you'll note that I never said anything remotely like "at the cost of morale".
Michael Jordan was a team player, and he inspired his teammates to levels of greatness they would otherwise not have acheived. Yet lets not forget, he was the superstar, and he was the reason the Bulls won six championships. Take Jordan away, and what do you get? Go look and see how well the Bulls have done since Jordan left.
Granted this is an analogy to be taken with a grain of salt, but its mainly because superstar programmers aren't famous. They do exist, and they make the companies they work for successful.
Now that you mention it, an Act of God would be a justifiable excuse for losing data. If God wanted to destroy both production and backup servers as well as that tape you keep in a safe offsite I guess theres not much you can do about it.
But thats about the only justifiable excuse I can think of for losing data!:)
Ask around, there are people who MS can't very well afford to lose and are getting 7 figure salaries. Same goes for Sun. I can't speak for anyone else, but there are some very highly paid superstars in the industry.
"The term 'prima donna' comes from a difficult leading woman soloist in an opera," Henning reflects. "I think 'soloist' is a key word. A lot of prima donnas act like soloists - they don't work well with the team, and they think their voice is the most important."
Yeah, well. There is a reason the Michael Jordan's of the world make more money and earn more respect than the rest of the team. They quite simply are better than anyone else you can find. They lead your team to victory.
If you are fortunate enough to employ such a person, coddle him, pay his outrageous salary, and put up with his inflated ego. He earned it, and if you don't your competitor surely will.
Soloists are important. A good backup band will allow the soloist to shine.
I am utterly amazed at times the things I hear about how system administration is performed at MS. Ever check their jobs page? They're really picky about who they hire, you know.
Yet we repeatedly hear about security problems with their own servers, how all their DNS servers were on the same network segment, hotmail goes down and now this? Lost data??!!!
I'm sorry, but as a former full-time sysadmin, there is absolutely no excuse for losing data. Preserving your companies data is the #1 priority of any sysadmin, regardless of the company. And preserving data with 100% certainty is acheivable by anyone who takes the time to set things up right.
Oh well, I was never a fan of their passport/hailstorm idea anyway. Things like this can only cause more people to run away from using those services.
It certainly looks like the beginnings of an interesting license battle.
Especially if Ximian replaces fundamental parts of.NET with GPL code. Binary programs written with the MS version of.NET would be illegal to run under the Ximian version of.NET.
I wonder who would look like the bad guy in that scenario.
my impression is that it is because MS decided to give up control of the big pieces of.NET to a standards body. MS is also providing the reference implementation of.NET on FreeBSD. Although invented by MS,.NET won't be owned. It will be a standard. I think thats where it will succeed over Java.
Additionally, you have Miguel de Icaza, the lead GNOME developer gushing about how 'state of the art' the.NET technology is. The opposite seems to be true of Java, as you mentioned, in the eyes of influential developers.
Not to mention that the.NET runtime will compile code written in Perl, Java, C# or any number of other languages. I understand Java does this as well, but in Java which language is going to get top billing?.NET seems to have language independence built in from the ground up. That's a big win in the open source world of many languages.
So, basically you have all the ingredients for.NET's success in the OSS arena. Which is probably Microsoft's intention because if it succeeds there, it will succeed everywhere.
I don't quite get it. Advertising supports TV just fine. Furthermore, all TV gives you is a rough guesstimate of how many viewers watched an ad. They have no idea who is channel surfing, snacking or going to the bathroom. How is it that TV advertising is so expensive and profitable to the stations that sell it?
On the internet, you can target your audience to a much greater degree than with TV. Additionally you can, to some degree, directly track response to your ads. On top of that, it could easily be proved that the internet audience is wealthier and better educated as a whole than TV audiences, and therefore has more money to spend on an advertisers product.
I am guessing that the 'direct response' aspect of internet ads is also its downfall. If advertisers are primarily looking for click-throughs, then that is the problem. Based on an entirely subjective and anecdotal survey of how internet ads are used, very few(none) of my friends and family click on the ads. However, most of us have learned of companies or products through these ads and later patronized these companies.
The reason we don't click on the ads is because as a whole, we are not impulsive buyers. Since we have the whole internet at our disposal, we will usually do some research on your company and product and compare those to other companies and products. Its not that we didn't read your ad - we just did some more research before buying.
