>If you took the time to read and understand you would see that.
are you saying it's impossible to disagree with you, once you are understood? I think I'm understanding you well enough.
> Well at least you've admitted Open Source isn't a sustainable business model.
I don't think it's a business model at all. It's a distribution model (you get the source).
I think Google has a good chance of making money from it's use of Linux, for example.
I think RedHat has a good chance to survive because while I have only slight reason to pay for redhat, I have a lot of reason to pay for up2date, and other forms of support. I can get [OSS example of preference] anywhere, but I trust RedHat not to feed me a trojaned version.
And I also think that OSS serves one common business model rather well... and that is the consultant.
Standard tools, and all the money for installing, configuring, and maintaining them goes to the IT professional.
at first I thought that was a joke post... because in 1984 the cameras were also not on all the time, so you still had sufficient "privacy" (you just didn't know when)
After having about 9 years of Windows development under my belt, I don't like something like this because it IS a good idea.
I think if MS GPLed Windows XP tommorrow, it would truly fossilize as the desktop standard, and Microsoft would do rather well influencing it's direction. And I don't want that any more, I don't like them or the way they produce technology, I don't find them enabling anymore, I find them plotting and I have to watch them like a hawk lest they get an advantage over me and my carreer. They try to make a developer totally dependent, not just by making things easiest, but by actually tricking you.
I'm human. I have a right to grow bitter and distrustful, and I have.
Now I generally hope and work for their demise. They knew they were angering developers with their various tricks and predation, and they don't care, they burnt that bridge on the basis of not needing those angry developers ("look, we'll just produce MSCEs, we don't need you!"), fine, but we shall see.
I think unix is heading for the desktop, and I don't know which version, but I saw it take over the server rooms, and I think it will take over the desktop.
Microsoft could drive that... frankly, I'm glad to see them fight it to the end at this point.
You can buy bottles of air too, but air is still free!
Google is said to have well over 4000 machines running it's service, do you think they paid for 4000 copies of redhat? More likely they paid for one, configured it into their own package, burned it and used that. I don't know, pure speculation.
But I know they can do that. And they can just download the ISO and not even pay RedHat! Hello!
Redhat is charging for a users manual, a CD, and a nice box for your shelf.
You seem like today you are the whiner, nothing personal--- well, I guess that is a bit personal. Still, your whole argument is based on the idea that GPL stuff isn't really available for free... it is, you can't deny that with credibility. Therefore, you get the changes other people have made, for free. You get the changes RedHat has made, for free. You are guarenteed access. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you pay for some packaging and maybe save yourself some time from a long download... but if you don't have, you still have access.
The WinCE situation is simply not the same.
Other than that, I tend to agree with you... MS is entitled to do whatever they want with WinCE, including making a trap by painting it OSS colors.
funny thing about these arguments... this is abstract logic... nearly EVERYTHING is "possible" if it doesn't have to be pretty or actually exist (optimizing compilers for Java that are faster than compiled C-code being my favorite example of the latter)...
your point is fair... my response merely, "when we talk about what a language can do, aren't we saying, in a reasonably pretty way with a fairly mainline level of support?"
How many Java Faithful endorse using JNI to bind to C/C++ based GUI toolkits!?
"... well it's started out small, a few mallocs, but then before you know it he was doing all sorts of stuff in the constructor which could fail or take a long time. We tried to tell him to use a init function for these cases he insisted on allocating buffers, making database connections, and painting small delicate puppies unpleasant colors, all in his String class constructor! It was terrible. He settled for 50M$, but now it's worse than ever, he's actually installing products from his constructors!"
I have long had a theory (well, good enough for a story I wrote), that when they get a pill to counter radioactive poisoning, all hell will break loose, because lack of same is the only thing keeping them from using nuclear tactical missiles.
I'm all for this, I don't think not pursuing medical science is a good way to prevent war... so let's move forward, but I'm not sure that I'm not right that such a thing increases the liklihood of nuclear war. Which is to say, I think I might be right about this.
Or possibly it's just the paranoia I was well trained in by my baby boomer parents.
... until they eliminate the need for human operators, then they cannot make such a facility safe enough to avoid inevitable disaster.
For most kinds of engineering, that's acceptable (inevitable disaster), you just move on afterward. In the case of radioactive materials, it's not always that easy.
and rob the karma whores of low hanging fruit! You cruel cruel man;)
Seriously, I think they might eventually piss of the nytimes if they did that. Free Reg to the paper of record isn't really such an evil thing, btw, imnsho, ymmv, ald fa;bb b.
