I'll second that. I'm not proud of it but I hit/. at least 3 times a day. The response can be horrible sometimes. Many times, I get "server not found" errors or MySql errors (aka, "static page only whole MySql DB server is getting rebuilt/rebooted"). Of all the sites I frequent (FiringSquad, Tomshardware, Anandtech, etc.) this site as the worst performance. True, it does have the least amount of static comment (a huge threading system, but the other sites have small but active forums too). Still, Anandtech runs fricken Cold Fusion on Windows of all things and it runs better!
Re:XML Schemas aren't just for validation
on
DTD vs. XML Schema
·
· Score: 1
It's also a great for documentation. I use XML for a lot of config files (as opposed to "ini", "conf" or the dreaded registry). Many times I forget all of the attributes or tags for my configs, but with an XSD I can not only look it up, but VS.NET uses intellisense to help me quickly code my XML.
I don't use XML much (a bit overhyped IMHO). However, I do use it in two area's: SOAP (Web Services) and Config files. Most web services stuff is coded by the IDE so I don't deal with that. However, with custom config files (for a web sites menu, a software install program, etc.) I always reference an XSD, however, I generally do not validate at runtime (VS.NET warns me if an XML file in my project does validate against the intended XSD). It seems that the only reason (in my experience) to validate the XSD at runtime is when an XML may be coming from a 3rd party, as opposed to a relatively static document that's part of your project.
I honestly don't intend to troll. The point is that many on/. obviously don't understand (legitmant) acceptable business practices, and play the Monopoly card way too often when critiquing MS (not that MS doesn't deserve serious criticism). Having a lot of money, being successful, and being a monopoloy does NOT restrict a company from operating aside from some very specific clauses. The Anti-Trust suit is very clear about what remedies should take place, and about what MS can't continue to do in the future (strong armed OEM agreements, for example), but for the most part these do not preclude MS from operating it's business, nor should it.
Nintendo pays who to not release what on who's console?
Sorry, I typed too fast. I ment Nintendo who paid FF originally, and then I ment to draw a link with how Sony used $$$ to get it on their platform and off of Nintendo. Thanks for the correction.
What will stop Microsoft from buying all or investing in the game companies to kill competition?
Sony, Nintendo, etc. Not all game companies want to be bought, and Sony and Nintendo have done their fair share of game company buying as well.
They sell each unit at a $150 loss
First, it is not proven that MS loses that much (esp. now that prices on certain parts have dropped). I would assume that they lose a significant chunk, but this is offset by the XBox's larger than usual "attach" rate, which means it has the potential to profit a lot quicker then other consoles.
and are actually paying developers not to release games for the competition.
You mean like Nintendo does for the FF series, or like Sony does for the GTA series? Sega is gone and nintendo might be next.
No, Sega is doing just fine. The purposely decided that they wanted to focus on software, not hardware. This was well before the XBox came out.
Again it relates to Microsoft using money obtained from one monopoly and using it to crush competition in another which is illegal under the sherman anti trust act.
This is a very poor interpretation of the law - it's a waste of time to even comment further. Sony is a megacorporation that has Billions to invest in it's gaming division too. It's a very fair playing field.
What really sucks is the drm signed code that is required to run a game. This makes ms the gatekeeper.
I don't really understand what you're saying. A console's gatekeeper is it's company. In some way shape or form, all PS2 and GC games do not allow anyone to write games for them. Consoles are proprietary, closed systems that require special license to develop for. What does DRM add to change this fact?
Yes North Korea is run by an evil man - but he's not insane enough to fire a missile at America.
Are you serious? When these guys can launch a missle and leave the country, or hide in their bunkers, or commit suicide, you still think that they wouldn't do it for fear of US retaliation? I'm sorry, but this is just too naive.
The problem with your comparison is that many programs (esp programs like CVS) will probably run just as fast in Java or C# (faster in some areas, slower in others). Also, as time goes on, Abstract Syntax Machines and Garbage Collection has gotten faster and faster. Also, hardware has gotten faster and cheaper. Therefore, for many types of apps the safety clearly outweighs the [nominal] performance tradeoff (if any).
Do you Closed-Sourced folks trust whatever gets shoved down your throat?