If ads were sold by the number of eyeballs, rather than the number of click-throughs, then theres no reason that advertising shouldn't work.(Right?) However, if its the other way around, then I can easily see how advertising on the net might be tanking.
usually someone else comes along and explains things, but no one else did, so here goes...
Ernesto Miranda was murdered later in life. The only suspect in the case refused to testify, claiming his 'Miranda right' to remain silent. Thus, the irony. Miranda's murder and subsequent investigation have absolutely nothing to do with the case you refer to.
Additionally, I get some pretty vicious replies to my sig, which make it all the more worthwhile.:)
you know, when I was younger I really resented the 45 year old guys with their Porsches and fat wallets when I saw them dating people from my own age group.
I find that the older and richer I get, the more that resentment passes...
That was funny, and spot on. BSD code also remains free forever, but you wouldn't know it reading the standard GPL rant.
Seems to me that the GPL has the potential to remove your rights as a developer in the long run. Say you invent a software product, copyright it under your name, and then GPL it. You could sell this product as a proprietary product under a different licence. However, as soon as someone else contributes to your code, you lose all rights to sell it under your proprietary licence. With a BSD licence, the open source model still works, you get to share code and have others contribute to the project, and no one is restricted in any way from making money with the code. As it should be IMO.
I can hear the anti-BSD rant already. "But what if evil software company X steals your code and never gives back to the development community? Well, here's what would happen. Since I BSD'd my code instead of GPL'ing it, I'm not restricted in any way from selling my product and competing with company X(If I had GPL'd my project, its likely that neither I nor company X would ever make any money, but that's neither here nor there). Now who do you think people are going to buy the software from. Me, who wrote the code, and actually can support it, or Company X, who downloaded the code, doesn't know shit about it, and just wants to make a quick buck.
That's right, even under the BSD model, I'm still pretty much guaranteed the lions share of the sale of this software product. My code is still free and can be developed with an open source community model. And most importantly, I can sell my own work as a binary product to people who don't care about the code, and I can sell it without restriction.
In short, if you like the OSS model of development, and if you ever hope to reap profits from your coding work, the BSD licence is the way to go.
In theory, not having to type in the same personal information each time you visit a different site is a good idea.
However, its pretty clear that Microsoft wants passport to be the standard. Its a big deal when they make it so we have to use passport, whether we like it or not.
FUD me harder indeed. Do you think Microsoft is creating a free service because it so benevolently wants to do something nice for the web community? Please. They are going to sell the data they collect. Your data. My data. Nowhere in the passport.com privacy statement says they won't.
The sad thing is, they won't increase revenues by these efforts. They will just lose customers
So, according to Petreley, NC's have withered on the vine because of a massive and insidious FUD campaign by Microsoft to spur everyone not to buy one.
I'm sure the fact that you can buy a complete PC for what a NC cost had nothing to do with their demise.
As far as.NET is concerned the issue of authentication is overblown a little. People seem to focus on the evil-looking parts of.NET like authentication services and ASP software, and forget about what.NET really is. It is a runtime, like Java, that can run code written in several different languages. That part of it will succeed. The authentication stuff however will go down the tubes just like the ASPs are doing now.
There is not a widespread need for third-party authentication. Certainly not enough for there to be widespread services that everyone uses. The ASP model has failed to a large degree as well. If the 3rd party goes down(as MS has often done) or tanks as a business you are hosed. Most people won't risk this.
The part of.NET that will succeed is the programming model, because it does solve a need for a lot of programmers.
So what we have really is 2.NET's, one which will succeed, and one which will not do so well.
so you're saying msn.com will do things that other web sites can't? That's silly.
All they are doing is passing people through msn.com first before sending them to any other MS web site. If I had a big organization with 20 different sites, I would do the same thing. It makes sense - you track total usage of your web properties in one place.
Besides, if you don't want cookies, just turn off cookies. If you want to be warned each and every time someone tries to set a cookie on your machine you can do that to and refuse each cookie individually.
This is not that big of a deal. I personally welcome the added security features.
ACL's, meaning you can give separate read/write/execute permissions to individual users. They don't necessarily need to belong to a certain group to get additional rights.
Additionally you can give users special rights on the OS that don't have anything to do with file permissions. For instance, you can set up accounts that act only to run server processes, and you might give that account permission to act as part of the OS.
