Ideologies can be ok when they're dealing with human rights and if they're grounded in reality. However we're talking about software. And we're talking about nerds, not your average user. I'm a nerd, but I also take a pragmatic approach with technology. If a $50 software package does what I need and does it better than a free one (don't forget that time is worth much more than money), then that company has my business. As far as "freedom to extend" (which most people do not care about), many closed source applications adopt cool "grey box" type extensibility features, meaning you can write your own plugins without the nightmares of forking a codebase or trying to roll up a patch into a CVS tree with a thousand other developers.
Just imagine what the market would be if every user were presented with a informed opinion about each browser without having any of them installed yet...
Most users don't care about consumer reports or any other informed media when it comes to browsers. When they turn on their computer they want it to go to the "internet". That's why the major desktop OS's (Windows and OSX) have a browser experience out of the box. It's just as common as a file explorer.
Speaking about file explorers, there are 3rd party file explores for both Windows and OSX, some of which are arguably "better" than what coems with the OS. This is another good example of a packaged or integrated set of features that is better left to the OS maker to decide, with the ability for power users to customize.
It's simple: because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and actions that are allowable if somewhat morally questionable when you're a normal company become illegal when you're a monopoly.
Moderators, please stop marking these cliche posts as insightful. Yes there are some restrictions that are placed on monopoly's. But you can't just arbitrarily come up with restrictions that you feel would be "fair" for monopoly's to obey. Furthermore, you can not be convicted of being a monopoly; being a monopoly is not a crime.
Yeah, those crazy liberals who want a society based on equal justice for all, and where hate and intolerance are eschewed.
You're making the same mistake as many: you're correlating two completely orthogonal issues. One is whether or not corporations should be meddling in public policy. The other is a public policy regarding sexual orientation. Do not let your passion for one issue bleed into another.
What possible use for profits is better than dedicating them to justice and freedom.
It's justice and freedom in yours and my opinion. If a corporation is truely diverse than surely it will have diverse opinions within. Instead of using its power to promote one of many politcal views, a corporation should embrace its own diversity by stepping back and allowing the indivduals within express their unique opinions about such matters.
I'm sorry, but you obviously have no clue about MS and it's hiring policies. It is already against corporate policy to discriminate against people because of sexual orientation. MS was one of the first large companies to adopts such a policy. Yes, the support for the bill is to appease those very loud liberals who believe that corporations should be meddling in public policy. I actually gained more respect when MS stood up and said, "it's not our place, but we're still standing behind our hiring policys regardless of the law". Nevertheless, you should respect MS on merit, not on political movement, and their merit in this area deserves great respect.
But I do say that "it" doesn't belong in science class.
This is a valid point. I think the beauty of learning though is the ability to learn not just specific disciplines, but the ability to take an interdiciplinary approach as well. For example, math, psychology, and physics apply to the study of music. ID can be treated as both theological and philosophical, and some of the ideas behind it are extremely applicable in a science class that's discussing origin.
A man who has served his time is no longer a criminal, ergo, he should have the same liberties given by the government as all other citizens.
A murderer is still a murderer even after a prison sentance is served. Therefore they do not have the same liberties. They can not buy guns for example. Serving time is just a portion of the punishment. Some portions of the punishment may extend to a persons lifetime.
I.D., on the other hand, cannot ever have any tests.
I can test that humans are in fact fallable. I can test that science has been proving wrong over many courses of history. I can assert that truth is not limited to a method of observation called "science" created by fallable beings. I can not prove ID, or Allah's desire for Jihad on America, or any religious findings. But I don't dare take the close minded approach that if something isn't "testable" via the scientific method, that it doesn't or can't exist.
What flaws do you find in evolution?... Think about that 1 BILLION YEARS for life forms...
This is faith based science at its best. First, we have absolutely no proof that genetic mutation will create entirely new species (macroevolution), we have only observed small mutations within species (microevolution). The "well just give it umptillion amount of years and it will magically happen" is the worst thing that has happened to popular science. The entire theory is based upon error prone and unproven dating methods, as well as data extrapolations that would normally be thrown out if it were any other area of science. But, the religion that is Scientism hates Christianity so much (to an extent, I don't blame them) that they needed to come up with this logical but flawed story that we now teach as fact in our school system. Really, you're using statisical probablity to prove the origin of species. It's ludicrious.