Nope, it's called testing and conservative upgrading, which should be done with _ALL_ software anyway. And no matter what an EULA may say about a companies responsibility, I guaruntee that if IBM put's a backdoor into the code that they will be hurting hard. Companies are kept accountable by their customers. This is how busienss in America works. I don't inspect my Car to see if my brakes have been tampered with either, or if the fuel computer has a virus that executes at 10,000 miles. Honda's been around too long for me to even worry about it.
Please explain why anonymity should be a guaranteed means of avoiding persecution.
Because we have the right to free speech, and free speech and privacy go hand in hand (you can't get one without the other). Now, if the police or some government agency get's a court order to search your home (which requires evidence that you may be involved with a crime), that's where the line is drawn. However, this is (from my little understanding) a corporation that has absolutely no right to the information - even with so called "evidence". Corporations are not our police.
Ignorance, arrogance and even pointing somebody to a (worthless) source.
Ignorance? I live in the Redmond area and know a LOT of MS employees. I've also consulted for the Evil Empire (in the wise words of Nelly, "Must be the Money!").
Arrogance? I didn't mean to come off arrogant. I was just pointing out that this is a very common misunderstanding and it's just not true.
Worthless source? True,/. is generally a worthelss source. I was just assuming that you could figure out how to search for old stories on/. (particularly the one regarding MS's Q4 SEC filling) to see discussions regarding this. Although a lot of it is heresy (it is/. afterall), some very good logic was presented that shows how 70-80% is extremely unlikely.
First, 70% to 80% of Windows/Office is profit margin.
At the surface by quickly glancing at the SEC filings one would assume this to be true. Don't get me wrong, Windows/Office are HUGE cash cows, but read prior threads from a few months ago that explain why this is not a correct conclusion.
for example, you can't discriminate based on percieved sexuality, domestic partnerships are law, with same sex marriages in the works, etc
Good, so I can get a tax discount for marrying two women, or even my dog now, right?
Seriously, I'm not trolling, but to me the entire concept of marraige tax benefits is for the purpose of having a family, which science has dictated quite plainly that it takes a male and female. Now, if two people, or even three people want to be life partners, that's their choice. I just don't see why they should get a "family" tax benefit.
At least with OSS you can just contract out someone to continue the work.
This statement neglects two key issues regarding most businesses (all but the Fortune 1000).
1) [Insert Business Here] is not in the business of maintaining millions of lines of code (be it an OS, Web Application Server, Office Productivity Apps, or even a simple Mail Client).
2) [Insert Business Here] generally doesn't have the resources or funds to continue the project.
The exception to this rule is a custom app configured for the business (like a large accounting package). Then having the source code is most critical.
Also, within the context of the article I do agree that any non-classified software that the government create's should be BSD'd for both the public and businesses to benefit.
The problem is not simply that SUV's guzzle gas. My friend has a F350 extended cab which, although get's better mileage than many SUV's, is still quite a guzzler compared to my Honda. However, he's constantly moving TONS of stuff around for his business. The problem with SUV's is that people use them for commuting to and from work, the store, and their friends house - all activities which could be done by burning a lot less fuel, taking less space on the road, and making the roads safer for all by driving a small to midsize car.
So no, the one time (or even occasional) use of an airplane for recreational purposes is not hypocrital. Not all of us who are anti-SUV's drive hybrid's either. It's just that SUV's are generally such an extreme waste that something needs to be said.
OK so let me get this sraight. The GPL is designed so that people can essentially distribute the GPL'd code with their own product. The idea is "freedom". However, once a company desides to excersise that freedom in a way that's not in line with your utopian concept of coding for [essentially] free, you want to take that freedom away from them? Why not just code commercial software? That way you don't have to worry about people taking your work and profiting off of it. Just a thought.
The fact that when one vendor does something that i dont agree with i can take my business somewhere else without the blink of an eye.
Unfortunately you are locked in to your vendor to a degree. If you had a callcenter full of RH desktop's, it would not be trivial to up and convert them all to debian. It's not even worth debating - just put yourself in that situation and you'll definitely do more than "blink".
I've always implemented DB request caching by utilizing a cacheKey for that specific content. When that content is updated, only that single cached item needs to be updated.
What microsoft is doing is more akin to the phone company, a legally acknowledged monopoly, that blocks you from calling a competitor of theirs.