Basically, Win2K security is designed around the user, whereas in UNIX security is designed around the file.
Mainly because the music you listen to doesn't require a high end system to be reproduced correctly.
First, if you mainly listen to MP3's, why bother. You're already cutting away ~20% of the frequency response. Any kind of rock(pop, rap, punk, basically anything with a guitar and drums in it), the technology going into creating the music in the first place isn't as good as these stereos. Guitar in particular is very lo-fi - hell, we purposely distort the guitar signal to make it sound better. Basically you need to be listening to classical music or something sonically similar to Pink Floyd to need a high end system. That throws out about 95% of all recorded music right there.
I love classical music, and I love Pink Floyd, but that kind of stuff represents 5 percent of what I listen to. I also really get off listening to hard rock played loud through an average system.
I suspect the vast majority of us would be quite happy with a $300 receiver and a set of surround speakers. I know I am, and I've listened to 70,000 dollar systems.
that allows you to organize, sort, and search for information in your enterprise.
This new tool lets you store information electronically, and store many thousands of pieces of information for instant recall using either simple searches or browsing through organized folders.
Although this new tool has been widely praised for its ability to help manage the enterprise, it is also vilified by some by its insidious capability to monitor and spy on people. Your actions can now be tracked and recorded for all to see.
This new tool can be combined with other like tools in a network, further increasing its capability for unleashing restrictions on your freedoms.
The GPL has its place, but I don't think it belongs in publicly funded software development.
With the GPL, you are ensuring that no profit will be made from taxpayer funded software. Generally research projects(not just software) are intended to stimulate the economy and private enterprise. With a BSD licence, anyone can use the code and make money with it. Not only big players, but you or I if we want to start a software company. That makes better sense for the economy than GPL'ing it does. And the code base itself still remains free even after software companies take it and modify it.
As far as I know, the vast majority of govt. and uni research has been released under a BSD style licence. Change that to the GPL, and you ensure that nobody gets to use this publicly funded software in a commercial product. IMO, a publicly funded software project should belong to everyone without restriction, and I hope things remain that way.
Besides, the GPL is intended for the developer(read: not the disinterested taxpayer) to decide that they don't want other people using their code. Because the GPL is centered around the developer, rather than the end-user, it is inappropriate for publicly funded software.
Given that 95% of the questions posted here and on Oreilly.com are uneducated and highly biased flamebait, given that no matter how intelligently you answer your questions to the open-source community you will be spat on and tarred and feathered like the enemy you are to these people, I have just one question?
Slashdot Mirror
Michael Jordan was a team player, and he inspired his teammates to levels of greatness they would otherwise not have acheived. Yet lets not forget, he was the superstar, and he was the reason the Bulls won six championships. Take Jordan away, and what do you get? Go look and see how well the Bulls have done since Jordan left.
Granted this is an analogy to be taken with a grain of salt, but its mainly because superstar programmers aren't famous. They do exist, and they make the companies they work for successful.
But thats about the only justifiable excuse I can think of for losing data! :)
no I haven't, but I do have a contingency plan for such an incident, as do most companies who intend on keeping their data around. :)
Ask around, there are people who MS can't very well afford to lose and are getting 7 figure salaries. Same goes for Sun. I can't speak for anyone else, but there are some very highly paid superstars in the industry.
Yeah, well. There is a reason the Michael Jordan's of the world make more money and earn more respect than the rest of the team. They quite simply are better than anyone else you can find. They lead your team to victory.
If you are fortunate enough to employ such a person, coddle him, pay his outrageous salary, and put up with his inflated ego. He earned it, and if you don't your competitor surely will.
Soloists are important. A good backup band will allow the soloist to shine.
I am utterly amazed at times the things I hear about how system administration is performed at MS. Ever check their jobs page? They're really picky about who they hire, you know.
Yet we repeatedly hear about security problems with their own servers, how all their DNS servers were on the same network segment, hotmail goes down and now this? Lost data??!!!
I'm sorry, but as a former full-time sysadmin, there is absolutely no excuse for losing data. Preserving your companies data is the #1 priority of any sysadmin, regardless of the company. And preserving data with 100% certainty is acheivable by anyone who takes the time to set things up right.
Oh well, I was never a fan of their passport/hailstorm idea anyway. Things like this can only cause more people to run away from using those services.
