Anyhow, I think he speaks horrible advice from a computer science standpoint.
Personally, I'd take advice from a guy who's been through what he's been through.
All of those other companies failed because they were focused on quality, whilst they were focused on nothing the bottom line... THat's not good for the customers, it's not good for
society, and it's not good capatilism.
First, you have to build what the consumer wants, not what is academically "correct". Read his comments about Word Perfect. From a strictly CS standpoint, they wrote GREAT software. All hand tuned Assembly. Well, consumers could care less about the 100ms faster load times - they wanted features that empowered them. You CAN NOT scale a consumer level code base without high level languages, nor can you compete with your competitors features.
Second, you are making a gross assumption that Microsoft doesn't focus on quality - you may not like thier business tactics, but it is ignorant at best to ignore thier contributions to the software community (security and other issues aside). This "All MS Software Sucks" attitude is the true demise of competition. Until competitors recognize the achievments of MS, they will always be stuck in the rut of building software that goes "against" MS - which is essentially going against the market.
Actually, NT was a completely different product line (servers, high-end workstations), with the eventual goal of replacing another product line (home PC's). Now, with XP, the "old" product line has been depreciated. It's also not ridden with 16bit code from the DOS era, as your post implies. Keep in mind that there's a difference between rewriting functionality, and even emulating functionality (for backward compatibility), then a complete rewrite of the entire codebase (in the millions of lines of code!)
Actually, reading this interview shows how there where serious blunders performed by NS, Borland, etc. In each case, while MS improved their software, the other companies rewrote their software.
But a fundamental difference on Unix type systems is that files aren't inherantly executable based simply on their extension,
No, the fundamental difference is that the average consumer wants to send self-executing greeting cards, videos, and interactive multimedia nonsense. Although MS could tighten security, the bottom line is that the consumer does not want to learn, nor cares about, chmod.
Of course, if everything was executing inside of a sandbox, it would be much more difficult for this to happen.
Here's something I haven't understood about digital sampling rates and "analog" sound. If your final format is CD, then won't you loose the same "coloration" of the sound if your guitar/keyboard/mixer is digital? In which case, as long as your equipment has a high quality A/D converter, it really shouldn't make a difference.
Of course, this is all speculation. I have a VirusKB "Virtual Analog" digital keyboard, and I have a Juno 106 Analog keyboard. As good as the Virus sounds (great, actually), there's definatly a "phatter" sound coming from the Juno.
AT&T's offer wasn't too low. The reason that Excite stood to lose millions was because of the mismanagement of Excite - AT&T shouldn't have to pay for Excite's mistakes.
It's like saying, "I put $30,000 into this car that's worth $20,000 on the market and I expect you to pay me $35,000 because I need to make a profit." No, the investors need to lose their money so that they learn their lesson and not invest in stupid management.
The only thing I'm really worried about right now is losing my e-mail account and having friends get their messages bounced before I can tell them my new address (whatever that may be). It's almost as bad as going through a change of area code with the phone company, only here, the grace period is a matter of days.
I never said that "nothing was easier then directX". I just know that the latest directX is extremely easy to develop for. Just look at the PC gaming industry. Sure, there where major issues in the past, but since 7.x, many developers have favored DirectX over any other API (for the PC), and this is why so many developers are excited about the Xbox.
I guess it just depends on the person. It's the complete opposite for me. I'm a person who always gives eye contact. When I'm sitting next to someone, I have to really discipline myself so that I don't turn my head while I'm speaking with them. When I'm on the phone, I don't have the distraction of a physical person, and I'm keeping my eyes on the road.
It's all about mental priorities. Regardless of who you're talking to, or by what medium, you must learn how to focus on driving. Before the days of headsets, I actually found myself dropping the phone while driving because I needed to focus and use both hands (for a left turn, or something). It's not the end of the world if you have to call the person back or have them wait while you cross a busy intersection - it's just too bad most cell phone [ab]users don't realise this.
I tried talking on a cell phone and driving ONCE...and I realized how my driving suffered,...
I drive and talk all the time. However, I have both hands on the wheel (headset) and most all of my dialing is voice activated. This is no different then talking to someone in your front seat (which may be a distraction too!).
How do you figure? The XBOX utilizes a slightly modified DirectX8.1. DirectX is very easy to develop for. Not to mention that you can design a game for the PC, and port it to the XBOX with minimal effort (and visa versa).
For example, Redstorm has been making their Rainbox 6 series for both PC and PS1 (incredible games, IMHO). Now you'd think that with there latest, graphic intensive game, Ghost Recon, that they'd go to PS2 since they have PS1 experience. However, for Ghost Recon, they released a PC version, and have an XBOX version coming out "real soon".