Please, for the love of science, do not pollute science because of your hate for Christians. Instead, simply admit that "we don't know, but here are the different theories that we're studying".
If Apple wants to differentiate themselves... Differentiate themselves to who? For me, they have a superior browser, that's a differentiating asset. Not hand holding developers who choose to work for free has no direct relationship to the supperior products in which Apple ships. The KDE team should be happy that they have the huge investment that Apple has given them.
Security through obscurity is a valid means of security. Security is a matter of depth, meaning that you rely on multiple layers of security within your system. Obscurity is one of those layers. The "security through obscurity" cliche that you often see here on/. is in regard to security solutions that rely almost soley on obscurity.
Linux does not exist to compete with Microsoft Windows .
Techno-nerd semantics. The point being that Linux [Distributions] can't kill Windows.
Linux will succeed, and already has far surpassed Windows in hardware, driver, and application numbers. No one is asserting that it isn't successful. Although the hardware, drivers, and application numbers are moot. Windows supports the hardware that most people care about. Linux eventually supports modern hardware, but is usually lacking in this area. (Note: "support" doesn't mean a bullet point on a Red Hat distro - it means rock solid stability and yes you get that with Windows far more often than not, please spare me your anecdotes).
As far as application numbers, Apple's got their message right, "We don't have millions of applications, we have the right quality applications that you care about". So yes Linux has more applications than any other OS, and the vast majority of people can live without them.
"Pretty" interfaces are the last thing on a developer's mind.
As well as any other human centered factor when it comes to software. Linux developers generally seem to forget that humans were made for machines, not the other way around. At both Apple and Microsoft developers are probably the smallest group on a software team. There's a lot more to software than code. The only reason Linux has had any measurable uptake is because of the IBM's and Red Hat's who said, "Hey, we've got a bunch of overzealous nerds who will do the core work for FREE! Let's make money off of their backs and try to make this Linux thing into a real software product!"
I am a huge Clinton fan. I didn't follow the court proceedings closely, so I shouldn't comment on that. However, on multiple occasions he lied to the public. "I had no sexual relations with Monica" was repeated over and over by him. We can argue semantics, but he was at best misleading the public, which is just as bad as any other form of dishonesty.
As far as Bush is concerned, I'm not sure if he has been lying or if he's been misinformed. If we can prove that he's been lying to Congress, then let's get him out of office. If this is really the case I wonder why the Democrats aren't moving to impeach him.
still think they rely on google for anything? that they want flocks of end-users(consumers) flocking to their site? no...they're protecting their customers(and so their income source) with this move, if anything.
If this is the case then I'd understand why they'd ask Google to stop indexing them (isn't that what robots.txt is for?). However, they've claimed millions in damages. I'm not convinced that the amount of people driven to this niche news site via Google has caused a multimillion dollar ISP bill. And if this is due to loss revenue, well, then they are in fact desiring end-useres to visit their site.
So if DRM prevents you from playing a song on your Dell DJ, your rights are not being violated because you never had such a right to begin with.
Correct. But no company has the right to prevent me from modifying their product so that I can do with it as I please. If Apple wants to make it hard for me to play music on a Dell DJ, fine, but that doesn't prevent me from making modifications that allow me to do so.
If you don't like the terms music purchased on the iTunes music store is sold under, don't buy it, don't use it, and don't subvert it.
I agree with this in principle, but there's a hard practical problem to solve here. How far reaching can a product's usage agreement really be? From a legal standpoint, is it reasonable to restrict the customer from playing the music for their friends unless they pay a royalty? Is it reasonable to expect customers to fully understand and adhere to draconian EULA's written in obtuse legal jargon?
Copyright laws and the like are in place to protect products like music. I have no issue with Apple placing additional technological restrictions to help protect their product. If a customer doesn't like it, they can purchase elsewhere. However, from a legal standpoint, Apple should not have any power over my ability to attempt to use other devices to use their product, just as long as I am not violating the copyright laws that are in place. Therefore, there should be no legal ramifications for modifying the product as I see fit, just as long as I am not distributing that modification.
How is charging a price for a service extortion? Go ahead and charge 25% interest, I'll find someone who will lend me for half of that. Regardless, since when was getting lent money from a private corporation (regardless of interest rate) a god-given-right?
Because most or Microsoft's security problems are related to usability or app integration features which are great features for many users (read, not typical/. crowd) if security wasn't a concern. Windows embedded doesn't do ActiveX, Office Integration, etc., and is therefore much more secure.