Especially if Ximian replaces fundamental parts of .NET with GPL code. Binary programs written with the MS version of .NET would be illegal to run under the Ximian version of .NET.
I wonder who would look like the bad guy in that scenario.
With .NET, your Python app will be cross platform(Since Python is one of the languages supported by the CLR.)
Additionally, you have Miguel de Icaza, the lead GNOME developer gushing about how 'state of the art' the .NET technology is. The opposite seems to be true of Java, as you mentioned, in the eyes of influential developers.
Not to mention that the .NET runtime will compile code written in Perl, Java, C# or any number of other languages. I understand Java does this as well, but in Java which language is going to get top billing? .NET seems to have language independence built in from the ground up. That's a big win in the open source world of many languages.
So, basically you have all the ingredients for .NET's success in the OSS arena. Which is probably Microsoft's intention because if it succeeds there, it will succeed everywhere.
On the internet, you can target your audience to a much greater degree than with TV. Additionally you can, to some degree, directly track response to your ads. On top of that, it could easily be proved that the internet audience is wealthier and better educated as a whole than TV audiences, and therefore has more money to spend on an advertisers product.
I am guessing that the 'direct response' aspect of internet ads is also its downfall. If advertisers are primarily looking for click-throughs, then that is the problem. Based on an entirely subjective and anecdotal survey of how internet ads are used, very few(none) of my friends and family click on the ads. However, most of us have learned of companies or products through these ads and later patronized these companies.
The reason we don't click on the ads is because as a whole, we are not impulsive buyers. Since we have the whole internet at our disposal, we will usually do some research on your company and product and compare those to other companies and products. Its not that we didn't read your ad - we just did some more research before buying.
If ads were sold by the number of eyeballs, rather than the number of click-throughs, then theres no reason that advertising shouldn't work.(Right?) However, if its the other way around, then I can easily see how advertising on the net might be tanking.
usually someone else comes along and explains things, but no one else did, so here goes...
Ernesto Miranda was murdered later in life. The only suspect in the case refused to testify, claiming his 'Miranda right' to remain silent. Thus, the irony. Miranda's murder and subsequent investigation have absolutely nothing to do with the case you refer to.
Additionally, I get some pretty vicious replies to my sig, which make it all the more worthwhile. :)
I find that the older and richer I get, the more that resentment passes...
You know, you should feature your wonderbox on Slashdot. It would make a great article and we all would love to see how you did it.
Seems to me that the GPL has the potential to remove your rights as a developer in the long run. Say you invent a software product, copyright it under your name, and then GPL it. You could sell this product as a proprietary product under a different licence. However, as soon as someone else contributes to your code, you lose all rights to sell it under your proprietary licence. With a BSD licence, the open source model still works, you get to share code and have others contribute to the project, and no one is restricted in any way from making money with the code. As it should be IMO.
I can hear the anti-BSD rant already. "But what if evil software company X steals your code and never gives back to the development community? Well, here's what would happen. Since I BSD'd my code instead of GPL'ing it, I'm not restricted in any way from selling my product and competing with company X(If I had GPL'd my project, its likely that neither I nor company X would ever make any money, but that's neither here nor there). Now who do you think people are going to buy the software from. Me, who wrote the code, and actually can support it, or Company X, who downloaded the code, doesn't know shit about it, and just wants to make a quick buck.
That's right, even under the BSD model, I'm still pretty much guaranteed the lions share of the sale of this software product. My code is still free and can be developed with an open source community model. And most importantly, I can sell my own work as a binary product to people who don't care about the code, and I can sell it without restriction.
In short, if you like the OSS model of development, and if you ever hope to reap profits from your coding work, the BSD licence is the way to go.
However, its pretty clear that Microsoft wants passport to be the standard. Its a big deal when they make it so we have to use passport, whether we like it or not.
The company you work for is engaging in forcing its customers into buying upgrades. MS is putting its weight into things like enforced registration for the new XP products and threatening audits of customers it suspects of piracy. Passport is innocent until you consider the company behind it.
FUD me harder indeed. Do you think Microsoft is creating a free service because it so benevolently wants to do something nice for the web community? Please. They are going to sell the data they collect. Your data. My data. Nowhere in the passport.com privacy statement says they won't.
The sad thing is, they won't increase revenues by these efforts. They will just lose customers
I'm sure the fact that you can buy a complete PC for what a NC cost had nothing to do with their demise.