Well, if you actually read the entire thread, you'd understand the relevance. It all started when someone said that we would have to actually clone a human in order to fully research therapeutic cloning. Then, the thread spawned off into why human cloning was (or was not) bad. The problem is that my post got modded up to high (agreed), and I didn't quote any of the previous thread.
Well, you obviously haven't played Ghost Recon.:) I have a 1.2Ghz Athlon, a GF3 Ti200, and it runs at a mere 30fps with Quincunx FSAA at 1280x1024. It looks AWESOME, but I could use 50% more FPS. With Unreal2 coming out, even the GF3's are going to be taxed. I would imagine that by the time the GF4's actually come out, and are below $300, that there will be games that will take advantage of it.
There are millions of ways of advancing science. I'm arguing that there are better areas to focus our engergies - studies that will actually further society. I'm arguing that in this area not only would we "not benefit" from this, but that it would "add problems" because of the reasons I mentioned earlier. Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD. Your "forest" analogy has nothing to do with my statements. Humanity is more important then Science - period. Our decisions MUST be human centered, not "geekocentric".
"Why develop the integrated circuit, when I have a slide rule?".
You should review your debate tactics. It is intellectually dishonest to take an argument against a particular scientific advancement and generalize it as an argument against any scientific advancement. It is ludicrous to assume that I, a Computer Scientist, want to hinder scientific advancement.
Please focus on my core contention. I'm not necessarily against cloning specific cells or the research behind it. I'm against cloning humans as a species. It's called Responsible Science(tm).
A properly designed network doesn't need this. First, all SQL servers should be subnetted into an internal address space, only routeable by other internal machines like the web server. Then your firewall has port 80 open and NAT's to your web server. Unless you compromise the web server and are able to write malicious code on it, there's no way to get to even ping the SQL server.
There is a very simple object model for getting settings out of the Registry. All of our DB passwords, etc. are stored in the Registry. In ASP.NET it's stored in an XML file (Web.Config) which is much nicer.
BTW: ALL of our DB accounts only allow access to the Stored Procedures for the necessary DB (different logins for each DB). There is NEVER any actual SQL in the code. This is a Good Thing(tm).
So, you're telling me with all of the people going hungry, our lack of ability to deal with population control (even in the US), our lack of ability to parent our children, and with thousands of children WITHOUT parents in orphanages(sic), that we need to start artifically making them?
...the average geek isn't going to like reactivating XP every time the change 6 components.
I would definatly consider myself the average geek in this department. I have personally built all of my machines, and perform semi regular updates. However, I do not think that this activation crap is going to affect me. First, it's not just "6 components". You could, say, add a 56K modem, and that is not considered a component. Swapping out your motherboard is, obviously. Here's a scenario that puts this all into perspective (from our friends at Microsoft):
User swaps the motherboard and CPU chip for an upgraded one, swaps the video adapter, adds a second hard drive for additional storage, doubles the amount of RAM, and swaps the CD ROM drive for a faster one.
Now, if you ask me, this is a MAJOR upgrade (not something you generally do 4 times a year, or even once in a year). However, this will NOT trigger the activation. You would additionally have to swap a network card or something in order to trigger activation. Now, is this kind of annoying - yes. Do I like it? No. But is it really that big of a deal, considering most people get activated in less than 70 seconds over the phone, or even faster over the Internet (with NO personal information)? No. Windows Activation is annoying at worst, and is definatly NOT a deal breaker - especially when considering all of the (often overlooked on/.) benefits that the OS has to offer.
You got it the other way around. AFAIK, there most if not all US states prohibit the teaching of the Creation Theory - Evolution is taught as de facto.
I love how this unfactual stuff on/. get's modded up. I've been developing for.NET Beta 2 (ASP.NET/C#)since August and my deploy script consists of XCOPY. I just overwrite the DLL's and it's done. I've never had to reboot the server here.
To append your comment on getter/setter methods or "Properties" in C#, it goes beyond just "cleaning up the code". It allows for a cleaner OO design because it clearly seprates properties and methods.
Actually, unless you are doing driver writing or native GDI or DirectX calls, many have concluded that C# is just as fast, if not faster, then C/C++. This is all coming from tests with Beta2, so I'm sure the final release will be even more promising.
Of course, I don't anticipate the Quake IV engine being written in C#!
Slashdot Mirror
Anyhow, I think he speaks horrible advice from a computer science standpoint.
Personally, I'd take advice from a guy who's been through what he's been through.
