort of Exchange killer, yet to be named...
"We have entered the Redmond system Lord Penguin."...
"Fire at will!"
-hack
My company GPL's everything we write.
We only charge access to the cvs server (basically a subscription).
This is for companies who find they want to manage the code themselves, or hire thier own programmers.
IN the end though, you still need programmers. Whether it be us, or someone else, they will have to contribute those changes back into the community.
So, many companies stick to component subscriptions, and then use the API's against software they write explicitly, which is private.
Very similiair to what Nvidia does right now with XFree86.
The company gets too keep thier software process unique, and fundamental to thier business edge. (i.e. nobody can buy the process they use...)
While at the same time, the components they use to power that software get updates from said company to our cvs server for others to use.
Very nice arrgangement. I haven't found any company yet that has had an issue with the GPL cvs server arrangement we use.
We are a component company.
-hack