You wouldn't even begin building a house or making a car without full and complete specifications.
We don't build software. Compilers build software. The specifications are written using code. Compilers can't build software without a strict specification. We, the developers, develop that specification. We take requirements and we develop software based on those requirements much like a house or skyscraper developer does. A house developer may draw you a picture or create a model and ask the customer, "do you like this?". A software developer can develop the software and ask the same question many times without a model since the build process is so fast and cheap. This is why software must be agile. If a house developer's first design or model does not satisfy the customer, it would be unnacceptable to tell the customer that it can not change.
Re:Capability Maturity Model
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
People will perform to the metrics in which you measure them. CMM does a good job ensuring that your teams are good at CMM. That doesn't mean that your people on focusing on quality, or any other factor that has real meaning to the business. It means that they're focusing on how to get a high CMM rating. That's not the focus that I want for my teams.
Via WSH (Windows Scripting Host) and ADSI. Don't get me wrong, ADSI is quite a beast, but it is scriptable. IIS7's config for these issues will be more Apache like as far as ease of scriptable configurability. Nevertheless, I've written automated IIS scripts since IIS4 that do a lot more than adding IP addresses to the block list, so it is definitely possible.
...as result, many developers are already planning on skipping.NET because Avalon, XAML et al... As it stands, MS has fatally undercut.NET by announcing the technologies that will replace it.
Those "technologies that will replace.NET" are being built on top of.NET. And Longhorn is the.NET OS. It's the first OS from MS with.NET included (there's your ubiquity), not to mention many parts of the OS written in C# itself.
Show a machine booting up from a solid state storage device vs. the typical 7200rpm 8mb crap in most desktops today and they'll chose the 2 second boottime anyday. Application loading, booting, and overal system responsiveness is being bottlenecked by the HD. Whether you're on a 1.4Ghz Athlon or a 3.2Ghz Athlon64, the performance is negligable for most use because the HD is the bottleneck.
HD's are pathetically slow and I'd much rather performance be the area of focus than size.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideologies can be ok when they're dealing with human rights and if they're grounded in reality. However we're talking about software. And we're talking about nerds, not your average user. I'm a nerd, but I also take a pragmatic approach with technology. If a $50 software package does what I need and does it better than a free one (don't forget that time is worth much more than money), then that company has my business. As far as "freedom to extend" (which most people do not care about), many closed source applications adopt cool "grey box" type extensibility features, meaning you can write your own plugins without the nightmares of forking a codebase or trying to roll up a patch into a CVS tree with a thousand other developers.
Just imagine what the market would be if every user were presented with a informed opinion about each browser without having any of them installed yet...
Most users don't care about consumer reports or any other informed media when it comes to browsers. When they turn on their computer they want it to go to the "internet". That's why the major desktop OS's (Windows and OSX) have a browser experience out of the box. It's just as common as a file explorer.
Speaking about file explorers, there are 3rd party file explores for both Windows and OSX, some of which are arguably "better" than what coems with the OS. This is another good example of a packaged or integrated set of features that is better left to the OS maker to decide, with the ability for power users to customize.
It's simple: because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and actions that are allowable if somewhat morally questionable when you're a normal company become illegal when you're a monopoly.
Moderators, please stop marking these cliche posts as insightful. Yes there are some restrictions that are placed on monopoly's. But you can't just arbitrarily come up with restrictions that you feel would be "fair" for monopoly's to obey. Furthermore, you can not be convicted of being a monopoly; being a monopoly is not a crime.
Yeah, those crazy liberals who want a society based on equal justice for all, and where hate and intolerance are eschewed.
You're making the same mistake as many: you're correlating two completely orthogonal issues. One is whether or not corporations should be meddling in public policy. The other is a public policy regarding sexual orientation. Do not let your passion for one issue bleed into another.
What possible use for profits is better than dedicating them to justice and freedom.
It's justice and freedom in yours and my opinion. If a corporation is truely diverse than surely it will have diverse opinions within. Instead of using its power to promote one of many politcal views, a corporation should embrace its own diversity by stepping back and allowing the indivduals within express their unique opinions about such matters.
