There isn't a single Windows box in the top 500 supercomputers at present. No doubt that could change, but would anyone want to buy a Windows supercomputer at a price that would allow Microsoft and the hardware builders a profit? Meanwhile, 372 of the top 500 - just about 75% - run Linux.
As to "MS Research v IBM Research", it's not so clear-cut. Sure, IBM employees invented the relational database, reliable messaging, transaction processing and lots of other stuff. But have you checked out the people MS has been hiring? I wouldn't be surprised if it now has half of the experts who made those breakthroughs - although at their age they may not be doing much important new work.
Then again, MS itself doesn't seem to take much from its research arm. The research guys keep coming up with brilliant new stuff, but most of it is incompatible with Windows, Office, etc. as they are today. Just as Dave Cutler designed Windows NT along the lines of VMS - modular, secure, reliable - only to have his work spoiled when Gates insisted on imposing the same old Windows 3 GUI on top of it. It's ironic: MS used to laugh at IBM for its cautious, fuddy-duddy image and the way it was tied to not breaking compatibility with its installed base. Now they have the same problem in spades. Heh.
Even if this guy wanted to share his genetic information with the rest of us, is he legally entitled to do so? What if the relevant genes are among those already patented by certain corporations?
Btw, this is a classic acid test of the true meaning of liberty. Too many people are all for freedom to say things everyone agrees with, do what everyone else does, and pursue popularity by any and all means. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that other people *hate*, and freedom of choice means freedom to withhold cooperation from life-saving medical research. By all means maintain that this guy is obliged to cooperate - but if so, don't imagine that you believe in liberty, or that he could be forced to cooperate in a free country.
OTOH, I believe you are entirely free to call him a shit to your heart's content (if it helps).
A lot of very good programmers, some of them with vast experience, swear by (not at) Agile methods, XP, and techniques like Scrum. Myself, I was trained to use "waterfall" techniques, and still believe they have a lot to offer - there is much to be said for freezing requirements and specifications (at least while you deliver the current release - there is nothing to stop you working on two or more releases at the same time, as long as you use different teams for them).
As many posters have pointed out, there are too many PHBs - especially on the client side - who refuse to learn the fundamental axioms of software engineering. E.g. they don't know Brooks' Law, and they think they can keep changing requirements as much as they like, right up to (and beyond) the delivery date. Consider this recent glaring example (the UK National Health Service's $10 billion patient booking system). According to today's Sunday Times, a senior civil servant called Richard Granger criticized a less senior official for delaying the project by continually piling on new requirements or change requests:
"Granger censures Margaret Edwards, the department's director for access and patient choice, for adding numerous new specifications to the booking programme, known as Choose and Book.
"Granger writes: "Choose and Book's £20m IT build contract is now in grave danger of derailing (not just destabilising) a £6.2 billion programme."
As I see it, Agile techniques like Scrum are a response to the insistence by non-technical PHBs (who unfortunately hold the purse strings) that they be allowed to go on changing their minds right up to delivery date. They're not perfect, but under the circumstances it is amazing they work at all - which they do.
Everyone seems to be accepting the government's explanation of the motives for wanting 90 days. Seems to me that encryption is simply a convenient cover story - technical enough that 99% of voters won't presume to question it (or even think about it).
My take is that breaking (brainwashing, if you will) someone is a lot easier in 90 days than in 14, especially if you want to avoid any techniques that look too much like torture. Some of us might be able to resist two weeks of all-night questioning, sleep deprivation, and general abuse - but not three months. By then you wouldn't remember who you were, or which way was up. You could even be temporarily exported to Algeria, Egypt, Syria, or some other country that specializes in robust interrogation, and brought back (what was left of you) in time to be charged.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a single Windows box in the top 500 supercomputers at present. No doubt that could change, but would anyone want to buy a Windows supercomputer at a price that would allow Microsoft and the hardware builders a profit? Meanwhile, 372 of the top 500 - just about 75% - run Linux.
As to "MS Research v IBM Research", it's not so clear-cut. Sure, IBM employees invented the relational database, reliable messaging, transaction processing and lots of other stuff. But have you checked out the people MS has been hiring? I wouldn't be surprised if it now has half of the experts who made those breakthroughs - although at their age they may not be doing much important new work.
Then again, MS itself doesn't seem to take much from its research arm. The research guys keep coming up with brilliant new stuff, but most of it is incompatible with Windows, Office, etc. as they are today. Just as Dave Cutler designed Windows NT along the lines of VMS - modular, secure, reliable - only to have his work spoiled when Gates insisted on imposing the same old Windows 3 GUI on top of it. It's ironic: MS used to laugh at IBM for its cautious, fuddy-duddy image and the way it was tied to not breaking compatibility with its installed base. Now they have the same problem in spades. Heh.
Even if this guy wanted to share his genetic information with the rest of us, is he legally entitled to do so? What if the relevant genes are among those already patented by certain corporations?
Btw, this is a classic acid test of the true meaning of liberty. Too many people are all for freedom to say things everyone agrees with, do what everyone else does, and pursue popularity by any and all means. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that other people *hate*, and freedom of choice means freedom to withhold cooperation from life-saving medical research. By all means maintain that this guy is obliged to cooperate - but if so, don't imagine that you believe in liberty, or that he could be forced to cooperate in a free country.
OTOH, I believe you are entirely free to call him a shit to your heart's content (if it helps).
A lot of very good programmers, some of them with vast experience, swear by (not at) Agile methods, XP, and techniques like Scrum. Myself, I was trained to use "waterfall" techniques, and still believe they have a lot to offer - there is much to be said for freezing requirements and specifications (at least while you deliver the current release - there is nothing to stop you working on two or more releases at the same time, as long as you use different teams for them).
9 851_1,00.html
As many posters have pointed out, there are too many PHBs - especially on the client side - who refuse to learn the fundamental axioms of software engineering. E.g. they don't know Brooks' Law, and they think they can keep changing requirements as much as they like, right up to (and beyond) the delivery date. Consider this recent glaring example (the UK National Health Service's $10 billion patient booking system). According to today's Sunday Times, a senior civil servant called Richard Granger criticized a less senior official for delaying the project by continually piling on new requirements or change requests:
"Granger censures Margaret Edwards, the department's director for access and patient choice, for adding numerous new specifications to the booking programme, known as Choose and Book.
"Granger writes: "Choose and Book's £20m IT build contract is now in grave danger of derailing (not just destabilising) a £6.2 billion programme."
"He concludes: "Unfortunately, your consistently late requests will not enable us to rescue the missed opportunities and targets." "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-186
As I see it, Agile techniques like Scrum are a response to the insistence by non-technical PHBs (who unfortunately hold the purse strings) that they be allowed to go on changing their minds right up to delivery date. They're not perfect, but under the circumstances it is amazing they work at all - which they do.
Everyone seems to be accepting the government's explanation of the motives for wanting 90 days. Seems to me that encryption is simply a convenient cover story - technical enough that 99% of voters won't presume to question it (or even think about it).
My take is that breaking (brainwashing, if you will) someone is a lot easier in 90 days than in 14, especially if you want to avoid any techniques that look too much like torture. Some of us might be able to resist two weeks of all-night questioning, sleep deprivation, and general abuse - but not three months. By then you wouldn't remember who you were, or which way was up. You could even be temporarily exported to Algeria, Egypt, Syria, or some other country that specializes in robust interrogation, and brought back (what was left of you) in time to be charged.