If this was the case you couldn't go to sun.com and download Java. The bottom line is, if an App needs java, there's usually a version that comes packaged with a JVM. But, there should be no government agency forcing MS to stick someone elses software in their OS. As long as MS is not doing anything to prevent the installation of the JVM, I'm happy. As I just posted earlier, should MS include _MY_ VM so that all Windows machines can run MY proprietary bytecode? I think not.
I hate this statement because it comes up so much in uninformed posts on/. First, claiming that a company is a "convicted monopolist" is like claiming that I am a "convicted programmer". Being a monopoly is not illegal, so you can't be convicted as one. MS was convicted of using it's dominant position to strong arm OEM's into restricting the freedom of OS choice on x86 computers.
Second, this ruling is BS. So, if I come up with a VM based language, say TSL, should MS be forced to include my TSVM?
You'll get a lot of geeks sneering that a text editor is the only way to write code, but that is an obsolete way of working.
But CASE tools are so bloated when they setup your classes, I mean, I can hand code them so much better. Don't you know that we still need to optimise our classes? Take a look at this example:
UML generated (C#):
public class Foo : Bar
{
public class Foo()
{ // ctor logic here
}
public override string ToString()
{ // method logic here
}
}
Now, the hand coded version of Foo:
public class Foo : Bar {
public class Foo() { // TODO: Finish Constructor
}
public override string ToString() { // TODO: Finish ToString Method
}
}
Even in this small example the CASE tool generated 50% more lines of code!!!
The ability to use the OS. To not have to tinker with it. To not have to spend a week updating it just because I want to run a more up-to-date version of some program
I'm sorry, I don't mean to troll, but it's called OS X Jaguar. Okay, it doesn't run on x86 (yet?), but it's far superior to even Mandrake. I do agree with you that Mandrake should pull their free versions, and that the GPL should be rewritten so that someone can't buy your software and legally redistribute/resell it without paying you for it - because that's basically giving it away for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll second that. I'm not proud of it but I hit /. at least 3 times a day. The response can be horrible sometimes. Many times, I get "server not found" errors or MySql errors (aka, "static page only whole MySql DB server is getting rebuilt/rebooted"). Of all the sites I frequent (FiringSquad, Tomshardware, Anandtech, etc.) this site as the worst performance. True, it does have the least amount of static comment (a huge threading system, but the other sites have small but active forums too). Still, Anandtech runs fricken Cold Fusion on Windows of all things and it runs better!
It's also a great for documentation. I use XML for a lot of config files (as opposed to "ini", "conf" or the dreaded registry). Many times I forget all of the attributes or tags for my configs, but with an XSD I can not only look it up, but VS.NET uses intellisense to help me quickly code my XML.
I don't use XML much (a bit overhyped IMHO). However, I do use it in two area's: SOAP (Web Services) and Config files. Most web services stuff is coded by the IDE so I don't deal with that. However, with custom config files (for a web sites menu, a software install program, etc.) I always reference an XSD, however, I generally do not validate at runtime (VS.NET warns me if an XML file in my project does validate against the intended XSD). It seems that the only reason (in my experience) to validate the XSD at runtime is when an XML may be coming from a 3rd party, as opposed to a relatively static document that's part of your project.
I honestly don't intend to troll. The point is that many on /. obviously don't understand (legitmant) acceptable business practices, and play the Monopoly card way too often when critiquing MS (not that MS doesn't deserve serious criticism). Having a lot of money, being successful, and being a monopoloy does NOT restrict a company from operating aside from some very specific clauses. The Anti-Trust suit is very clear about what remedies should take place, and about what MS can't continue to do in the future (strong armed OEM agreements, for example), but for the most part these do not preclude MS from operating it's business, nor should it.
Nintendo pays who to not release what on who's console?
Sorry, I typed too fast. I ment Nintendo who paid FF originally, and then I ment to draw a link with how Sony used $$$ to get it on their platform and off of Nintendo. Thanks for the correction.
What will stop Microsoft from buying all or investing in the game companies to kill competition?
Sony, Nintendo, etc. Not all game companies want to be bought, and Sony and Nintendo have done their fair share of game company buying as well.