I'm sorry, but you obviously have no clue about MS and it's hiring policies. It is already against corporate policy to discriminate against people because of sexual orientation. MS was one of the first large companies to adopts such a policy. Yes, the support for the bill is to appease those very loud liberals who believe that corporations should be meddling in public policy. I actually gained more respect when MS stood up and said, "it's not our place, but we're still standing behind our hiring policys regardless of the law". Nevertheless, you should respect MS on merit, not on political movement, and their merit in this area deserves great respect.
But I do say that "it" doesn't belong in science class.
This is a valid point. I think the beauty of learning though is the ability to learn not just specific disciplines, but the ability to take an interdiciplinary approach as well. For example, math, psychology, and physics apply to the study of music. ID can be treated as both theological and philosophical, and some of the ideas behind it are extremely applicable in a science class that's discussing origin.
A man who has served his time is no longer a criminal, ergo, he should have the same liberties given by the government as all other citizens.
A murderer is still a murderer even after a prison sentance is served. Therefore they do not have the same liberties. They can not buy guns for example. Serving time is just a portion of the punishment. Some portions of the punishment may extend to a persons lifetime.
I.D., on the other hand, cannot ever have any tests.
I can test that humans are in fact fallable. I can test that science has been proving wrong over many courses of history. I can assert that truth is not limited to a method of observation called "science" created by fallable beings. I can not prove ID, or Allah's desire for Jihad on America, or any religious findings. But I don't dare take the close minded approach that if something isn't "testable" via the scientific method, that it doesn't or can't exist.
What flaws do you find in evolution? ... Think about that 1 BILLION YEARS for life forms ...
This is faith based science at its best. First, we have absolutely no proof that genetic mutation will create entirely new species (macroevolution), we have only observed small mutations within species (microevolution). The "well just give it umptillion amount of years and it will magically happen" is the worst thing that has happened to popular science. The entire theory is based upon error prone and unproven dating methods, as well as data extrapolations that would normally be thrown out if it were any other area of science. But, the religion that is Scientism hates Christianity so much (to an extent, I don't blame them) that they needed to come up with this logical but flawed story that we now teach as fact in our school system. Really, you're using statisical probablity to prove the origin of species. It's ludicrious.
Please, for the love of science, do not pollute science because of your hate for Christians. Instead, simply admit that "we don't know, but here are the different theories that we're studying".
If Apple wants to differentiate themselves...
Differentiate themselves to who? For me, they have a superior browser, that's a differentiating asset. Not hand holding developers who choose to work for free has no direct relationship to the supperior products in which Apple ships. The KDE team should be happy that they have the huge investment that Apple has given them.
Security through obscurity is a valid means of security. Security is a matter of depth, meaning that you rely on multiple layers of security within your system. Obscurity is one of those layers. The "security through obscurity" cliche that you often see here on /. is in regard to security solutions that rely almost soley on obscurity.
Linux does not exist to compete with Microsoft Windows .
Techno-nerd semantics. The point being that Linux [Distributions] can't kill Windows.
Linux will succeed, and already has far surpassed Windows in hardware, driver, and application numbers.
No one is asserting that it isn't successful. Although the hardware, drivers, and application numbers are moot. Windows supports the hardware that most people care about. Linux eventually supports modern hardware, but is usually lacking in this area. (Note: "support" doesn't mean a bullet point on a Red Hat distro - it means rock solid stability and yes you get that with Windows far more often than not, please spare me your anecdotes).
As far as application numbers, Apple's got their message right, "We don't have millions of applications, we have the right quality applications that you care about". So yes Linux has more applications than any other OS, and the vast majority of people can live without them.
"Pretty" interfaces are the last thing on a developer's mind.
As well as any other human centered factor when it comes to software. Linux developers generally seem to forget that humans were made for machines, not the other way around. At both Apple and Microsoft developers are probably the smallest group on a software team. There's a lot more to software than code. The only reason Linux has had any measurable uptake is because of the IBM's and Red Hat's who said, "Hey, we've got a bunch of overzealous nerds who will do the core work for FREE! Let's make money off of their backs and try to make this Linux thing into a real software product!"
I am a huge Clinton fan. I didn't follow the court proceedings closely, so I shouldn't comment on that. However, on multiple occasions he lied to the public. "I had no sexual relations with Monica" was repeated over and over by him. We can argue semantics, but he was at best misleading the public, which is just as bad as any other form of dishonesty.
As far as Bush is concerned, I'm not sure if he has been lying or if he's been misinformed. If we can prove that he's been lying to Congress, then let's get him out of office. If this is really the case I wonder why the Democrats aren't moving to impeach him.
still think they rely on google for anything? that they want flocks of end-users(consumers) flocking to their site? no...they're protecting their customers(and so their income source) with this move, if anything.