All of those other companies failed because they were focused on quality, whilst they were focused on nothing the bottom line... THat's not good for the customers, it's not good for
society, and it's not good capatilism.
First, you have to build what the consumer wants, not what is academically "correct". Read his comments about Word Perfect. From a strictly CS standpoint, they wrote GREAT software. All hand tuned Assembly. Well, consumers could care less about the 100ms faster load times - they wanted features that empowered them. You CAN NOT scale a consumer level code base without high level languages, nor can you compete with your competitors features.
Second, you are making a gross assumption that Microsoft doesn't focus on quality - you may not like thier business tactics, but it is ignorant at best to ignore thier contributions to the software community (security and other issues aside). This "All MS Software Sucks" attitude is the true demise of competition. Until competitors recognize the achievments of MS, they will always be stuck in the rut of building software that goes "against" MS - which is essentially going against the market.
Actually, NT was a completely different product line (servers, high-end workstations), with the eventual goal of replacing another product line (home PC's). Now, with XP, the "old" product line has been depreciated. It's also not ridden with 16bit code from the DOS era, as your post implies. Keep in mind that there's a difference between rewriting functionality, and even emulating functionality (for backward compatibility), then a complete rewrite of the entire codebase (in the millions of lines of code!)
Actually, reading this interview shows how there where serious blunders performed by NS, Borland, etc. In each case, while MS improved their software, the other companies rewrote their software.
But a fundamental difference on Unix type systems is that files aren't inherantly executable based simply on their extension,
No, the fundamental difference is that the average consumer wants to send self-executing greeting cards, videos, and interactive multimedia nonsense. Although MS could tighten security, the bottom line is that the consumer does not want to learn, nor cares about, chmod.
Of course, if everything was executing inside of a sandbox, it would be much more difficult for this to happen.
Here's something I haven't understood about digital sampling rates and "analog" sound. If your final format is CD, then won't you loose the same "coloration" of the sound if your guitar/keyboard/mixer is digital? In which case, as long as your equipment has a high quality A/D converter, it really shouldn't make a difference.
Of course, this is all speculation. I have a VirusKB "Virtual Analog" digital keyboard, and I have a Juno 106 Analog keyboard. As good as the Virus sounds (great, actually), there's definatly a "phatter" sound coming from the Juno.
AT&T's offer wasn't too low. The reason that Excite stood to lose millions was because of the mismanagement of Excite - AT&T shouldn't have to pay for Excite's mistakes.
It's like saying, "I put $30,000 into this car that's worth $20,000 on the market and I expect you to pay me $35,000 because I need to make a profit." No, the investors need to lose their money so that they learn their lesson and not invest in stupid management.
The only thing I'm really worried about right now is losing my e-mail account and having friends get their messages bounced before I can tell them my new address (whatever that may be). It's almost as bad as going through a change of area code with the phone company, only here, the grace period is a matter of days.
Which is why you never use an email address that's tied to your Internet Connection!
I never said that "nothing was easier then directX". I just know that the latest directX is extremely easy to develop for. Just look at the PC gaming industry. Sure, there where major issues in the past, but since 7.x, many developers have favored DirectX over any other API (for the PC), and this is why so many developers are excited about the Xbox.
I guess it just depends on the person. It's the complete opposite for me. I'm a person who always gives eye contact. When I'm sitting next to someone, I have to really discipline myself so that I don't turn my head while I'm speaking with them. When I'm on the phone, I don't have the distraction of a physical person, and I'm keeping my eyes on the road.
It's all about mental priorities. Regardless of who you're talking to, or by what medium, you must learn how to focus on driving. Before the days of headsets, I actually found myself dropping the phone while driving because I needed to focus and use both hands (for a left turn, or something). It's not the end of the world if you have to call the person back or have them wait while you cross a busy intersection - it's just too bad most cell phone [ab]users don't realise this.
I tried talking on a cell phone and driving ONCE...and I realized how my driving suffered,...
I drive and talk all the time. However, I have both hands on the wheel (headset) and most all of my dialing is voice activated. This is no different then talking to someone in your front seat (which may be a distraction too!).
However Gamecube is easier to program for...
How do you figure? The XBOX utilizes a slightly modified DirectX8.1. DirectX is very easy to develop for. Not to mention that you can design a game for the PC, and port it to the XBOX with minimal effort (and visa versa).
For example, Redstorm has been making their Rainbox 6 series for both PC and PS1 (incredible games, IMHO). Now you'd think that with there latest, graphic intensive game, Ghost Recon, that they'd go to PS2 since they have PS1 experience. However, for Ghost Recon, they released a PC version, and have an XBOX version coming out "real soon".