They sell each unit at a $150 loss
First, it is not proven that MS loses that much (esp. now that prices on certain parts have dropped). I would assume that they lose a significant chunk, but this is offset by the XBox's larger than usual "attach" rate, which means it has the potential to profit a lot quicker then other consoles.
and are actually paying developers not to release games for the competition.
You mean like Nintendo does for the FF series, or like Sony does for the GTA series?
Sega is gone and nintendo might be next.
No, Sega is doing just fine. The purposely decided that they wanted to focus on software, not hardware. This was well before the XBox came out.
Again it relates to Microsoft using money obtained from one monopoly and using it to crush competition in another which is illegal under the sherman anti trust act.
This is a very poor interpretation of the law - it's a waste of time to even comment further.
Sony is a megacorporation that has Billions to invest in it's gaming division too. It's a very fair playing field.
What really sucks is the drm signed code that is required to run a game. This makes ms the gatekeeper.
I don't really understand what you're saying. A console's gatekeeper is it's company. In some way shape or form, all PS2 and GC games do not allow anyone to write games for them. Consoles are proprietary, closed systems that require special license to develop for. What does DRM add to change this fact?
Yes North Korea is run by an evil man - but he's not insane enough to fire a missile at America.
Are you serious? When these guys can launch a missle and leave the country, or hide in their bunkers, or commit suicide, you still think that they wouldn't do it for fear of US retaliation? I'm sorry, but this is just too naive.
The problem with your comparison is that many programs (esp programs like CVS) will probably run just as fast in Java or C# (faster in some areas, slower in others). Also, as time goes on, Abstract Syntax Machines and Garbage Collection has gotten faster and faster. Also, hardware has gotten faster and cheaper. Therefore, for many types of apps the safety clearly outweighs the [nominal] performance tradeoff (if any).
Do you Closed-Sourced folks trust whatever gets shoved down your throat?
Nope, it's called testing and conservative upgrading, which should be done with _ALL_ software anyway. And no matter what an EULA may say about a companies responsibility, I guaruntee that if IBM put's a backdoor into the code that they will be hurting hard. Companies are kept accountable by their customers. This is how busienss in America works. I don't inspect my Car to see if my brakes have been tampered with either, or if the fuel computer has a virus that executes at 10,000 miles. Honda's been around too long for me to even worry about it.
Please explain why anonymity should be a guaranteed means of avoiding persecution.
Because we have the right to free speech, and free speech and privacy go hand in hand (you can't get one without the other). Now, if the police or some government agency get's a court order to search your home (which requires evidence that you may be involved with a crime), that's where the line is drawn. However, this is (from my little understanding) a corporation that has absolutely no right to the information - even with so called "evidence". Corporations are not our police.
Ignorance, arrogance and even pointing somebody to a (worthless) source.
/. is generally a worthelss source. I was just assuming that you could figure out how to search for old stories on /. (particularly the one regarding MS's Q4 SEC filling) to see discussions regarding this. Although a lot of it is heresy (it is /. afterall), some very good logic was presented that shows how 70-80% is extremely unlikely.
Ignorance? I live in the Redmond area and know a LOT of MS employees. I've also consulted for the Evil Empire (in the wise words of Nelly, "Must be the Money!").
Arrogance? I didn't mean to come off arrogant. I was just pointing out that this is a very common misunderstanding and it's just not true.
Worthless source? True,
First, 70% to 80% of Windows/Office is profit margin.
At the surface by quickly glancing at the SEC filings one would assume this to be true. Don't get me wrong, Windows/Office are HUGE cash cows, but read prior threads from a few months ago that explain why this is not a correct conclusion.
for example, you can't discriminate based on percieved sexuality, domestic partnerships are law, with same sex marriages in the works, etc
Good, so I can get a tax discount for marrying two women, or even my dog now, right?
Seriously, I'm not trolling, but to me the entire concept of marraige tax benefits is for the purpose of having a family, which science has dictated quite plainly that it takes a male and female. Now, if two people, or even three people want to be life partners, that's their choice. I just don't see why they should get a "family" tax benefit.
Is there any concept in OpenSource like a boolean that can hold 5 values? If I remember my VB, their boolean holds something like that.
LOL... I don't know much about VB either, but if I remember correctly I think you can test bool's for 3 values... true, false, or nothing. *SIGH*
At least with OSS you can just contract out someone to continue the work.