If this is the case then I'd understand why they'd ask Google to stop indexing them (isn't that what robots.txt is for?). However, they've claimed millions in damages. I'm not convinced that the amount of people driven to this niche news site via Google has caused a multimillion dollar ISP bill. And if this is due to loss revenue, well, then they are in fact desiring end-useres to visit their site.
So if DRM prevents you from playing a song on your Dell DJ, your rights are not being violated because you never had such a right to begin with.
Correct. But no company has the right to prevent me from modifying their product so that I can do with it as I please. If Apple wants to make it hard for me to play music on a Dell DJ, fine, but that doesn't prevent me from making modifications that allow me to do so.
If you don't like the terms music purchased on the iTunes music store is sold under, don't buy it, don't use it, and don't subvert it.
I agree with this in principle, but there's a hard practical problem to solve here. How far reaching can a product's usage agreement really be? From a legal standpoint, is it reasonable to restrict the customer from playing the music for their friends unless they pay a royalty? Is it reasonable to expect customers to fully understand and adhere to draconian EULA's written in obtuse legal jargon?
Copyright laws and the like are in place to protect products like music. I have no issue with Apple placing additional technological restrictions to help protect their product. If a customer doesn't like it, they can purchase elsewhere. However, from a legal standpoint, Apple should not have any power over my ability to attempt to use other devices to use their product, just as long as I am not violating the copyright laws that are in place. Therefore, there should be no legal ramifications for modifying the product as I see fit, just as long as I am not distributing that modification.
How is charging a price for a service extortion? Go ahead and charge 25% interest, I'll find someone who will lend me for half of that. Regardless, since when was getting lent money from a private corporation (regardless of interest rate) a god-given-right?
A business plan that is based on support is at direct cross purposes with creating high-quality, easy-to-use software.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Because most or Microsoft's security problems are related to usability or app integration features which are great features for many users (read, not typical /. crowd) if security wasn't a concern. Windows embedded doesn't do ActiveX, Office Integration, etc., and is therefore much more secure.
You wouldn't even begin building a house or making a car without full and complete specifications.
We don't build software. Compilers build software. The specifications are written using code. Compilers can't build software without a strict specification. We, the developers, develop that specification. We take requirements and we develop software based on those requirements much like a house or skyscraper developer does. A house developer may draw you a picture or create a model and ask the customer, "do you like this?". A software developer can develop the software and ask the same question many times without a model since the build process is so fast and cheap. This is why software must be agile. If a house developer's first design or model does not satisfy the customer, it would be unnacceptable to tell the customer that it can not change.
People will perform to the metrics in which you measure them. CMM does a good job ensuring that your teams are good at CMM. That doesn't mean that your people on focusing on quality, or any other factor that has real meaning to the business. It means that they're focusing on how to get a high CMM rating. That's not the focus that I want for my teams.
Via WSH (Windows Scripting Host) and ADSI. Don't get me wrong, ADSI is quite a beast, but it is scriptable. IIS7's config for these issues will be more Apache like as far as ease of scriptable configurability. Nevertheless, I've written automated IIS scripts since IIS4 that do a lot more than adding IP addresses to the block list, so it is definitely possible.
Well, one could argue that Occam's razor favors atheism, since it favors the fewest suppositions.
I'd say that an incredibly complex ecosystem coming from either "nowhere" or an "eternal universe" is quite a supposition.
...as result, many developers are already planning on skipping .NET because Avalon, XAML et al... As it stands, MS has fatally undercut .NET by announcing the technologies that will replace it.
.NET" are being built on top of .NET. And Longhorn is the .NET OS. It's the first OS from MS with .NET included (there's your ubiquity), not to mention many parts of the OS written in C# itself.
Those "technologies that will replace
The average consumer doesn't need any faster.
Show a machine booting up from a solid state storage device vs. the typical 7200rpm 8mb crap in most desktops today and they'll chose the 2 second boottime anyday. Application loading, booting, and overal system responsiveness is being bottlenecked by the HD. Whether you're on a 1.4Ghz Athlon or a 3.2Ghz Athlon64, the performance is negligable for most use because the HD is the bottleneck.
HD's are pathetically slow and I'd much rather performance be the area of focus than size.