Well, if you actually read the entire thread, you'd understand the relevance. It all started when someone said that we would have to actually clone a human in order to fully research therapeutic cloning. Then, the thread spawned off into why human cloning was (or was not) bad. The problem is that my post got modded up to high (agreed), and I didn't quote any of the previous thread.
Well, you obviously haven't played Ghost Recon. :) I have a 1.2Ghz Athlon, a GF3 Ti200, and it runs at a mere 30fps with Quincunx FSAA at 1280x1024. It looks AWESOME, but I could use 50% more FPS. With Unreal2 coming out, even the GF3's are going to be taxed. I would imagine that by the time the GF4's actually come out, and are below $300, that there will be games that will take advantage of it.
Thank you for insulting my intelligence.
There are millions of ways of advancing science. I'm arguing that there are better areas to focus our engergies - studies that will actually further society. I'm arguing that in this area not only would we "not benefit" from this, but that it would "add problems" because of the reasons I mentioned earlier. Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD. Your "forest" analogy has nothing to do with my statements. Humanity is more important then Science - period. Our decisions MUST be human centered, not "geekocentric".
"Why develop the integrated circuit, when I have a slide rule?".
You should review your debate tactics. It is intellectually dishonest to take an argument against a particular scientific advancement and generalize it as an argument against any scientific advancement. It is ludicrous to assume that I, a Computer Scientist, want to hinder scientific advancement.
Please focus on my core contention. I'm not necessarily against cloning specific cells or the research behind it. I'm against cloning humans as a species. It's called Responsible Science(tm).
I can't find a way to restrict access by IP.
A properly designed network doesn't need this. First, all SQL servers should be subnetted into an internal address space, only routeable by other internal machines like the web server. Then your firewall has port 80 open and NAT's to your web server. Unless you compromise the web server and are able to write malicious code on it, there's no way to get to even ping the SQL server.
There is a very simple object model for getting settings out of the Registry. All of our DB passwords, etc. are stored in the Registry. In ASP.NET it's stored in an XML file (Web.Config) which is much nicer.
BTW: ALL of our DB accounts only allow access to the Stored Procedures for the necessary DB (different logins for each DB). There is NEVER any actual SQL in the code. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Mod parent up. I can't believe crap like this even get's a news story.
So, you're telling me with all of the people going hungry, our lack of ability to deal with population control (even in the US), our lack of ability to parent our children, and with thousands of children WITHOUT parents in orphanages(sic), that we need to start artifically making them?
...the average geek isn't going to like reactivating XP every time the change 6 components.
/.) benefits that the OS has to offer.
I would definatly consider myself the average geek in this department. I have personally built all of my machines, and perform semi regular updates. However, I do not think that this activation crap is going to affect me. First, it's not just "6 components". You could, say, add a 56K modem, and that is not considered a component. Swapping out your motherboard is, obviously. Here's a scenario that puts this all into perspective (from our friends at Microsoft):
User swaps the motherboard and CPU chip for an upgraded one, swaps the video adapter, adds a second hard drive for additional storage, doubles the amount of RAM, and swaps the CD ROM drive for a faster one.
Now, if you ask me, this is a MAJOR upgrade (not something you generally do 4 times a year, or even once in a year). However, this will NOT trigger the activation. You would additionally have to swap a network card or something in order to trigger activation. Now, is this kind of annoying - yes. Do I like it? No. But is it really that big of a deal, considering most people get activated in less than 70 seconds over the phone, or even faster over the Internet (with NO personal information)? No. Windows Activation is annoying at worst, and is definatly NOT a deal breaker - especially when considering all of the (often overlooked on
You got it the other way around. AFAIK, there most if not all US states prohibit the teaching of the Creation Theory - Evolution is taught as de facto.
Right, and that's why Allaire, IBM, and others are paying huge royalties to Sun for their Java Application Servers.
You simply copy over it. This is a DLL in .NET (C# or otherwise). Not a COM object, for example.
I love how this unfactual stuff on /. get's modded up. I've been developing for .NET Beta 2 (ASP.NET/C#)since August and my deploy script consists of XCOPY. I just overwrite the DLL's and it's done. I've never had to reboot the server here.
To append your comment on getter/setter methods or "Properties" in C#, it goes beyond just "cleaning up the code". It allows for a cleaner OO design because it clearly seprates properties and methods.
Actually, unless you are doing driver writing or native GDI or DirectX calls, many have concluded that C# is just as fast, if not faster, then C/C++. This is all coming from tests with Beta2, so I'm sure the final release will be even more promising.
Of course, I don't anticipate the Quake IV engine being written in C#!