Re:In all non-decimal systems..
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
this kind of crap is why people graduate thinking they know "the one right way" when in reality they have been indocrinated in a field where things are really wide open, undiscovered, and far from finalized.
in the real world, you need to arrange some common definitions with your colleagues and use them for consistency. When you change jobs, repeat the process. All terminology in software engineering, so far, is pretty local.
A fun one to follow is "polymorphism". People are certain what it means. But it means and has been used to mean, a variety of semi-related things. Fact is, you cannot rely on a common jargon in software engineering the way you supposedly can in other engineering disciplines. imnsho
what I find sad and personally disapointing is that I remember the burger... and I never even had one.
I mean, how can I throw that memory away and replace it with a better memorization of operator precedence in C++ or like, a complete knowledge of all the flags for gcc? But no, that I have to look up while if you ask me what a freaking McDLT used to be I freaking know!
The registration stuff, as well as all the other call home features, of XP are something significant enough to make people try something, especially with a good-enough set of free tools available.
My father, for example, who has been saying he would try linux for years. I havn't pushed him because (1) I'm no zealot, and (2) when it gets right down to it he is a guy that doesn't want to learn a new word processor. To me, it's the same program, to him, he doesn't want to learn where the menu items were relocated to. He's not stupid, it's just like not wanting to work on a type of car you are not familiar with. A mechanic might orient themselves quickly (I mean, cars have a lot more in common than difference), but a regular person wouldn't. He knows where to go try to set up a printer in windows, and the fact that it's just as easy in linux right now (or OS X, etc.) doesn't matter, it's different.
BUT: he is sick and tired of his new machine with XP. He thinks it's running slower than 98 did on his 200 MHz machine. He hates that it keeps asking him to upgrade things. He is near about demanding I install linux so he can try it. If I don't do that, he's likely to wipe XP and install 98 (which he doesn't legally own anymore so that will be interesting, I doubt he'll want to send money to MS).
Anyway, that mess above was supposed to be an anecdotal corroboration of the way that MS is pressuring people to keep an open mind about trying linux and/or other OSes.
The funny part is that I think the Bill Gates certainly still knows the investment that being piracy friendly represents. He understand computing from the 1975-1990 framework, a lot of us that were kids are computer professionals now because we had access to all the software. Your average kid might have $10K worth of tools. Games were the most popular, as they still are, no doubt, but the fact is, I had compilers, VisiCalc, all the business tools and editors and platforms and languages. Stuff I never could have afforded. Stuff my high school wouldn't have afforded. And it's good for MS if kids that wouldn't pay anyway get educated in your stuff.
Piracy in Asia is different, for that to pay off, they have to get them to pay some day, probably. But that's beside the point. The real issue is MS is a publicly traded company. And even if they accept that they are blue chip, that their stock price is going to level, and turn to dividends, it's still the situation that a publicly traded company needs to maximize profits, and when accountants come in and see billion dollar estimates for the "cost of piracy", the MBA and other business cogs are going to set to work, more or less automatically, to "address the problem".
In a way it's a bit optimistic of me, I hope MS does bring it to a head. I have developed a quite significant amount of MS software, but got sick of MS trying to lock me into the MS world more and more as years went by. Now I'm working purely in unix, with linux desktops at work (but Windows 98 at home! Kids got games you know!). They pissed me off because while they always try to make things easy, they really try, imnho, to trick their developers into a trap of no escape.
I'm a software engineer but it's similar to what they seem to me to do to MSCEs. They make a cozy little place for them. Take some classes, a test, use a GUI to get your job done. Easy, well paid, wonderful. But then again, MS is also the one trying to automate away the need for expert ("anybody can administer windows, it's so easy"). How is this not stabbing MSCEs in the back? I mean, one: it may be easy to click here and there, but it's no more easy to UNDERSTAND what the clicking means. And it's HARDER to do something that isn't in the GUI. At that point you warp past relatively easy text file editing of the old unix variety and warp right into the mine field of registry hacking, etc. etc.
I should say, I don't mind that MS should automate away MSCEs, but
Slashdot Mirror
don't forget the rivers of free beer!
Algol, which begat c, java, c++, c#. Lisp, which introduced FP...
oh, is that where First Post came from? I had wondered.
>If you took the time to read and understand you would see that.
are you saying it's impossible to disagree with you, once you are understood? I think I'm understanding you well enough.
> Well at least you've admitted Open Source isn't a sustainable business model.
I don't think it's a business model at all. It's a distribution model (you get the source).
I think Google has a good chance of making money from it's use of Linux, for example.