This statement neglects two key issues regarding most businesses (all but the Fortune 1000).
1) [Insert Business Here] is not in the business of maintaining millions of lines of code (be it an OS, Web Application Server, Office Productivity Apps, or even a simple Mail Client).
2) [Insert Business Here] generally doesn't have the resources or funds to continue the project.
The exception to this rule is a custom app configured for the business (like a large accounting package). Then having the source code is most critical.
Also, within the context of the article I do agree that any non-classified software that the government create's should be BSD'd for both the public and businesses to benefit.
The problem is not simply that SUV's guzzle gas. My friend has a F350 extended cab which, although get's better mileage than many SUV's, is still quite a guzzler compared to my Honda. However, he's constantly moving TONS of stuff around for his business. The problem with SUV's is that people use them for commuting to and from work, the store, and their friends house - all activities which could be done by burning a lot less fuel, taking less space on the road, and making the roads safer for all by driving a small to midsize car.
So no, the one time (or even occasional) use of an airplane for recreational purposes is not hypocrital. Not all of us who are anti-SUV's drive hybrid's either. It's just that SUV's are generally such an extreme waste that something needs to be said.
No, but it should be built on a BSDish *nix ala OS X. Heck, MS could even use Darwin - wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events!
OK so let me get this sraight. The GPL is designed so that people can essentially distribute the GPL'd code with their own product. The idea is "freedom". However, once a company desides to excersise that freedom in a way that's not in line with your utopian concept of coding for [essentially] free, you want to take that freedom away from them? Why not just code commercial software? That way you don't have to worry about people taking your work and profiting off of it. Just a thought.
The fact that when one vendor does something that i dont agree with i can take my business somewhere else without the blink of an eye.
Unfortunately you are locked in to your vendor to a degree. If you had a callcenter full of RH desktop's, it would not be trivial to up and convert them all to debian. It's not even worth debating - just put yourself in that situation and you'll definitely do more than "blink".
I was making fun of all those silly "no program can write code as optimized as MY CODE!" people... sheeshe!
I've always implemented DB request caching by utilizing a cacheKey for that specific content. When that content is updated, only that single cached item needs to be updated.
What microsoft is doing is more akin to the phone company, a legally acknowledged monopoly, that blocks you from calling a competitor of theirs.
If this was the case you couldn't go to sun.com and download Java. The bottom line is, if an App needs java, there's usually a version that comes packaged with a JVM. But, there should be no government agency forcing MS to stick someone elses software in their OS. As long as MS is not doing anything to prevent the installation of the JVM, I'm happy. As I just posted earlier, should MS include _MY_ VM so that all Windows machines can run MY proprietary bytecode? I think not.
Microsoft is a convicted abusive monopolist.
/. First, claiming that a company is a "convicted monopolist" is like claiming that I am a "convicted programmer". Being a monopoly is not illegal, so you can't be convicted as one. MS was convicted of using it's dominant position to strong arm OEM's into restricting the freedom of OS choice on x86 computers.
I hate this statement because it comes up so much in uninformed posts on
Second, this ruling is BS. So, if I come up with a VM based language, say TSL, should MS be forced to include my TSVM?
You'll get a lot of geeks sneering that a text editor is the only way to write code, but that is an obsolete way of working.
// ctor logic here
// method logic here
// TODO: Finish Constructor
// TODO: Finish ToString Method
But CASE tools are so bloated when they setup your classes, I mean, I can hand code them so much better. Don't you know that we still need to optimise our classes? Take a look at this example:
UML generated (C#):
public class Foo : Bar
{
public class Foo()
{
}
public override string ToString()
{
}
}
Now, the hand coded version of Foo:
public class Foo : Bar {
public class Foo() {
}
public override string ToString() {
}
}
Even in this small example the CASE tool generated 50% more lines of code!!!
The ability to use the OS. To not have to tinker with it. To not have to spend a week updating it just because I want to run a more up-to-date version of some program
I'm sorry, I don't mean to troll, but it's called OS X Jaguar. Okay, it doesn't run on x86 (yet?), but it's far superior to even Mandrake. I do agree with you that Mandrake should pull their free versions, and that the GPL should be rewritten so that someone can't buy your software and legally redistribute/resell it without paying you for it - because that's basically giving it away for free.