As far as .NET is concerned the issue of authentication is overblown a little. People seem to focus on the evil-looking parts of .NET like authentication services and ASP software, and forget about what .NET really is. It is a runtime, like Java, that can run code written in several different languages. That part of it will succeed. The authentication stuff however will go down the tubes just like the ASPs are doing now.
There is not a widespread need for third-party authentication. Certainly not enough for there to be widespread services that everyone uses. The ASP model has failed to a large degree as well. If the 3rd party goes down(as MS has often done) or tanks as a business you are hosed. Most people won't risk this.
The part of .NET that will succeed is the programming model, because it does solve a need for a lot of programmers.
So what we have really is 2 .NET's, one which will succeed, and one which will not do so well.
Hmm...just what religion do you think Jesus was?
Not sure? I'll tell you. Jesus Christ was JEWISH.
Therefore, YOU, Mr. Jew-Hater, hate Jesus Christ. You cannot be both a Christian and a Jew-Hater.
Sorry. You are going to Hell.
Statement: Tux runs faster than IIS.
Response: Woohoo! Linux RULEZ! Props to ZDNet for their insightful and informative article!
Statement: IIS is the best overall web server.
Response: Not these M$-suckups again! Haven't we learned yet not to equate ZDNet with real journalism?
It looks like you're trolling Slashdot. Perhaps Clippy can be of assistance.
All they are doing is passing people through msn.com first before sending them to any other MS web site. If I had a big organization with 20 different sites, I would do the same thing. It makes sense - you track total usage of your web properties in one place.
Besides, if you don't want cookies, just turn off cookies. If you want to be warned each and every time someone tries to set a cookie on your machine you can do that to and refuse each cookie individually.
This is not that big of a deal. I personally welcome the added security features.
Additionally you can give users special rights on the OS that don't have anything to do with file permissions. For instance, you can set up accounts that act only to run server processes, and you might give that account permission to act as part of the OS.
Basically, Win2K security is designed around the user, whereas in UNIX security is designed around the file.
First, if you mainly listen to MP3's, why bother. You're already cutting away ~20% of the frequency response. Any kind of rock(pop, rap, punk, basically anything with a guitar and drums in it), the technology going into creating the music in the first place isn't as good as these stereos. Guitar in particular is very lo-fi - hell, we purposely distort the guitar signal to make it sound better. Basically you need to be listening to classical music or something sonically similar to Pink Floyd to need a high end system. That throws out about 95% of all recorded music right there.
I love classical music, and I love Pink Floyd, but that kind of stuff represents 5 percent of what I listen to. I also really get off listening to hard rock played loud through an average system.
I suspect the vast majority of us would be quite happy with a $300 receiver and a set of surround speakers. I know I am, and I've listened to 70,000 dollar systems.
This new tool lets you store information electronically, and store many thousands of pieces of information for instant recall using either simple searches or browsing through organized folders.
Although this new tool has been widely praised for its ability to help manage the enterprise, it is also vilified by some by its insidious capability to monitor and spy on people. Your actions can now be tracked and recorded for all to see.
This new tool can be combined with other like tools in a network, further increasing its capability for unleashing restrictions on your freedoms.
It's called...a computer.
With the GPL, you are ensuring that no profit will be made from taxpayer funded software. Generally research projects(not just software) are intended to stimulate the economy and private enterprise. With a BSD licence, anyone can use the code and make money with it. Not only big players, but you or I if we want to start a software company. That makes better sense for the economy than GPL'ing it does. And the code base itself still remains free even after software companies take it and modify it.
As far as I know, the vast majority of govt. and uni research has been released under a BSD style licence. Change that to the GPL, and you ensure that nobody gets to use this publicly funded software in a commercial product. IMO, a publicly funded software project should belong to everyone without restriction, and I hope things remain that way.
Besides, the GPL is intended for the developer(read: not the disinterested taxpayer) to decide that they don't want other people using their code. Because the GPL is centered around the developer, rather than the end-user, it is inappropriate for publicly funded software.
Given that 95% of the questions posted here and on Oreilly.com are uneducated and highly biased flamebait, given that no matter how intelligently you answer your questions to the open-source community you will be spat on and tarred and feathered like the enemy you are to these people, I have just one question?
Why bother?