I think RedHat has a good chance to survive because while I have only slight reason to pay for redhat, I have a lot of reason to pay for up2date, and other forms of support. I can get [OSS example of preference] anywhere, but I trust RedHat not to feed me a trojaned version.
And I also think that OSS serves one common business model rather well... and that is the consultant.
Standard tools, and all the money for installing, configuring, and maintaining them goes to the IT professional.
at first I thought that was a joke post... because in 1984 the cameras were also not on all the time, so you still had sufficient "privacy" (you just didn't know when)
the reason I've thought about it before is I consider it something akin to "the First Law Of Software Engineering"....
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
but you can get a wider selection of babies if you do this.
After having about 9 years of Windows development under my belt, I don't like something like this because it IS a good idea.
I think if MS GPLed Windows XP tommorrow, it would truly fossilize as the desktop standard, and Microsoft would do rather well influencing it's direction. And I don't want that any more, I don't like them or the way they produce technology, I don't find them enabling anymore, I find them plotting and I have to watch them like a hawk lest they get an advantage over me and my carreer. They try to make a developer totally dependent, not just by making things easiest, but by actually tricking you.
I'm human. I have a right to grow bitter and distrustful, and I have.
Now I generally hope and work for their demise. They knew they were angering developers with their various tricks and predation, and they don't care, they burnt that bridge on the basis of not needing those angry developers ("look, we'll just produce MSCEs, we don't need you!"), fine, but we shall see.
I think unix is heading for the desktop, and I don't know which version, but I saw it take over the server rooms, and I think it will take over the desktop.
Microsoft could drive that... frankly, I'm glad to see them fight it to the end at this point.
>How much does linux cost?
You can buy bottles of air too, but air is still free!
Google is said to have well over 4000 machines running it's service, do you think they paid for 4000 copies of redhat? More likely they paid for one, configured it into their own package, burned it and used that. I don't know, pure speculation.
But I know they can do that. And they can just download the ISO and not even pay RedHat! Hello!
Redhat is charging for a users manual, a CD, and a nice box for your shelf.
You seem like today you are the whiner, nothing personal--- well, I guess that is a bit personal. Still, your whole argument is based on the idea that GPL stuff isn't really available for free... it is, you can't deny that with credibility. Therefore, you get the changes other people have made, for free. You get the changes RedHat has made, for free. You are guarenteed access. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you pay for some packaging and maybe save yourself some time from a long download... but if you don't have, you still have access.
The WinCE situation is simply not the same.
Other than that, I tend to agree with you... MS is entitled to do whatever they want with WinCE, including making a trap by painting it OSS colors.
funny thing about these arguments... this is abstract logic... nearly EVERYTHING is "possible" if it doesn't have to be pretty or actually exist (optimizing compilers for Java that are faster than compiled C-code being my favorite example of the latter)...
your point is fair... my response merely, "when we talk about what a language can do, aren't we saying, in a reasonably pretty way with a fairly mainline level of support?"
How many Java Faithful endorse using JNI to bind to C/C++ based GUI toolkits!?
"... well it's started out small, a few mallocs, but then before you know it he was doing all sorts of stuff in the constructor which could fail or take a long time. We tried to tell him to use a init function for these cases he insisted on allocating buffers, making database connections, and painting small delicate puppies unpleasant colors, all in his String class constructor! It was terrible. He settled for 50M$, but now it's worse than ever, he's actually installing products from his constructors!"
I think you are being overly critical, guy!
well no kidding? Why would he try to make "anonymous coward" look GOOD?
maybe if he said it to your secret identity?
I have long had a theory (well, good enough for a story I wrote), that when they get a pill to counter radioactive poisoning, all hell will break loose, because lack of same is the only thing keeping them from using nuclear tactical missiles.
I'm all for this, I don't think not pursuing medical science is a good way to prevent war... so let's move forward, but I'm not sure that I'm not right that such a thing increases the liklihood of nuclear war. Which is to say, I think I might be right about this.
Or possibly it's just the paranoia I was well trained in by my baby boomer parents.
That experience is what convinced me I'd rather design microprocessors than program them.
more sadist than masochist, eh?
... but you seem to have some entropy stuck in your throat... there is a little on your shirt as well... :)
... until they eliminate the need for human operators, then they cannot make such a facility safe enough to avoid inevitable disaster.
For most kinds of engineering, that's acceptable (inevitable disaster), you just move on afterward. In the case of radioactive materials, it's not always that easy.
having an SDK is much different, and more facilitating, than just access to source code.
HIBT? May I HAND?
and rob the karma whores of low hanging fruit! You cruel cruel man ;)
Seriously, I think they might eventually piss of the nytimes if they did that. Free Reg to the paper of record isn't really such an evil thing, btw, imnsho, ymmv, ald fa;bb b.
>Am I the only one that still remembers 9/11
no, but perhaps you are the only one that remembers nothing else.
... also known as the "gripping hand".
ooooh, good answer.
this kind of crap is why people graduate thinking they know "the one right way" when in reality they have been indocrinated in a field where things are really wide open, undiscovered, and far from finalized.
in the real world, you need to arrange some common definitions with your colleagues and use them for consistency. When you change jobs, repeat the process. All terminology in software engineering, so far, is pretty local.
A fun one to follow is "polymorphism". People are certain what it means. But it means and has been used to mean, a variety of semi-related things. Fact is, you cannot rely on a common jargon in software engineering the way you supposedly can in other engineering disciplines. imnsho
me too, I'm just glad it wasn't me. Someone had to.
Responsibilities you know.
what I find sad and personally disapointing is that I remember the burger... and I never even had one.
I mean, how can I throw that memory away and replace it with a better memorization of operator precedence in C++ or like, a complete knowledge of all the flags for gcc? But no, that I have to look up while if you ask me what a freaking McDLT used to be I freaking know!
I think your point is right on the mark.
The registration stuff, as well as all the other call home features, of XP are something significant enough to make people try something, especially with a good-enough set of free tools available.
My father, for example, who has been saying he would try linux for years. I havn't pushed him because (1) I'm no zealot, and (2) when it gets right down to it he is a guy that doesn't want to learn a new word processor. To me, it's the same program, to him, he doesn't want to learn where the menu items were relocated to. He's not stupid, it's just like not wanting to work on a type of car you are not familiar with. A mechanic might orient themselves quickly (I mean, cars have a lot more in common than difference), but a regular person wouldn't. He knows where to go try to set up a printer in windows, and the fact that it's just as easy in linux right now (or OS X, etc.) doesn't matter, it's different.
BUT: he is sick and tired of his new machine with XP. He thinks it's running slower than 98 did on his 200 MHz machine. He hates that it keeps asking him to upgrade things. He is near about demanding I install linux so he can try it. If I don't do that, he's likely to wipe XP and install 98 (which he doesn't legally own anymore so that will be interesting, I doubt he'll want to send money to MS).
Anyway, that mess above was supposed to be an anecdotal corroboration of the way that MS is pressuring people to keep an open mind about trying linux and/or other OSes.
The funny part is that I think the Bill Gates certainly still knows the investment that being piracy friendly represents. He understand computing from the 1975-1990 framework, a lot of us that were kids are computer professionals now because we had access to all the software. Your average kid might have $10K worth of tools. Games were the most popular, as they still are, no doubt, but the fact is, I had compilers, VisiCalc, all the business tools and editors and platforms and languages. Stuff I never could have afforded. Stuff my high school wouldn't have afforded. And it's good for MS if kids that wouldn't pay anyway get educated in your stuff.
Piracy in Asia is different, for that to pay off, they have to get them to pay some day, probably. But that's beside the point. The real issue is MS is a publicly traded company. And even if they accept that they are blue chip, that their stock price is going to level, and turn to dividends, it's still the situation that a publicly traded company needs to maximize profits, and when accountants come in and see billion dollar estimates for the "cost of piracy", the MBA and other business cogs are going to set to work, more or less automatically, to "address the problem".
In a way it's a bit optimistic of me, I hope MS does bring it to a head. I have developed a quite significant amount of MS software, but got sick of MS trying to lock me into the MS world more and more as years went by. Now I'm working purely in unix, with linux desktops at work (but Windows 98 at home! Kids got games you know!). They pissed me off because while they always try to make things easy, they really try, imnho, to trick their developers into a trap of no escape.
I'm a software engineer but it's similar to what they seem to me to do to MSCEs. They make a cozy little place for them. Take some classes, a test, use a GUI to get your job done. Easy, well paid, wonderful. But then again, MS is also the one trying to automate away the need for expert ("anybody can administer windows, it's so easy"). How is this not stabbing MSCEs in the back? I mean, one: it may be easy to click here and there, but it's no more easy to UNDERSTAND what the clicking means. And it's HARDER to do something that isn't in the GUI. At that point you warp past relatively easy text file editing of the old unix variety and warp right into the mine field of registry hacking, etc. etc.
I should say, I don't mind that MS should automate away MSCEs, but